Doward reports: "A historic meeting of Latin America's leaders, to be attended by Barack Obama, will hear serving heads of state admit that the war on drugs has been a failure and that alternatives to prohibition must now be found."
Guatemala's President Otto Perez Molina believes a new approach to Latin America's war on drugs is urgently needed. (photo: Johan Ordonez/AFP/Getty Images)
'War on Drugs' Has Failed, Say Latin American Leaders
08 April 12
Watershed summit will admit that prohibition has failed, and call for more nuanced and liberalised tactics.
historic meeting of Latin America's leaders, to be attended by Barack Obama, will hear serving heads of state admit that the war on drugs has been a failure and that alternatives to prohibition must now be found.
The Summit of the Americas, to be held in Cartagena, Colombia is being seen by foreign policy experts as a watershed moment in the redrafting of global drugs policy in favour of a more nuanced and liberalised approach.
Otto Pérez Molina, the president of Guatemala, who as former head of his country's military intelligence service experienced the power of drug cartels at close hand, is pushing his fellow Latin American leaders to use the summit to endorse a new regional security plan that would see an end to prohibition. In the Observer, Pérez Molina writes: "The prohibition paradigm that inspires mainstream global drug policy today is based on a false premise: that global drug markets can be eradicated."
Pérez Molina concedes that moving beyond prohibition is problematic. "To suggest liberalisation – allowing consumption, production and trafficking of drugs without any restriction whatsoever – would be, in my opinion, profoundly irresponsible. Even more, it is an absurd proposition. If we accept regulations for alcoholic drinks and tobacco consumption and production, why should we allow drugs to be consumed and produced without any restrictions?"
He insists, however, that prohibition has failed and an alternative system must be found. "Our proposal as the Guatemalan government is to abandon any ideological consideration regarding drug policy (whether prohibition or liberalisation) and to foster a global intergovernmental dialogue based on a realistic approach to drug regulation. Drug consumption, production and trafficking should be subject to global regulations, which means that drug consumption and production should be legalised, but within certain limits and conditions."
The decision by Pérez Molina to speak out is seen as highly significant and not without political risk. Polls suggest the vast majority of Guatemalans oppose decriminalisation, but Pérez Molina's comments are seen by many as helping to usher in a new era of debate. They will be studied closely by foreign policy experts who detect that Latin American leaders are shifting their stance on prohibition following decades of drugs wars that have left hundreds of thousands dead.
Mexico's president, Felipe Calderón, has called for a national debate on the issue. Last year Juan Manuel Santos, Colombia's president, told the Observer that if legalising drugs curtailed the power of organised criminal gangs who had thrived during prohibition, "and the world thinks that's the solution, I will welcome it".
One diplomat closely involved with the summit described the event as historic, saying it would be the first time for 40 years that leaders had met to have an open discussion on drugs. "This is the chance to look at this matter with new eyes," he said.
Latin America's increasing hostility towards prohibition makes Obama's attendance at the summit potentially difficult. The Obama administration, keen not to hand ammunition to its opponents during an election year, will not want to be seen as softening its support for prohibition. However, it is seen as significant that the US vice-president, Joe Biden, has acknowledged that the debate about legalising drugs is now legitimate.
Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former president of Brazil and chairman of the global commission on drug policy, has said it is time for "an open debate on more humane and efficient drug policies", a view shared by George Shultz, the former US secretary of state, and former president Jimmy Carter.
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
A note of caution regarding our comment sections:
For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.
We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.
It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.
We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.
It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.
Adapt and overcome.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
Indeed, and then of course the private correctional facilities who stand to lose their cheap labor.
Land of the free: 5% world population; 25% world prison population - with a huge proportion for non-violent drug offenses.
We might as well send back the Statue of Liberty to France.
This is a major (inaccurate) overstatement. Lors of prosecutors and former prosecutors (myself included) realize that the drug laws as they currently exist are not helping our country and as enforced are racially and socially biased. (Does 'stop and frisk' occur inside multimillion dollar condos on NY's upper east/west side?) Can anyone explain why whites account for the majority of marijuana users, but only a fraction of the incarcerated population (on marijuana charges)? There are those in law enforcement who see the problem. It is the legislators who must act to change the laws and that is made problematic by who they rely on for campaign financing... big Pharma, Private corrections industry, etc.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2109777,00.html
to see how the US has many more times the prisoners of ANY other country in the world. Shocking figures. But groups that influence our elections, such as ALEC, keep all politicians if fear of being labeled 'soft on crime'. You would think our country would have learned the lesson from prohibition, but facts seem to make little difference in these highly emotional matters.
Finally some logic! Bravo1
Stopping prohibition of drugs would solve so, so many problems, including that pushers wouldn't be trying to get kids hooked on anything. Those addicted could be openly treated maybe even get off of drugs.
LIke many have mentioned, the money being made on things remaining the way they are, have powerful support mostly likely in many governments.
I very much agree with you about the Wars on something. They are ideologically driven and are part of the Bread and Circuses of Wash. D.C. More recently Pat Robertson has said that legalization would be the best answer.
Should prohibition continue then Tobacco and Alcohol would have to be revisited. The most recent studies have shown that the real doorway to drug use is not Marijuana but Alcohol and Tobacco.
Ah - what to do, what to do...
RSS feed for comments to this post