War On Drugs: Let's Stop This Insanity! By Gart Valenc

I do think it is fair to say that for people like me, who look in horror at the disastrous consequences Prohibition and the so-called War on Drugs have had and continue to have on millions upon millions of people around the world, 2011 ought to be regarded as a pivotal year.

This was the year that saw the publication of the Global Commission on Drug Policy report, the launch by the Bleckley Foundation of the Global Initiative for Drug Policy Reform, as well as the publication of a letter signed by sixty major public figures, including twelve Nobel Prize winners, stating that the War on Drugs has failed and that it is time for politicians and the public at large to press for policy changes.

This was also the year that witnessed the delivery of a passionate, brave and candid lecture by former president of Mexico, Vicente Fox , at the Cato Institute, and the year in which Bolivia announced it was resigning from the UN 1961 Single Convention on Narcotics, after it failed to obtain the necessary support for its call to amend the Convention and have “mambeo” (i.e. chewing of coca leaves) removed from the list of activities prohibited by said convention.

Equally, if not more  significant, this was the year in which the current presidents of the two countries more savagely affected by the policies concocted by the prohibitionist regime, Colombia and Mexico, appealed to the international community, and the US government in particular, to recognise that the War on Drugs has been a futile enterprise and that a new approach is urgently needed.

The current president of Mexico, Felipe Calderón, used the US media and the UN General Assembly to exhort the US, by far the most belligerent war on drugs warrior, to consider “market alternatives” to solve the so-called drug problem.

«We are living in the same building. And our neighbour is the largest consumer of drugs in the world. And everybody wants to sell him drugs through our doors and our windows… We must do everything to reduce demand for drugs»^[1]

«More than ever, consumer countries, where drugs are consumed, must take effective action to radically cut demand. I will be told that this is not possible. That the demand for drugs continues to rise, as indeed is the case here in the United States, where nearly 30 percent of young people consume drugs. What is the solution? [...]Consumer countries are morally obliged to reduce their vast economic demand. If you can’t cut it, cut the economic profits. You have to find how to staunch this demand. Seek out all possible options, including market alternatives, so that drugs trafficking ceases to be a source of violence in Latin America and the Caribbean and several African countries.»^[2]

On the other hand, for the first time ever, a sitting president of Colombia, the strongest and more devoted ally of US fight against drugs, has openly expressed the need to consider alternatives to the one that has been in place for the last 40 years.^[3]

«[…] for Colombia, this is a matter of national security. Drug trafficking is what finances the violence and the irregular groups in our country. I would be crucified [by the international community] if I took the first step. We need to insist on more multinational actions on drug trafficking and innovate the ways we are dealing with it. […] In other countries [Europe and the U.S.] this is mainly a health and crime issue. We need to look at all components,[...] But we need to do so on a global level.[…] We must discuss a new approach, looking at all the components: The profit and the crime that follows drug trafficking, the fight against money laundering, trade with arms and so on. These are all effects of drugs.»^{[4] [5]}

Last but not least, last September the current president of Bolivia, Evo Morales, asked UNASUR, a bloc of Latin American countries, to “decertify” the US for failing in its counter narcotics efforts.^[6]

«If the United States can certify or decertify, why can’t UNASUR (the Union of South American Nations) decertify the United States if the origin of drug trafficking is U.S. consumption of cocaine?»^[7]

In a different context, other than the War on Drugs, Evo Morales’ proposal should be laughed at and dismissed as a tantrum rather than a serious request. However, it is its “childishness”, precisely, what makes it so poignant, for turning the table on the US allows Morales to show how hypocritical, cynical and self-serving US drugs policies are. By so doing, Morales also shows how ineffective, isolated and innocuous the position of drug producing countries has been throughout the many decades the Prohibition regime and the so-called War on Drugs policies have been in place.

What is really remarkable about the calls coming from both current and former Latin American presidents is their insistence that no significant change in drugs policies could be ever achieved, unless consuming countries are willing and able to take ownership of their responsibility on the status quo and support a radical overhaul of the international conventions that criminalise the consumption and production of illegal drugs.

Any person who cares to look at how the international community has reacted so far to their calls, especially to Bolivia failed attempt to amend the 1961 Convention, a rather symbolic change I must add, has no choice but to conclude that there is very little producing countries can do on their own to replace the War on Drugs policies with more rational ones as long as the countries with the real power to do it say otherwise. And the real power, literally and metaphorically, is in the hands of consuming countries, most conspicuously the US.

Now, the obvious question one has to ask is what has been the response of consuming countries to the repeated calls for support those countries at the other side of the fence have been making for decades?

Maybe I am wrong, perhaps I have read the wrong newspapers, have followed the wrong blogs, or all of the above, but the fact is that I have not heard any voices from those governments supporting Bolivia’s decision or Calderón and Santos’ call for “market alternatives”, let alone, promoting  more rational and effective policies regarding the supply of drugs on their own accord.

I find it rather cynical the way we, consuming countries, have completely ignored what has been happening on the other side of the drug market, the supply (production and distribution) of drugs. For we have decided that despite the havoc our demand for drugs under the current prohibitionist regime is creating in drug producing countries, what matters is what happens at home and at home alone.

As it happens, a number of countries such as the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Holland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, among many others, have in a way “quasi legalised” the demand for drugs. They have de jure or de facto depenalised or decriminalised the personal consumption of some drugs, including heroin and cocaine.

In the case of marijuana, some countries have even “quasi legalised” the domestic supply as well by allowing users to grow a number of marijuana plants in their homes and for their own consumption, by tolerating the operation of so called “cannabis social clubs”, or by authorising the cultivation of marijuana to supply dispensaries where consumption on medical grounds^[8] is allowed.

You would be forgiven for thinking that countries that have “quasi legalised” the consumption or the domestic production of drugs would be vociferously demanding the inmediate introduction of changes in the current drugs policies regarding the supply by major producing and distributing countries, too. Well, you could not be more wrong, I am afraid.

Rather than using our enormous political and economic clout to reform the international conventions that sustain Prohibition and the War on Drugs, we keep supporting, promoting and enforcing the illegality of the supply of drugs. And by blaming it on the existing laws, we have been able to walk away from our responsibility for the atrocious consequences it has had on producing countries.^[9]

I do not have any doubts that policies such as harm reduction programmes, decriminalisation or depenalisation of the demand for drugs are sensible and necessary policies. But if we were serious about tackling the so-called drug problem, we should be accompanying those same policies with equally sensible policies towards the supply of drugs.

Moreover, I will go as far as to say that the onus is on us, drug consuming countries in the developed world. We should be the ones promoting the Legalisation & Regulation of the supply. We should be the ones making all the noises calling for a change in the national and international legislation on drugs. We should be spearheading the movement seeking to legalise the production and distribution of all drugs.

It seems that we have a very peculiar view of the world, one that depends on who is looking: “we” or “they”. By “we” I mean us, the developed world and by “they” I mean, of course, them, the developing world. Over the centuries we have colonised, subjugated, taken other people’s land, but that doesn’t count when we look at immigration issues. We have interfered in other countries when our national interests have been at stake, but that does not make us more understanding about countries that play the same card to advance their particular goals, interests or agendas. We have waged war on other countries because their policies did not conform to our commercial and trade interests (remember the Opium Wars?), but that does not get any traction when the logic of the War on Drugs is called into question.

Now, as far as drugs are concerned, we need to ask ourselves, what sort of “view of the world” or more generally, what sort of moral code is consistent with the prohibition regime and the War on Drugs policies?

