Even CIA analysts acknowledge prohibition is the problem

Stratfor - publisher of online geo-political intelligence analysis written by a global team of intelligence professionals (read former CIA staff) - has argued that Mexico rapidly hurtling down the road to becoming a 'Failed State' due to the 'War on Drugs'.

The author argues that there is a real danger that the drugs war could have such a negative impact on the Mexican state apparatus that the government ceases to be in control of its own law enforcers/politicians and civil administration.

This analysis comes after a number of high ranking policemen have been killed by the drug cartels. On May 8th Edgar Millan Gomez, Mexico's highest-ranking law enforcement officer who was responsible for overseeing most of Mexico’s counter-narcotics efforts, was shot dead in his own home. Numerous other police chiefs have also been assassinated by the cartels, and some have resigned to save their lives.

Statfor points out that these cartels are now fighting amongst themselves as well as against the government for control of the estimated $41 billion a year drugs trade.

'Given the amount of money they have, the organized criminal groups can be very effective in bribing government officials at all levels, from squad leaders patrolling the border to high-ranking state and federal officials. Given the resources they have, they can reach out and kill government officials at all levels as well. Government officials are human; and faced with the carrot of bribes and the stick of death, even the most incorruptible is going to be cautious in executing operations against the cartels.'

'Government officials, seeing the futility of resistance, effectively become tools of the cartels. Since there are multiple cartels, the area of competition ceases to be solely the border towns, shifting to the corridors of power in Mexico City. Government officials begin giving their primary loyalty not to the government but to one of the cartels. The government thus becomes both an arena for competition among the cartels and an instrument used by one cartel against another. That is the prescription for what is called a “failed state” — a state that no longer can function as a state.'

The article goes on to give a detailed critique of drug prohibition, comparing it to the alcohol prohibition in America in the 1920's. Whilst many of the readers of this blog will be well-versed with these arguments, Friedman's stark analysis of the break down of state control is compelling . It argues that,

'It is important to point out that we are not speaking here of corruption, which exists in all governments everywhere. Instead, we are talking about a systematic breakdown of the state, in which government is not simply influenced by criminals, but becomes an instrument of criminals — either simply an arena for battling among groups or under the control of a particular group. The state no longer can carry out its primary function of imposing peace, and it becomes helpless, or itself a direct perpetrator of crime.'

Members of the Mexican federal police and organise cocaine packages to be destroyed in Manzanillo port, Mexico. Photograph: Jorge Gutierrez/EPA

The article acknowledges that the best way to resolve this problem is the repeal of prohibition, which the author states has helped the cartels increase their power more than anything else by inflating drug prices and creating the conditions for the systematic breakdown of state control. However the argue that,

'There is no visible political coalition of substantial size advocating this solution.' Obviously this seems a bit defeatist to us at Transform so we are proposing an article to Stratfor based on the Transform timeline for reform.

As Stratfor is staffed by former (and possibly current) CIA employees, its interesting that they are now carrying analysis publicly acknowledging and discussing the carnage that prohibition has fuelled.

According to official figures, over 1,367 people have died this year in drug-related violence. Thats up 47% on last year. 10% of those killed have been police or soldiers. For further details on the rising body count see 'Body count mounts as drugs cartels battle each other - and the police'

Westminster Hall debate on drug classification: report

Overall, this debate on drug classification, following up on the Science and Technology Select Committee's 2006 highly critical report on the subject, was rather disappointing. Stretching out over more than three hours, with three 15 minute breaks for division-bell votes in the Commons, this was less of a debate than a restatement of existing positions. Some of it was very interesting but there was little added to previous written reports and committee sessions. For a far more incisive and informative debate I highly recommend reading the transcript of the committees follow up session last November in which they re-interrogated the Minister, the Chair of the ACMD and the Chair of the ACMD technical committee following the written responses to the committee's 'Making a hash of it' report .

see here for more details on the debate and background info

Unlike the cut and thrust of committee interrogations and cross examinations, which are far more feisty and unpredictable, this was in the classic parliamentary debate format with speeches from interested parties, followed by a response by the Minister Vernon Coaker, representing the Government. Whilst people were free to make interventions they generally didn't, and I personally found it all a bit flat and unrewarding. It will all be online on Hansard in a couple of days so you can make your own minds up then. In the mean time.....

Phil Willis, chair of the committee, gave an excellent introductory speech essentially summarising the committees findings and then critiquing the rather hopeless response from the Government.

