Drug Policy

U.N. Drug Policy Meeting's Banal Consensus Masks Encouraging Disagreements

"Putting people first" might mean legalizing drugs, or it might mean beheading drug dealers.

|

UNODC

The Global Commission on Drug Policy, which includes statesmen such as former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, former U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz, and the former presidents of several Latin American countries, is disappointed by the outcome of the U.N. General Assembly special session (UNGASS) on "the world drug problem," which ended yesterday. Annan et al. favor "diverse experiments in legally regulating markets in currently illicit drugs" as well as decriminalization of possession for personal use á la Portugal. Not surprisingly, the unreconstructed drug warriors who run countries such as Russia, China, Iran, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia are not keen on any of that. Most of them are not even ready to stop executing drug offenders. It is nevertheless possible to detect rays of hope in both the banal consensus that was reached and the disagreements that preceded it.

The theme of the last UNGASS on drug policy, which was held 18 years ago, was "A Drug-Free World: We Can Do It." If your reaction to that slogan is "no, we can't, and we shouldn't try," you may be slightly encouraged by the more modest aim of this week's meeting: "promoting a society free of drug abuse." Everyone can get on board with that, because abuse is bad by definition. Once you start to define abuse and talk in more detail about how it should be curtailed, of course, the consensus falls apart. But the shift from creating "a drug-free world," a goal that is neither desirable nor achievable, to reducing drug abuse strikes me as an improvement.

The U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) says the UNGASS participants "delivered a clear message: that they care about the world drug problem, and specifically about the people most affected by this problem." The Saudis are nodding along: We kill because we care.

You may wonder: It took three days to come up with a general expression of sympathy? Actually, it took a couple of years

The UNODC adds that "more than ever before, the global consensus recognizes that the solution to the world drug problem lies in a more humane, public-health oriented, human rights compliant, evidence-based approach that addresses this issue in all its complexity." As UNODC Executive Director Yury Fedotov explains, it's all about "putting people first." Reformers like to hear those phrases, but they are so vague that they can be used to justify any policy. Remember: This consensus includes China and Saudi Arabia.

Still, the disagreement masked by the false UNGASS consensus is a positive development. The meeting was called at the behest of Latin American countries that long to give up the bloody burden of helping the U.S. government enforce its pharmacological prejudices. Internally, their governments are moving toward decriminalization of drug possession and legalization of marijuana for medical or general use. Externally, they would like to renegotiate a raw deal in which they suffer from shocking violence and corruption so that U.S. officials can pretend they are stopping taboo substances from entering American bloodstreams.

While our government is not quite ready to give up that arrangement, its insistence on prohibitionist purity has been tempered by the fact that marijuana is now legal for recreational use in four states and the nation's capital. The U.S., which not so long ago was threatening to shut down the border with Canada if our neighbor to the north dared to decriminalize marijuana possession, now supports a flexible reading of international drug control treaties that allows a wide variety of policies, ranging from "very strict drug approaches" (like this?) to legalizing "entire categories of drugs."

As William Brownfield, the top drug warrior at the State Department, explained in 2014, "I would have to take that position. How could I, a representative of the government of the United States of America, be intolerant of a government that permits any experimentation with legalization of marijuana if two of the 50 states of the United States of America have chosen to walk down that road?" Talking to reporters last month, Brownfield was still emphasizing "the inherent discretion within those [drug control] conventions" and "tolerance for governments exploring their own national policies." At least some of them are bound to stumble into something better than the status quo.

NEXT: Obama Again Breaks Promise to Call Armenian Genocide a 'Genocide'; Hillary Right Behind Him

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A thousand years from now, children will read about the barbaric, stunted lives humans suffered in 2016. Like the Dark Ages.

    1. “People in that era spent an inordinate amount of time throwing people in prison for possession of chemicals and arguing about who could get married or go to the bathroom.”

  2. The UNODC adds that “more than ever before, the global consensus recognizes that the solution to the world drug problem lies in a more humane, public-health oriented, human rights compliant, evidence-based approach that addresses this issue in all its complexity.”

    How much will it cost to keep the commies and the fundamentalists in consensus on this?

    1. Commies and fundamentalists are already in consensus about drug policy, which ought to tell each of them something about that policy, but it won’t.

      1. Real fundamentalists know that this prohibition is not supported by their Bible. Your consensus idea seems to be a generalization that is not, truly, 100% representative of the group. There are many Christian groups that see the cruelty of continued prohibition. It worked so well with alcohol. In fact, the smoking of cannabis was determined to be a sin, by some 14h century Pope! As one of those nasty (fundamentalist) people, I see the continued prohibitionist stance refuses to see that the addiction rate is about the same as it was at the beginning of the 20th century. If there are fewer addicts, (as it was about 1.5% at the turn of the 20th century) I would say it is due to the fact that people know the destructive powers of these drugs, and choose not to put themselves through that. Until everyone learns that forgiveness is the way to go, the same insanity will continue. Pity them that have been hooked by anything. Treat it as a medical problem, showing them compassion. In no way can the execution of people for it, as they do in China and Saudi Arabia, be acceptable. Really!? WWJD?! He never threw anyone under the bus!

  3. Do we really need agreement from Saudi Arabia on this?

    1. If it weren’t for pointless international conferences, what would poli sci students do for work?

  4. Ted Cruz is making a “retail stop” in Allentown this evening at a diner. I kind of want to go to see if I can criticize him to his face for killing the criminal justice reform bill. Any guesses on whether I’d have an opportunity to do so?

    1. Bring a baby along. You’ll be able to get pretty close. Nobody ever stops a man with a baby.

      1. Hmm…what about a two-year-old? A really cute two-year-old, obviously.

    2. Won’t know unless you try, hoss.

  5. So a pointless international conference which has no binding authority on any of its participants accomplished nothing. Shocking.

  6. “Putting people first” could also mean “feet-first”, so there’s that.

      1. N… no way, man! [dodges subpoena]

  7. AP publishes groundbreaking piece revealing for the first time what everybody already knew:

    The AP’s review of federal records, regulatory filings and correspondence showed that almost all the 82 corporations, trade associations and other groups that paid for or sponsored Clinton’s speeches have actively sought to sway the government ? lobbying, bidding for contracts, commenting on federal policy and in some cases contacting State Department officials or Clinton herself during her tenure as secretary of state.

  8. “promoting a society free of drug abuse.”

    I, for one, would NEVER abuse drugs. No, i treat drugs with great kindness and respect.

    1. As if they will ever look at stopping alcohol abuse, by putting “users” in prison! It is only an attack on certain drugs!

  9. William . I can see what your saying… Raymond `s article is surprising, last week I bought a top of the range Acura from making $4608 this-past/month and-a little over, $10,000 this past month . with-out any question its the easiest work I’ve ever had . I began this five months/ago and almost straight away startad bringin in minimum $82 per-hr
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.fox-88.com

  10. “Putting people first” might mean legalizing drugs, or it might mean beheading drug dealers.”

    The former means less power, the latter more.

    We’re going with the latter.

  11. I vote for beheadings!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.