When Prohibition was trumpeted as the panacea to society ‘oldest vice’, its goal was to allow us to live in a drug-free world. Well, fifty years later we are still waiting for the utopia to materialise. Meanwhile, all Prohibition and the War on Drugs have delivered is utter dystopia: massive incarceration, corruption, destruction of democratic institutions, thousands upon thousands of killings, intimidation and execution of journalists, judges, politicians and anybody brave enough to question the corrupting and murderous practices of the drug trafficking gangs that control the US$320,000 millions the illegal drug market generates in revenue every year, that’s right, EVERY YEAR.

What sort of moral code encourages a government to support Prohibition, a regime whose “positive” results (i.e. cessation of consumption and elimination of supply) are negligible, whereas its negative effects are of such extent that people with a different moral code, or at least a more consistent one, would not hesitate to consider them a price too high to pay, were them the result of any other policy but the War on Drugs.

What sort of moral code makes a government believe that is right to wage a war with such appalling consequences: almost 50,000 killings in the past five years in Mexico alone, people sentenced to death in Asia and the Middle East, systematic violation of human rights, extrajudicial killings, … and the list goes on and on and on. There is no doubt in my mind that were such levels of criminal acts been happening as a result of policies other than the War on Drugs, people with a different moral code, or at least a more consistent one, would be condemning them as crimes against humanity.

In the final analysis, Prohibition and the War on Drugs is just another chapter, a shameful chapter I am afraid, in our long history of bullying, aggression and domination. We used to have a word for that: imperialism.

1. ^[1] Mexico president hints legalizing drugs may be needed ↩
2. ^[2] Calderon: Drug consumer countries ‘morally obliged’ to cut demand; consider ‘market alternatives’ ↩
3. ^[3] In an interview given in December 2011 to RCN, the main radio network in Colombia, President Santos expounded and clarified his position regarding his leading the debate on drug legalisation. Interview in Spanish here: rcn.com.co/audios/rcnradi… (starts 16min 35seg) ↩
4. ^[4] Colombia President Calls for Global Marijuana Legalization ↩
5. ^[5] The requests made by Calderon and Santos were later echoed by Latin American leaders belonging to both the CELAC and the Tuxtla Mechanism ↩
6. ^[6] The US State Department evaluates on a regular basis the level of cooperation shown by different countries with the US anti-drugs policies, and depending on how strong and committed that cooperation has been in its eyes, the US gives or denies its “seal of approval”.

   Decertification can have, and do have, serious implications, it damages the credibility of that country and its stand among the international community, and it may have grave economic and financial repercussions as well, including withdrawal of US aid, difficulties to obtain loans from international lending institutions and trade sanctions. ↩

7. ^[7] Bolivia’s Morales asks bloc to condemn US on drugs ↩
8. ^[8] In the US, the consumption of marijuana for medical reasons is allowed in 16 states and the District of Columbia. Meanwhile, the value of marijuana produced in the US to supply the domestic demand is estimated to be over $35 billion, making it the nation’s largest cash crop. ↩
9. ^[9] How can we explain, let alone justify our schizophrenic, solipsistic and complacent attitude regarding the demand and supply of drugs?

   As I have explained it before in this blog (see, for instance, ‘Half Full of Half Empty: The Minefield of Partial Legalisations’) major consuming countries have been able to justify their double standards by hiding behind the provisions of the 1988 UN Convention, which allow them to pull the “national interest” card, as it were, when it comes to the demand for drugs, but surprise, surprise, not when those interests refer to the supply. ↩

To many people in drug producing countries, Prohibition and the War on Drugs is a burden “imposed” on them by drug consuming countries, in particular the US — by far the largest consumer in the world and the most belligerent drug warrior.^[1] The irony is that in their eyes, as far as the supply of drugs is concerned, the Drug Reform Movement (DRM) itself does not fare much better than the Prohibitionist camp. In fact, the DRM is regarded as one-sided, skewed and self-serving, for it concentrates its attention on the demand side of the so-called drug problem (i.e. decriminalisation or depenalisation of consumption), but pays little or no attention to the supply side of the problem, and when it does, more often than not it is to call for the need to keep the supply of drugs as an illegal activity. To put it differently, it is as if we, drug consuming countries, wanted to have our cake and eat it!

It goes without saying that this is a gross generalisation, for this charge cannot be laid on each and every single person, group or institution in the DRM — of course not. However, whether we agree or not, that seems to be the general perception across drug producing countries. The question is: are they right and if so, to what extent? Are we, drug consuming countries, guilty of wilful ignorance? Or is it just a question of being pragmatic and realistic?^[2]

The report recently published by the Global Commission on Drug Policy is a good case in point. Since its launch last June, it has been hailed, and rightly so, as a devastating indictment of Prohibition and the War on Drugs. It has been praised by DRM insiders and outsiders alike, and its publication has been received with great enthusiasm and high expectations: «a watershed moment», «a groundbreaking report», «an extraordinary new initiative», «A report that dares to tell the truth to power» are some of the headlines with which the media, both nationally and internationally, acknowledged it.

In order to avoid misinterpretations, I would like to stress that I wholeheartedly endorse the Global Commission on Drug Policy report. Moreover, I do believe it is an extremely valuable contribution to the debate and my hope is that it will play a significant strategic role in the fight against Prohibition and the War on Drugs, not just because of what it says, but perhaps more importantly, because of who says it.^[3]

Having said that, I do have to confess that I am quite confused as to what the Commission report says, or does not say rather, regarding the supply side of the drug market and more specifically, regarding the legalisation and regulation of drug supply. As I will show later, even though the Commission report does not reject the need to consider «alternative models of market regulation», it falls short of making a clear and unambiguous case for the legalisation and regulation of the supply of drugs—all drugs, not just marijuana. It does not make explicit, for instance, what “alternative models” it has in mind and whether those models could be applied effectively to the supply side of the drug market; nor does it consider what effects they are likely to have on the supply of drugs as a whole. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems to me that when it comes to trying to resolve the so-called drug problem, the Commission report tends to rely quite heavily, if not exclusively, on demand side models rather than those on the supply side.^[4]

I sometimes wonder whether the Commission is guilty of the same ‘dilemma’ the Commission report accuses others of, namely, of «not articulating publicly what many of them [political leaders and public figures] acknowledge privately.» Is it a case of the Commission not being able to summon the courage to express publicly that the drug problem cannot be satisfactorily tackled as long as the supply remains a criminal activity, or is it that the Commission genuinely believes that the key to the drug problem is the demand and not the supply? To be frank, I do not know the answer.

On one hand, having stated in no uncertain terms that «the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that repressive strategies will not solve the drug problem, and that the war on drugs has not, and cannot, be won», the Commission report goes to great lengths to make the case for the need for «policies that effectively reduce the consumption, and that prevent and reduce harms related to drug use and drug control policies.» On the other hand, given that total elimination of consumption is out of question, all that is left is to take a more realistic approach and keep seeking a reduction in consumption while at the same time, trying to manage the demand via harm reduction and ‘quasi legalisation’ policies. However, very little is said about the need to take a more radical approach to the supply, one in which policies aimed at legalising and controlling the supply play a central role.^[5]

What is more intriguing is that, even though the report pull no punches when it comes to recognising the atrocious effects the behaviour of the criminal organisations that control the illegal market have had, and continue to have, on both the population and the democratic institutions of drug producing countries, it continues to give credence to the role of law enforcement (i.e. prohibition) policies, blatantly ignoring its own conclusion according to which the root of the problems associated with the production, distribution and consumption of drugs is the illicit nature of the market, and by doing so, wilfully ignoring that those problems cannot be effectively and efficiently dealt with until the prohibitionist regime is abolished.

