This is in the midst of the latest 2013 and 2014 report from the National Service for the Prevention and Rehabilitation of Drug and Alcohol Consumption (Senda), which notes an increase in marijuana consumption among schoolchildren.

- Why do you think minors see marijuana as a less harmful drug?

- There is a general relaxation. If legislators appear declaring that they consume marijuana and find it to be the most normal thing.

It is fashionable to talk about the topic of marijuana and in general the danger has been lost. And the interesting thing is that those who give their opinion are not experts.

And that is what I find serious, that basically when I read or see experts they all agree that it is addictive, that it is the entry step to stronger drugs and that it actually causes harm.

They are looking for benefits for very specific cases of pain and cancer treatment that are ultimately so toxic to cope with.

But everything is being painted to relax the perception of the danger of marijuana.

- How was the topic approached in the years when you were a schoolboy?

- It was much more taboo, it was absolutely exceptional.

- Did your colleagues consume?

- Yes, it was like hearsay, like a rumor, it was a very strange thing. Although I must admit that I probably grew up in a very nerdy group that was not a topic, and that is why I am convinced that the most effective control is through training and education.

- Were you already in the sports preparation phase?

- I don't know if it's as performance-oriented as it is to be a sports professional, but it wasn't an issue. Even the consumption of alcohol, I have the idea that before it was much more restricted and not as diversified and as common as it is now.

I was impressed recently... my son's school was organizing a party and they asked the parents, 7th and 8th graders, to remove a child of that age who was unconscious due to alcohol consumption. It shocked me and I said 'actually there is a really worrying issue there'. And I put the responsibility on the parents.

- Do the Senda figures reveal that parents are losing control of this issue?

- A while ago. That's right and the responsibility is greater in the highest social strata. Because there should be more resources, not only economic but also cultural and knowledgeable, to handle this type of situation.

There comes into play the theme of abandonment of children by their parents with that attitude of 'that's why I pay for an expensive school to take care of my child's education.' This approach of pursuing unbridled materialism and having more lucas than the next person becomes this kind of abandonment of our children.

- Does someone who is in a private school have the same risk as a child from a municipal school in La Pintana?

- Exactly. And there I attribute the responsibility to the highest or wealthiest segment of this country, because they should also have more resources to realize the difference.

- The bill being discussed allows those over 18 to legally consume marijuana and consumption is prohibited for minors under that age. Will the legal proposal be correct in that sense?

- I participated in a forum where the topic of drug legalization was discussed and I was very struck by the position of Álvaro Bardón, who was pro-legalization, because he said 'the illegality of producing and trafficking coca - and one learns that in economy 1- the greater the risk of the business, the greater the profitability'.

What makes the drug business profitable is precisely that it is illegal and that increases the price so much. And then one finds that the organizations dedicated to drug trafficking have more resources than the institutions that are supposed to combat it.

He asked us if we used drugs and why not, 'because it's illegal?' If they wanted to get drugs, would they get it?' I think so.

That's why in my personal case what prevents me from using drugs is not illegality but the conviction I have that it harms me, and I acquired that through my training and education. Therefore, the fight against drugs is about educating our children and showing them the danger, not about the risk of being illegal and going to jail.

If the resources of the war on drugs were invested in educating people, it would be more effective.

In Uruguay, the argument that former President Mujica gave to decriminalize marijuana was that in this way organized crime would be combated.

And he is not the only one in Latin America who sees the issue this way, since in Brazil the Supreme Federal Court is discussing a project that seeks to decriminalize the possession of any drug, as long as it is for own consumption, which could eventually add to this nation to the list of countries and federated states of America where the consumption of marijuana is legal.

This is the case of Alaska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington in the United States, where the marijuana trade is legalized.

These federated states, along with Uruguay, were precisely the targets of criticism by the annual document of the UN anti-drug office delivered this year, which specified that these decisions affect the fight against drugs in Latin American countries.

- Do you think these types of actions will end traffic?

- It has to be accompanied by the other leg, which is investing in training and this message that is being given, that marijuana does not have any negative effects, it must also be changed. Not justify why it should be consumed but why it should not be consumed. But not because it is illegal, but because it is wrong.

