Post
by Dr Alex Wodak, AM
That was the year that was: global drug law
reform in 2012
In 1912 the International Opium Conference
met in The Hague. This meeting marked
the beginning of the international drug control system which still prevails. But
one hundred years after the birth of this system, 2012 was a watershed year for
global drug law reform. It seemed to mark the beginning of the end of global
drug prohibition. The case for global drug prohibition is now beginning to
collapse. Unprecedented pressure is being applied in an increasing number of
countries.
For the first time ever in the history of
the international drug treaties, a country withdrew from a drug treaty. Despite
opposition from the USA and some other countries, Bolivia announced its
intention to withdraw from the 1961 Single Convention on 30 June 2011. The withdrawal
came into effect on 1 January 2012. But Bolivia is re-acceding to the Single
Convention minus some sections of the treaty it objects to. Bolivia’s reservation concerns
the ban on coca leaf and its traditional uses. Bolivia had earlier attempted
unsuccessfully to delete the Single Convention’s obligation that ‘coca leaf
chewing must be abolished’ (Article 49). Bolivia’s new constitution in 2009
acknowledged respect for chewing coca leaf as part of its national patrimony.
Thus Bolivia’s commitment to the Single convention and its national
constitution were irreconcilable. Bolivia’s proposal to re-accede was opposed
by a number of countries, including the United States. Bolivia will still be bound
to not export coca leaf after the process of re-acceding has been completed.
The inclusion of references to coca leaf
was controversial when the Single Convention was first negotiated. An
understanding that these references would be reviewed after 25 years was never acted
on. The human rights of indigenous peoples are somewhat more respected now than
at the time the Single Convention was first negotiated. Indigenous people in
South America are thought to have chewed coca leaf for at least hundreds of
years. Bolivia and some other South American countries with substantial
populations of indigenous peoples have resented the prohibition of the Single
Convention extending to coca leaf. There is no evidence that chewing the coca
leaf is harmful. President Evo Morales is the first indigenous person to become
President of his country (and the first indigenous person to become President
of any South American country). The withdrawal from the Single Convention had
been approved by the Bolivian legislature. Bolivia had followed the procedures
laid down in the Single Convention in this process. The event demonstrates that
the treaties are now out of date.
Drug law reform was often discussed in Latin
America in 2012. The Presidents of several Latin American countries began to publicly
acknowledge the comprehensive failure of current policy and the need to
consider alternatives which had until recently been excluded even from
consideration. Critical comments about the futility of drug prohibition first
came from retired Presidents. Then serving Presidents began to repeat the same
perspective.
Leaders of more than 35 countries met at
the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, on 14-15 April. In the lead
up to this meeting, the President of the USA dispatched his Homeland Secretary
and Vice President Biden to separately visit half a dozen Latin American countries
in unsuccessful attempts to dissuade discussion of major drug law reform.
Eventually President Obama was forced to concede (in a Presidential election year!)
that discussion of legalization was ‘entirely legitimate’ although he
emphasized the USA would never countenance this option. As the host country of
the meeting, President Santos of Colombia was able to insist that drug policy
was included in the agenda (despite opposition from President Obama). There was overwhelming support at the Summit for
the notion that the War on Drugs had failed and that a new approach was indeed needed.
The meeting resolved to invite the Organisation of American States to identify
policy options for consideration. Meanwhile several Latin American countries
have begun to reduce the penalties for personal possession and use of illicit drugs.
In some countries, criminal sanctions have been replaced by civil
sanctions.
On 20 June, President Jose Mujica referred
a bill to Uruguay’s legislature outlining a plan to tax and regulate cannabis. Uruguay
thus became the first country in the world to begin the process of legalizing
cannabis. At the beginning of 2013, this
process was still underway.
The recent experience of severe and uncontrollable
violence in Mexico precipitated by a major national effort to stop drug
trafficking influenced many other countries in Latin America. President Felipe
Calderon declared a War on Drugs soon after assuming office in December 2006. Drug
traffickers, police and the army had murdered about 60,000 Mexicans by the time
President Calderon left office at the end of November 2012. Kidnapping and extortion
had also soared. Seared by this experience, President Calderon near the end of
his term in office called for a drug policy consistent with ‘market
mechanisms’, a phrase generally assumed to be a euphemism for legalization. At
the 2012 Presidential elections in Mexico, President Calderon’s party was badly
beaten into third place with many observers attributing this result, at least
in part, to Calderon’s ‘War on Drugs’. President Calderon’s successor announced
during the election campaign that, if elected, he would not continue the War on
Drugs approach.