Despite all the caveats and qualifications one can draw from the Commission report, there is no question in my mind that any possible call for the legalisation and regulation of the supply is to be seriously undermined by statements like this:

« This [the fact that the illicit nature of the market is what creates much of the market-related violence] does not necessarily mean that creating a legal market is the only way to undermine the power and reach of drug trafficking organizations.»^[6]

So, even though the Commission report acknowledges that prohibition and organised crime are two sides of the same coin, the Commission report seems reluctant to go “full monty”, as it were, and call for the legalisation and regulation of the supply. Instead, it talks about making law enforcement resources more effective by addressing the violence and corruption associated with drug markets, by undermining the power of organised crime, and by promoting alternative sentences for small-scale and first time drug dealers, including smugglers. Take the following statement, for instance:

«Law enforcement strategies can explicitly attempt to manage and shape the illicit market by, for example, creating the conditions where small-scale and private ‘friendship network’ types of supply can thrive, but cracking down on larger-scale operations that involve violence or inconvenience to the general public.»^[7]

Is this the same Commission that at the very beginning of its report told us that all attempts to control and reduce the supply have been futile? ^[8]What sort of new strategies are supposed to be implemented now so that law enforcement can this time, finally, be successful in «…cracking down on larger-scale [supply] operations.»?

To compound the confusion, the Commission report does now, and for the first time in the entire document, explicitly mention a concrete “model of market regulation”: «small-scale and private ‘friendship network’ types of supply» Unfortunately, the report does not explain what exactly it means by that, how they will work and more importantly, what effect they are likely to have on the supply side of the drug market as a whole, given their scale and ownership. Nor does it say whether this “model” is more appropriate for some types of drugs than others, or whether they may work well in drug consuming countries but less so in drug producing ones. Does the Commission report mean something akin to the so-called “drug users’ clubs”, similar to the ones currently operating in countries such as Belgium, Germany, Spain and Switzerland were they are also known as “cannabis social clubs”?.^[9] One can only speculate.^[10]

Whatever the case might be, the fundamental question we must answer is this:  what good is it to legalise the demand while the supply is left to continue prospering in its murderous business? In my view, what makes legalisation and regulation such critical an issue is the irrationality, and the devastating effects, of Prohibition and the so-called War on Drugs policies. Prohibition is not, and has never been, the solution to the so-called drug problem; on the contrary, it has only made things worse. Therefore, it is Prohibition itself which must be ended. It should not be confined to a particular drug or to one side of the drug trade. It concerns not just marijuana, but all drugs; not just the legalisation and regulation of the demand but perhaps more importantly, the legalisation and regulation of the supply, too.

1. ^[1] I have said it before and I say it again: there is very little net producing countries, such as Mexico, Colombia and the like, can do to alter the dastardly realities imposed on them by Prohibition and the so-called War on Drugs policies.

   To be frank, I find it rather naive to expect that producers could dent in any meaningful way Prohibition and War on Drugs policies when the US, the juggernaut pushing for its implementation and enforcement all over the world, is reluctant to do anything about it.

   Let’s take the case of Mexico. No matter how many times its citizens  take to the streets to protest demanding an end to the War on Drugs — as the experience of Colombia during the high of the fight against the drug cartels in the 80′s and 90′s so clearly exposed it — the stubborn fact is that nothing will happen until the real power behind the war on drugs decides otherwise. And the real power, literally and metaphorically, is in the hands of drug consuming countries, most conspicuously the US.

   But make no mistake, it is not just the US that is at fault here, for we, the UK, have played a major role in the current situation, given that we are one of the major consumers in the world too and have done nothing to put an end to this criminal, obscene war.

   We have to ask ourselves: are we doing anything to put an end to this insane war? Not at all. Are we challenging US drug policies? Not in the slightest. Are we eroding the case for the war on drugs by pursuing a more rational drug policy? Absolutely not. Is the government even considering evaluating its current drug policy? Not a chance. So, we better get down off our high horses because we are all accomplices in this barbaric, inhumane war. ↩

2. ^[2] At first glance, it may seem self-evident that being consuming countries we ought to focus our attention on the demand, for that is what concerns us right here, right now. Perhaps, it is just a case of differentiating between tactics and strategy, between the short and the long term. In this case, it may be that for many in the DRM the priority is to undermine the prohibitionist regime on this side of the fence, and in the process, help dismantle  the case for keeping the war on the supply of drugs.

   I wonder, however, if this piecemeal approach is warranted given the atrocious consequences of the War on Drugs on net producing countries, particularly in Latin America, for no rational, scientific or economic reasons. Sometimes, I wonder if  we are guilty of some sort of, for lack of a better term, ‘drug imperialism’. ↩

3. ^[3] I do hope the ‘Global’ commission (which to me looks more like the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy, but on steroids, more on this later) will have real repercussions on drug policy and will not become another casualty of realpolitiks.

   There is no question that the Commission managed to grab the attention of the media around the world, big time. But then, some people would say,  so what. It is not the publicity what matters but what happens after the media frenzy has subsided.

   Similarly, much has been made of the ‘illustrious’ background of the people who take part in the Commission. And here again there is no question that they are very influential and well connected individuals, but do they have real power to alter the current drug policies in any significant way?

   And the question about power is relevant when one remembers that this is not the first time ‘illustrious’ individuals have called for a rethinking of the War on Drugs policies. In our case, it is worth remembering that there is a close association between the Global Commission on Drug Policy and the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy. On the one hand, the Global Commission report is heavily indebted to the report published by the Latin American Commission back in February 2009: Drugs & Democracy: Toward a Paradigm Shift?. On the other hand, members of the Latin American Commission also seat at the Global Commission, most notably the former presidents of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico.

   The more significant difference, of course, is that the ‘Global’ Commission includes individuals associated in one way or another with the centres of power in the developed world. The question is, will the Global Commission wield any real and effective influence on War on Drugs policies now that these new personalities have joined its rank? I really hope so. ↩

4. ^[4] It would be unfair to even suggest that the Global Commission on Drug Policy does not take the supply side seriously or that it has ignored the issue, far from it. If you log on to its website, under “background papers” you will find, as the title suggests, a number of papers that served as preparatory documents for the final report. Of special relevance to the current discussion is David Mansfield’s ‘Assessing Supply-Side Policy and Practice: Eradication and Alternative Development’. Mike Trace’s and Marti Jelsma’s papers also offer some interesting insights into the options and challenges for the future, including the supply. ↩
5. ^[5] It does not mean anything in and of itself, but is interesting to notice that the word ‘supply’ is mentioned just 9 times throughout the whole report, half of which happen to be in Recommendation No.6, which is more about fighting organised crime and less about the need for or the convenience of legalising the supply. ↩
6. ^[6] Global Commission on Drug Policy Report, p.15 ↩
7. ^[7] Global Commission on Drug Policy Report, p.15 ↩
8. ^[8] «Vast expenditures on criminalization and repressive measures directed at producers, traffickers and consumers of illegal drugs have clearly failed to effectively curtail supply or consumption. Apparent victories in eliminating one source or trafficking organization are negated almost instantly by the emergence of other sources and traffickers.»Global Commission on Drug Policy Report, p.2 ↩
9. ^[9] «Cannabis social clubs (CSC) are non-commercial organisations of users who get together to cultivate and distribute enough cannabis to meet their personal needs without having to turn to the black market.» See Cannabis social clubs in Spain: A normalizing alternative underway ↩
10. ^[10] Back in mid June I sent the Global Commission an email asking for clarification, but have not received a reply yet. Assuming “cannabis social clubs” are the case, they might eventually prove to be a useful regulation model and should be, therefore, the subject of careful analysis and consideration — I wonder, though, whether they can be extended to other drugs easily and successfully, and whether they can be a viable alternative given the scale at which these schemes operate. ↩

Some people just simply do not know when to give up. You know them the moment you see them: the singer whose voice is just a sad, flickering sample of what it used to be, but keeps on believing that ‘my singing has never been better’; the athlete who has broken every possible world record and now keeps being beaten by younger, fitter competitors, but hangs to his belief that ‘next time things will be different’, never mind that his body tells him otherwise; the boxer, the entrepreneur, the terminally ill…

One has to admire their tenacity, their persistence and why not, their optimism. But what about when it comes to the ideas people hold and believe in, particularly when those ideas are demonstrably bad ideas? What to make of their unflinching desire to hang on to their ideas come what may, no matter how absurd, irrational or indefensible their ideas are? Should one admire them for their unwavering convictions, regardless? Should one respect them and praise them for clinging to their principles, independently of how discredited, obnoxious and hideous those principles are?

