• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Drug Policy Discussion, Research Papers, New Laws, Misc.

erosion

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Oct 16, 2003
Messages
3,182
Government agencies, think tanks, institutes and individuals regularly produce drug-policy reports that are much more in depth in terms of quality, scope and (hopefully) objectivity than regular news items or editorials.

This is the place to discuss drug policy on a deeper level, post links to research papers, supplementary coverage to articles, book reviews, essays, or anything else that you would like to post but don't have a home for. New and proposed laws, as well as important court cases, can also be posted here. It will be very helpful to have a wealth of information in one place.

When posting, please give the name of the paper, description, author, and link. No need to try to paste the report into the thread if its too long.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The World Bank and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime issued a report titled "Afghanistan's Drug Industry: Structure, Functioning, Dynamics, and Implications for Counter-Narcotics Policy"

This is an extensive in depth review of the Afghan drug market, and its implications concerning its local and foreign policy, terrorism, and how a country functions when a full third of its GDP is from Opium.

Nov 2006 - Afghanistan's Drug Industry
 
Last edited:
Prohibition and the Economists - Ludwig Von Mises Institute

Quote:

"Since economists have been leading the battle against drug prohibition, most people would be surprised to learn that they played an important role in establishing and defending the alcohol prohibition of the 1920s. It is still an open question whether economists set public opinion or mirror it, but the relationship between economists and prohibition provides interesting insights into the economics profession, the origins of Prohibition, and the current debate over drug legalization. In recent years economists have led the fight to legalize — actually, to relegalize — drugs. "

This was an enlightening read, and gives a whole new dimension to the War on Drugs , demonstrating comprehensive evidence for an open market in drugs.

Particularly interesting though is the historical data. It demonstates the irrefutable similarities between the prohibition of alcohol, and now drugs with evidence and statistics stretching back before 1910.

Link

Related Reading:
Economics of Prohibition - Book
 
Last edited:
Establishing the International Network of People Who Use Drugs

I just joined the International Harm Reduction Association, and they had the following info in their newsletter... which could be of interest to Bluelighters.

Mods, please work out where to put this, I have no idea!

Establishing the International Network of People Who Use Drugs

It has been an extremely busy few months for the developing International Network of People Who Use Drugs (INPUD), under the stewardship of Stijn Goossens, a drug user activist from Belgium.

An international drug user activist movement has been developing alongside IHRA’s annual conferences for a number of years, and the efforts culminated in the 1st International Congress of People Who Use Drugs - a satellite event in conjunction with the 17th International Conference on the Reduction of Drug Related Harm (Vancouver, Canada; April 2006). This event was attended by over 100 people from around the world. In the Congress, the group wrote and released a declaration describing the prejudice they faced around the world, and their collective goals to overcome this prejudice. This “Vancouver Declaration” has since been translated into 17 different languages (Bahasa-Indonesian, Bulgarian, Danish, Dutch, English, Farsi, French, German, Macedonian, Nepali, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Spanish and Swedish).

To view the declaration, please visit http://hardcoreharmreducer.be/VancouverDeclaration.html
You can also print out the accompanying petition and gather support and signatures.

In December 2006, IHRA secured funding from the UK Government’s Department for International Development (DFID) for a broad programme of work which includes helping the international drug user network develop into a legal entity. To achieve this, INPUD have formed a Working Group, including representatives from Asia, Europe, Latin America, North America and Oceania. The group - to be facilitated by Grant McNally from the UK with technical assistance from Stijn Goossens - will discuss and undertake the necessary steps to take INPUD to the next level as an organisation. A place in this group has been reserved for any drug user representatives from Africa or the Middle East who wish to take part, and work is underway to identify people from these regions.

Work is also underway to develop and launch an INPUD website, to enable the network to communicate, recruit, organise and advocate more effectively. A working group has been set up to help build and maintain this resource - and anyone with relevant skills and experience who would like to help should contact Stijn Goossens (see below).

Ahead of the 18th International Conference on the Reduction of Drug Related Harm (Warsaw, Poland; 13th – 17th May 2007), plans are well underway for the 2nd International Congress of People Who Use Drugs. This will be held on Sunday 13th May 2006 (prior to the opening of the conference), funded by IHRA. There will also be two “Users Choice” major sessions in the main conference programme (“Hepatitis C: Prevention, Treatment and Living With Hep C” and “Policies and Ideologies Against People Who Use Drugs: What About Harm Reduction?”) and some training and skills building sessions for drug users. There has also been an unprecedented level of support available for drug user activists to attend this conference (and Congress), courtesy of further DFID grants to IHRA, and the International Harm Reduction Development Programme (IHRD).

