Rethinking the Strategy Against Drug Trafficking

An unavoidable shared responsibility arises from the dilemmas associated with drug trafficking: production, transit, dealing, consumption, money laundering and violence. Continental policy focuses on suppressing production through “intervention” while consistently neglecting consumption. Drugs appear to be “legalized” as they enter the United States with a substantially higher value. They then flow through distribution channels, damaging social and institutional systems. While Latin American consumption is worrisome, growing demand in countries with greater purchasing power generates drug production. This phenomenon displays a “market” behavior that generates great profits along with numerous risks that oblige those involved with illicit drugs to participate in bribery, institutional contamination, the damage of barriers and violence for the purposes of this “market.”

The successes realized in the fight against trafficking, such as drug and profit seizures and the dismantlement of cartels, are Pyrrhic victories when compared to the amount of drugs produced and trafficked, the numbers of people addicted to drugs, the ever-expanding networks of trafficking routes and markets and the profits generated. According to Gen. Douglas Fraser, the Chief of U.S. Southern Command, “Only 33 percent of drugs detected in traffic routes from South America through Central America and Mexico to the United States are intercepted.”* The issue is not whether to penalize or legalize, but how to effectively implement what the law permits and sanctions. Moreover, it is necessary to stress internal causes and the complex characteristics of drug activity as a “market” and as an “organized crime” that exploits societal and institutional weaknesses.

Current strategy emphasizes action against production and transit. The remaining efforts that focus on reducing consumption are proportionally insignificant. What are the results of this strategy? First of all, there are more consumers: The Global Commission on Drug Policy reports an increase of 25 percent in the last decade. Secondly, production has not fallen. Drug seizures have risen and criminal violence associated with drug activity has grown. Finally, social and institutional consequences, like social deterioration and corruption, are evident.

Urgency requires that the majority of social, institutional, national and international efforts be directed at the reduction of consumption. Demand drives the production of drugs, rather than production being the driving force behind demand. Stressing the reduction of consumption is therefore essential. Take into consideration the following three variables: consumption demand, the quantity of drugs seized en route to their destination and drug production. Of these variables, only the quantity of drugs seized is known, according to state and organization reports. The other variables are hardly even estimated. Demand is rigid and therefore difficult to reduce because breaking drug dependency requires personal effort and family, social and professional support.

Consider the following three scenarios:

1.) Demand remains constant and the quantity of drugs seized varies. What happens to production?

a. If demand remains constant and the quantity of drugs seized rises in the states of origin, transit and destination, then production will increase in order to meet demand. As a consequence, costs will rise due to greater risks. Violence, money laundering and corruption will also increase.

b. Under the same conditions described above, if demand remains constant and the quantity of drugs seized decreases, production will drop, as will costs, because of diminished risks. Fewer losses might also reduce the violence that takes place as drugs are in transit as well as the profits generated.

2.) Demand varies and the quantity of drugs seized remains constant. What happens to production?

a. Demand rises and the quantity of drugs seized during transit remains constant. In consequence, production will increase to cover increasing consumption. The price might fall due to greater demand and production under the same risks.

b. Should demand decrease and the quantity of drugs seized remain constant, obviously production would have to decrease. In such a situation decreased prices would be expected, although they might also remain constant.

3.) The amount of drugs produced changes, and the quantity of drugs seized remains constant. What happens to demand?

a. If drug production increased due to greater productivity, expansion of cultivation or reductions of operating costs in producing countries and the quantity of drugs seized remained constant, market surpluses would lead to falling prices. This would lead to decreases in production to match final demand. Levels of violence would remain constant unless conflicts over routes and markets emerged.

b. If production decreased due to a lapse in productivity, contractions in cultivation or increases in operating costs and both the quantity of drugs seized and demand remained constant, losses would occur and prices would rise. Violence would increase as well due to the desire to control markets with constant demand.

We insist that the key link is consumption. Production and transit should, however, not be neglected. Institutional and social strategies should be aimed at reducing the consumer population, preventing the emergence of new users and treating those already addicted to drugs. These strategies should be carried out through community control, education, massive information campaigns, treatment programs for addicts and prevention measures aimed at children and adolescents. Incentives should be given to states and communities for reducing consumption, increasing the capture of drugs and breaking up networks. Also fundamental to decreasing consumption is the creation of formal employment and production development in vulnerable territories and within fragile populations. Actions should be taken against drug dealing and administrative, health and socioeconomic actions should be emphasized without omitting the coercive action of the state.

*Editor’s note: The original quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.