Nowhere is the issue of how hard bad ideas refuse to die more evident than in the current debate about the legalisation and regulation of the production, distribution and consumption of drugs. The stubbornness of the defenders and promoters of Prohibition to accept that the policies they have been supporting so feverishly for the past five decades are not only a total failure but have created havoc wherever they have been enforced, reminds me of that famous scene in Monty Pythons’ masterpiece, ‘The Holy Grail’, in which King Arthur fights the Black Knight who, despite losing all his limbs, refuses to accept defeat, but even more tellingly, keeps behaving as if he has won the fight.

ARTHUR: You fight with the strength of many men, Sir knight. I am Arthur, King of the Britons. I seek the finest and the bravest knights in the land to join me in my Court of Camelot. You have proved yourself worthy; will you join me? You make me sad. So be it. Come, Patsy.
BLACK KNIGHT: None shall pass.
ARTHUR: What?
BLACK KNIGHT: None shall pass.
ARTHUR: I have no quarrel with you, good Sir knight, but I must cross this bridge.
BLACK KNIGHT: Then you shall die.
ARTHUR: I command you as King of the Britons to stand aside!
BLACK KNIGHT: I move for no man.
ARTHUR: So be it!
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's left arm off]
ARTHUR: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
BLACK KNIGHT: ‘Tis but a scratch.
ARTHUR: A scratch? Your arm’s off!
BLACK KNIGHT: No, it isn’t.
ARTHUR: Well, what’s that then?
BLACK KNIGHT: I’ve had worse.
ARTHUR: You liar!
BLACK KNIGHT: Come on you pansy!
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's right arm off]
ARTHUR: Victory is mine!
BLACK KNIGHT: Come on then.
ARTHUR: What?
BLACK KNIGHT: Have at you!
ARTHUR: You are indeed brave, Sir knight, but the fight is mine.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, had enough, eh?
ARTHUR: Look, you stupid bastard, you’ve got no arms left.
BLACK KNIGHT: Yes I have.
ARTHUR: Look!
BLACK KNIGHT: Just a flesh wound.
ARTHUR: Look, stop that.
BLACK KNIGHT: Chicken! Chicken!
ARTHUR: Look, I’ll have your leg. Right!
BLACK KNIGHT: Right, I’ll do you for that!
ARTHUR: You’ll what?
BLACK KNIGHT: Come ‘ere!
ARTHUR: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
BLACK KNIGHT: I’m invincible!
ARTHUR: You’re a loony.
BLACK KNIGHT: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! Come on then.
[ARTHUR chops the BLACK KNIGHT's other leg off]
BLACK KNIGHT: All right; we’ll call it a draw.
ARTHUR: Come, Patsy.
BLACK KNIGHT: Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what’s coming to you. I’ll bite your legs off!

I am always left full of disappointment, disgust, not to mention anger, every time I try to understand why it is that those who defend and promote Prohibition and its gruesome creature, the so-called War on Drugs, find it impossible to get down off their moral high horses and recognise how irrational those policies are. I am sure you have already noticed it, but there is still a large number of prohibition zealots for whom the killings of thousands upon thousands of human beings; the relentless destruction of civil, legal and democratic institutions; the corrupted and corrupting practices of the criminal organisations that control the “illegal” drug market, and the systematic violation of human rights are nothing but the unintended consequences of their moral enterprise. That’s right, foreseeable, predictable, expected, and still, they insist, unintended!

One could, for the sake of argument, consider that these puritanical, fanatical war-on-drugs-mongers are driven by good intentions. But you just need to read or listen to the premises of their arguments, and the logic behind their reasoning, to realise that they are not just misguided do-gooders, unwise citizens, or ill-informed policymakers, civil servants or government officials. Far from it.

Think about it. How else could one explain, let alone justify, the callousness and cynicism shown by zealots like Michele M. Leonhart, DEA Supremo, who a couple of weeks ago said:

«… the unfortunate level of violence [in Mexico] is a sign of success in the fight against drugs»

One would be sorely mistaken in believing that Leonheart is alone in unashamedly harbouring such despicable opinions. On the contrary, the idea that the more brutal the level of violence the greater the success of the war on drugs, permeates the US government from top to bottom.

Moreover, such opinions are far from being isolated or idiosyncratic, they are common place among those who support and promote such policies, which includes a vast number of ordinary citizens not just in the US but around the world. And that is what is utterly baffling: how is it possible that otherwise rational, responsible and caring individuals are unable to understand that the legalisation and proper regulation of drugs CANNOT be as destructive and corrosive — socially, economically and politically speaking — as the current prohibition regime is? Call me naïve if you want, but I do sincerely hope that even those who believe it is evil will surrender to the evidence and accept that the legalisation and proper regulation of drugs is the lesser of two evils.

There is no doubt in my mind that the battle for ideas, the battle to replace bad ideas with better ones, is a hard battle. It is difficult, always has been, to convince people to reject old, familiar, generally accepted ideas, even if they are bad ideas, in favour of new, unfamiliar ones, even if they are good ones. As it is the case with the call to reject Prohibition in favour of Legalisation and Regulation, a large number of people still prefer to base their decisions on prejudice, narrow moral principles or ideology, rather than facts, science or rational principles.

I do not know about you, but it is clear to me that no matter how ingeniously prohibition zealots try to portray their self-righteous arguments in favour of the War on Drugs policies, sophistry is no match for fact based policies.

As I wrote in my previous post (Hypocrite, Who? … Moi?), a number of European countries have been adopting more lenient approaches to the problem posed by the consumption of drugs. Instead of declaring all out war on drugs, these countries have softened their stance and have depenalised or decriminalised, de jure or de facto, the personal consumption of drugs, mainly marijuana.^[1]Top of the list with the most liberal legislation is Portugal, which has decriminalised the personal consumption of ALL drugs, including cocaine and heroin. ^[2]

In the same post, I also underscored the fact that even though the scope and level of leniency showed in the legislation varies from country to country, they all have something in common: the production and distribution of drugs remain illegal. Therefore, the prohibition to engage in these activities continues to be enforced via the policies covered under the umbrella of the War on Drugs (WoD).

You would not be alone in feeling that your head wants to explode trying to understand the rationale behind this schizophrenic approach. Because what we are saying in fact is that we, the drug consuming countries, are facing a deep rooted drug problem and the prohibition policies we have been supporting and enforcing for decades have taken us nowhere. So, what do we do? Do we take the sensible route, and legalise and regulate the “illegal drugs” market as a whole? Do we, by so doing, cut the proverbial Gordian knot and solve, if not all, at least the lion’s share of the misery, violence, corruption and social havoc the criminals that control the drugs market have been imposing on us all, producing and consuming countries alike, through so many decades? Well, not quite. We don’t like radical solutions, you see. So, we “legalise” the demand side of the drugs market by the back door — which is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. But what about the supply? What good is it to legalise the demand while the supply, the real villain in this story, as we have been told again and again, is left to continue prospering in its murderous business?

