The global drug charade
Flying in the face of all the evidence, the UN is about to recommit to the tried and failed approach Mike Trace
The Guardian, Wednesday 11 March 2009
Ten years ago, I represented Britain at a UN general assembly special session in New York, where political leaders reviewed progress in tackling the illegal drug market, and set out a 10-year plan to eliminate the illicit production and use of drugs such as cannabis, heroin and cocaine. Fast forward to this week in Vienna - where a similar gathering is tasked with reviewing progress and setting out a framework for international drug controls for the decade to come - and the lack of headway is striking.
Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So far in Vienna, the meeting appears to have been struck by a similar affliction.
Yes, it is every politician's nightmare: a controversial subject that the electorate cares about and that the media write about (some might say) obsessively. But evidence of the failure of policy is overwhelming. All credible studies conclude that there has been no overall reduction in the scale of production or use, and that in many parts of the world the problem has got significantly worse. There are at least 200 million users of controlled drugs. The illegal market generates an estimated $300bn turnover for organised crime. Overall rates of addiction are probably rising, as is transmission of the Aids virus through shared needles. States as diverse as Mexico, Afghanistan and Guinea-Bissau struggle to maintain control as profits from trafficking foment violence and disorder.
Thirty countries still have the death penalty for drug offences and many continue to use it despite clear advice that this breaches the UN charter. The forced eradication of crops in countries such as Colombia condemns whole communities to poverty and ill health. Legal clampdowns increase drug users' marginalisation, and the social and health risks of their behaviour. Perhaps all this "collateral damage" would be justified if the drug market was being reduced. The inconvenient truth is, it is not. ........(more)
The complete piece is at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/11/drugs-policy-un