Drug legalisation
BMJ 2014; 349 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g5233 (Published 21 August 2014) Cite this as: BMJ 2014;349:g5233- Michael Farrell, director
- michael.farrell{at}unsw.edu.au
The failure of the “war on drugs” is a standard presumption in most discussions of drug law reform. It has recently received impressive endorsement by high profile advocates, including retired senior statesmen (for example, George Schultz) and leading financiers and business people such as George Soros and Richard Branson.1 However, reports of prohibition’s failure—like those of Mark Twain’s death—may be exaggerated.
Recent changes in the laws on cannabis in Uruguay and the states of Colorado and Washington have garnered mass headlines globally. Are these harbingers of global defection from current international treaties that require UN member states to prohibit the use of drugs such as cannabis, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine?
An impressive thinktank report from the London School of Economics has echoed recent calls for a radical overhaul of international drug treaties.1 However, the report is more nuanced than a simple call for their repeal. As some contributors make clear, drug legalisation is not a master stroke in dealing with complex, global drug markets. Legalisation does not tackle the social inequity that surrounds drug use and drug markets in many countries or the fact that policies in developed countries such as the United States often shift the burden onto so called producer countries such as Mexico.
The mantra that current drug policy has failed is taken as given when discussing drug violence in Mexico, drug supply in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and rates of incarceration for drug use in the United States. And the prospect of a drug-free world is looking ever more remote: the criminalisation of the drugs trade has created increasingly profitable, organised crime that is challenging the government and stability of many states.
Action at a global level is hampered by the absence of consensus among governments on the best way to address the challenges of drug control. Many governments, including those of China, Russia, Sweden, and the US are strongly in favour of tougher law enforcement.
What constitutes “drug law reform” varies widely in different parts of the world. The discussion of what sort of drug control strategy should replace the existing framework is still in a rudimentary stage of development. Recent work indicates that the UN conventions on illicit drugs may not be as set in stone as is believed; there may be room for incremental change.2
History suggests that governments and international agencies should approach change with caution. Liberalisation can produce political backlash and shift popular sentiment towards more punitive policies. In his essay in the LSE report, Jonathon Caulkins asserts that “in legalisation, as in software development, it may be prudent to distinguish between aspiring to be on the cutting edge [and] the bleeding edge of reform.”3
The report suggests that governments that manage to reduce the violence surrounding illicit drug economies may not be able to rid their countries of organised crime. They can, however, lessen its grip on society, increasing citizens’ confidence in government, encouraging more citizen cooperation with law enforcement, and reducing a national security threat to a more manageable public safety problem. This can be accomplished—as many countries have done—without drug legalisation. Globally, tackling crime requires inclusion of marginalised populations, which often depend on illicit activities to survive, such as poppy farmers in Afghanistan. We need to provide the means for such communities to exist and survive within a social and economic environment that effectively contains crime and where the law and economy is perceived by the community to protect its key interests and is supported by the majority of the population.
The critical question is how to move beyond the tired old debate on drug legalisation, which means very different things to different stakeholders, and to develop a new framework that enables social experiments to better inform future decisions. If rigorously evaluated, the effects of the changes in cannabis laws in Colorado and Washington State can provide important information on how best to manage the cannabis market in a modern economy.
Over two thirds of drug policy expenditure is on enforcement and supply reduction, and despite debate and exhortation there has been little change in this over the past three decades. From a public health perspective, whatever resources are available need to be distributed more equitably between prevention, treatment, and harm reduction. Resources need to be used cost effectively, and one part of that is to lock up fewer people for drug related offences. This probably means that less money should be spent on law enforcement efforts to reduce drug supply. We need answers to questions such as: What safety controls and regulations are required for legal production and distribution? How much taxation will be raised in this process? How will legal drug markets in one country affect illicit markets in neighbouring states? What will happen to the incidence and prevalence of drug use and drug related harm?
The objective should be to change international drug control treaties in ways that enable policy experiments to be implemented and evaluated in a piecemeal way, avoiding the Herculean stalemate between supporters of the status quo and proponents of more radical change.
Notes
Cite this as: BMJ 2014;349:g5233
Footnotes
Competing interests: I have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare.
Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.
Log in
Log in using your username and password
Log in through your institution
Subscribe from £173 *
Subscribe and get access to all BMJ articles, and much more.
* For online subscription
Access this article for 1 day for:
£38 / $45 / €42 (excludes VAT)
You can download a PDF version for your personal record.