If we're lucky, our grandchildren will recall the global war on drugs of the late 20th and early 21st century as some bizarre mania to which only past generations could succumb.
The world's drug problems are far more severe today than they were a century ago. Not that drug use has increased fantastically -- after all, huge quantities of alcohol, opium and other drugs were consumed back then. The real problem is that today's drug control policies foster more harm than good -- indeed, they probably cause more overall harm than drug abuse itself.
ILLUSTRATION: YU SHA
Like alcohol prohibition in the US during the 1920s and early 1930s, global drug prohibition has failed to reduce drug abuse even as it generates extraordinary levels of crime, violence, corruption and disease.
In 1998, the UN estimated the total value of the illicit drug trade at US$400 billion, or 7 percent of global trade. Critics say the figure is only half that -- still a remarkable sum.
Colombia today is far worse than Chicago under Al Capone. So, too, are other Latin American, Caribbean and Asian countries. Drug prohibition effectively imposes a tax on the global trade in illicit drugs that is enforced by governments and collected by those willing to violate the laws. No other set of laws produces so much revenue for criminals, terrorists and corrupt officials. No other laws generate so much corruption or such violence; and no other set of laws contributes so much to the spread of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis and other diseases.
The war on drugs persists in part because of two myths. The first assumes that human beings are better off "drug free" and that all societies should strive to be drug free. But few -- if any -- drug-free societies ever existed.
The second myth presumes that prohibition reduces the harm associated with drugs. Global markets in cannabis, opium and coca products are basically similar to other global commodities markets, yet global drug-control policies operate on the assumption that the drug markets bear more in common with smallpox and other infectious diseases for which there is no demand.
Governments can act unilaterally and multilaterally to regulate commodity markets, but it is a mistake to perceive prohibition as the ultimate or maximum form of regulation. Prohibition in fact repre-sents the abdication of regulation. Whatever is not suppressed is effectively unregulated, except by criminal organizations.
Around the world, drug-law violations account for the largest share of the roughly 8 million people incarcerated in jails and prisons. In 1980, 50,000 people were incarcerated in the US for drug-law violations. Today, the total approaches 500,000, with a few hundred thousand more locked up on other prohibition-related offenses. That total represents almost 10 percent of all the world's inmates.
Throughout the developing world, peasants involved in producing opium, coca and cannabis are arrested, sometimes beaten, and often extorted by government agents enforcing drug laws. In Bolivia and Peru, coca was integrated into society. The same was true of opium in Asia. Prohibitions imposed by the US and other governments decimated traditions that often "domesticated" these drugs so as to reduce their harm, while simultaneously encouraging transitions to refined drugs like heroin and cocaine. US law en-forcement and intelligence agencies routinely provide information to other governments knowing that it will be used not just to arrest but to torture those they identify.
All these consequences can be defined as human-rights abuses. But the core human rights issue is different -- the notion that people should not be punished for what they put into their bodies. That right of sovereignty over one's mind and body -- which also incorporates the right not to be forced to take drugs against one's will -- repre-sents in some respects the most fundamental of all rights.
Heroin users are denied the most effective medication available to remedy their addiction, ie, methadone. People unable or unwilling to stop injecting drugs are denied access to sterile syringes, with
devastating consequences. Millions who smoke marijuana or consume other psychoactive drugs are harmed far more by state action than by drug use.
More and more voices are calling for a systematic review and revision of the international anti-drug conventions that sustain today's policies. Some emphasize the anti-scientific and otherwise illegitimate basis for including cannabis and coca in the conventions. Others point to the contradictions between anti-drug conventions and international human-rights conventions. Others note that the anti-drug
conventions exacerbate the problems they seek to ameliorate.
A new global drug control regime is needed. It must reject the foolish rhetoric of creating "a drug-free world" and acknowledge that the true challenge is learning to live with drugs so that they cause the least harm. An effective strategy needs to establish realistic objectives and criteria for evaluating success or failure, and these criteria must focus on reducing the death, disease, crime and suffering associated with both drug use and drug policies. It also must embrace the principle that people should not be punished for what they put into their bodies, but only for the harm they do others. Those are the key elements of a more ethical and effective drug control regime than the one that haunts today's world.
Ethan Nadelmann is the founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, which promotes alternatives to the global war on drugs, and is the author of Cops Across Borders: The Internationalization of US Criminal Law Enforcement.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing