Debating Drugs without Taboos

Breaking the taboo and opening up the debate over the “war on drugs” is a healthy suggestion no one should oppose, and it was a point reiterated by the Global Commission in a report on the issue published last week. Three Latin American ex-presidents, among them César Gaviria of Colombia, have championed the proposal, along with other global figures such as Richard Branson, Kofi Annan and George Shultz.

The debate should be particularly intense in countries like Colombia, where we have suffered more than three decades of horrific violence, largely fueled by criminal organizations associated with drug trafficking. For the debate to be fruitful, however, it obviously requires a dispassionate and reflective mood, rather than responses that prevent the possibility of any dialogue.

One must recognize the important work of the Global Commission, whose contribution is found not only in its final report but also in a series of supporting working documents. The report is a valuable starting point for the discussion and contains many sensible recommendations. But, as ex-Vice President Francisco Santos warned, it includes questionable assumptions. And there are also omissions.

One of its most important and sensible recommendations is ending the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs, but who do not harm others. The consumption of drugs should not be treated as a criminal problem, but rather as a public health concern. This principle should serve as the fundamental basis for the reformulation of any global policy concerning drugs.

Nevertheless, the report appears to give priority to the issue of consumption over production, trafficking, and other activities associated with drugs. Almost none of the principles identified by the commissioners that guide policies directly touch on these aspects. Only two of the 11 recommendations touch on these activities directly.

Its focus on demand may respond to the commission’s conclusion that demand is the origin of the problem and its solution. However, as ex-Vice President Santos observed, a system of legal regulation of drugs does not necessarily end organized crime groups. But it could also be that the priority given to consumption by the commission is the best strategy to motivate the United States and Europe to participate in the debate. Without their interest, the debate could be fruitless.

One of the supportive documents for the commission’s work was written by Moisés Naím, precisely on the problem of criminal organizations. Naím makes reference to “mafia states,” which need to be investigated. However, it raises an important distinction: “The struggle against drug trafficking is no longer about drugs. … The principal focus of the fight should not be to prevent addicts from using drugs. It should be to prevent criminals from taking over the world’s governments.”*

The commission does not seem to have accepted this proposal. But in the report’s “executive summary” it does suggest that there be a distinction made between strategies aimed at “reducing the market for drugs per se” and the repressive policies focused on violent criminal organizations.

The final objective of the commission is perhaps to break the taboo and open up the debate in the United States and Europe. The countries that have suffered under the problem for decades have to increase the pressure for a wider debate. The initiative by the Latin American ex-presidents deserves more coverage. And, of course, more debate.

*Editor’s Note: This quote, accurately translated, could not be verified.