For more information on any of the above, or to enquire about INPUD and how to get involved, please visit www.hardcoreharmreducer.be or email Stijn Goossens.

IHRA Website link
 
Well, tbh, I'm not sure either, so we're going to send this HOMELESS to DITM and perhaps those mods will either host the discussion or send it to a more appropriate home. Right now, I'm tired and a wee bit delirious, so I don't trust my judgement on finding a good forum for it right now.

DITM mods, my apologies if they're due. :|
 
Last edited:
Afghan opium cultivation shows divergent north-south trends in 2007, UNODC survey shows

UN drugs chief urges more rapid disbursement of aid for farmers

VIENNA, 5 March 2007 (UNODC) - Divergent trends characterize opium cultivation in Afghanistan this year, with a pronounced divide between the troubled south of the country and the more stable centre-north, according to a survey by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and Afghanistan's Ministry of Counter Narcotics.

UNODC's Afghanistan Opium Winter Assessment suggests that cultivation is likely to decrease in seven of the country's 34 provinces, with no change expected in six. Another six provinces are opium-free and likely to remain so. In the remaining 15 provinces - mainly in the south, east and west - increases are expected.

On balance, the increase in the south may be greater than the decline elsewhere, causing a possible further rise in Afghanistan's aggregate drug supply this year. However, a strong eradication campaign is underway and this could have an impact on the situation in some provinces, including in the south of the country.

"The trend towards more and more provinces in Afghanistan cultivating opium may be broken," UNODC Executive Director Antonio Maria Costa said. "We are witnessing divergent trends. This is a moderately good sign."

"There is evidence that Afghanistan's opium economy is becoming segmented, with farmers' attitudes, supply conditions and price trends moving in opposite directions in the north and the south of the country," he added. "This market segmentation is likely to be reinforced by what appears to be a more vigorous opium eradication campaign than seen in recent years."

The Survey, conducted in December and January, shows a clear link between poor security conditions and opium poppy cultivation in the southern provinces. While only 20 percent of farmers in areas with good security grow opium, 80 percent do so in areas where security is poor.

"In the south, the vicious circle of drugs funding terrorism and terrorists supporting drug traffickers is stronger than ever," Mr Costa said. "In other words, opium cultivation in the south of the country is less a narcotic issue and more a matter of insurgency, so it is vital to fight them both together."

Significant decreases in opium cultivation are expected in the centre and the north of the country, thanks to initiatives aimed at providing farmers and local leaders with incentives to switch to licit livelihoods. Only six percent of villages which have received external assistance such as medical care, schools, roads, electricity or irrigation this year are engaged in opium cultivation.

"Farmers are speaking loud and clear. They respond to real incentives to stop growing opium," the UNODC Executive Director said. "Targeted, increased and sustained development assistance leads to tangible improvements in their lives and in return they demonstrate a desire to return to legality."

A Good Performance Initiative was recently established to reward provinces that are opium-free and those that demonstrate significant progress towards becoming opium-free. The goal for 2007 is to double the number of opium-free provinces from six to twelve, with further improvements expected in the following years.

"Targeted assistance may help create an opium-free belt across the middle of the country, from the border with Pakistan in the south-east to the border with Turkmenistan in the north-west, allowing the government and the international community to concentrate efforts to combat crime and insurgency in the south," Mr Costa said.

"It is possible to claw Afghanistan back into legality province by province, as was done in Thailand, Laos and Myanmar, all of which were once characterized by large scale opium cultivation.''

Mr Costa expressed concern that only around one percent of the total of $100 million available through the Good Performance Initiative and the Counter-Narcotics Trust Fund had so far been disbursed . "This money is vital for the future of Afghanistan. I appeal to both the national and international bureaucracies to get it moving."

Afghanistan's fertile but highly unstable southern provinces accounted for the bulk of all opium cultivated in Afghanistan last year. A record 165,000 hectares were under opium poppy cultivation in 2006, an increase of 59 per cent compared to 2005.

This was mainly due to large-scale cultivation in the southern province of Helmand. Further increases in Helmand, as well as in Uruzgan and Kandahar provinces, are likely this year. In all cases, permanent Taliban settlements have provided sanctuary for drug cultivation, heroin processing and trafficking into Pakistan and Iran. The revenue received in return is used to fund Taliban activities.

The Survey shows that 80 percent of farmers in poppy-growing areas in the south are involved in opium cultivation. Nationally, the proportion is only 13 percent.

The high sale price of opium is the main reason given by farmers for growing opium, especially when there is little risk of their crops being eradicated.