Surely, if we can see the incongruities of the partial legalisation of the “illegal drugs” market, so can those in charge of designing and implementing those policies. It is not as if policymakers have been caught with their trousers down, so to speak, and the realisation of how oxymoronic their policies are, have come to them as an afterthought.

As you may have guessed, the explanations are aplenty: from lack of foresight and sheer stupidity at one end, to all sorts of conspiracy theories imaginable at the other end. The favourite explanation, the one that is always put forward to explain these policies away, the mother of all partial legalisations, if you will, is that a (carefully crafted?) asymmetry is embedded in the international laws that control the production, distribution and consumption of  “illicit drugs”. This asymmetry is borne out of the fact that countries are given more room for manoeuvre when it comes to dealing with the consumption vis à vis the production and distribution of “illicit” drugs.^[3] Consequently, what the legalisation of the demand for drugs does, we are told, is to take advantage of that asymmetry in an opportunistic and pragmatic fashion.

Can we have a look at the culprit? Since you ask, here it is: Article 3, paragraph 2 of the 1988 UN Convention, which reads:^[4]

«Subject to its constitutional principles and the basic concepts of its legal system, each Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish as a criminal offence under its domestic law, when committed intentionally, the possession, purchase or cultivation of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances for personal consumption contrary to the provisions of the 1961 Convention, the 1961 Convention as amended or the 1971 Convention.» (my underscore)

I know, it does not look much, but no matter what door you knock on, you will find the same response: this is the weakest link in the international conventions on drugs long chain. Make of it what you will, the fact is that countries seeking to introduce softer policies regarding the personal consumption of “illicit” drugs have used and will continue to use this loophole to their advantage. I do not have any qualms with that. Who can blame them for taking the opportunity with both hands? The question remains, though: what about the supply side of the equation?

To find the answer, it seems, one has to go back once again to the asymmetry mentioned above: countries seeking softer options for managing the consumption can pull the “national interest” card, as it were, to go ahead with their policies, whereas those seeking similar options for policies regarding the supply are denied the same possibility. The reason, they tell us, is that allowing such departures will undermine the legal structure that sustains the fight against drugs policies and by so doing, provoke the inevitable collapse of the whole edifice—the prohibition regime.^[5]

Wait a moment. Surely, the same can be said of each and every policy aimed at “liberalising” personal consumption of drugs, be it harm reduction, depenalisation or decriminalisation. Is it just a case of being cleverly opportunistic or is it that current drug legislation is nothing but a reflection of the balance of power within the UN, an organisation that functions simultaneously as policymaker, adviser and watch dog?

To see how deeply unfair the current situation is one only needs to recall what happened to the recent attempt by the Bolivian government to have the ban on coca leaf chewing lifted from the list of activities prohibited by the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs: 18 countries (the US, UK, Sweden, Canada, Denmark, Germany, the Russian Federation, Japan, Singapore, Slovakia, Estonia, France, Italy, Bulgaria, Latvia, Malaysia, Mexico and Ukraine) rejected the amendment.^[6]

I apologise for reproducing a large chunk of Martin Jelsma’s article,^[7]but I do hope its relevance is self-explanatory:

«…the “position of the U.S. government to not support the proposed amendment is based on the importance to maintain the integrity of the 1961 Convention, which constitutes an important tool for the global fight against drug trafficking.”

There is a profoundly disturbing hypocrisy behind this line of reasoning that has now become the main argument for the objection for the U.S. government and its EU allies. Of course they fully respect indigenous rights, they have no problem with coca chewing, they simply want to defend the integrity of the drug control treaty system, and allowing this amendment to be adopted would open a Pandora’s box. The Single Convention is sacrosanct, cast in stone, and allowing any changes would jeopardize the integrity of the control system.

Apparently they forgot that in 1971, a decade after the adoption of the Single Convention, the U.S. itself propose numerous amendments. “The United States believes it is now time for the international community to build on the foundation of the Single Convention, since a decade has given a better perspective of its strengths and weaknesses”, they argued at the time . The UK was the first to support the U.S. call to improve the Convention and to convene a Conference of the Parties to discuss the proposals, adding some amendment proposals themselves, which led to the 1972 Protocol amending the 1961 Convention. At the time, the U.S. did not “regard its proposals as sacrosanct; it welcomed suggestions for new improvements; it hoped also that other countries would come forward with their own proposals, whether or not related to ones the United States had already made. It was pleased to see that the Swedish delegation had already begun that constructive process.” While the U.S. proposals were of course aiming to bolster the control regime and the role of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), Sweden used the opportunity to offer other proposals, including positive ones, like deleting references to “addicts” in the treaty and introducing possibilities of alternative sentences for drug-dependent offenders.

So, the three main objectors to the Bolivian amendment proposal now, US, UK and Sweden, arguing the need to protect the integrity of the treaty by not allowing any amendments, were precisely the ones who proposed the first amendments themselves, at which time they argued the need for the control system to develop and improve.»

Perhaps it does not need clarification, but just in case, the amendment (and its rejection) refers specifically to the leaf, not to the alkaloid extracted from it, cocaine. What the amendment seeks is to restore the right to chew coca leaves, something Bolivia’s indigenous people have been doing for centuries, without fear of breaking the law. If that is the case with such a mild, almost symbolic, proposition, what are the chances of making any radical changes to current international legislation? What options do we have to try to overcome this imbalance? Can those changes be made from within, or should we denounce the current conventions and replace them with new ones? Can we, consuming countries, continue hiding behind the current drug conventions to explain our lack of commitment to seek and effect wider changes regarding the supply of drugs? ^[8]

One thing is clear to me. As the Bolivian case so poignantly demonstrates, the power to effect real changes in the current legislation, be it inside or outside the established conventions, does not lie in producing countries. The power, literally and metaphorically, resides in the other end of the illicit drug market, in major consuming countries.

So, I state the question again, do countries that have decriminalised or depenalised the demand have a moral obligation to introduce changes to national and international laws to seek the decriminalisation or depenalisation of the supply, too? My answer is direct and unequivocal: yes. Not doing so is hypocritical, cynical and frankly speaking, criminal.

