Advertisement

Step One: Acknowledge the Failure of a War on Drugs Strategy and the Harm it has Caused

  • Caroline ChatwinEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter outlines the history of international drug control and the emergence of a war on drugs approach to global drug policy. It documents the failure of this approach and explores the unintended and harmful consequences that have been caused to both consumer and producer countries as a result. The final section highlights attempts to move away from the war on drugs. It employs case studies of recent responses to New Psychoactive Substances and UNGASS 2016 to suggest that a war on drugs approach to global drug policy endures.

Keywords

International drug control War on drugs Consumer countries Producer countries New psychoactive substances UNGASS 2016 

References

  1. Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  2. Amnesty International. (2011). Addicted to death: Executions for drug offenses in Iran. London: Amnesty International.Google Scholar
  3. Barratt, M., Seear, K., & Lancaster, K. (2017). A critical examination of the definition of ‘psychoactive effect’ in Australian drug legislation. International Journal of Drug Policy, 40, 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bastos, F., & Strathdee, S. (2000). Evaluating effectiveness of syringe exchange programmes: Current issues and future projects. Social Science and Medicine, 51, 1771–1782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bewley-Taylor, D. (2012a). The contemporary international drug control system: A history of the UNGASS decade. In J. Collins & N. Kitchen (Eds.), Governing the global drug wars (LSE Special Report SR014). https://www.eprints.lse.ac.uk.
  6. Bewley-Taylor, D. (2012b). International drug control: Consensus fractured. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bewley-Taylor, D., & Jelsma, M. (2011). Fifty years of the 1961 single convention on narcotic drugs: A reinterpretation. Series on legislative reform of drug policies. Transnational Institute: http://www.tni.org.
  8. Bewley-Taylor, D., & Jelsma, M. (2012). The UN drug control conventions: Limits of latitude. Transnational Institute: https://www.tni.org.
  9. Bewley-Taylor, D., & Trace, M. (2006). The INCB: Watchdog or guardian of the UN drug control conventions? The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme.Google Scholar
  10. Bewley-Taylor, D., Jelsma, M., & Blickman, T. (2014). The rise and decline of cannabis prohibition. Transnational Institute: http://www.tni.org.
  11. Beyers, J., Toumbourou, J., Catalano, R., Arthur, M., & Hawkins, J. (2004). A cross-national comparison of risk and protective factors for adolescent substance use: The United States and Australia. Journal of Adolescent Health, 35, 3–16.Google Scholar
  12. Birdwell, J., Chapman, J., & Singleton, N. (2011). Taking drugs seriously: A demos and UK drug policy commission report on legal highs. http://www.ukdpc.org.uk.
  13. Bowling, B. (2011). Transnational criminology and the globalisation of harm production. In M. Bosworth & C. Hoyle (Eds.), What is criminology? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bruun, K., Pan, L., & Rexed, I. (1975). The gentleman’s club. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bullington, B. (2000). America’s drug war: Fact or fiction. In R. Coomber (Ed.), The control of drug use and drug users. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Burris, S., & Strathdee, S. (2006). To serve and protect? Towards a better relationship between drug control policy and public health. AIDS, 20, 117–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chatwin, C. (2014). New psychoactive substances: New European policy landscapes. In G. R. Potter, M. Wouters, & J. Fountain (Eds.), Change and continuity: Researching evolving drug landscapes in Europe. Lengerich: PABST Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Chatwin, C. (2017). Assessing the ‘added value’ of European policy on new psychoactive substances. International Journal of Drug Policy, 40, 111–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chatwin, C., Measham, F., O’Brien, K., & Sumnall, H. (2017). New drugs, new directions? Exploring critical and social research priorities in NPS and HED debates. International Journal of Drug Policy, 40, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Costa, A. (2008). Making drug control ‘fit for purpose’: Building on the UNGASS decade. Vienna: Commission on Narcotic Drugs.Google Scholar
  21. Coulson, C., & Caulkins, J. P. (2011). Scheduling of newly emerging drugs: A critical review of decisions over 40 years. Addiction, 107, 766–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Csete, J., & Wolfe, D. (2007). Closed to reason: The international narcotics control board and HIV/AIDS. Toronto and New York: Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the International Harm Reduction Development (IHERD) Programme of the Open Society Institute.Google Scholar
  23. Currie, E. (1993). Reckoning: Drugs, the cities and the American future. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
  24. Dorn, N., & Jamieson, A. (2000) Room for manoeuvre: Overview of comparative legal research into national drug laws of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, The Netherlands and Sweden and their relation to three international drugs conventions. A Study of DrugScope for the Independent Inquiry on the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, London.Google Scholar
  25. Duke, S. B., & Gross, A. (1982). America’s longest war. New York: Putnam and Sons.Google Scholar
  26. Felbab-Brown, V. (2008). Counternarcotics policy overview: Global trends & strategies. Brookings: https://www.brookings.edu.