''At the moment, none of Afghanistan's legitimate agricultural products can match the income available from opium poppy, which is estimated at US$ 4,900 per hectare -- about ten times the income from licit crops. We need to change the risk/reward balance for farmers, increasing both the attractiveness of licit activity and the retribution for not complying with the law,'' Mr Costa added.

He also called on the international community to support a recently launched initiative to strengthen joint border controls and improve cross-border intelligence-sharing on the trafficking of drugs and their chemical precursors between Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan.

Link
 
policingtheglobe.jpg


DRCNET Review:

The academic discipline of international relations pays little heed to crime control and the academic discipline of criminal justice pays little heed to international politics, note Peter Andreas and Ethan Nadelmann early in "Policing the Globe." That has left a lacunae they have nicely filled in their study of the rise of international cooperation in policing -- and where it might go from here.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/files/policingtheglobe.jpg
You couldn't come up with a better pair to tackle this subject than Andreas and Nadelmann. Andreas, a professor of political science and international relations at Brown University, has done extensive work on the US-Mexico border. And I assume most readers are familiar with Nadelmann as head of the Drug Policy Alliance, where he serves as the country's most prominent drug reform advocate. But in addition to being an activist, Nadelmann is an academic with a long interest in the internationalization of crime control. In fact, he laid much of the groundwork for "Policing the Globe" with his 1993 "Cops Across Borders," published by Penn State University Press.

As an academic work, "Policing the Globe," while eminently readable (unlike some academic prose), is likely to be mostly read by serious researchers and students of its subject matter. That's a shame, for Andreas and Nadelmann shed considerable light on the evolution of the ever-more-integrated international police apparatus. Given the acceleration of that integration since the attacks of September 2001 and the technological advances leading us ever closer to an Orwellian surveillance society, it might behoove us to pay some attention.

While "Policing the Globe" is not indecipherable academic-speak, it is dense. But it is also chewy. It's the kind of writing where you start out underlining the really important parts, but quickly find you have to switch to quick slash-marks on the page margins because otherwise you're going to underline half the damn book.

The rise of international cooperation in crime control is because of the rise of international crime, right? Seems reasonable, but as Andreas and Nadelmann explain, it's not quite that simple. It has instead been a process lasting hundreds of years, beginning with efforts to eradicate piracy and slavery, and moving through the attempt by European states to suppress political opponents, the crusade against international prostitution, the war on drugs, and now, the war on terror.

And the liberal model of a police response to a crime problem doesn't explain it. In fact, it begs the question: What is a criminal activity and why? The most vivid examples of international police cooperation and global prohibition regimes revolve around activities that weren't even crimes a century ago: drug trafficking and use, money laundering, the traffic in migrant humans, and political violence (or terrorism, which presents its own sticky definitional and political problems).

To really explain the rise of international crime control, argue Andreas and Nadelmann, one must also incorporate some realpolitik and some social constructivism into the mix. In realpolitik, stronger states impose their wills on weaker ones, and the pair show how that has been the case here. At the beginning, cooperation among European states paved the way, but in the past century, and especially since World War II, the United States, as the most powerful state actor, has been largely able to impose its criminal justice preferences on the rest of the world. To the extent it has been able to do that, it has made international criminal law more homogenous, more in line with that of its own.

But American preferences are determined not just by economics, politics, or national security, but also by appeals to morality and the fight against evil. Indeed, what the authors call "transnational moral entrepreneurs" have played a key role in the creation of the global slavery, white slavery, and drug prohibition regimes. If we want to understand global criminality, we have to understand how it is created.

Andreas and Nadelmann spend the middle section of "Policing the Globe" carefully describing the evolution of international crime control. In sometimes exhausting detail, they note the rise of international cooperation against European anarchist assassins and other political "criminals," and their gradual displacement as the primary creators of the international crime consensus by the Americans. Now, the DEA and the FBI have offices in dozens of countries across the world.

And where will we go from here? Global drug prohibition is likely to hang around despite its failures and collateral damage, the pair predict. "The failure of a global prohibition regime does not necessarily signal its future demise," they write. Instead, its "symbolic allure" as a means of moral disapproval is likely to ensure that it continues. "Open defection from the regime is highly unlikely any time soon."

But they do point to some nibbling around the edges. The global consensus on marijuana is crumbling, they note, and the rise of coca-friendly Evo Morales to the Bolivian presidency could lead to erosion of the UN Single Convention prohibition on the coca plant, or even a direct challenge to the convention itself.

But "Policing the Globe" is larger than the drug war, and it raises serious concerns about the broader implications of what could be the coming global police state (my words, not theirs). All in all, Andreas and Nadelmann have produced an important work, one that should be essential for anyone interested in global policing. Given some of the trends the pair identify, however, this book should probably be required reading for anyone interested in the preservation of freedom in the 21st Century.