1. ^[1] In order to understand the difference in scope of the drug legislation among European countries it is important to distinguish between legalisation, decriminalisation and depenalisation. As Greenwald puts it, «… “decriminalization” means either that only noncriminal sanctions (such as fines or treatment requirements) are imposed or that no penal sanctions can be. In a “depenalized” framework, drug usage remains a criminal offense, but imprisonment is no longer imposed for possession or usage even as other criminal sanctions (e.g., fines, police record, probation) remain available. “Legalization”—which no EU state has yet adopted—means that there are no prohibitions of any kind under the law on drug manufacturing, sales, possession, or usage.» See Greenwald, Glenn, Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies, Cato Institute, 2009, p.2 ↩
2. ^[2] An overview of the current legislation on the use and possession of drugs for personal use in the EU Member States can be seen in EMCDDA, Illicit Drug Use in the EU: Legislative Approaches, 2005 ↩
3. ^[3] The current international legislation on “illicit drugs” revolves around the following three conventions:
   UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961
   UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971 and
   UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988 ↩
4. ^[4] UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988 ↩
5. ^[5] It is worth bearing in mind that here I am questioning the rationale of policies aimed at “liberalising” the consumption in the context of the current legislation framework. I am, of course, in favour of liberalising the “illicit drugs” market as a whole: production, distribution and consumption. And not only that, the same goes for all drugs, the so-called “soft” and “hard” drugs alike. Therefore, any attempt at undermining Prohibition and the War on Drugs is welcome with open arms. ↩
6. ^[6] This is Bolivia’s original proposal of amendments to article 49, paragraphs 1 (c) and 2 (e). ↩
7. ^[7] Martin Jelsma, ‘D-Day for Bolivia’s Coca Chewing’ ↩
8. ^[8] The literature about the interpretation, scope and limitations of the current legislation and conventions on “illicit” drugs is quite extensive. Those interested in getting a deeper understanding of where current legislation comes from as well as the options available for those wanting to change it from within, I strongly recommend the following papers:

   M. Jelsma, The Development of International Drug Control: Lessons Learned and Strategic Challenges
   The Backley Foundation, The Cannabis Commission Report 2008 and Cannabis Policy: Moving Beyond Stalemate and
   Transform (TDPF), After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation ↩

It is well known that Europe (taken as a whole) is the second largest consumer of drugs in the world, after the USA. It is also well known that the attitude of European countries towards the demand for drugs, more specifically, personal consumption of drugs is far from uniform. A quick glance at the current legislation on drugs will show that it covers the whole spectrum, from ‘criminal prosecution’ of drug users at one end, to ‘harm reduction’ and ‘tolerance of consumption’ at the other end.^[1] Of those countries which have opted for more lenient approaches to tackle the so-called ‘drug problem’, some have, implicitly or explicitly, depenalised the personal consumption of certain drugs (particularly, marijuana) while others have gone the extra mile and have explicitly decriminalised it—with Portugal at the top of the list as the only country that has decriminalised the personal consumption of ALL drugs, including cocaine and heroin.^[2]

Whether the consumption of drugs is depenalised or decriminalised, whether these policies are incorporated into the current legislation explicitly or implicitly, the policies adopted by those European countries have a factor in common: the production and distribution of drugs remain illegal, and the prohibition to engage in these activities continues to be enforced via the policies covered under the umbrella of the War on Drugs (WoD).

I have said it many times, and I say it again: I am fully in favour of the legalisation of the demand for all drugs. However, is it not rather hypocritical and self-serving to think that it is all well and good for us to say that we need to deal with the demand for drugs through means other than the penal code, but when it comes to the supply of drugs, the call is for tougher and tougher enforcement of the prohibition to supply them?

Do countries that have decriminalised or depenalised the demand have a moral obligation to introduce changes in national and international laws to seek the decriminalisation or depenalisation of the supply, too? What sort of policies, initiatives or programmes have drug consuming countries put forward to that effect in the recent past? Do drug consuming countries that have opted for ‘soft’ policies for the demand for drugs have effective incentives to seek equivalent policies for the supply, given that the bulk of the catastrophic effects of the WoD are borne by producing and distributing countries?

It can be argued that decriminalisation or depenalisation of the demand is a step in the right direction, albeit an indirect one, towards achieving a similar status for the supply of drugs, as the case for keeping the prohibition on the supply will be eroded, slowly but surely, as the number of countries following these policies increases. I have no doubts that some advances will be made in the long run, but as the famous economist John Maynard Keynes used to say, in the long run we are all dead.

So, even though I do accept that those demand policies may have a positive effect, the fact is that there is little to show on that front, so far. Let’s see, personal consumption in Spain, generally speaking, has never been considered a crime, Holand’s policies have been in place since the 1970’s and Portugal’s decriminalisation of all drugs, since 2001. I do think that one is entitled to ask several questions:

• Have we seen an erosion of the WoD throughout this period? Hardly. If anything, the cries for tougher prohibition laws have increased as a whole during the intervening decades. What is more perverse, the greater the havoc created by the enforcement of the WoD, the louder the voices calling for measures even more draconian than the present ones—assuming that is possible.
• Have we witnessed any qualitative change in the way the supply of drugs issues have been and are being debated either nationally or internationally? Again, the answer is, hardly. It is true that the denouncement of the irrationality of the WoD has been growing louder and louder with time, and the inefficacy of their policies is there for all to see. But does it mean that the discourse about the supply of drugs has experienced a major shift? I really doubt it. Much of what Milton Friedman said back in 1972,^[3]just to mention one distinguished critic of the WoD, continues to be relevant and applicable to the current situation.
• Have national or international laws moved in parallel with the changes introduced in a large number of countries all over the world to meet the demand for drugs? The answer is a categorical no. Just the opposite. If one looks at the international legislation at the centre of the WoD (i.e. the three UN conventions on drugs),^[4] what one sees is a progressive hardening of the prohibitionist position and the increasing ascendancy of the voices calling for stiffer criminal penalties.

Partial legalisations—in the case we are discussing, depenalisation or decriminalisation of the demand for drugs—are fraught with inconsistencies and distortions, which could undermine the case for the implementation of a generalised legalisation.^[5]

From an economic point of view, partial legalisations fail to recognise two major economic facts: one, that the demand for drugs is highly inelastic and two, that the supply of drugs, like any other illegal market, manages to extract high rents (i.e. profits) because it is illegal; and because it is illegal and highly profitable, those in control of this market are willing and able to resort to any means to protect and secure the benefits satisfying a ‘captive’ demand procures.^[6]

And that is not all, for partial legalisations not only fail the economic test, they fail the efficiency and the moral tests, too. As far as the efficiency test is concerned, partial legalisations run the risk of what I call the half-measure paradox; that is, that because we have not being totally committed to the application of the best solution to solve a problem, instead of being more thorough in its application, we abandon the right solution in favour of a second best solution. In our case, we know that legalisation is the best solution to the drug problem, and instead of being thorough in its application and liberalise both sides of the market, we go half-way and only depenalised or decriminalise the demand. If this solution fails (i.e. the market for illegal drugs not only does not decline but grows) we wrongly conclude that the problem is the solution (legalisation) and not its implementation (partial legalisation). In other words, we fail to recognise that the reason for the failure is not that we applied the wrong solution, but that we did not apply it properly.

What about the moral test. Well, I always feel a little bit uneasy playing the moral card, even though I do believe that all judgements and actions are intrinsically and unavoidably moral in nature (but that is a different discussion). Anyway, the point is that legalising the demand side of the drugs market is equivalent to relieving drug consuming countries of any responsibility we may have, and we have a lot, in the state of affairs regarding the illicit drugs market. We may not like it, we may even get angry with anybody suggesting it, but as I said in my previous post, our demand, and our willingness and ability to pay for illegal drugs, are sufficient and necessary conditions to make the supply of drugs possible and to sustain and stimulate its relentless growth. So, I find it rather cynical the way some drug consuming countries have decided to concentrate exclusively on their side of the fence, the consumption, and completely ignore what is happening on the other side, the production.

Never mind the havoc our demand for drugs is creating in drug producing countries, we have decided that what matters is what is happening at home. It is indeed highly hypocritical that despite the fact that it is our demand which underpins and sustains the ‘drug trafficking business’, we continue to show a total lack of commitment to seek real changes in the legislation, a state of affairs that, to be frank, is tantamount to turning a blind eye to the catastrophic consequences the WoD is having on drug producing countries.

I do not have any doubts that the decriminalisation of the demand for drugs is a sensible policy, but if we were serious about tackling the ‘drug problem’, we should be accompanying those same policies with equally sensible policies towards the supply of drugs. We should also be promoting the legalisation of the supply. We should be the ones making all the noises calling for a change in the national and international legislation on drugs. In a nutshell, we should be spearheading the movement seeking to legalise the production and distribution of all drugs.