- But could it fight crime?

- Finally I think so, because in Holland it is somewhat indicated that there is an illegal prohibition of drugs where the way in which it is consumed or offered to the client is controlled.

In this case it prevents infections, disease transmission, etc. Because it is done in hygienically good conditions and that takes away the attraction of the illegal business. But that is limited to the fact that if you break the law or are involved in an accident, and are under the influence of drugs, it is a serious aggravating circumstance and you pay the consequences.

- Do you see that reality in Chile?

That is the reality that is difficult for me to see because it is very difficult for us to resolve the issue. We are trying to solve the problem of education and we are worried about the hairs in the tail and not about the main thing, which is the quality of education.

If we want to legalize drugs for a clear objective, which is to decriminalize it, well... let's go there.

I know the case of Colombia, which is the focus of drug production, but it turns out that of the 100 dollars of coca bought on the streets of New York, less than 10 dollars reach Colombia. If the other $90 remains in the distribution chain, the business is undoubtedly in the United States. Therefore, where the big cocaine trafficking mafias are, it is not the Colombians. So there is a lot of vested interest as well.

A war on drugs scheme has already been set up. I don't think it will be easy to change to dismantle that scheme and fight through illegality.

I would invest more in information and education, because I always ask myself, what makes people not use drugs? Because of its illegality? No, because most of them would have the possibility of getting it if they wanted to.

- Why do you think that in Chile the difference between consumption and addiction is not discussed, which is a difference that is made with alcohol?

- I don't know to what extent a parallel can be made. It would be more pragmatic to say “people who don't consume, what makes them not consume, why don't they see it positively and encourage that part.”

- But there is a social consumer of marijuana, which is people who do not do it regularly, and there are others who do it permanently as an addiction...

- That is why it must be measured that if someone commits a mistake, and is under the influence, it has to have its consequences.

- How about Holland's perspective?

- Yes, and alcohol. If what we want to make is a parallel, ok... we have to associate it with the danger that it entails not only to one's own organism but what it could cause to a third party by being under the influence of that.

- What about personal freedoms?

- In Chile in general we try to solve all our problems through the State and the laws. We have the concept that by decree we are going to be better and we also have the other chapter of “the law is done, the trap is done.” We cheat by playing solitaire.

But also when we come to the issue of equality, and that everything has to be equitable, we see that the United States penal system considers the offender's level of education as an aggravating circumstance. Because supposedly because he has studied he has a greater ability to differentiate good from evil.

So we are paternalistic, but we also do not let the citizen take responsibility for their actions.

- The law will allow those over 18 years of age to carry a maximum of 10 grams on public roads. Does it seem excessive to you?

- The thing is that I don't see much sense in all these weights, it's almost like the tax reform, it becomes very complex that the interpretation is left to the discretion of the judges. We always have to be interpreting and we want to solve problems by law.

Laws are a dead letter, laws are interpreted and the system is 'how we interpret them'.

When the Sports Law was being discussed I thought 'I don't know if we need a Sports Law' because it is a tool with which it can be built or destroyed. Everything will depend on the use we give to this tool.

People are not going to be different by decree, people are going to be different because we train them differently, because we give them other incentives, because we show them the path that they should be. Do not impose it by law or decree.

- We talk about freedoms and that those who are over 18 years old and want to consume marijuana can do so, right?

- Clear. But assume the consequences, that's the point.

- If in a square with your son next to you there is a group of young people legally consuming marijuana, would it shock you, would it bother you, would you leave there? What would you say to your son?

- It is difficult to imagine it in practice, but strictly speaking it should be like this. I would say they are free to do what they want, but I would try to explain to my son that they are wrong.

I would also love it if something happens to show that these people are under drug use. As smoking is now prohibited indoors, the issue should also be looked at in public places.

- And regarding what the project indicates about the possibility of having up to 6 cannabis plants in your home. Do you think it's okay for people to do it on your property?

Actually yes. There are approaches that establish that if the drug is manufactured by the state, subsidized to lower the price, the business incentive is killed. The problem is if you leave the house under the influence of drugs.

(Enterartecomunicaciones.cl)

Gisela López