19 June 2011

More on Nixon's legacy

This week my post is a link to a tv interview with Ethan Nadelmann, Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance (US). He says it all and better than I can. What we need is more of this kind of interview on European media. Greece, the Euro, and the Arab Spring are important issues, but other issues remain. Deaths and crime induced by drug policies are amongst them. Go to http://youtu.be/oq8kBaFtY-g  If the link doesn’t work, Google Ethan Nadelmann. You’ll find it.

16:28 Posted by Carel Edwards in Drugs and politics | Permalink | Comments (0) |  Facebook

07 June 2011

Global Commission on Drugs, don't let this fade away.

As the dust settles on the "coming out" of the former world leaders who make up the Commission (www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/Commission) it is interesting to feel the pulse of some of the world's media in relation to the idea that the drugs war has not just been lost but has made things worse, as well as the proposal that a sensible debate on regulation of drugs like cannabis is the best way forward.

If the idea has been overwhelmingly welcomed by civil society and professionals in the drugs and drug policy field, it has predictably been rejected by most governments, like the US, Russia, and other nations that have essentialy military/ideological approaches to mass sociological problems like drugs.The UK and other governments had their rejection ready but there was good coverage in most of the media in Europe.
Some of the official reactions are almost comical. Apart from the old favourite about "sending the wrong message" there ist the World Federation against Drugs. Have a look at their website. Its headlines are an emotional rant aimed at discrediting individuals ("Russian Drugs Tsar Viktor Ivanov accused Koffi Annan of lobbying on behalf of drug traffickers"). The Russian Federal anti drugs service is a notoriously corrupt and ineffectual body, while Russia itself has a huge drugs problem that it is failing to deal with. The site goes on to name the "legalisers" and "harm producers" behind the report, which looks like a Who'sWho for evidence-based policies; surely an unintended consequence.

Mr Ivanov was also active at Deauville, where the G8 recently looked at this (Why the G8?). He stated that we should be aware that this is "a public relations campaign in favour of drugs linked to the huge revenues they generate". He also called for a Russo-European agency to eliminate drugs in ..... Afghanistan. The French government has a way of pretending to go along with this type of initiative because it gives them international visibility but it rarely leads to much (who knows what results the 2010 Hortefeux Pact against Drugs in West Africa produced?). François Hollande on the other hand, potential socialist candidate for the presidential elections, calls for a commission at European level to look at treatment and decriminalisation of cannabis. Let's see if he remembers if he wins. And let's hope that the European Commission is listening and will anticipate the need to support such an initiative and channel it away from ideologically induced platitudes in order to obtain EU consensus. 

Freek Polak of ENCOD gave a particularly clear and helpful interview on Dutch radio. That is now more important than it used to be as the Dutch are becoming wobbly on drug policy and are in denial about the reasons why home-grown organised crime has got into the home-grown cannabis trade, but that is another subject..

Ruth Dreifuss, former President of Switzerland - and member of the Global Commission - is on record as saying "I have high expectation of European action on this. Europe must put public health at the centre of the drugs problem."

As the old joke goes in Brussels: maybe the EU should apply for membership of the Swiss Confederation. 

11:23 Posted by Carel Edwards in Drugs and politics | Permalink | Comments (0) |  Facebook

02 June 2011


The link between immigration and drug trafficking is a real one in two cases:


·         One: the immigrants are poor, “ghettoised”, and generally excluded from mainstream society and economic advancement (some French “banlieues” are well known examples but there are plenty more in other EU countries). The trade in drugs – mainly cannabis – is then part of a counter-culture with its own rules and hierarchies. Violence and gang formation are often features of daily life and the rule of law is largely irrelevant. Such areas are “ethnic” in so far as the rules and culture of the host country are seen as inaccessible and forms of social control from the culture of origin apply to a greater or lesser extent. This in turn gives rise to resentment in the native population and the rest is all too familiar.

·         The second link between immigration and drug trafficking is when people move country for the purpose of committing crimes. This category is of limited interest to us as it is not part of the immigration issue overall but basically a form of cross-border crime.


Many countries are coy about publishing prison population statistics broken down by country of origin but there are strong indications that immigrants are generally over-represented in many European prisons. It is equally true to say that lack of education, social exclusion, dysfunctional home backgrounds, etc. determine the origin of prisoners in general. Immigrants often fall into all of these categories. It says more about the host country’s policies of dealing with immigration than about the immigrants.


So what is the relevance of immigration policy to drug policy?


Both policies now have a considerable body of data and analysis at their disposal yet remain trapped in sensational media reporting and irresponsible political statements and gestures, especially during election time.

Just like drugs have been called a “plague” and a “scourge” even in legal documents, immigration is always “massive” and likely to “overwhelm” our societies. So, as with drugs, the response is to play on the fear thus created and to “combat” the “ruthless gangs” of people smugglers. This involves the deployment of semi-military assets, building of fences (in Eastern Greece, with help from Frontex), etc.


The unintended consequences (sic) of EU immigration policies - and the pressures they put on North African countries to cooperate in return for aid - include growing xenophobia in North Africa with regard to sub-Saharan migrants, arbitrary arrests and forced return, also of political fugitives. Until the present uprising,Libya was both a major transit and final destination country. It should be noted that before the Arab Spring began Italy andLibya had agreements wherebyItaly trained Libyan police and allowed it to import military hardware officially destined to improve border controls. In return Libya made life harder for sub-Saharan migrants.


As with drug policy, these and other measures led to pop-up effects: crossing points in the Mediterranean diversified and multiplied. As with drugs, most immigrants come toEurope by fairly mundane means (hiding in trucks, or just taking a ferry) rather than being smuggled across the sea in ways that grab the headlines.


The final shame is that Europe, with its ageing population, low birth rate, and under increasing pressure to keep its labour costs down, is in real need of the cheap labour that immigrants provide (particularly illegal immigrants). In areas like construction, care services and agriculture there is a growing acceptance by domestic trade unions and public authorities that the demand for immigrant labour will go up rather than down. For politicians in some countries to continue to ignore the need for regular immigration leads to a toxic mix: immigrant communities are “ghettoized” or “negrofied” while the domestic populations that depend on them to maintain their standard of living resent the presence of people who “don’t belong here”. As with drug policy, the evidence to change the policy is there. The political will is not.


Europe is the product of centuries of immigration. Each wave brought new blood and new energy. To go against the current of history is a dead end. It is a sad comment on Europe’s state today that a country like the Netherlands, an historical safe haven if ever there was one, is turning away from evidence-based drug policy at the same time as it makes deals with the most right wing and xenophobic political party it has known in more than 50 years.    


I dedicate this post to Mohamed El Baktet, my Brussels pharmacist, a professional man.



17:45 Posted by Carel Edwards in Drugs and politics | Permalink | Comments (2) | Tags: drug and immigration policies |  Facebook