I have run out of space but there is an argument that I would definitely like to tackle in the next post and is this: it has been argued that the reason why consuming countries have not being pro-active in seeking the legalisation of the supply of drugs is because no country has legal footings to decriminalise the supply (for non-medical purposes) in the same way they have to decriminalise the demand (for personal consumption purposes).

As I will show in my next post, the same argument applies to drug producing countries as well, as the recent attempt by the Bolivian government to have ‘mambeo’ (chewing of coca leaves) removed from the list of illegal activities so poignantly illustrates.^[7]

I hope to see you then. In the meantime, your comments are very much welcome.

1. ^[1] An overview of the current legislation on the use and possession of drugs for personal use in the EU Member States can be seen in EMCDDA, Illicit Drug Use in the EU: Legislative Approaches, 2005 ↩
2. ^[2] In order to understand the difference in scope of the drug legislation among European countries it is important to distinguish between legalisation, decriminalisation and depenalisation. As Greenwald puts it,
   «… “decriminalization” means either that only noncriminal sanctions (such as fines or treatment requirements) are imposed or that no penal sanctions can be. In a “depenalized” framework, drug usage remains a criminal offense, but imprisonment is no longer imposed for possession or usage even as other criminal sanctions (e.g., fines, police record, probation) remain available. “Legalization”—which no EU state has yet adopted—means that there are no prohibitions of any kind under the law on drug manufacturing, sales, possession, or usage.»
   See Greenwald, Glenn, Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies, Cato Institute, 2009, p.2 ↩
3. ^[3] Friedman, Milton, Prohibition and Drugs, Newsweek, May 1, 1972. ↩
4. ^[4] UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961;UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971 and UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988 ↩
5. ^[5] Could the same be said in the case of partial legalisation of the supply of drugs? Would our analysis be any different should a drug producing country, say México, decided to depenalised or decriminalised both the production and distribution of drugs and allow the trafficking of drugs to flow unimpeded to countries where the consumption is harshly penalised, say the USA or Sweden…or the UK for that matter? ↩
6. ^[6] Economists have contributed extensively to the analysis of illegal goods markets and to the prohibition vs. legalisation debate. I hope to review some of those contributions in a future post. For the time being, the following papers are quite relevant:
   G. S. Becker, K. M. Murphy and M. Grossman, The Economic Theory of Illegal Goods: The Case of Drugs, NBER Working Paper 10976, 2004
   Miron, J. A., The Economics of Drug Prohibition and Drug Legalization, New School for Social Research, 2001
   Reuter, P. (Ed.), Understanding the Demand for Illegal Drugs, National Research Council, 2010
   Mejía, Daniel, Illicit Trade and Globalisation: The War on Illegal Drugs, CesIfo, 2008 ↩
7. ^[7] See, for instance, The Economist, The costs of drug prohibition: Let them chew coca, Jan 20th 2011 ↩

When in my previous post (Let’s Stop This Insanity!) I said that the demand for drugs is the linchpin of the so-called War on Drugs (WoD), I was not advocating criminalising the demand for drugs — which, by the way, should be the logical policy those who support prohibition and the WoD should follow. If for the sake of the argument, one could be prepared to assume that there is something rational and logical about the WoD, then its supporters should focus their efforts not on the supply of, but on the demand for, drugs.

I do not support the WoD, for I believe it’s one of the most heinous policies ever engineered and should be stopped. When I say that the demand is the linchpin of the WoD, what I want is to draw the attention to an important point, which is, that any policy aimed at tackling the so-called “drug problem” should start by acknowledging that our demand, and our willingness and ability to pay for illegal drugs, are sufficient and necessary conditions to make the supply of drugs possible and to sustain and stimulate its relentless growth. In other words, it is our demand that underpins the supply, and not the other way round.

And that is something previous generations understood quite well, apparently. Remember the Opium Wars? Well, we decided to “push” our case, rather forcibly some would say, due to the “barriers” the Chinese were creating to try to stop the free flow of a commodity in which the British Empire was particularly competitive: opium.

Interestingly, though, the supply, as far as the British East India Company was concerned, was a legitimate activity, and the demand, well, could have done with some improvements, or so we thought…for the Chinese seemed to have a different opinion. Exactly 200 years ago, the Qianlong Emperor issued the following decree:^[1]

«Opium has a harm. Opium is a poison, undermining our good customs and morality. Its use is prohibited by law. Now the commoner, Yang, dares to bring it into the Forbidden City. Indeed, he flouts the law! However, recently the purchasers, eaters, and consumers of opium have become numerous. Deceitful merchants buy and sell it to gain profit. The customs house at the Ch’ung-wen Gate was originally set up to supervise the collection of imports (it had no responsibility with regard to opium smuggling). If we confine our search for opium to the seaports, we fear the search will not be sufficiently thorough. We should also order the general commandant of the police and police- censors at the five gates to prohibit opium and to search for it at all gates. If they capture any violators, they should immediately punish them and should destroy the opium at once. As to Kwangtung and Fukien, the provinces from which opium comes, we order their viceroys, governors, and superintendents of the maritime customs to conduct a thorough search for opium, and cut off its supply. They should in no ways consider this order a dead letter and allow opium to be smuggled out!»

So, the Chinese wanted to enforce the ban on the importation of opium and wanted more rigorous and thorough controls of smuggling activities, and we…we begged to differ and, well, as they say, the rest is history.

Back to the 21th century, and what do we see? We see a curiously similar situation, although, in our case, the role is reversed. Yes, we all have become feverish followers of the Qianlong Emperor’s doctrine: not only have we banned the importation of drugs, but also criminalised their users. Ironically, and perhaps perversely, we have decided to enforce our point of view by, guess what, by declaring war…again! Only this time we wage it on those who dare to bring it into the Forbidden City, to undermine our good customs and morality.

We should know better by now, and understand that not all wars are equal, that some are even less equal than others. And the so-called WoD is perhaps the most unequal of all. By shifting the onus from drug consuming countries (like ours), to drug producing countries (like those south of the US border), we are relinquishing to a great extent our responsibility as consumers for fuelling the violence, corruption and destabilisation of the democratic institutions of those countries directly or indirectly involved in the supply and distribution of drugs.^[2]

In case of any doubt, I would like to reiterate what I said at the beginning of this post: I am in favour of the legalisation of drugs, not just their demand, but the whole chain: production, distribution and consumption of drugs. To me, the WoD encapsulates the idiocy, intellectually and pragmatically speaking, of the policies aimed at enforcing the prohibition to produce, distribute and consume illegal drugs. So far, the burden has fallen mainly on the supply side of the drug equation. I do believe that the campaign calling for ending the WoD will be strengthen if we all understand that the onus should be on the demand not on the supply side of the market. If we understand that, we could start treating the problem for what it is: a health issue, not a criminal one.

Gary S. Becker, an American economist and Nobel Prize winner, has eloquently highlighted the imbalance of the whole WoD business when he says:^[3]

«No one has estimated the social cost of American drug policy on Mexico, Colombia, and other countries, but it has to be immense. Perhaps these countries should just allow drugs to be shipped to the US, and put the full burden of stopping these shipments on American enforcement agencies. The American government would protest, but such a result would provide a clearer picture to the American people of the full cost of current policy, including the major costs imposed on other countries. One can hope that then we will get a serious rethinking of the American war on drugs, and some real political movement toward decriminalization and legalization of various drugs.»

