Clutching at Straws - SOCA Claims it is Winning the War on Cocaine

In a report released today the Serious Organised Crime Agency, (SOCA) claims that it has increased the wholesale price of cocaine and that street purity has fallen.

As the evidence has shown over the long term, illegal drugs have become increasingly cheap and available. However, short term reversals in these trends are often proclaimed by prohibitionist governments and the enforcement agencies charged with fighting the war on drugs, and this is a prime case in point. Taken at face value, these reversals in fortune will be used to signal imminent victory in the wider war.

For those of us who have seen entire enforcement agencies come and go, this is more of the same in the propaganda war. Cherry picking statistics is bread and butter for those who have to show success in an ocean of failure. President Obama is on the record in 2005 describing the war on drugs as an "utter failure".

The global war on drugs has gifted a trade to organised criminals, valued at £4-6 billion a year in the UK alone and £160 billion globally. One has to ask who benefits from hiking the price and lowering the purity of cocaine - even if this can be achieved or is the result of enforcement efforts? The answer is twofold:

1. Governments and agencies who want to dupe the public into maintaining support for the futile and counterproductive war on drugs and,
2. Organised criminals who can take advantage of rising demand and absorb the price hike by making up weights by adding adulterants at retail level, sure in the knowledge that the illegal market will be theirs to exploit for years to come.

One of the more pertinent policy outcomes that SOCA have not been trumpeting is that cocaine use has more than doubled in the last ten years (and is still rising) and part of this phenomenon has been the disastrous emergence of widespread crack cocaine use over the same period. It is likely that this explosion in demand is driving any recent decrease in cocaine purity rather than supply side enforcement impacts. Clearly there is considerably more cocaine entering the country than their was when SOCA was set up. And this has nothing to do with how effectively SOCA do their duties; the economics of a totally unregulated multi-billion pound market (in which demand is high and rising) controlled by flexible, cunning and often violent criminal profiteers make SOCAs task one that is doomed from the outset.

If SOCA are so sure that this recent evidence is supportive of their work, I'm sure that they will back Transform's call for an independent impact assessment of the current regime of prohibition and a genuine exploration of alternatives, including the legal regulation of currently prohibited drugs. David Cameron supported a call as a backbencher, for the UK to initiate just such a debate at the UN in 2002.

So, what should we believe? Decades of history, or the agency that has to show that its work isn't futile and counterproductive? You decide...

Media coverage:

• Radio 4's Today programme: Danny Kushlick from Transform discusses the report
• BBC: Mark Easton's blog: Soca and Coca. (Danny quoted)
• Telegraph: Drug Busts force wholesale cocaine prices to record levels and Guardian (Danny quoted from Today programme - from press association news wire)
• Danny has also been interviewed on; BBC Radio 5 live drivetime with Nicky Campbell (2 hours 18 mins into the show), BBC Radio Scotland, and quotes used in a range of other BBC radio news pieces
• Steve Rolles has been interviewed by the Press Association for international syndication, and the BBC news channel.
• Scotsman: Cocaine prices hit record level due to drug seizures, says Britain's FBI (Danny quoted)
• The independent: We're winning the war against the cocaine industry police declare (Danny quoted)

See also previous Transform blog:

Playing SOCA with drugs policy (Jan 2007)

Obama: Fix U.S. Drug Policy

As he prepares his new administration, Obama has the opportunity to appoint a "Drug Czar" who will shift drug policy toward a public health model and away from a criminal justice model. The US based campaigning and advocacy group Students for Sensible Drug Policy have set up a petition on the social networking site Facebook to let the new president know that a change in drug policy is needed.

In the unlikely event you are unaware of Facebook, it's basically a huge online social network (like its forerunner MySpace, but aimed at non-teenagers) now with over 100 million members. You can sign up in minutes and put as much or as little personal information on your page as you choose (as well as setting privacy and access controls). There's all manner of political and social policy activity in the Facebook network that's worth having a nose around, with endless possibilities to publicise causes, reach new audiences, debate and fund raise (as Obama's presidential Facebook campaign demonstrated).

Where Obama is going to take US drug policy remains unknown - to my knowledge it did not feature even once in the McCain election battle. But we can be sure that Obama wont be as hawkish as his predecessor, and he has certainly been making some positive noises in the few public comments he has made (this Rolling Stone Interview for example, or his previous commitment to cannabis decriminalisation here) that suggests at the very least the US War on Drugs may have now passed its high tide mark. That said, two of his key appointments, Rahm Emanuel and Joe Biden, are old school drug warriors and they will be influential even if it will be Obama calling the shots. This all makes the Drug Tsar appointment all the more key, even if only as an indication of how Obama plans to play his cards. There are plenty of whispers, rumours and gossip about the appointment - but it is unlikely to happen until Spring and is clearly not in the bag yet.

US drug policy is, of course, enormously influential globally; directly on our Government, through the UN drug agencies and via their various certification processes and other forms of geo-political pressure. Like the November 4th election - the upcoming decisions will have impacts for us all. I don't necessarily think drug policy petitions have much impact but, if nothing else, they show common cause for the activists and demonstrate that people and its all, you know, water building behind the dam. The petition open to all to sign, has 4000 signatures and is gaining 1000 a day, aiming for 10,000 with 55 days to run. Seems eminently achievable.

The SSDP petition is all, unsurprisingly, sensible stuff. It focuses on some of the most egregious drug war injustices of the previous administration and calls for a general shift in approach (all points that Obama has already flagged up in the Rolling Stone interview), avoiding the 'third rail' issues like the legalisation/regulation debate. The text is as follows:

When you called the War on Drugs an "utter failure" in 2004, you were right. A 2008 Zogby poll found that 3 out of 4 of Americans agree with you.

When appointing the head of your Office of National Drug Control Policy, please select someone with health, science, or education credentials rather than a military general, law enforcement official, or "tough on drugs" politician. The next "Drug Czar" should base policy on proven methodology rather than counterproductive Ideology. At a minimum, he or she should support these measures:

*Ending the racially unjust disparity in sentencing for crack and powder cocaine.

*Ending the practice of prosecuting patients in states with medical marijuana laws.

*Eliminating the federal law that denies financial aid to students with drug convictions.

We all know that the War on Drugs is failing because handcuffs don't cure addictions -- doctors do. You have the opportunity to bring us the change we need. Will you?

Sincerely,

The Undersigned......

Further information:

SSDP facebook petition (you may need to install the causes application first)

Stop the Drug War Blog: unrivaled coverage and discussion on Obama's new administration and related drug policy issues

US Survey finds 76% believe war on drugs is failing, 27% support legalisation

A revealing new poll on US public opinion will provide some food for thought for the rival presidential candidates, in a race that has yet to be troubled by the drugs debate, with unprecedented high numbers (27%) supporting legalisation of at least some drugs, and vast majority critical of the drug war's ongoing failure:

The views of likely voters on issues involving other countries in the Western Hemisphere, including the war on drugs, immigration, and relations with Cuba, are often in contrast with current U.S. policies, a new Zogby /Inter-American Dialogue interactive survey shows.

The survey results were released this morning at the Miami Herald’s 12^th Annual Americas Conference, which is taking place Thursday and Friday in Coral Gables, FL. The Zogby Interactive survey of 4,752 likely voters nationwide was conducted Sept. 23-25, 2008, and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.5 percentage points.

“The poll results indicate that American public opinion is far more open and flexible on issues of importance for US relations with Latin America than current policy would suggest,” noted Peter Hakim, the President of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington think tank that collaborated with Zogby International on the poll. “It also suggests, however, that public opinion may not be all that relevant in decisions regarding policy issues of greatest concern to Latin America—that these may be largely determined by smaller groups with intense sentiments about the issues,” Hakim added.

Three in four likely voters (76%) believe the U.S. war on drugs is failing, a sentiment that cuts across the political spectrum – including the vast majority of Democrats (86%), political independents (81%), and most Republicans (61%). There is also a strong belief that the anti-drug effort is failing among those who intend to vote for Barack Obama (89%) for president, as well as most supporters of John McCain (61%).

When asked what they believe is the single best way to combat international drug trafficking and illicit use, 27% of likely voters said legalizing some drugs would be the best approach -- 34% of Obama supporters and 20% of McCain backers agreed.

• One in four likely voters (25%) believe stopping the drugs at the border is the best tactic to battle drugs -- 39% of McCain supporters, but just 12% of Obama backers agree.
• Overall, 19% of likely voters said reducing demand through treatment and education should be the top focus of the war on drugs.
• 13% believe that the best way to fight the war on drugs is to prevent production of narcotics in the country of origin.

Im not mad keen on the simplistic three choice either/or 'best way' nature of the questions, but anyway - for those interested the full data and methodology of the poll is provided with the above link.

Barack Obama supports cannabis decriminlisation

Some interesting drug policy debates are suddenly opening up in the US presidential race, as detailed in an article in today's Washington Times, with Barack Obama confirming his position in support of decriminalising cannabis possession:

Last fall during a nationally televised presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama hesitantly raised his hand and joined with most of his Democratic rivals to declare that he opposed decriminalizing marijuana.

But as a candidate for the U.S. Senate four years ago, Mr. Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use or possession, according to a videotape of a little noticed debate that was obtained by The Washington Times.

"I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws," Mr. Obama told an audience during a debate at Northwestern University in 2004. "But I'm not somebody who believes in legalization of marijuana."

Asked about the two different answers, Mr. Obama's presidential campaign said he in fact has "always" supported decriminalizing marijuana as he answered in 2004, meaning the candidate mistakenly raised his hand during the presidential debate last fall.

That position leaves Mr. Obama as the lone presidential candidate among the four leading challengers in either party who supports eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana. Mr. Obama's chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton, opposes decriminalization, Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer said.

Obama: Decriminalize pot. Jan Heberkorn Jan 31,2008

Obama's clarification on this issue throws down a gauntlet for Democratic candidate rival Hilary Clinton. If she attacks him for being 'soft on drugs' or for flip-flopping, Obama could recite to her Bill Clinton's valedictory interview with Jann Wenner (Rolling Stone's Dec. 28-Jan. 4, 2001 issue) when he also advocated decriminalisation and criticised mandatory minimums.

Rolling Stone: Do you think that people should go to jail for possessing, using or even selling small amounts of marijuana? Is that appropriate?

Clinton: I think, first of all -

Rolling Stone: We're not publishing this until after the election.

Clinton: I understand that. I think that most small amounts of marijuana have been decriminalized in some places, and should be.

Interestingly this particular Rolling Stone interview was conducted in Oct. 6, 2000 when Clinton was still in office and could, in theory, have acted on his convictions, but it was not published until his final days in office. If challenged by Hilary, Obama could potentially contrast his courageous and principled stand today with Clinton's cowardly, closeted beliefs as President, portraying the issue as Clintonian weaseling of the past vs. Obama's new way of doing politics for the future. Since the two Clintons are effectively running as a tag team against him, it seems fair to bring up Bill Clinton's legacy, and thus if Hillary attacks Obama, she would also be attacking her husband. Could get feisty.

In another recent sign of shifting political sands across the pond the issue of Obama's former drug use, which he had openly described in published writing, became a political issue but not in the way that might be expected. It was raised by one of Hilary Clinton's aides, apparently seeking to make political capital, only for the attack to backfire and result in the aide's resignation, as reported on CNN:

One of Sen. Hillary Clinton's top advisers is stepping down after saying Sen. Barack Obama's admission of past drug use would hurt his chances in a general election matchup.

"I would like to reiterate that I deeply regret my comments yesterday and say again that they were in no way authorized by Sen. Clinton or the Clinton campaign," Bill Shaheen, co-chairman of the Clinton campaign in New Hampshire, said in a statement announcing his decision.

Earlier Thursday, Clinton personally apologized to rival Obama for Shaheen's remarks.

Obama accepted her apology, according to David Axelrod, the top political strategist for the Obama campaign....

"The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use," Shaheen [had] said. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?' There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."

Contrast this contrition and political positioning with the current policy debate in the UK, where the clashes between key political players are all about who is keenest to actually increase prison sentences for cannabis possession. Yes mass-criminalisation of young people has become the latest currency in the UK's party-political 'tough on crime' bidding war. Even in the US (the spiritual home of precisely the kind of old-school drug war rhetoric and posturing that characterises much of the current UK discourse) the debate, and legislation, appears to be making some progress (cannabis is already effectively decriminalised - now a finable offence only - in a number of states, and mandatory minimums are being reduced and/or abolished).

When we are actually lagging behind the US in drug law reform debate you really have to wonder where our leaders are trying to lead us.

UPDATE July 2008: Obama has obviously now won the democrat nomination, so the Clinton issues are now behind us, to be replaced with more familiar Republican /Democrat policy tensions that will, if history is any guide, pull Obama to the political right. However in a recent Rolling Stone interview Obama hints that he is open to a paradigm shift in drug policy away from some of the extreme Drug War responses and refocusing on public health.