Link
 
Drug prohibition — lost liberty, money
Stephen Kershnar, The Observer
April 9, 2007

As the Iraq War drags into its fifth year, there is a far more destructive policy that has been going on for decades, drug prohibition. This prohibition is offensive in at least in part because of its utter contempt for liberty.



In On Liberty (1859), John Stuart Mill put forth the harm principle which should be a basic tenet in a free society: state coercion is permissible only when it is necessary to prevent harm to others. The idea is that the state shouldn’t tell persons how to lead their lives. It shouldn’t mandate what people believe, what religion they practice, what they eat, etc. This seems to capture why alcohol prohibition was such a bad idea. It was wrong because it involved a nanny-state government telling adults what harmless activities they may and may not engage in. However, unlike drug-nannies, the alcohol-nannies had some respect for American citizens. While the Eighteenth Amendment banned sale and production of alcohol, it didn’t ban personal consumption.

Some nanny-types argue that drug use isn’t harmless because persons harm others through impaired driving, stealing to support their habit, drug-fueled violence, etc. There are a couple things to note about this argument. First, these activities are already illegal and can be combated by directly targeting them. In fact, the massive resources used to track down drugs might end up diverting resources needed to prevent violent crime. For example, according to anthropologist Michael P. Ghiglieri, citing Bureau of Justice Statistics, in the 90’s, only about 38% of murderers were sentenced to prison. Second, if this argument warrants drug prohibition, it provides an even stronger case for alcohol probation. It’s hard to imagine anyone who isn’t a blood enemy of liberty wanting to criminalize alcohol again. Third, if we allow the criminal law to protect against externalities, that is, when one person’s conduct imposes costs on others, the state could mandate jogging, body weight, sexual practices, etc. The harm principle (when narrowed to focus on direct harm to others) is a bulwark against such an invasion of liberty. For example, whether persons should be allowed to engage in gay male sex shouldn’t depend on whether sodomy burdens the state-subsidized medical system.

Even if drug prohibition didn’t involve a dizzying lack of respect for liberty, it probably doesn’t pass a simple cost-benefit analysis. A corollary to the harm principle is something like the following: before you restrict liberty, you should have convincing evidence that the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs.

The incarceration costs are staggering. A little background is helpful here. In 2005, the U.S. has 2.2 million people in prison. This gives the U.S. the pride of being the world leader in both per capita imprisonment and total imprisonment. The U.S. has one quarter of the world’s prisoners. A good deal of the problem is drug prohibition. Data from a 2005 Bureau of Justice study indicates that in 2003 roughly 22% of prisoners were there for drug crimes (20% of state prisoners, 55% of federal ones). Here is a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the state and federal incarceration costs. The product of 484,000 prisoners (2005 estimate) and $45,000 per prisoner (incarceration costs plus lost income – note I made this number up) is $22 billion per year. The pain-and-suffering cost brought about when you lock half a million men in cages and separate them from their friends and families doesn’t go into this number despite the fact that it’s huge. There are also massive law-enforcement costs. The federal drug control budget in 2006 was $12.5 billion. Since numerous state and local agencies also spend vast amounts of time and energy pursuing marijuana and other threats to the free world, one can imagine that the costs here are considerably greater than my low-end estimate of $34.5 billion.

Worthy of special contempt is the Drug Abuse Resistance Program (DARE) program. According to a 1998 study by Professors Ronsenbaum and Hanson of the University of Illinois at Chicago, DARE has no impact on the long-term rate of drug use by children who go through it. Other sources claim that this is the same result found in all major research into DARE’s effectiveness. Despite the lack of evidence for its effectiveness, in 1996 it was administered in 70% of the nation’s school districts, reaching 25 million students. That year 44 foreign countries also used it. The costs for this program include not just wasted taxpayer money but also the lost education time.

Another significant cost is the shredding of the Constitution in pursuit of recreational drugs. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and allows warrants only when there is probable cause. Steven Duke of the CATO Institute points out that in the context of drug prohibition, the Constitution has been read to allow police to use the lower reasonable-suspicion standard to search our bodies. He notes that the Constitution has also been read to allow police to search mobile homes, closed containers within cars, and cars without a warrant. It allows them to search open fields and garbage cans and to conduct close helicopter surveillance of persons’ homes and backyards without warrant or cause. In pursuit of drugs, he notes, the Constitution “now” allows people to be searched in their cars or in airports, trains or buses, and submitted to questioning and dog sniffs.