Is there somewhere a moral to be learned from the way we have responded and continue responding to the use of narcotics, stimulants and other drugs? Why is it that we continue enforcing policies that have proved to be completely inadequate, again and again? Are we to believe that it all comes down to just sheer ignorance?

Probably it is just me, but I am always rather puzzled every time somebody pulls that quotation out of their hat, you know, the one warning us of the perils of not paying due attention to our history teacher: those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it! Well, it seems to me that it is not much that people choose to ignore history, but rather that everybody sees it through their coloured glasses. To me, history sometimes resembles a capricious mistress who is prone to be amenable to several masters…all at once.

1. ^[1] You can get a bird’s eye view of the issue here. ↩
2. ^[2] As for policies aimed at legalising the demand (consumption) of drugs while at the same time criminalising the supply (Holland, for instance), they are at best conceptually very challenging, and at worst, highly counterproductive. Some argue that it is a step in the right direction, others than it undermines the efforts to stop the WoD and relieves consumers of all responsibility for the harm the WoD is causing all over the world. I hope to discuss this issue later, in a new post. ↩
3. ^[3] See Gary S. Becker, The American War on Drugs is Not Only an American Disaster. ↩

I do not know about you, but I am sick and tired of this insanity. And I am not talking about The X Factor or Deal or Not Deal. No, I am referring to the War on Drugs (WoD); that is, the policies different governments and their law enforcement agencies have been putting in place for almost two generations — two generations! — to combat the production, distribution, and consumption of illegal drugs.

What makes the whole enterprise so insane is that the WoD, with all its devastating effects, is predicated on the misguided notion that the use of drugs can be stopped by decree; that we will get rid of the problem just by prohibiting the production and consumption of narcotics. And let me be clear and categorical about it: drugs like heroine, crack cocaine and the like are highly addictive and the consequences for those unfortunate enough to get hooked on them are dire — as are those for society as a whole. But the question we must ask ourselves is whether the WoD is the rational, effective, or even practical, answer to the serious challenges the production and consumption of drugs, or to be precise, the ILLEGAL production and consumption of drugs poses to our society, to our democratic institutions and to us all.

I keep asking myself, how can one justify in the name of prohibition a war where hundreds, nay, thousands upon thousands of men, women and children are killed every year.^[1] How can one justify in the name of prohibition a war where despite the gigantic amounts of resources spent fighting and dealing with it for several decades now,^[2] the enemy this war seeks to defeat — the illegal drugs market and its profiteers — continues flourishing with gusto.^[3] How can one justify in the name of prohibition a war where after four decades of “fighting”, the market for illicit drugs continues attracting more and more ruthless individuals willing to resort to the most heinous and murderous tactics to protect the source of their astronomical wealth.^[4] How can one justify in the name of prohibition a war where despite decades of draconian legislation and harsh enforcement laws, the capabilities of the drug barons and their henchmen to infiltrate and corrupt all layers of society know no limits.

No doubt we would be keener to denounce the insanity of the WoD, should we had to endure in our country anything remotely similar to the levels of brutality with which the WoD is fought in drug producing countries, say Colombia or Mexico, to name only two.^[5] It seems to me that many people in the UK, and in all major drug consuming countries for that matter, look at the WoD as if it had nothing to do with us. Some people would like to argue that drug producing countries have brought the WoD upon themselves, for they have chosen to produce them and in doing so, have chosen to pollute our society with their obnoxious commodity and should be punished for that. If anything, the argument goes, we are the victims of their wicked trade and it is only just and proper for the WoD to be fought on their soil, not ours. As a result, our attitude towards the WoD has become totally distorted,  and instead of acknowledging the decisive role drug consuming countries like ours play in perpetuating the WoD, some people choose to ignore it and blame it on drug producing countries. To some, the logic seems to be: no production, no consumption.

Perhaps understandably, we are easily inclined to shunt the burden of responsibility onto someone else, so that we do not have to ask ourselves hard questions. It reminds me of the all too frequent discussion about what to do with the appalling way the UK tabloids behave regarding peoples’ privacy. To some, the only conceivable solution is to ban them, as if the problem were the tabloids themselves and not those who read them, let alone buy them. The fact is that as long as someone is willing to ‘consume’ (read) them, there will always be someone willing to ‘produce’ (publish) them. To put it in very simplistic terms: no demand, no supply.

As you may have guessed, neither the supply nor the demand side of the market tells the whole story. However, whereas one can confidently say that the supply does not automatically create its own demand, one can also be confident in saying that almost invariably (that is to say, under the right conditions), where there is a demand, there is a supply. Provided people are willing and able to pay to satisfy their need, one can be reasonable sure that eventually somebody will find the way to satisfy it.^[6]

As decades of trying have shown us, no matter how hard the policies are, trying to solve the drugs problem by attacking the production of drugs is doomed to fail, for the root of the problem is the demand for, not the supply of drugs. If you ask me where we should concentrate our efforts on dealing with the drugs problem, my money is on the demand side of the market. We need to recognise that our demand encourages, stimulates and sustains the production of drugs; we need to recognise that our willingness and ability to pay a good deal of money for a small quantity of drugs is what makes the illegal drugs market so profitable;^[7] we need to recognise that it is because the illegal drugs market is extremely lucrative that their profiteers are willing and able to defend their business whatever the costs. In other words, we need to recognise that our demand is the linchpin of the WoD.

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves, for I intend to explore and discuss in this blog (hopefully, with your help) not just the economics, but other issues concerning the WoD as well, in particular, policies aimed at legalising the drugs market. In the meantime, allow me to tell you that the thrust of this blog is to face the discussion of the issues advanced in these pages in a non-ideological, matter of fact fashion. Since reliable data about most of the issues related to the drugs trade is difficult to come by, some of the opinions expressed in this blog should be taken for what they are, just opinions. However, it is my intention to support the arguments with as much hard evidence as possible, to give credit where credit is due and provide links to relevant sources of information whenever available.

Needless to say, your comments will be very much appreciated — even if you disagree, or should I say, especially if you disagree with what is being said in this blog. The only condition is that you keep the comments within the boundaries of a civilised, rational and respectful discussion.

1. ^[1] In the last four years, almost 35,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence in Mexico alone, 15,000 of them in 2010. ↩
2. ^[2] In the UK, class A drug use creates around £15.4 billion in crime and health costs each year. Unfortunately, there are no official figures about the amount of resources the UK spend, both directly and indirectly, on fighting the WoD at home and abroad. ↩
3. ^[3] According to a recent study contracted out by The European Commission, ‘The study has found no evidence that the global drug problem was reduced during the UNGASS period from 1998 to 2007.’ ↩
4. ^[4] For obvious reasons, it is notoriously difficult to collect accurate and reliable data on the illegal market for drugs, both nationally and internationally. It is not surprising, then, to find that figures about the size of the illegal drug market vary greatly from one source to another. The report mentioned above is a good case in point. According to their study ‘… illicit drug markets generates more than one hundred billion Euros in sales…[a figure much] smaller than the €285 Billion estimated by UNODC in 2002/2003.’ ↩
5. ^[5] I do believe that our attitude would be very different if we were watching, year after year, thousands of bodies lying strewn on our streets. ↩
6. ^[6] The total value of the drugs market in the UK was worth 5,271 million pounds in 2003/4. ↩
7. ^[7] The differential between the cost of producing and refining a kilogram of cocaine in producing countries like Bolivia on one side, and the final price paid in consuming countries like England on the other, cannot be more dramatic: ‘For cocaine and heroin the cost of production and refining…is a trivial share of the final price in Western countries, roughly one to two per cent’. ↩