Brian Iddon then gave a similar speech picking up on a few of the details of the report, using the risible lack of science or scrutiny behind the decision to classify magic mushrooms as a class A drug in 2005 as his central example.

Paul Flynn, not a member of the committee, then took the floor to lambast the failure of the Government's drug policy in the strongest of terms, reminding the Minister that he had sat through 20 years of empty promises from tough talking ministers hell-bent on an enforcement led drug policy despite the disastrous consequences for all to see. He referred to the Government's response to the inquiry as a disgrace and highlighted the harm, including drug deaths in his constituency that were the direct result of prohibition. (He also name-checked Transform - which was good to hear).

Dr Evan Harris then took the floor, focusing on the response to the committee's report from the ACMD itself, which he rightly noted to have been defensive to the point of rudeness. The reports author, ACMD chair Sir Micheal Rawlins, had clearly taken exception to the committee's criticisms (which were arguably over-personalised), and had penned a terse and stroppy response that Dr Harris then critiqued (Rawlins, it should be acknowledged had made amends for this at the November follow up session). Harris also restated the Lib Dems progressive policy and tried rather lamely to claim they were fully behind it (actually it has hardly ever been mentioned and disappeared from their website during the general election. hmmm).

Finally there was a rather dull exposition from Vernon Coaker's Shadow, Edward Garnier, speaking for the Tories, who had a few vaguely interesting things to say about his experience as a judge, along with the new Tory policy (basically: send addicts to rehab not prison), but nothing useful to contribute to the debate about classification. This was presumably because the Tories daren't touch drug law reform whilst they still think there's tabloid capital to be made by hyping the 'skunk' panic and then making the Government look bad by endlessly twittering on about cannabis re-classification, or re-re-classification, to try and make the Government look bad. He was interrupted twice by the division bell and had to forfeit a couple of pages of speech, which, to be honest, was a relief.

After all that, and with only about 15 minutes of the 3 hour session remaining the Minister finally took the floor to respond. This he did predictably enough beginning with lots of platitudes about how wonderful the report, the committee and the debate were, and how there were passionate views on all sides and he respected etc. etc. This was then followed with a list of all the changes that had been made in response to the committee. These included:

on increasing transparency:

• that ACMD minutes would henceforth be available online (on the Home Office website at some unspecified point in the future)
• that ACMD meetings would, with a few exceptions, be open to the public, who would also be able to ask questions (times and dates will be on the Transform website when we learn them)

on reviewing classification:

• The ACMD would be doing a systematic review of all drug classifications, including ecstasy and magic mushrooms (although no time scale was given on this, and to be honest that is their job anyway so its hardly a massive concession).
  
• Coaker renewed his assertion that the Government had no intention of reclassifying ecstasy, but said, in a micro-concession perhaps, that they would 'wait and see' what the ACMD had to say, and also that the Government had never rejected a recommendation made by the committee ( perhaps overlooking the ACMD call to reclassify cannabis which they had been recommending since the seventies?)
  

And that was that. On all the substantive critique about the and lack of science and evidence base underpinning the system more generally he said nothing useful at all, except to repeat the line from the Government's written report that he believed the classification system was great and doing its job brilliantly, almost as if saying it enough times might somehow make it true. Evidence for this success was a list of cherry picked statistics, (some of which have been deconstructed here ) and meaningless process indicators (basically a re-run of this article).

The issue of a consultation/review of the classification was briefly addressed towards the end, having cropped up repeatedly in the speeches. Specifically why the Government had cancelled its plans (announced by the previous Home Secretary to the House of Commons last January) to have such a review despite calls from the ACMD itself, the Science and technology Select committee, The RSA, and many others, and despite the fact that the consultation document had been drafted and was days away from publication. We were given the preposterous fob off of answer that : ' there is no optimum system obviously better than what we have today'. This runs contrary to the conclusions of the Committee, the Lancet paper published by the head of the ACMD's own technical committee and the head of the Medical Research Council, not to mention our old friends logic and reason.

The minister was similarly dismissive on the issue of the lack of evidence base for classification as a deterrent to use or dealing. In a classic ministerial 'we'll get back to you on that' non-answer Coaker said that the Home Office was doing some 'scoping' work on deterrence and 'we are looking to how to take that forward'. Translation: we know there's no evidence so we are going to stall on this one until it hopefully goes away.

Coaker is a great politician and a likable chap, he does sincerity very well. But even if he buys into some of the Government's position on drugs (regards harm reduction and treatment perhaps where arguably progress has been made) it must be quite distressing to have to come before a Select Committee of scientists, who clearly know more about the issue than he does, and who have systematically and rather brilliantly critiqued one key aspect of drug policy which is transparently unscientific, and demonstrably a total failure - and then have to passionately defend it. The only option available (obviously excluding conceding the mistake and improving policy accordingly) is to spin the few crumbs of success where you can find them and then avoid all the substantive issues using the familiar ministerial armoury of rhetorical tricksyness.

This particular junior ministerial position appears more and more like a rite of passage for future cabinet ministers. It reminds me of a frat-house hazing ritual - survive it and you become one of the gang (Blears, Flint), mess it up and you're relegated (Howath, Ainsworth). If you can carry the poisoned chalice of drug prohibition, defend the indefensible, spin catastrophic failure as success, and keep your chin up and your smile in place whilst running the gauntlet of truth-seeking scientists and free-thinking backbenchers and NGO's, then maybe sonny-jim, there's a place at the big table for you.

No10 drug policy e-petitions: a total waste of time?

The Number 10 Downing Street web site’s experiment in participatory democracy - in the shape of the petition-the-Prime-Minister page - is now positively brimming with petitions on drug policy. As we shall see they range from the eminently sensible to the totally barking, from the eloquent to the really quite odd.

In an attempt to make it as participatory as possible it is incredibly easy to submit a petition. Too easy perhaps. A lot of the drug policy petitions read like entries on a chat site, clunky, ill thought out and full of typos, almost as if they were ranting responses to a newspaper column, which I suspect a lot of them are.

But even if they were all thoughtful and beautifully composed, and we got rid of the ranting and repetition, I still question the merits of the whole exercise. Hardly anyone is signing them – the highest one being for cannabis legalisation with 1400 odd signatures, most barely scraping into double figures. To put this in perspective the petition for Spandau Ballet’s ‘Gold’ to be the new national anthem has 5500 signatures. The road pricing petition got a million+ signatures with the help of an orchestrated tabloid campaign (somewhat distorting its relative value perhaps) and was ignored, although it did provide No.10 with a nice bunch of email addresses. You have to wonder whether, like 'the big conversation' or the current No10 forum with 60 'ordinary people' (er, patronising?) this is just another fruitless PR excercise.


I suppose you could argue there’s no harm in it, as long as no one starts thinking it will make any difference, or that the Government pay it any attention. The Government barely consult on substantive drug policy changes at the best of times (the Drugs Bill 2005 being the obvious recent example), and they generally don’t listen to experts in the drugs field, Select Committees, or even the Govt appointed Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs and No.10 policy advisers - unless it happens to fit within their plans.

And anyway, for every petition stating a progressive drug reform position, there’s another one calling for drug dealers to be executed/ used for medical experiments/ jailed for life. Maybe that’s what democracy is all about, but I just can’t see any of this having the slightest impact. Drug policy reform requires an entirely more nuanced and sophisticated debate (petition anyone?) something we certainly dont have on this crude and polarising web page. There used to be open discussion forum on this site (my posts seemed to dissapear quite often)- thats seems to have now dissapeared altogether. Now we just have the almost completely pointless e-petitions page and a series of lectures from the Prime Minister

Oh well, for the record, here they all are. I have very democratically included links should feel moved to support any of them, and I have also included the full explanatory text along with the petition statements (copy and pasted directly to you). First up there are a set of petitions that are variations on the theme of ending drug prohibition and legally regulating currently illegal drug markets, some better than others (note: the first two have already closed)


We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Legalise all drugs.
Drugs are too dangerous to leave in the hands of criminals. Legalisation removes the need for people to procure their drugs through the criminal fraternity, thus drying up the cash flow to the suppliers and putting them out of business. If all drugs were legal then they could be sold through controlled licenced premisis (rather like alcohol), and the taxes that are gathered could be used for education and healthcare. The health benefits would be huge, as a large portion of the health issues experienced by users is related to deliberatly contaminated supplies. The war on drugs has been lost. Its time to draw up terms of surrender. We urge the prime minister to legalise all drugs immediately, under a scheme similar to alcohol, and to use the tax revenue for education.
(65 signatures)

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to legalise, sanitise, and control all recreational drugs and to make them safer.
notes N.A.
(67 signatures)

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Initiate an effective counter measure against the illegal drugs trade.
To tackle the drugs problem requires military strategy against the energy of the illegal drugs trade, easy and vast profits. The target is to diminish such profits by drug dealers. Action. Make the selling of prescribed drugs government monopoly, selling to registered drug users at very low prices, decriminalising the use of drugs so obtained. Result. Drugs dealers would have no returns on their investment as the government agencies (hospitals, GPs, pharmacies etc) would take their markets away. Dealers would face fines by HM Customs and Excise, rendering the exercise futile and neutralised. Drug users would turn to government agencies for their supply who provide the drugs against controlled registration, allowing the authorities to know who the users are, where they are. In turn, to take control of the problem and help reducing the drug dependence for users. The need for users to commit criminal action to finance their habits would be reduced. (4 signatures)

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Solve the prison crisis by legalising recreational drugs.
Two-thirds of the prison population are in jail because of drug related crime. By legalising recreational drugs we will take the drug industry out of the hands of violent criminals and kill off drug crime. Drugs would be safer and the tax collected would be used to treat addicts. We would reduce violent crime, burglary, robbery and prostitution. The streets would be safer, insurance premiums would come down and the economy would grow. Children are attracted to illicit drugs precisely because they are illicit, make them legal and the attraction wanes.
(7 signatures)

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Treat all use of currently illegal drugs as a medical problem, by supplying them on prescription, with appropriate social, medical, and psychological support
To medicalise the current illegal drugs scene would immediately make drug dealers redundant, and remove a user's need to steal or prostitute themselves to support their habit. The reductions in violent crime would be a massive social benefit, and allow funds to be switched to increase the NHS services required. It would over time drastically reduce the prison population, where a majority of the inmates have an unresolved dependency problem. Let common sense take precedence over the perception of being "tough on crime". Try to be truly "tough on the causes of crime".
(8 signatures)


We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to take proper control and exercise intelligent management of all recreational drugs and remove this control from the hands of criminals and the black market
Far more damage to the millions of recreational drug users in this country occurs due to the poor quality, Rubbish used in "cutting" and general product tampering than occurs from the drugs themselves. All because government policy puts there control into the hands of organised crime and criminals.
(25 signatures)

I wont hear a word said against this next one as it was a blog-xperiment undertaken by our very own Transform Blog maestro Alex.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to To End The Prohibition of Drugs And To Regulate A Safer Marketplace For All Currently Illegal Drugs
To reduce the criminal and social harms associated with the prohibition of drugs, we the undersigned, petition the Prime Minister to end prohibition and to regulate strictly the sale and marketing of potentially dangerous and currently illegal substances perhaps via licensed pharmacists. The costs of prohibition far outweigh any benefits.
(260 signatures)

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to legalise heroin and cocaine and stop violent criminal gangs cornering and profiting from this $500 billion dollar market
we've tried prohibition and after many years it's obviously not worked. In Switzerland were they have legalised heroin, new drug user's fell by 85% and the 'cool' image of drugs has gone - instead drug addiction is seen as a medical illness. Other benefits would include controlling where the drugs come - not from Afganistan's Taliban! or from FARC terriots groups in Columbia
(26 signatures)

There are also a series of cannabis related petitions covering much the same ground:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to let class C drugs be legal for over 18 year olds.
Sold by licensed retailers. A limited quatity can be purchased.
(42 signatures)

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to initiate a test program whereas cannabis users may purchase upto 5grams in a "coffeeshop".
Sold by licensed retailers. A limited quatity can be purchased.
(468 signatures)

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to remove cannabis and cannabis products from the Misuse of Drugs Act and associated laws.
This is a petition to remove cannabis (marijuana) from prohibition laws and thus enable consumer protection.
(1412 signatures)

And then, inevitably perhaps, there are a series of prohibition oriented petitions calling for exactly the opposite. Whilst the above are by no means going to win literary prizes, the prohibition ones are all a bit, well, wierd. First up, one calling for the illegal drug cannabis to be made more illegal:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Reclassify cannabis as a dangerous drug and clearly criminal to use or sell.
Upgrade the classification of cannabis to a well defined crime as it is a dangerous drug on the strong evidence of its relationship to mental health breakdown, physical health breakdown,effect on drivers' judgement and addiction to itself and or other drugs. It is now a far stronger drug than before. Especially to protect the young it should be well upgraded.
(22 signatures)

Then a completely crackers one that should probably never have got through the vetting process for fairly obvious reasons:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Illegal Drug Users & dealers to be more Harshly Punished.
I believe users & dealers of Illegal drugs should be punished harsher thn ever before. Users should be forced to go "Cold Turkey" then USED for Medical experiments at Goverment Detention camps,with NO Civil Rights. At least then they serve a Public purpose. As for the dealers they should be either used in the same way as the user or sentenced to FULL LIFE TERM (NEVER to be released) in Prison/Detention camps.
(4 signatures)

This next one takes the prize for the most hopelessly argued case for prohibition :

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Keep cannabis, ecstasy heroin etc illegal.
Why on earth would we want to make illegal drugs such as cannabis, ecstacy, cocaine and heroin legal. Keep these drugs illegal!
(15 signatures)

The token nasty death penalty advocating one (three strikes you're dead) :

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to introduce & apply the death penalty for persons caught in the act of selling narcotic drugs in the United Kingdom. To be implemented after two formal warnings issued by the Police to cease drug selling are found to have been ignored
Introduced in Singapore and reduced drug sales to almost nil. Introduced in China with the same effect. Drug pedlars are peddling death and misery and their activities should attract the harshest of punishment. The job of a government is to protect the people who elected it. This prime responsibility is being ignored by the government of the UK with respect to drug peddling, & our young people & the nation are suffering.
(8 signatures)

A sermon like call for 'zero tolerance':

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Recognise that Crime and Drug Dependency are now out of control and that to protect our children and culture he will give 3 years notice to adopt a Zero Tolerance Policy to all users of Drugs and abusers of Alcohol backed by free treatment or Custody Till Clean
Successive Governments have failed to create unambiguous policies towards drug and alcohol abuse and the crime and degradation that follows. Our children now regard a "Spliff" as a right of passage and some advocate legalising drugs as the only policy.This simply adds to the confusion. We,the caring majority,know that,given time,resources,and resolve we can ensure that future generations grow up knowing that ALL DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE IS UNACCEPTABLE IN THE UK. The 3 year notice will give addicts/dealers the choice of treatment and support OR custody. Custody will be no soft option and "Cold Turkey" the dish of the day to remind them of the reason to get clean. Yes, we will need more prisons and treatment centres in the short term but in the long term say 10 years society will reap the rewards. Less crime and delinquency,stable and supportive families,the hope of a caring society where its no longer hip to be high! We beg this to be YOUR legacy to OUR history.
(34 signatures)

Another zero tolerance tirade :

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to give criminals years and years to think about their crimes in prison. Big sentances like America.
Burglary 1st offence ~ 10 years. 2nd offence 100 years jail. Violent Murder 1st offence ~ life minimum 100 years Criminal damage 1st offence. Eg smashing car window. 10 years jail. Driving without insurance and license ~ £50,000 fine or 5 years jail. Drug addicts ~ 1 year jail forced to go cold turkey and trained in a profession to get a real job. Go back on the drugs and 100 years jail. No more life sentances for serious crimes with the minimum ammount of time to be served 4 years or anything stupidly small. Zero tolerence.
(3 signatures)

This next one shouldn’t have been passed, on the obvious basis that we don’t give illegal drugs to prisoners, but anyway:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop giving illegal drugs to prisoners.
It is rediculous that drug users should be able to continue their addiction whilst in prison & expect us to pay for it. Surely it would be better for everyone concerned if steps were taken to break the habit so that they are no longer addicts when they are realeased therefore removing one of the reasons for the original criminal behaviour.
(71 signatures)

If youve found all that a bit upsetting, there’s a certain amount of light relief to be had reading through the rejected petitions – where all the joke /inappropriate / repetious / totally loo-lah petitions are relegated, including my personal favorite legalisation call:"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to make it legal to push a saveloy in and out of a big bowl of blancmange whilst singing 'rock me amadeus' by falco "

A few of these, however, have managed to slip through the net:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to ensure that music education in our schools teaches children that drugs do not need to be taken to either play or listen to progressive rock
Progressive rock music encourages a culture of drug taking to both play and listen to it, expressed by the overlong length and repetitive nature of the songs. We're concerned thats its recent revival amongst young people will promote drug use and we'd like school music teachers to try and inform pupils that drugs do not have to be taken to either listen to or play it.
(22 signatures)

Now that one I may just put my name to.