History was also made in the USA. Ballot
initiatives in Colorado and Washington states in the USA on 6 November included
a proposal to tax and regulate cannabis in a manner similar to tobacco and
alcohol. A majority (about 55%) of voters supported these initiatives in both
states (although a similar ballot proposal in Oregon was defeated). As one
observer commented ‘the context of the Colorado and Washington ballot victories
is that there is no context’. The Colorado and Washington ballot initiatives
were the first time in the world where a majority of voters had supported the
regulation of a prohibited drug. This ballot initiative attracted more voters
in Colorado than Barak Obama had in running for President in that state. These
ballot initiatives breach Federal law and national commitments to international
drug treaties (1961, 1988). In the US system, as in other federations, in the
event of any conflict Federal laws trump state laws. Therefore, it is likely
that the ballot decisions will be challenged and may eventually end up before
the US Supreme Court. However, the votes in Colorado and Washington states on
cannabis regulation are likely to be followed in other states in the coming
years. These votes in 2012 undoubtedly represent
a milestone in the unraveling of drug prohibition. President Obama has
commented on the outcomes of the Colorado and Washington votes noting that ‘he
has bigger fish to fry’. Ron Paul, who came third in the Republican race for
presidential candidate, argued explicitly that the War on Drugs had failed and
that the US had to legalize drugs. He was often cheered when making these
comments. This is the first time that such a high ranked aspirant for President
of the USA has argued for major drug law reform. At the beginning of 2013,
medicinal cannabis was available in 18 states (plus Washington DC) covering
more than 40% of the national population. There were victories for medicinal
cannabis in several state ballot initiatives in the November elections. Challengers
supporting drug law reform defeated incumbents supporting drug prohibition in
primary elections in Texas and Oregon. These victories attracted some attention
as previously candidates in US elections supporting drug law reform have been
decisively beaten.
In 2012 New Zealand began to establish a
novel system for regulating certain psychoactive drugs. The system is still
being established but essentially, producers of some psychoactive drugs will be
allowed to offer proof of the safety of psychoactive drugs they wish to sell
and if the evidence is accepted, and after also providing a substantial
administrative fee, the producers may be able to sell their product. It is
understood that the scheme will commence with some drugs which are said to produce
‘synthetic highs’.
In 2012, two high quality films were
released advocating drug law reform. ‘The House I Live In’ was released in
cinemas in October while ‘Breaking the Taboo’ was released on the internet in
December. Both received a very positive reception. Several major former
political leaders agreed to be interviewed for these films.
Australia21 hosted a Roundtable (based on a
Discussion Paper) in January and released a report based on this meeting in
April. The report concluded that Australia’s drug policy was heavily reliant on
law enforcement and by many measures had failed comprehensively. None of the many
prominent members of the community known to support drug prohibition accepted
invitations to participate in the Roundtable. The release of the report at a
press conference in the national parliament provoked a spirited debate lasting
for well over a month. Few questioned the major findings of the report. A
second Australia21 Roundtable, also based on a Discussion Paper, was convened
in June and a report released in September. This report compared the generally
positive results of drug law reform in the Netherlands, Switzerland and
Portugal with the often disappointing results of the more punitive approach
adopted in Sweden. The second report
also provoked national discussion for some weeks and again the overall
conclusions of the report were not challenged.
An international conference on drug policy
at Ditchley, UK, attended by 40 participants from 14 countries broadly
supported the view that future drug policy should be based primarily on health
measures rather than criminal justice measures as in the past. In the United
Kingdom in December, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg conceded in an interview
in The Sun that drug prohibition had
failed and major new approaches were needed. The Prime Minister, David Cameron,
had made a number of unambiguous public statements in 2002 reaching the same
conclusions. But in 2012, Cameron declined to support his Deputy Prime
Minister.
The Global Commission on HIV and the Law,
established by the United Nations Development Programme, issued a report in August
2012 entitled ‘HIV and the Law: Rights, Risks and Health’. This added
additional support from within the UN system for a drug policy more respectful
of human rights and public health.
Overall, international support in 2012 has
been growing for the notion that global drug prohibition with a ‘one size fits
all’ approach has failed abjectly. However there is still little agreement on
what approach to drugs should follow and a general recognition that countries
should be able to pursue approaches seen to be more consistent with their
national circumstances and interests. Support for the notion that drugs are
primarily a health and social issue is increasing. The notion that political support for drug
law reform is suicidal while political support for drug prohibition guarantees
electoral victory also appears to be breaking down. The severe fiscal problems
experienced by governments in the US and Europe is another major factor
undermining continuation of expensive government programs for which benefit is
difficult to identify while severe adverse unintended consequences are
increasingly difficult to ignore.
Dr Alex Wodak AM
Director, Australia21
