ENCOD BULLETIN ON DRUG POLICIES IN EUROPE

ENCOD BULLETIN ON DRUG POLICIES IN EUROPE

NR. 64 JUNE 2010

WOULD LEGALISATION HARM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES?

Last March, during the CND meeting in Vienna, the head of the United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Antonio Maria Costa warned
that developing countries could face a "health disaster if wealthy
countries fail to control drugs”.

Costa pointed to a growing drug problem in impoverished nations. He also
remarked that the "developing world – already struggling to deal with
health, education and unemployment problems – lacks the treatment
facilities and law enforcement to control narcotics". And he continued:
"Poor addicts– and there are millions of them– have been pushed to the
margins of society, deprived of medical attention, often exposed to
conditions, including imprisonment, that exacerbate their illness’.

Costa also seemed to have already found the ones to blame for this
fatidic destiny: "This seems to have been forgotten by people in rich
countries calling for loosening of drug controls," and he concludes:
"Why condemn the Third World, already ravaged by so many tragedies, to
the neo-colonialism of drug dependence?"

Mr. Costa is speaking to us from an imagined moral high ground, but in
fact advocating the continuation of the harmful policies that are the
main cause of the misery that he tries to make his opponents feel guilty
about.


It is true that developing countries that have important connections
with the illegal drug market, as producers or as trade routes, have been
struggling with drug related problems for decades and it is also true
that many of them have increasing rates of drug consumption. It is also
quite obvious that developing countries are expected to have less
resources to adequately address drug addiction, and have more
aggravating circumstances then developed nations (urbanization, poverty,
migration, educational deficits, income inequalities...).

But let’s make one thing clear here: what was exactly the role of
“neo-colonialists”or “rich countries” in this “disaster”? Certainly it
was not the “loosening of drug controls”. Let’s forget the rhetoric and
look at the facts.

The so-called War on Drugs, fiercely pursued by rich nations led by the
US, was forcefully imposed to developing nations, and is becoming
tougher and tougher each day. It is widely acknowledged now, and even
admitted by UNODC, that this policy is also systematically generating
immense “unintended consequences” such as a criminal market,
displacement of routes, markets and substances, and the marginalization
of users. Despite strong indications of failure of this policy,
organizations such as UNODC are still encouraging countries to join
international drug control efforts.

Having considered the efficacy of the current drug “control" system then
how can Costa call for more of the same? How can he claim that this
would help developing nations to escape from “drug dependence tragedy”?
How exactly can more drug prohibition and counter-drug tactics save poor
countries from a “health disaster”?


One thing that probably is worrying Mr Costa is the mythological concept
that the cost of drug use to the individual and to the society
infinitely outweighs the cost of enforcing prohibition. According to
this concept any effort to reduce the availability of drugs is
justifiable. However, evidence suggests that the costs of prohibition
are, in fact, very high, and evidence on the efficacy of prohibition to
reduce drug use is, at best, disappointing.

Even if we admit that the costs of drug use are in fact very high, we
can not forget the role that prohibition plays in that. It is certain
that criminalization of drugs is behind the majority of health and
social problems related to drug use and is also an important factor for
the perpetuation of poverty, inequalities, corruption, poor governance
and underdevelopment of many nations.

Criminalization increases the negative effects of drug use

1. Prohibition attracts drug traffickers and drug consumption to
countries in which drug consumption would otherwise not be prevalent.
The costs of distributing drugs inside transit countries is lower, given
that traffickers already must build up networks of collaborators to move
the drugs through. Even though transit countries are poorer, and drug
prices therefore much lower, low marginal costs make these markets
highly lucrative. The fact that drug traffickers pay local collaborators
in drugs, may explain part of the rise in consumption in transit countries.

2. Illegality undermines the usual vehicles of quality control upon
which legal markets rely. In this context, overdoses due to uncertain
strength and poisoning due to adulteration are both certain to be more
frequent.

3. Criminalization of drugs and drug use impedes efforts to treat drug
addiction and to prevent the spread of HIV among drug users. Since
consumption is an illegal activity in most developing countries and,
because of that, drug use tends to take place under less than ideal
conditions, the transmission of contagious diseases and overdoses
becomes more likely. Access to health care and harm reduction may lessen
these problems, but users are still reluctant to take advantage of these
when consumption is criminalized and profoundly stigmatized.


Criminalization perpetuates corruption, poverty and inequality.

1. The war against drugs increases the cost of drugs, making drug
production and sale more profitable and therefore more attractive -
particularly to those living in poverty. More risks, more profits, and
even more poor people being recruited to this illegal activity.

2. To achieve and maintain profit goals, traffickers implement
strategies to respond to the "challenges" of confronting the state,
which include corruption of important officials and policemen and
violence against the state and other competing groups. Corruption
jeopardizes democratic stability and is a serious obstacle to
guaranteeing a countrys’ governablility and national security.

3. An estimated 4 million people depend on income derived from the
cultivation of illegal drug crops. In many countries, efforts to wipe
out drug cultivation and supply have a high cost to human welfare and
lives. For farmers there are few economic incentives for growing
alternatives to drug crops. Moreover, a major part of the profits end up
in the hands of those who control the later stages of the distribution
process (retailers in developed countries).


4. Two other well-known costs of prohibition are the lives lost due to
prohibition-induced violence and the productivity losses due to
incarceration. The majority of people incarcerated in Brazil due to drug
related crime are uneducated, poor, black young men, who where caught
selling small amounts of drugs. More people die of drug trafficking
related violence then of drug-related diseases or overdose, especially
in developing countries.

In summary, despite the research and analyses made so far, social and
individual costs of drug use, and the effects of prohibition on
consumption are uncertain. Some will argue that it is likely that the
relaxation of prohibition would lead to an increase in drug consumption.
However, there is much evidence (see for instance the EC Report by
Reuter and Trautmann) that the influence of repressive policies on
levels of drug use is marginal. In addition, the nature of the
“legalization” regime against which prohibition is being compared is not
clear. But if drug trade can be regulated and resources diverted to
other policies, such as treatment and education, with proven efficacy in
reducing addiction and problematic use, it is likely that the types of
drug use that impose the largest costs could be reduced.

Negative health and social consequences related to prohibition should be
correctly put in the equation when the “tragedy of drug dependence” is
weighed.

By: Marisa Felicissimo (with the help of Peter Webster)


irra