Heather Roy's Diary

The War on Drugs – A Battle Lost.

Last week I surprised some by endorsing Bill English’s comments on prisons as a “moral and fiscal failure”.

This week, an even bigger moral and fiscal failure hit the headlines, with the global war on drugs being labelled “a costly failure” by the Global Commission on Drug Policy. The “Global Commission” has no official status although it is a club that includes some very impressive people.

Anyone observing Mexico recently will be aware of the danger of the government losing control of law and order to violent drug lords. Profits from the drug trade are so great that drug gangs can and do field private armies that outgun local police, requiring army support to tackle the narcotics barons. Anyone who doubts the severity of the Mexican drug war needs only to look at the numbers. Over 39,000 people have been killed since 2006. To put this tragedy in context, over 10 times as many people have been killed in the Mexican drug war in the past five years as were killed in the Northern Ireland conflict over a space of 40 years.

Tales of the cruelty of the drug cartels are common and they wield enormous power. The desire for the huge profits made in the drug trade worldwide undermines whole governments. One example is Panama which President Bush (senior) invaded in 1989 because the Panamanian leader, Manuel Noriega, and much of his government were heavily involved in the cocaine trade. Colombian drug lord Pablo Escobar was the embodiment of the all-powerful drug cartel. Forbes estimated him to be the seventh richest man in the world.

The casualties of drug wars are examples of what the Global Commission calls ‘collateral damage’. Like other wars the war on drugs has unexpected consequences and damages unintended victims.

Amongst the illustrious members of the Commission is Paul Volcker, an economist who has been Chairman of the US Reserve Bank and is widely credited with driving inflation out of the American Economy. Mr Volcker is well aware that the cost of illegal drugs in the US is declining and availability is rising. He knows that the considerable investment in “the war on drugs” has been totally ineffective.

Even if attempts to suppress the drug trade were having some success then the result would be to drive up the price, giving the drug desperadoes an incentive to take greater risks.

This is what the Global Commission report had to say:

“The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world … Vast expenditure on criminalization and repressive measures directed at producers, traffickers and consumers of illegal drugs have clearly failed to effectively curtail supply or consumption. Apparent victories in eliminating one source or trafficking organization are negated almost instantly by the emergence of other sources and traffickers. Repressive efforts directed at consumers impede public health measures to reduce HIV/AIDS, overdose fatalities and other harmful consequences of drug use. Government expenditures on futile supply reduction strategies and incarceration displace more cost-effective and evidence-based investments in demand and harm reduction.”

The Global Commission on Drug Policy can be found here.

The Global Commission does not advocate a free for all on hard drugs but rather medicalisation of the problem. Only a small proportion of the money spent on the drug war is spent on drug rehabilitation although it is the only possible way to reduce demand for drugs.

The report advocates the end of criminalisation, marginalisation and stigmatisation of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others. It suggests models of legal regulation of drugs to undermine the power of organised crime as well as providing health and treatment services for those in need. It recommends investment in activities that both prevent young people taking drugs and preventing those who do from developing more serious problems. Most importantly it calls for breaking the taboo on debate and reform.

New Zealand is not Mexico, Panama or Colombia, but the same principles apply to the way in which we deal with drugs from party pills to cannabis, from pseudoephedrine containing substances to ‘P’. The banning of BZP party pills has merely seen the emergence of new variants with different active substances. Getting tough on ‘P’ by banning cold and flu remedy over-the-counter sales hasn’t reduced the growth in demand for ‘P’. It has denied effective symptomatic relief for hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens. It is time to have a real debate about how to develop effective policy of psychotropic (mind altering) substances, including alcohol.

In April this year the New Zealand Law Commission released its report “Controlling and Regulating Drugs” – a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. It recommends a full scale review of drug classifications to determine controls and penalties and assessing a drug’s risk of harm; taking steps toward legalising cannabis for medicinal use; cutting criminal charges against low level drug offenders and introducing new regulations that aim to reduce the production of legal highs.

Unfortunately this is mainly tinkering with the problem. It is not nearly as insightful into the real drivers of drug activity as the Global Commission report, nor as ambitious of outcome. President Obama has already indicated that the recommendations are a bridge too far for his government and it will be the same in New Zealand. Why? Because politicians are more worried about votes than reducing drug dependency, especially in election year. It’s time we got over that irrational hurdle.

Lest We Forget – 6 June 1944, D-Day – A Battle Won.

The Normandy landings (Operation Neptune) which commenced on 6 June 1944 were the landing operations of the Allied invasion of Normandy during World War II and involved troops from the UK, Canada, Free France, Poland, Norway, Austalia, New Zealand and the Netherlands.

The assault was conducted in two phases. Shortly after midnight an airborne assault commenced landing 24,000 troops in France. This was followed at 0630 by the amphibious landing of Allied infantry and armoured divisions on the coast of France. Decoy operations to distract the German forces from the real landing areas were also deployed under the codenames Operation Glimmer and Operation Taxable. The landings took place along an 80km stretch of Normandy coast and were divided into five sectors: Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno and Sword.

The operation was a massive undertaking with over 160,000 troops landed in total and Allied naval and merchant navy ships with another 5,000 personnel also involved. The invasion involved transportation of soldiers and materials from UK bases by aircraft and ships, air support, naval fire-support and interdiction of the English Channel.

ENDS

© Scoop Media