The âwar on drugsâ is not a policy, but an ideology â a dogma insensitive to the facts, and uncaring of the consequences. On the evidence, no global initiative has failed as emphatically: prohibitionist measures have not reduced the drug supply, but created instead a lucrative industry in the provision of narcotics by gangs and cartels. (In 2016, illegal drugs are literally worth more than their weight in gold). The drug war has punished the most vulnerable in society: the poor; racial and ethnic minorities; and, increasingly, women. It is a world war â from the poppy fields of Afghanistan to the streets of Chicago â with a terrible human toll: in Latin America alone, deaths from the drug war exceed that of the conflict in Syria.
At the request of three Latin American nations â Mexico, Colombia, and Guatemala â the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on the world drug problem was brought forward from 2019 to 2016. But this sense of urgency was not reflected in the preparatory meeting in Vienna in March, where the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) published an âoutcome documentâ that broadly maintains the status quo â a position âalmost entirely disconnected from realityâ, according to Ann Fordham of the International Drug Policy Consortium. Negotiations in Vienna followed a pattern familiar to even casual observers of the UN: tense final hours of dispute resolution, followed by a sense of anticlimax upon publication, with a statement of consensus that sacrifices reform in the name of unity. Statements that challenged the failings of the current system were either vetoed or watered down.
The drafting of the document was a profoundly undemocratic process.
The drafting of the document was a profoundly undemocratic process â both unrepresentative and lacking transparency. Over 100 member states, most from the global south, played no role at all in the negotiations, despite being legally bound by international treaties to implement policies that disproportionately impact them. They will not have an opportunity to debate or redraft, because the document will be signed at the start of the Special Session in New York on Tuesday. Seasoned observers seemed demoralised, and were almost universal in their condemnation. Steve Rolles of the Transform Drug Policy Foundation described the document as âa profound betrayal for the many stakeholders across the world who were promised real dialogueâ.
How will this lack of democracy impact on the outcome of UNGASS?
âIn diplomatic parlance, Vienna rather than New York will ruleâ, predicts former president of Mexico, Ernesto Zedillo â meaning that an agreement negotiated behind closed doors will trump the demand for reform. Mexico is on the front line of the drug war, and its citizens can verify that hardline policies have only entrenched corruption, violence and intimidation, by both state and non-state actors. Mexico led the charge for the CND to acknowledge the socio-economic issues that drive cultivation, production and trafficking, but geography and geopolitics limit its autonomy, and experimentation is stymied by a strict international legal framework that offers little flexibility for the piloting of a regulated market. (Decriminalisation of demand must go hand in hand with regulation of supply, if not to enhance the power of traffickers).
