August 30, 2001
Narco News 2001
Fact-Checking
Washington's Threats...
U.N.
Treaties and the
Legalization
of Drugs
By Peter Webster
Special
to The Narco News Bulletin
As
dissatisfaction with the results of drug prohibition mounts once again, it is natural to expect that
analysts of the situation will propose a wide variety of ways
to "improve" legislation, enforcement, addiction treatment,
and other currently popular "remedies" for illegal
drug use. The scenario is not new, although recently the perceived
failure of prohibitionist policies seems to be reaching new heights.
With each outbreak of recognition of prohibition's
faults, however, a few observers dare to question the very concept
of prohibition, trying to convince authorities and the public
at large that perhaps prohibitionist policy is itself the root
of the problems we have habitually ascribed to the prohibited
substances. This view rejects in principle the idea that prohibition
can be "fixed" or "improved," its results
made at least somewhat less disastrous by tinkering with the
details of prohibitionist policies.
The current outbreak of disillusionment
with prohibition seems also to be producing unprecedented numbers
of critics in this camp. Not only independent researchers and
writers, but notable political figures in several countries have
suggested outright that prohibition's Golden Age is over, and
in the interests of public health, control of powerful and world-wide
criminal syndicates, protection of human rights and other necessary
goals, a complete reversal of prohibition is not only justified
but obligatory and long overdue.
Such currents of dissent exist widely
today not only in European societies known for their pragmatism
and tolerance, but also in countries hard hit by the negative
results of the U.S. Drug War.
Parliamentarians, governors, police, and
even presidents in several countries of Latin America have thus
joined in with long-enduring reform voices in Europe and North
America in calling for a repeal of drug prohibition, recognizing
that only a system of controlled legalization can provide a measure
of control over the manufacture and access to drugs.
The U.S. federal government is likely
to be on the caboose of this train of reform, however, for several
reasons that need not be examined here. The U.S., with the assistance
of its handmaiden U.N. drug control agencies, is instead trying
to reinforce drug prohibition and has cajoled, intimidated, and
threatened no small number of nations that have made moves away
from U.S./U.N. dictates. A major tool in this process has been
the U.N. international drug treaties that were essentially forced
upon their signatories by the U.S. These treaties today provide
the U.S. federal authorities with an immediate rejoinder to any
moves or even suggestions for drug policy reform that might tend
to discredit U.S. prohibitionist policy.
For example, on August 16, 2001, the Jamaica
Observer reported on the results of an enquiry by its National
Ganja Commission, which recommended "the decriminalization
of ganja for personal, private use by adults and for use as a
sacrament for religious purposes."
Within hours, the U.S. Embassy was already
"hinting" that Jamaica could face certification problems
during its next annual narcotics review:
"The US government will consider
Jamaica's adherence to its commitments under the 1988 UN Drug
Convention when making its determination under the annual narcotics
certification review," US Embassy spokesman Michael Koplovsky
said.
A similar threat was issued by U.S. Ambassador
Anne Patterson in response to a legalization debate in the Colombian
Congress, an event reinforced by a "Historic Resolution"
by the National Assembly of Colombian Governors recommending
an end to drug prohibition.
Pressure to reform cannabis laws in Britain
has also been mounting during the past year, and although such
direct threats to a major U.S. ally were not immediately obvious,
a story from the U.K.'s GUARDIAN newspaper indicated that reformers
in the U.K. had been anticipating U.S. objections based on the
U.N. treaties:
Pubdate: Tue, 28 Aug 2001
Source: Guardian, The (UK)
UN TREATY 'NO BAR' TO
EASING DRUG LAWS
Special Report: Drugs
In Britain
A reform of Britain's
drug laws could be introduced without the government breaching
its international obligations under UN drug control conventions,
according to a legal study published today....
The conclusions of the
study, entitled European Drug Laws: the Room for Manoeuvre,
are important because opponents of drug law reform have argued
that Britain could not liberalise its drug laws even if it wanted
to because it would breach the UN treaty.
I would like to suggest, however, that
there exists an important loophole in the 1988 U.N. Treaty that
would not only allow some leeway for countries to "ease
drug laws" and soften the impact of radical prohibition,
but to declare the treaty entirely inapplicable and void.
The UNDCP World Drug Report (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1997: p185) states:
"...[none of the]
three international drug Conventions insist on the establishment
of drug consumption per se as a punishable offense. Only the
1988 Convention clearly requires parties to establish as criminal
offenses under law the possession, purchase or cultivation of
controlled drugs for the purpose of non-medical, personal consumption,
UNLESS TO DO SO WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES
AND BASIC CONCEPTS OF THEIR LEGAL SYSTEMS." (Capitals added)
It would appear that if the highest court
of a nation would rule that the prohibition of a drug such as
cannabis is unconstitutional, it would automatically render null
and void all the problematic restrictions of the U.N. treaties
in question. This is the very road that Canada appears to be
following, with a Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality
of cannabis prohibition expected later this year.
Any nation that recognizes that drug prohibition
infringes human rights, produces millions of victims, threatens
the world economy, creates powerful international criminal syndicates,
and thus constitutes what may well be seen someday as a crime
against humanity, should seriously consider employing this loophole,
declaring prohibitionist policy to be unconstitutional and abusive
of human rights guaranteed by national and international documents
and treaties that must take precedence over the U.N. drug control
treaties. A group of nations which, as a bloc, issued such a
resolution, might well provide the needed catalyst that would
topple a century-long folly and lead the way to intelligent and
effective drug policy for societies the world over.
Peter Webster is Review
Editor for the International Journal of Drug Policy -
http://www.elsevier.nl/ - the Official Journal of the
International Harm Reduction Association. For subscriptions:
usinfo-f@elsevier.com nlinfo-f@elsevier.nl
Democracy, Sovereignty
and Liberty