  27. Felbab-Brown, V. (2015). No easy exit: Drugs and counternarcotics policies in Afghanistan. https://www.brookings.edu.
  28. Felbab-Brown, V., & Trinkunas, H. (2015). UNGASS 2016 in comparative perspective: Improving the prospects for success. https://www.brookings.edu.
  29. Fordham, A. (2016, May 3). The drugs consensus is not pretty—It’s been ripped apart at the seams. Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk.
  30. Galeotti, M. (2015). Narcotics and nationalism: Russian drug policies and futures. Brookings: https://www.brookings.edu.
  31. Gallahue, P., & Lines, R. (2015). The death penalty for drug offences: Global overview 2015. London: Harm Reduction International.Google Scholar
  32. Gberie, L. (2015). Crime, violence and politics: Drug trafficking and counter narcotics policies in Mali and Guinea. https://www.brookings.edu.
  33. Global Commission on Drug Policy. (2011). War on drugs: Report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy. http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org.
  34. Global Commission on Drug Policy. (2016, April 21). Public statement by the Global Commission on Drug Policy on UNGASS 2016. New York: Global Commission on Drug Policy. http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org.
  35. Goldstein, P. J. (1985). The drugs-violence nexus: A tripartite conceptual framework. Journal of Drug Issues, 15, 493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Greene, J. (1999). Zero tolerance: A case study of policies and practices in New York City. Crime and Delinquency, 45, 171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Haken, J. (2011). Transnational crime in the developing world. Global Financial Integrity: http://www.gfintegrity.org.
  38. Hakim, P. (2011). Rethinking US drug policy. Inter-American Dialogue: https://www.thedialogue.org.
  39. Hope, A. (2015). Plus Ca change: Structural continuities in Mexican counternarcotics policy. https://www.brookings.edu.
  40. Hughes, B., & Winstock, A. R. (2011). Controlling new drugs under marketing regulations. Addiction, 107, 1894–1899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. International Harm Reduction Development Programme. (2010). Detention as treatment: Detention of methamphetamine users in Cambodia, Laos and Thailand. Open Society Institute.Google Scholar
  42. Isacson, A. (2005). The U.S. military in the war on drugs. In C. A. Youngers & E. Rosin (Eds.), Drugs and democracy in Latin America. The impact of U.S. policy. London: Lynne Reinner Publishers.Google Scholar
  43. Jelsma, M. (2011, January). The development of international drug control: Lessons learned and strategic challenges for the future (Working Paper). Geneva: Global Commission on Drug Policies.Google Scholar
  44. Jelsma, M. (2015). UNGASS 2016: Prospects for treaty reform and UN system-wide coherence on drug policy. Brookings: http://www.brookings.edu.
  45. Kebjaj, S., Shahidinia, N., Testa, A., & Williams, J. (2013). Collateral damage & the war on drugs: Estimating the effect of zero tolerance policies on drug arrest rates, 1975–2002. The Public Purpose, XI, 1–25.Google Scholar
  46. Kilmer, B., Midgette, G., & Saloga, C. (2015). Back in the national spotlight: An assessment of recent changes in drug use and drug policies in the United States. Brookings: https://www.brookings.edu.
  47. Ki-moon, B. (2013). Statement: Secretary-general’s remarks at special event on the international day against drug abuse and illicit trafficking. United Nations. http://www.un.org.
  48. Klein, A. (2011). ‘Written evidence to the House of Lords’ enquiry into the European drug strategy’ in House of Lords. The EU drugs strategy, oral and written evidence. Home Affairs Subcommittee of the European Select Committee. http://www.parliament.co.uk.
  49. Leroy, B. (1995). Assessing the legalisation debate. In G. Estievenart (Ed.), Policies and strategies to combat drugs in Europe: Framework for a new European strategies to combat drugs. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
  50. MacCoun, R., & Reuter, P. (2001). Drug war Heresies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Maher, L., & Dixon, D. (1999). Policing and public health: Law enforcement and harm minimisation in a street-level drug market. British Journal of Criminology, 39, 488–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McGrath, M. (2016, Tuesday, March 8). Nancy Reagan and the negative impact of the ‘just say no’ anti-drug campaign. The Guardian.Google Scholar
  53. Measham, F. (2013). Social issues in the use of novel psychoactive substances: Differentiated demand and ideological supply. In P. Dargan & D. Wood (Eds.), Novel psychoactive substances: Classification, pharmacology and toxicology. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  54. Measham, F., & Newcombe, R. (2016). What’s so new about new psychoactive substances? Definitions, prevalence, motivations, user groups and a proposed new taxonomy. In T. Kolind, B. Thom, & G. Hunt (Eds.), The Sage handbook of drug & alcohol studies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Measham, F., Wood, D., Dargan, P., & Moore, K. (2011). The rise in legal highs: Prevalence and patterns in the use of illegal drugs and first and second generation ‘legal highs’ in South London gay dance clubs. Journal of Substance Use, 16(4), 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mejia, D. (2015). Plan Colombia: An analysis of effectiveness and costs. https://www.brookings.edu.
  57. Mena, F., & Hobbs, R. (2010). Narcophobia: Drugs prohibition and the generation of human rights abuses. Trends in Organised Crime, 13(1), 6–74.Google Scholar
  58. Miraglia, P. (2015). Drugs and drug trafficking in Brazil: Trends and policies. Brookings: http://www.brookings.edu.
  59. Moore, D., & Dietze, P. (2005). Enabling environments and the reduction of drug-related harm: Re-framing Australian policy and practice. Drug and Alcohol Review, 24, 275–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nadelmann, E. (1989). Drug prohibition in the US: Costs consequences and alternatives. Science, 245, 939–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Organisation of American States. (2013a). Scenarios for the drug problem in the Americas 2013–2025. https://www.oas.org.
  62. Organisation of American States. (2013b). The drug problem in the Americas. https://www.oas.org.
  63. Owen, T. (2016, March 6). Just say no: How Nancy Reagan helped America lose the war on drugs. Vice News.Google Scholar
  64. Perrone, D. (2016). Designer drugs. In H. H. Brownstein (Ed.), The handbook of drugs and society Chichester. UK: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  65. Philippines Daily Inquirer. (2016, October 16). Story in numbers war on drugs. https://www.newsinfo.inquirer.net.
  66. Potter, G. R., & Chatwin, C. (2018). Not particularly special: Critiquing “NPS” as a category of drugs. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09687637.2017.1411885.
  67. Provine, D. M. (2007). Unequal under law: Race in the war on drugs. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  68. Pryce, S. (2012). Fixing drugs: The politics of drug prohibition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  69. Reuter, P. (2011). Options for regulating new psychoactive drugs: A review of recent experiences. London: UK Drug Policy Commission.Google Scholar
  70. Reuter, P., & Pardo, B. (2016). Can new psychoactive substances be regulated effectively? An assessment of the British psychoactive substances bill. Addiction.  https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Reuter, P., & Pardo, B. (2017). New psychoactive substances: Are there any good options for regulating new psychoactive substances? International Journal of Drug Policy, 40, 113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rhodes, T., Singer, M., Bourgois, P., Friedman, S., & Strathdee, A. (2005). The social production of HIV risk among injecting drug users. Social Science and Medicine, 61, 1026–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Seddon, T. (2014). Drug policy and global regulatory capitalism: The case of new psychoactive substances (NPS). International Journal of Drug Policy.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.03.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Shiner, M. (2003). Out of harm’s way? Illicit drug use, medicalisation and the law. British Journal of Criminology, 43, 772–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Small, W., Wood, E., Jurgens, R., & Kerr, T. (2005). Injection drug use HIV/AIDS and incarceration: Evidence from the Vancouver injection drug users study. HIV AIDS Policy Law Review, 10, 5–10.Google Scholar
  76. Stevens, A., & Measham, F. (2014). The ‘drug policy ratchet’: Why do sanctions for new psychoactive substances typically only go up? Addiction, 109(8), 1226–1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stevens, A., Fortson, R., Measham, F., & Sumnall, H. (2015). Legally flawed, scientifically problematic, potentially harmful: The UK psychoactive substance bill. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26, 1167–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sumnall, H. R., Evans-Brown, M., & McVeigh, J. (2011). Social, policy, and public health perspectives on new psychoactive substances. Drug Testing and Analysis, 3, 515–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. TNI. (2016b). The UNGASS outcome document: Diplomacy or denialism? https://www.tni.org.
  80. Travis, A. (2014, Monday, January 13). Legal highs: UK to opt out of new EU regulations regime. The Guardian.Google Scholar
  81. United Nations. (1961). Single convention on narcotic drugs. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/legal.
  82. United Nations Development Programme. (2015). Perspectives on the development dimensions of drug control policy. www.undp.org.
  83. UNODC. (2008). World drug report 2008. http://www.unodc.org/documents.
  84. UNODC. (2010). World drug report 2010. http://www.unodc.org/documents.
  85. UNODC. (2013, March). The challenge of new psychoactive substances. Global Smart Programme.Google Scholar
  86. UNODC. (2016a). Outcome document of the 2016 United Nations General Assembly Special Session on the world drug problem. Our joint commitment to effectively addressing and countering the world drug problem. New York: UNODC. http://www.unodc.org/documents.
  87. UNODC. (2016b). World drug report 2016. http://www.unodc.org/documents.
  88. van Amsterdam, J., Nutt, D., & van den Brink, W. (2013). Generic legislation of new psychoactive drugs. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 27(3), 317–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Vasconi, C. (2013). Where next for Europe on drug policy reform? Expert Seminar June 20–21, Transnational Institute, Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
  90. Werb, D., Rowell, G., Guyatt, G., Kerr, T., Montaner, J., & Wood, E. (2011). Effect of drug law enforcement on drug market violence; a systematic review. International Journal of Drug Policy, 22(2), 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Werb, D., Kerr, T., Nosyk, B., Strathdee, S., Montaner, J., & Wood, E. (2013). The temporal relationship between drug supply indicators: An audit of international government surveillance systems. British Medical Journal Open, 3, 1–8.Google Scholar
  92. West Africa Commission on Drugs. (2014). Not just in transit. Drugs, the state and society in West Africa. http://www.wacommissiondrugs.org.
  93. Winstock, A., & Ramsey, J. (2010). Legal highs and the challenges for policy makers. Addiction, 105(10), 1685–1687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Woodiwiss, M. (1988). Crime, crusades and corruption: Prohibitions in the United States, 1900–1987. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  95. Woodiwiss, M., & Bewley-Taylor, D. (2005). The global fix: The construction of a global enforcement regime. Amsterdam: Transnational Institute, Crime and Globalisation Programme.Google Scholar
  96. Young, J. (1971). The drugtakers: The social meaning of drug use. London: McGibbon & Kee.Google Scholar
  97. Youngers, C. A., & Rosin, E. (2005). The U.S. “war on drugs”. In C. A. Youngers & E. Rosin (Eds.), Drugs and democracy in Latin America. London: Lynne Reiner Publishers.Google Scholar
  98. Zhang, S., & Chin, K.-L. (2015). A people’s war: China’s struggle to contain its illicit drug problem. Brookings: https://www.brookings.edu.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations