Drug policy is a toxic issue for politicians, one that they usually want to avoid for fear of the political backlash. To highlight the dilemma between politics and policy in this field, drug policy expert Sanho Tree often quotes Jean-Claude Juncker on economic liberalisation: 'We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it'. In other words, calling for change often means political suicide.

And yet the past 12 months have seen a clear shift in the debate. Building on calls for change from former political leaders, including Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, Cesar Gaviria of Colombia and Ruth Dreifuss of Switzerland, the Global Commission on Drug Policy published its first report in June 2011, condemning the so-called 'war on drugs' and exposing its failures.

In the past few months, a number of leaders have begun to join the movement questioning the wisdom of the existing policy regime. President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia used the Summit of the Americas, held in his country in April, to call for a reassessment of current counter-narcotics strategies and an examination of alternative options.

Ken Clarke, the British Justice Secretary, recently joined the list of serving politicians making comments on drug policy previously only heard from those safely in retirement. Speaking to the Home Affairs Select Committee on drugs policy in early July he said: 'We have been engaged in a war against drugs for 30 years. We're plainly losing it. We have not achieved very much progress. The same problems come round and round ... We are all disappointed by the fact that far from making progress it could be argued we are going backwards at times.' Despite this perceptible shift in the debate, questions remain: what shape will such change take, and how can such a complex challenge be made less politically toxic for policy-makers around the world?

The 'war on drugs' was initiated in 1971 when President Nixon identified drug abuse as 'America's public enemy No 1' and called for 'a new, all-out offensive' to 'fight and defeat this enemy'. At the international level, this approach, heavily focused on the use of law enforcement and sanctions, was consolidated by three United Nations conventions in 1961, 1971 and 1988.

The narrow focus on crop eradication and criminalization of consumption and low-level drug dealing has meant that policy has failed to take into account wider socio-economic and health factors, inadvertently decreasing security.

In addition to the often-cited fact that more than 55,000 people have been killed in the past six years from drug-related violence in Mexico after a military-led policy shift, there is compelling evidence at all levels of the supply chain -- production, transit and consumption -- that the existing approach is inadequate.

Relative 'successes' in crop eradication in Colombia have only shifted the production of coca back to Peru and Bolivia. In terms of the transportation of drugs, policing efforts in Latin America have led to an increase in drug trafficking through West Africa, exploiting weaknesses in local governance and fuelling insecurity, corruption and organised crime in the region. And yet the average price of cocaine available on the streets of the United States is, in real terms, 74 per cent less today than it was 30 years ago, while cocaine consumption in Britain has doubled over the past decade.

Alarmingly, drug consumption has also diversified significantly: new drugs were detected at the rate of around one a week in the European Union in 2011, and prescription drug abuse is a worsening challenge governments simply cannot cope with under the current national and international laws.

Jailing drug users doesn't work

Far from reducing the problem, existing policy has brought unintended consequences for people around the world.

Beyond the war on drugs, the emphasis on the punishment of low-level drug users in most countries has not reduced organized crime and has aggravated social and economic exclusion as well as discrimination. The incarceration rates in the United States serve as a telling illustration. The US holds 5 per cent of the world's population yet 25 per cent of the world's prisoners. Around half the people held in federal jails are serving sentences for drug-related offences. African- Americans are particularly targeted as they account for 13 per cent of the US population and 14 per cent of drug users, but make up 32 per cent of those arrested for drug offences and 60 per cent of those ultimately jailed.

Additionally, imprisoning low-ranking drug dealers is a costly strategy: A $200 transaction which leads to a three-year sentence can cost the US taxpayer $100,000. But the real hidden costs lie in the untapped potential of a young low-level drug offender whose life chances are blighted by a criminal record.

From recognition to action

Recognising that the current drug control regime has failed is only the start of defining where the policy vision has gone wrong. Five facts must be acknowledged.

… It's not just about drugs.

At a recent conference at Chatham House, the concluding address included the remark: 'I know the discussions today are under the Chatham House rule but please do quote me on this: I, Professor Keith Humphreys, adviser to the White House and Whitehall, am a drug user ... I drink alcohol, used to smoke tobacco and will smoke again when my twins go to college'. A number of drugs are less harmful and less addictive than tobacco and alcohol, yet consumers of almost all drugs face tough penalties, which fails to address the nuances between different substances. More importantly, the rigidity of the current strategy fails effectively to tackle the challenge of already regulated drugs such as prescription medicine and legal highs.

… It's not just about one country.

The challenge of drug trafficking is a global one, as seen by the flows of cocaine from Colombia or heroin from Afghanistan to Europe. Therefore, while isolated interdiction approaches at a local, national or regional level can help, similar problems of production or trafficking can emerge or increase in other countries as a result.

… It's not just about trafficking one commodity.

Although the global drug market is estimated to be the third biggest market in the world -- after oil and arms -- at an annual value of $320 billion, drug trafficking only represents 20 per cent of the revenues of organized crime. For a large number of countries and organizations, drugs are just a commodity and a source of revenue among many others.

… It's not just about one sector.

The drugs challenge involves a number of policy responsibilities including in public health, education, security, defence, economics and finance, and justice. Far from being an isolated issue, drugs are a societal one that must be considered in conjunction with other relevant factors, a requirement often omitted or ignored for the sake of simplicity in public policy.

… It's not just about the symptoms, but the causes.

As the Mexican journalist Alma Guillermoprieto has argued: 'There will always be alcoholics, heavy smokers and drug addicts, but a society that provides for the welfare of its citizens is likely to produce fewer of them'. A strategy tackling only the symptoms of the problem, namely drug addiction or drug-related violence, can produce short-term political gains, but is doomed to fail in the long-run if it does not strive to address the personal, societal, economic or institutional factors that created or aggravated the problem.

Balancing harms

In his essay On Liberty published in 1859, John Stuart Mill wrote: 'The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant'. Recent developments in the drug policy debate have called for a reassessment of current policies, and future changes should be informed by a guiding principle: the balance of harm. In other words, policy-makers should assess -- and frequently reassess -- the harm or damage created by drug policies. They must ask the question: is the harm, even if unintended, caused by a policy choice not in fact greater than the harm caused by the drugs themselves? Policy must be proportionate to the problem.

From this often ignored moral principle follow two essential policy principles. Firstly, governments should have a clear understanding of what the policy objectives are. Afghanistan is an illustration in point: the counter-narcotics policies in place since 2001 that focus on crop eradication have never had a clear end goal. Were they implemented to reduce the flow of heroin to the streets of Britain, as suggested by Tony Blair in October 2001? Or was it to reduce funding to Al Qaeda, the Taliban and insurgents? Or was it part of the strategy to win the 'hearts and minds' of the Afghan population? Although the production of opium in Afghanistan fell sharply in 2001 due to the beginning of the military operations, it increased again dramatically from 2002 onwards, with average production even surpassing 1990s levels.

Secondly, once targets are established, a clear understanding of how to measure the impact of the policy is essential. The existing metrics of policy success are misleading. Focusing on statistics such as the numbers of arrests and drugs seized ignores the complexity of the issue. Although those numbers might look promising, other more essential indicators will show a different picture, such as levels of consumption for other addictive substances -- tobacco, alcohol and prescription drugs -- the size of organized crime groups, drug-related violence, and the rate of drugrelated HIV and other diseases.

Governments must also improve their ability to identify different levels of correlation and to distinguish them from causality. Failing to understand which set of factors led to an effect is bad for future decision-making. A thorough scientific assessment of the impact of policy across relevant sectors and countries is indispensable for such a global and interconnected issue.

Short-term drawbacks and discomforts will be inevitable when changing policy, but continuing along the current course is unsustainable. The drugs challenge is a global one and the debate around it is evolving at an unprecedented rate. Yet political opposition, public uncertainty and national and international obstacles remain.

On such a difficult issue, decision-making processes will require evidence, a lot of which is already available, as well as political courage and leadership to shape and lead public opinion. A lone international regime will find it hard to unify the diverse realities across the world. And the heterogeneity of the international community and unique characteristics of each country means there can be no panacea.

A new set of international guidelines is needed, informed by shared values and a proportionate sense of harms and response. The first step towards this is finding the appropriate space and political cover for politicians to give the issue the attention and significance it deserves without fear of subsequently facing the political wilderness.

 

 

(c) 2012 Tribune Media Services, Inc.