Trends in Organized Crime

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 60–74 | Cite as

Narcophobia: drugs prohibition and the generation of human rights abuses

Article

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the negative aspects of global drugs prohibition. The paper argues that prohibition, which is driven by moralism rather than empirical research, creates a black market that is regulated by violent entrepreneurs, and particular in developing countries where there is a lack of economic opportunities for the poor, offers the only feasible employment options. The paper suggests that the results of experimental legislation should be taken seriously. The militarisation of prohibition enforcement has hindered the advancement of democracy and led to violence and increases in human rights abuses. In conclusion it is argued that the current system of global prohibition creates more problems than it solves, and that issues of drug production and trade need to be dealt with by regulation from within a development perspective.

References

  1. Adorno S (1990) Violencia urbana, justica criminal e organização social do crime, (urban violence, criminal justice and crime social organization). Núcleo de Estudos da Violência (USP), São PauloGoogle Scholar
  2. Adorno S, Pazinato W (2009) Estudo da impunidade penal no município de São Paulo, 1991–1997 (Study on legal impunity in São Paulo 1991–1997). São Paulo University (USP), São PauloGoogle Scholar
  3. Bancroft A (2009) Drugs, intoxication and society. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett D, Nowak M (2009) The United Nations and drug policy: towards a human rights-based approach. In: Constantinides A, Zaikos N (eds) The diversity of international law: essay in honour of professor Kalliopi Koufa, Martinus Nijhoff, pp 449–477Google Scholar
  5. Beato C, Assuncao R (2000) Homicide clusters and drug traffic in Belo Horizonte from 1995 to 1999. Anais da 24 Reuniao da ANPOCS, Sao PauloGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett W (1991) The plea to legalize drugs is a siren call to surrender. In: Lyman M, Potter G (eds) Drugs in society. Anderson, CincinattiGoogle Scholar
  7. Best J (1989) Images of issues: typifying contemporary social issues. De Gruyter, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Bewley-Taylor D (1999) The United States and International Drug Control, 1909–1997, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Bewley-Taylor D (2003) Challenging the UN drug control concentions: Problems and possibilities. Int J Drug Pol 14:171–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bewley-Taylor D (2005) Emerging policy contradictions between the United Nations drug control system and the core values of the United Nations. Int J Drug Pol 16:423–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bullington B (1993) All about eve: the many faces of United States drug policy. In: Pearce F, Woodiwiss M (eds) Global crime connections. University of Toronto, Toronto, pp 32–71Google Scholar
  12. Chatterjee SK (1981) Legal aspects of international drug control. Nijhoff, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  13. Chinkin C (1998) International law and human rights. In: Evans T (ed) Human rights 50 years on: a reppraisal. Manchester University, Manchester, pp 105–129Google Scholar
  14. Cohen S (2001) States of denial: knowing about atrocities and suffering. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen P, Reinarman C, Kaal H (2004) The limited relevance of drug policy: cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco. Am J Public Health 94(5):836–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dikotter F (2003) Patient zero’: China and the myth of the opium plague. School of oriental and African studies (SOAS), http://web.mac.com/dikotter
  17. Dowdney L (2003) Children of the drug trade: a case study of children in organised armed violence in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: 7 LetrasGoogle Scholar
  18. Elwood W (1994) Rhetoric in the war on drugs: the triumphs and tragedies of public relations. Praeger, WestportGoogle Scholar
  19. Friedman M (1989) An open letter to Bill Bennett. Wall Street Journal, September 7Google Scholar
  20. Friman H (1991) The United States, Japan, and the international drug trade: troubled partnership. Asian Surv 31(9):875–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greenwald G (2009) Drug decriminalization in Portugal: lessons for creating fair and successful drug policies. Cato, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  22. Hanes WF, Sanello F (2002) Opium wars: the addiction of one empire and the corruption of another. Sourcebooks, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  23. Hawdon J (2001) The role of presidential rhetoric in the creation of a moral panic: Reagan, Bush and the war on drugs. Deviant Behav 22:419–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hobbs D (forthcoming) Populating the underworld. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Huntington S (1991) The third wave: democratization in the late twentieth century. University of Oklahoma, NormanGoogle Scholar
  26. Iulianelli JAS (2004) Rural Brazil: cannabis and violence. Drugs and Conflict No. 11Google Scholar
  27. Johns CJ (1992) Power, ideology and the war on drugs: nothing succeeds like failure. Praeger, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Ledebur K (2005) Bolivia: clear consequences. In: Youngers CA, Rosin E (eds) Drugs and democracy in Latin America: the impact of US policy. Rienner, Boulder, pp 143–184Google Scholar
  29. Levine HG (2003) Global drug prohibition: its uses and crises. Int J Drug Pol 14:145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mcallister W (2000) Drug diplomacy in the twentieth century: an international history. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Mena F (2009) From commodities to evildoers: moral discourses towards drugs trade, prohibition and war. LSE. Department of Sociology, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Miron JA (2004) Drug war crime. Independent, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  33. Musto DF (1987) The American disease: origins of narcotic control. Oxford University, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Nadelmann E (1990) Global prohibition regimes: the evolution of norms in international society. Int Organ 44(4):479–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Paes de Barros R, Henrique R, Mendonça R (2001) A estabilidade inaceitável: desigualdade e pobreza no Brasil. Texto para Discussão, n. 800. Rio de Janeiro: IPEAGoogle Scholar
  36. Picketing M (2001) Stereotyping and politics of representation. Macmillan, HoundmillsGoogle Scholar
  37. Ramos S (2009) Meninos do Rio: Jovens, violência armada e polícia nas favelas cariocas. UNICEFGoogle Scholar
  38. Reinarman C (1979) Moral entrepreneurs and political economy: historical and ethnographic notes on the construction of the cocaine menace. Contemp Crises 3:225–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Said E (1978) Orientalism. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Silverstone R (2006) Media and morality: on the rise of the Mediapolis. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. Soares LE, Se JTS, Rodrigues JAS, Piquet Carneiro L (1996) Violência e política no Rio de Janeiro (violence and politics in Rio de Janeiro). Relume Dumara, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  42. Sweig J (2002) What kind of war for Colombia? Foreign Aff 81:122–141Google Scholar
  43. Taylor AH (1969) American diplomacy and the narcotics traffic, 1900–1939: a study in international humanitarian reform. Duke University, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  44. Willoughby W (1976) Opium as an international problem. John Hopkins, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  45. Wilson JQ (1990) Against the legalization of drugs. Commentary 89(2):21–28Google Scholar
  46. Woodiwiss M (1988) Crime, crusades and corruption: prohibitions in the United States, 1900–1987. Pinter, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Woodiwiss M (1993) Crime’s global reach. In: Pearce F, Woodiwiss M (eds) Global crime connections. University of Toronto, Toronto, pp 1–32Google Scholar
  48. Woodiwiss M, Bewley-Taylor D (2005) The global fix: the construction of a global enforcement regime. Amsterdam: Transnational Institute, available at http://www.tni.org/detail_pub.phtml?&know_id=68.
  49. Woodiwiss M, Hobbs D (2009) Organized evil and the atlantic alliance. Br J Criminol 49(1):106–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Youngers CA, Rosin E (2005) Drugs and democracy in Latin America: the impact of US policy. Rienner, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  51. Zaluar A (2001) Violence in Rio de Janeiro: styles of leisure, drug use and trafficking. Int Soc Sci J 63(169):369–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar

UN documents, NGO/civil society organization’s reports and newspaper articles

  1. AI (Amnesty International) (2005) They come in shooting: policing socially excluded communities’, available online at: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR19/025/2005
  2. AI (Amnesty International) (2008) Amnesty international report 2008, available at: http://archive.amnesty.org/air2008/eng/Homepage.html
  3. Annan K (2005) In larger freedom: toward development, security and human rights for all. United Nations, New York Report of the Secretary-General, document A/59/2005Google Scholar
  4. Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme (2008) Recalibrating the regime: the need for a human rights based approach to international drug policy. Report No. 13, available online at: http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/pdf/report_13.pdf
  5. Brazilian Information Centre for Psychotropic Use (2005) II home survey on the use of psychotropic use in Brazil 2005. Federal University of Sao Paolo, Sao PaoloGoogle Scholar
  6. Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1971) 32 U.S.T. 543, T.I.A.S. 9725, 1019 U.N.T.S. 17Google Scholar
  7. Convention Against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1988) U.N. Doc. E/CONF.82/15Google Scholar
  8. Favela Watch (Observatorio de Favelas) (2006) The journey of children, teenagers and young adults in retail drug trafficking in Rio de Janeiro: 2004–2006. Available online at: http://www.observatoriodefavelas.org.br
  9. Human Rights Watch (1996) Fighting violence with violence: human rights abuses and criminality in Rio de Janeiro. Hum Rights Watch/Am 8(2):1–29Google Scholar
  10. Human Rights Watch (2009) World report 2009. Human Rights Watch, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. ICESC (International Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) (1966) General assembly resolution A/RES/21/2200 AGoogle Scholar
  12. Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy (2009) Towards a paradigm shift, available online at: http://www.drogasedemocracia.org/Arquivos/declaracao_ingles_site.pdf
  13. Nowak M (2008) Report of the special rapporteur on torture and other cruel. Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’, UN Doc. No. A/HRC/7/3/Add.7, 10 March 2008Google Scholar
  14. OHCHR (2004) The global compact and human rights: understanding the sphere of influence and complicity. OHCHR briefing paper. December 2004, available online at: http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/issues_doc/human_rights/Resources/OHCHR_briefing_paper_Dec_04.pdf
  15. Phillips T (2007) Blood on the streets as drug gang and police fight for control of Rio favelas. The Guardian, June 27Google Scholar
  16. Phillips T (2009) Twelve dead and helicopter downed as Rio de Janeiro drug gangs go to war. The Guardian, October 17Google Scholar
  17. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961) March 30, 1961, 520 U.N.T.S. 204Google Scholar
  18. The Times (1902) The primate on the opium traffic. October 9th, p. 5Google Scholar
  19. The Times (1922) Cocaine. April 25th, p. 13Google Scholar
  20. The Times (1922) Cocaine debauchery. May 1st, p. 19Google Scholar
  21. Transnational Institute (2008) Rewriting history: a response to the 2008 world drug report. Drug policy briefing No 26, available online at: http://www.tni.org/detail_page.phtml?act_id=18438
  22. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (2008) Global trends 2008. Available online at: http://www.unhcr.org
  23. UNODC (2008) Making drug control fit for purpose: building on the UNGASS decade. UN Doc. No. E/CN.7/2008/CRP.17Google Scholar
  24. UNODC (2009) World drug report 2009. UNODC, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  25. Waisenlfisz JJ (2008) Mapa da Violência: os Jovens da América Latina 2008. Unesco BrasilGoogle Scholar
  26. Williams EH (1914) Negro cocaine ‘fiends’ are a new southern menace. The New York Times. February 8thGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Human Rights, Department of SociologyLondon School of EconomicsLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of SociologyLondon School of EconomicsLondonUK

Personalised recommendations