Uruguay Marijuana Bill Portends New Era in Drug Policy
By Claudia Hofmann, Benoît Gomis, on
The move sends a clear message that the existing drug prohibition regime is no longer adequate to address contemporary drug problems. Uruguay’s unprecedented initiative followed a groundbreaking report by the Organization of American States (OAS) that included a devastating assessment of the drug prohibition regime and the “war on drugs,” legitimizing a regional rethink of drug policy. The initiative is also an important milestone ahead of the U.N. General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on the world drug problem, which is set to take place in 2016.
The rationale behind Uruguay’s bill is that by pushing drug traffickers out of the business of marijuana sales, the measure will prevent increasing violence over turf and trafficking routes. At the same time, by providing products of greater quality as well as better access to medical care, the government will decrease the danger to the health of users and addicts.
But marijuana regulation in Uruguay is likely to create international tensions. First, the new legislation would contravene the international regime that imposes a comprehensive ban on narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The International Narcotics Control Board has already confirmed that Uruguay would be in breach of international conventions should it enact the bill. Second, individual states that support the prohibition policy as the most effective in reducing addiction and violence will perceive Uruguay’s new approach as a danger to their security and decrease their aid packages. For instance, in 2009 Bolivia lost its U.S. drug certification, required for receiving U.S. aid and loan guarantees, when La Paz attempted to amend the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.
However, the fact that two U.S. states—Colorado and Washington—voted to legalize marijuana in November 2012 makes it very difficult for the U.S. federal government to publicly oppose policy developments toward regulation in Uruguay. It also weakens Washington’s insistence on the respect of international conventions, as the U.S. is arguably in breach of them itself. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder recently announced a series of measures to reduce the degree of criminalization of low-level offenders in the U.S. in an attempt to address these domestic and regional tensions.
With the referendums in Colorado and Washington, the publication of the OAS report, the regulation bill in Uruguay and growing calls for marijuana regulation in Mexico City led by former Presidents Ernesto Zedillo and Vicente Fox, the drug policy taboo of legalization and regulation has clearly been broken. Three key challenges remain, however, to making these developments sustainable ahead of the 2016 UNGASS.
The first is a lack of strong leadership on the issue in Latin America. There is a consensus across the region that the current situation, marked by significant drug-related violence and organized crime, is no longer sustainable and that change is needed. However, disagreements persist as to what reform might look like and who should champion it. Given that populations across the region remain largely opposed to more-liberal drug policies, strong leadership is needed to convince them as well as governments of the urgency of reform. Colombia was at the forefront of the drug policy debate a year ago, pressing for a comprehensive reassessment at the Sixth Summit of the Americas in April 2012, which led to the previously mentioned OAS review. However, facing other urgent issues, including the peace process with the guerilla groups the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN), and elections in the near future, Bogota has taken a step back in recent months. Similarly, the Mexican government is in the middle of a series of ambitious reforms and is focusing its diplomatic efforts with the U.S. on immigration. Despite its small size and relative lack of influence in regional affairs, Guatemala seems to be the only country in a good position to lead the debate.
Second, a number of more orthodox players on the international scene are likely to challenge efforts to review the conventions and obstruct any policy experimentation. Strong reactions can be expected from China and Russia, who have taken a rigid stance on the issue. Russia in particular has been expressing concerns over flows of drugs from Afghanistan following the International Security Assistance Force withdrawal in 2014 and is pushing for harsher counternarcotics policies; Moscow has also financed a series of plans that provided antinarcotics support to a number of trouble spots in its backyard as well as to Central American countries. Moreover, numerous countries in Asia and Africa continue to advocate zero-tolerance policies for drug offenses.
Third, Europe has been reluctant to engage in this drug policy debate. U.K. Minister for Crime Prevention Jeremy Browne recently declared that the decrease in cocaine consumption in the U.K. showed that existing prohibitionist policies were working. This argument fails to recognize the international and interconnected nature of the drug problem, and therefore the larger responsibility of the British and other European governments. Drugs consumed in the U.K. are often produced in and transited through foreign countries, generating organized crime and violence along the way. In addition, the use of other drugs including legal highs, over-the-counter medicine and prescription medication has increased in the U.K. In other European countries, budgetary pressures and a rise in social conservatism may be stymying some of the progress made with successful liberal policies during the past two decades, for example in Portugal.
Developments in Latin America are leading to an open and constructive debate on issues that have been too often considered taboo. When presenting the OAS’ “Report on the Drug Problem in the Americas,” Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza noted that “this is not a conclusion but only the beginning of a long-awaited discussion.” Despite persistent challenges, Uruguay has clearly pushed the drug policy debate into a new era, which the U.S., Europe and others should no longer ignore.
Dr. Claudia Hofmann is an associate fellow at the International Security Research Department of Chatham House. She is director of the Masters in International Service program at American University, where she works on transnational organized crime and nonstate armed groups as a challenge to foreign and security policy. She previously worked at the Center for Transatlantic Relations at the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS, Johns Hopkins University), the United States Institute of Peace and the German Institute for International and Security Affairs.
Benoît Gomis is a research analyst at the International Security Research Department of Chatham House, where he works on drugs and organized crime, counterterrorism, and Franco-British defense and security cooperation. He previously worked at the French Ministry of Defense and NATO Parliamentary Assembly
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario