Last year, the Global Commission on Drug Policy called for an open debate on the global war on drugs. On Tuesday night, they went a long way to achieving this objective. A live debate streamed via YouTube entitled 'It's Time to End the War on Drugs' was watched by millions over the world. This pioneering method of engagement on social and political issues has given the drug war debate a global audience that was unthinkable a few years ago.
Non-governmental organisations and prominent individuals have tirelessly worked to propel this once marginal debate into the public realm. In doing so, they have garnered unprecedented public support and raised the issue on the global political agenda.
An impressive line-up of public figures advocated for global drug policy reform-at King's Hall in London and via video-link at 'Google hangouts' across the globe- including Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former President of Brazil, Vicente Fox, former President of Mexico and Sir Richard Branson. They represent an eclectic mix of professional backgrounds: former heads of state, businessmen, journalists. It points to the mainstreaming of the movement and its increasingly diverse support base. Specialist NGOs are now working together with key international players, to strategically push for change.
The debate was opened with a statement from current President of Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos, whose potential influence as a sitting head of state advocating for an open debate on this issue should not be underestimated. Santos said "It's time for an in-depth discussion on this issue. All, I repeat, all the options must be considered. A rigorous, evidence-based discussion is needed on the costs and benefits of the alternatives, which should be led by scientists and experts."
Experts in support of the motion proceeded to eloquently present the arguments in favour of an end to the war on drugs and the alternatives to failed prohibitionist policies. They argued that the war on drugs is a waste of public funds, which has not achieved its aims of reducing supply of, and demand for, illicit substances. The war on drugs is in fact a war on drug users, filling prisons with those who have not committed violent offences and fuelling an HIV pandemic by failing to provide adequate health services to those in need. Alternative policy approaches, such as decriminalization in Portugal, were highlighted as experiments with legal reforms that have reduced problematic drug use and drastically curbed HIV transmission amongst people who inject drugs.
The online audience did not take much persuading, with 92% of online voters supporting the motion in the pre-debate poll. This nonetheless increased to 95% at the end of the debate. These figures are echoed in the results of surveys commissioned by Richard Branson prior to the debate, which found that 91% of those surveyed wanted an end to the war on drugs. This resounding support gives a clear mandate to the movement to influence political will for reform.
Former President of Brazil and Chair of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, said "There is a clear rise in public perception on the flaws of the current approach to deal with drugs in our society. We can no longer afford the levels of violence in Mexico, Brazil, Central America and West Africa, the trillions of dollars spent on this endless war and the obstacles it presents to harm reduction policies. It is about time that the UN and politicians in office engage on a constructive debate towards decriminalisation, regulation and public health programs that may reduce violence whilst preventing and relieving the suffering of drug abusers."
This debate has achieved the global platform it deserves. The support base of the reform movement is increasingly broad and influential. The next steps are to seize this momentum, and urge governments and multilateral institutions to let go of failed prohibitionist approaches and replace them with drug policies grounded in science, health, security and human rights.
Now there is a whole underground subculture breeding dangerous dogs which look like legal dogs.
Sound familiar? "Public enemy number 1: The Problem of Dangerous Dogs."
If people wish to ingest, inhale, or inject what amounts to be poisons into their metabolisms, that should be their own business, and if their habit goes wrong, then that should also be their business, and to manage such an event, they should be compelled to take out risk insurance, thereby steering ongoing costs away from the NHS.
Considering his enthusiasm for the matter, I wonder if Branson grows his own in his island retreat?
Maybe using such stuff is the cause of his ambition to go space travelling. Just a thought!
I wonder if Branson grows his own on his island retreat?
Alison Myrden
Retired Law Enforcement Officer
Speaker for LEAP
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
http://www.leap.cc
I also expect several anti- votes declared neutrality at the start as tactical voting, these prohibitionists are a sneaky deceitful lot.
Legalise drugs (oh, hang on nicotine, alchohol, caffeine are already legalised), tax them and make sure everyone understands the risks. Then make it socially unacceptable to take them as is happening with smoking.
Whilst you are at it, why not buy the entire opium poppy crop from Afghanistan and donate it to the medical industry to make morphine for pain relief, thereby reducing the scandalous profits make by the 'legal' drug cartels of Big Pharma.
I watched the whole debate and have to say found the format utterly frustrating. Too many voices trying to get their half truths and half lies across, and too little time to discuss and refute them properly. Quality (of both arguments and exposition) is what matters, not quantity.
It seems to me that the fact that 15% of the audience (the "don't know" section) made their minds up in favour of continuing with Prohibition and the War on Drugs is a clear indication that those in the Drug Reform Movement need to think harder on how to debate the issue and how to win the hearts and minds of those who "don't know" what to think about Prohibition and the so-called War on Drugs. Preaching to the converted is not good enough!
Gart Valenc
Twitter: @gartvalenc
So whilst I take your point, remember this wasnt our show. Neither side got to assemble their own dream team or dictate the terms of engagement. We were all essentially fitting into a google+ marketing excercise as best we could. Generally I think the messaging of the movement is getting more sophistcated and effectve, and lets not forget many good points were made. Hell, I think I made a few myself! Also, the web audience - which numbered in the millions (unlike a couple of hundred in the venue) went from 92% to 95%. OK - so its a self selecting and sympathetic audience, but hardly cause for pessimism!
In the event I think it was a positive outcome and agree with Kasia's observation that the mere fact that it happened is of great significance. The reform debate now unquestionably has mainstream media traction, high level political engagement and most of all: momentum (in the right direction!).