Drug prohibition likely decreases the frequency of addiction and some of the horrible results (violence, theft, and abandonment) that accompany addiction. At the same time, it eliminates some of the good times people would have by using drugs. The same factors are present with alcohol. In the absence of convincing evidence that the benefits of prohibition outweigh its costs, it’s better to err on the side of liberty.

Locally, the costs are substantial. In Fredonia, the town picks up part of the costs of a police officer for the DARE program and the salary of an officer to participate in the Southern Tier Regional Drug Task Force. There is also a drug court in Dunkirk. On Fredonia’s campus, there are administrative attempts to suspend students for possession and sale of small amounts of marijuana, although to be fair these don’t always involve a first-campus offense. There is an unsubstantiated rumor that local police offered to waive a marijuana arrest if the arrestee participated in drug-sting operations. If true, someone should be fired.

Like alcohol prohibition, drug prohibition tramples on liberty and doesn’t clearly past the cost-benefit test. Sadly, it’s probably here to stay anyway.

Link
 
Editorial: Ignorance Leading to Suffering, Injustice and Death
David Borden, Drug War Chronicle
April 20, 2007

When discussing the idea of drug legalization with those who are unfamiliar with the issue, I am commonly asked, "Wouldn't more people use drugs if they were legal?" or "Wouldn't all the problems increase if drugs were legal?"

The reaction is a simplistic one. It's possible -- not a given -- that drug use will increase after prohibition is ended. But that's the bare beginning of the analysis, not the conclusion of it. Whatever happens to drug use rates, the many devastating harms rising from prohibition will end -- the violence and public disorder of the illegal drug trade, the poisonings and the overdoses from uncertain purity, the desperate straits of addicts who can't afford high street prices, just to name a few. Richard Dennis, a famed financial trader who was an early major supporter of this movement, wrote that addiction rates could double with legalization but the total harm still decrease. I don't know what the math is or if there is any good math on the subject. But even if we knew what would happen with drug use rates or drug addiction rates -- which we don't -- to make that the only measure of the policy, much less the primary one, does not do justice to the complexity or the importance of drug policy.

My prediction is that experimental or casual use of certain drugs would increase, but would mostly involve lower potency forms of the drugs than are widely available now, and would be counter-balanced by decreased use of other currently legal drugs like alcohol (the "substitution" effect). But that's just a guess, albeit an educated one.

Brian Bennett, publisher of the "truth: the Anti-drugwar" web site, featuring extensive compilations and charting of drug war data, pointed out in an e-mail this morning that in 1979, the year when drug use is said to have peaked, there were 7,101 recorded deaths from all illegal drugs combined. In 2004, the latest year for which data is available (and for which Bennett just uploaded a presentation), the total was up to 30,711, more than four times as many. Clearly, there's a lot more to things than mere usage rates.

The stinging report of the UK Drug Policy Commission released this week provides some insight, even if tentative, to the question of whether huge numbers of people would become drug users who are not users now if drugs were legalized. According to the report, which was coauthored by a prominent American academic, Peter Reuter, and a prominent British academic, Alex Stevens, "There is little evidence from the UK, or any other country, that drug policy influences either the number of drug users or the share of users who are dependent." Other factors -- cultural and social, the report cites -- appear to play a more important determining role than laws and policies.

Reuter and Stevens presumably had analyzed the differences only between different prohibitionist systems, since there are no extant legalization systems with which to compare the data. To switch to a legalization system is a more fundamental change than to switch between one prohibition system and another, even between a harsher one like ours and a more tolerant one such as the policies in the Netherlands or Switzerland. Still, at a minimum such a finding calls into question the assumption that drug use would skyrocket following legalization -- it's just not obvious at all that that would happen.

Reuter and Stevens also point out that governments can make a difference in "reducing the levels of drug-related harms… through the expansion of and innovation in treatment and harm reduction services." That is to say, drug-related deaths need not have more than quadrupled in the US during a quarter-century in which the drug-using percentage of the population has decreased, if only policymakers would be a little more thoughtful about what they are doing. That last sentence is my interpretation; I don't want to put words in the authors' mouths. But I think it follows from their own words pretty straightforwardly.

It is understandable for a rank-and-file citizen who hasn't studied drug policy to not immediately show the same degree of sophistication in the issue as a scholar or advocate. After all, many of drug policy reform's basic tenets are counterintuitive -- it did not occur to me that drug legalization could reduce crime until I read about the idea, for example.

But for policymakers to continue to base policies that affect large numbers of people on the most simplistic reactions or slogans is downright irresponsible -- as Bennett's numbers prove. The consequence of ignorance or politicization in drug policy is suffering, injustice and death. Shame on our "leaders" who have willfully allowed it happen.

Link
 
Top