Ex-President Cesar Gaviria:”We Don’t Need More Lectures from the USA”
Published in El Tiempo
(Colombia) on 10 March 2012
by Editorial (link to original)
(Colombia) on 10 March 2012
by Editorial (link to original)
Translated from
by Karen Posada.
Edited by Laurie Henneman.
Colombia’s ex-president Cesar Gaviria, spokesperson for the Global Commission on Drug Policy, described the United States' strategy in this sector as “unsuccessful” and accused the “leadership” of that country to be “incapable” of facing the problem.
Referring to Washington’s decision to “discuss” legalization in order to oppose it, Gaviria said that there needs to be "significant changes in its policies."
How do you evaluate Washington’s decision to "discuss" drug legalization?
When there’s talk of legalization, it generates political attention as President Santos did last year. It’s an assertion that gives legitimacy to the discussion of the anti-drug policies. But in practical terms, it also means discussing a policy that not only decriminalizes consumption, but helps addicts and consumers free themselves from the hold of criminal organizations. In our cities, we need to prevent young people from committing crimes to buy drugs. We won't arrive there if we don't seriously consider the question of whether drug use is a criminal offense or a health problem.
The biggest problem with the United States' anti-drug policy is that after more than half a million consumers have been put in prison, the levels of consumption have remained the same. A monstrous criminal organization has been build around that legal definition. That’s the first thing that needs to change. And that policy is largely responsible for the thousands dead in Mexico, Central America, Colombia and the Andean region, as well as the terrible corruption that ensnares our democratic institutions.
Is it time to legalize?
We can’t give the impression that drugs don’t do harm or don’t need to be controlled. We also aren’t going to give the impression that we aren’t using all our energies to persecute all the organized crime. The departing point should be to collectively examine how we can reach a policy that decreases corruption, violence and the immense economic and social costs. That’s what the vast majority of Europeans call minimizing the damage. There are no ideal policies. There are only the ones that weigh various aspects and don’t tie us to policies that supposedly are based only in ethnic principles without considering the consequences on society.
Does one hemisphere have the strength to force the world to address this subject?
The whole world doesn’t have to change its policies, but those of us that have so many dead and have incurred huge social and economic costs have a claim on the effectiveness of policies that are applied in the main consumer market, which is the USA.
Will it be decriminalization, legalization or another road?
Each country has the right to define its policy in terms of consumption, but Colombia, Mexico and some of the Central American countries have the right to see that the effort we make is not in vain. Because of ineffective U.S. leadership, we all make a tremendous effort in the name of an unsuccessful policy. This opinion is shared by the majority of Americans. They can’t keep telling us that the success in their policy against illegal drugs has to be measured in amount of drugs seized or people arrested, or in the increase in the price of drugs in that country. We cannot accept that. And enough with them committing to decrease consumption. They must commit to decreasing the size of the big criminal business.
Why did the United States agree to "discuss" the subject?
Because the public opinion of many of the countries in the chain of drug trafficking no longer tolerate the fact that the subject isn’t discussed and that we are forced to accept the worst results for our countries. We don’t need any more lectures, but significant changes in the policies of the United States. How are Mexicans going to accept that this subject isn’t even part of the discussion between candidates for the presidency of the United States, as if their gigantic sacrifice of lives and efforts didn’t matter, and as if they didn’t have an obligation to give us an answer?
Referring to Washington’s decision to “discuss” legalization in order to oppose it, Gaviria said that there needs to be "significant changes in its policies."
How do you evaluate Washington’s decision to "discuss" drug legalization?
When there’s talk of legalization, it generates political attention as President Santos did last year. It’s an assertion that gives legitimacy to the discussion of the anti-drug policies. But in practical terms, it also means discussing a policy that not only decriminalizes consumption, but helps addicts and consumers free themselves from the hold of criminal organizations. In our cities, we need to prevent young people from committing crimes to buy drugs. We won't arrive there if we don't seriously consider the question of whether drug use is a criminal offense or a health problem.
The biggest problem with the United States' anti-drug policy is that after more than half a million consumers have been put in prison, the levels of consumption have remained the same. A monstrous criminal organization has been build around that legal definition. That’s the first thing that needs to change. And that policy is largely responsible for the thousands dead in Mexico, Central America, Colombia and the Andean region, as well as the terrible corruption that ensnares our democratic institutions.
Is it time to legalize?
We can’t give the impression that drugs don’t do harm or don’t need to be controlled. We also aren’t going to give the impression that we aren’t using all our energies to persecute all the organized crime. The departing point should be to collectively examine how we can reach a policy that decreases corruption, violence and the immense economic and social costs. That’s what the vast majority of Europeans call minimizing the damage. There are no ideal policies. There are only the ones that weigh various aspects and don’t tie us to policies that supposedly are based only in ethnic principles without considering the consequences on society.
Does one hemisphere have the strength to force the world to address this subject?
The whole world doesn’t have to change its policies, but those of us that have so many dead and have incurred huge social and economic costs have a claim on the effectiveness of policies that are applied in the main consumer market, which is the USA.
Will it be decriminalization, legalization or another road?
Each country has the right to define its policy in terms of consumption, but Colombia, Mexico and some of the Central American countries have the right to see that the effort we make is not in vain. Because of ineffective U.S. leadership, we all make a tremendous effort in the name of an unsuccessful policy. This opinion is shared by the majority of Americans. They can’t keep telling us that the success in their policy against illegal drugs has to be measured in amount of drugs seized or people arrested, or in the increase in the price of drugs in that country. We cannot accept that. And enough with them committing to decrease consumption. They must commit to decreasing the size of the big criminal business.
Why did the United States agree to "discuss" the subject?
Because the public opinion of many of the countries in the chain of drug trafficking no longer tolerate the fact that the subject isn’t discussed and that we are forced to accept the worst results for our countries. We don’t need any more lectures, but significant changes in the policies of the United States. How are Mexicans going to accept that this subject isn’t even part of the discussion between candidates for the presidency of the United States, as if their gigantic sacrifice of lives and efforts didn’t matter, and as if they didn’t have an obligation to give us an answer?
Next article![]( "How Many Mistakes Can Mitt Romney Still Make?")
.gif "How Many Mistakes Can Mitt Romney Still Make?")