John Collins sets the current hegemonic drug prohibition regime in its historical context and suggests that Britain has an opportunity to radically rethink its attachment to this failed model, and begin instituting more pragmatic, beneficial and cost effective policies

Collins, John

English

LSE Research Online

blogs.lse.ac.uk http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2012/01/26/drug-policy-reform-uk/Adding nuance to drug control: Britain shouldn’t beafraid to move away from the flailing international drugregimeJohn Collins sets the current hegemonic drug prohibition regime in itshistorical context and suggests that Britain has an opportunity to radicallyrethink its attachment to this failed model, and begin instituting more pragmatic,beneficial and cost effective policies. The House of Commons Select Committee on drug policy provides Britain withan excellent opportunity to break with past failures and embark on a new set ofdrug policies that are grounded in genuine science and pragmatism. For much ofthe past century, the world has been governed by a drug prohibition regime that has largely pursueda supply-centric and criminalisation approach. In spite of widespread calls for policyexperimentation and change, this regime and its treaty structure has served to deter both of these inthe name of ‘international legal obligations.’In actuality, this regime’s model has failed to reduce the supply of drugs, their potential for abuse ortheir negative social outcomes. In many ways this prohibitionist model has created it own problems,such as perversely ensuring a lucrative black market in which, as Milton Friedman once argued, “therole of the government is to protect the drug cartel.”Meanwhile, far from minimising the violence accruing to society from drug use, an InternationalCentre for Science and Drug Policy (ICSDP) study states that “the existing evidence stronglysuggests that drug law enforcement contributes to gun violence and high homicide rates.”To understand what drives current drug policy in the UK, one needs to understand the story of theevolution and survival of its governing norms.Historical ContextThe forces which installed strict supply control as the governing and unquestioned paradigm forinternational efforts are legion and complex. They included: geostrategic posturing; economic self-interest; bureaucratic inertia and a moralism that tended towards Manichaeism.Leveraging British economic self-interest after WWI and geopolitical uncertainty during the interwaryears, the US was able to exploit divisions among the Old Powers and enmesh its conception ofdrug control within the developing international regime – then administered by the League ofNations. The tectonic power shifts that occurred during WWII ensured the final blows to the oldsystem. America used its wartime leverage to extract a promise from Britain and the Netherlands toend their colonial monopolies and institute complete prohibition on opium smoking in their FarEastern territories.The strict control model would be codified in the United Nations Single Convention (1961) whichwould then set the basis for the next half century of control. By this stage, however, the failures of thesupply control model – failures that many had predicted in 1909 and beyond – were readilyapparent, but easily ignored or dismissed by a control regime whose interests had becomeinextricably tied to the supply-centric norm.The US, having found its stride in its decades long battle to universalise a strict supply controlapproach, had little time for such nuances. Furthermore, anything which addressed issues ofdemand (short of an increasing emphasis on incarceration), was viewed as an attempt to waterdown control efforts and therefore to be avoided at all costs. As such, the regime evolved a vastoveremphasis on supply issues while never developing an adequate ability to address issuesrelating to demand.Going ForwardSince the ratification of the Single Convention the regime has been buttressed by a number ofmutually reinforcing aspects. In particular, individual states have continued to adhere because theywere part of an intact treaty structure; meanwhile the treaty structure remained intact becauseindividual states continued to adhere. This feature was then reinforced by aggressive Americandrug diplomacy using a robust arsenal of carrots and sticks.Now the regime is wearing at the seams and risks being pulled apart by centrifugal forces. Mostapparent is the fact that states in Latin America are beginning to seriously buck against it.Meanwhile, these states will only draw encouragement as the United States pursues a lessbombastic foreign policy and makes apparent its own contempt for international laws which conflictwith its emerging domestic desires – witness for instance individual states’ continued drivestowards varying forms of Marijuana regulation.Against this backdrop Britain shouldn’t be afraid to chart a new path in its own domestic controls.An historical appraisal of the regime shows it as an anachronistic and simplistic approach to one ofthe most dizzyingly complex social issues. The current model of control arose in response to opium(and to a far lesser extent coca) and their derivatives. As the array of drugs, and their societalinteraction, has grown more complex, regime advocates have assumed a strong defensive postureagainst any shift away from a criminalisation and supply-centric model. Meanwhile they have failedto address the role of drugs in some of the great public health crises of recent decades and havedone little to thwart the spread of diseases like HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis.As I have written elsewhere “the regime has survived two world wars and the geopolitical tides ofthe twentieth century. In the pantheon of international cooperation it certainly qualifies as one of thegreat survivors.” Nevertheless, It will be forced to change when states outside the traditional circle ofEuropean pragmatists begin to seriously question its foundations. Both Britain’s current PrimeMinister and Deputy Prime Minister are on record as accepting the need for a radical rethink andexperimentation in this field. Britain can and should use the Select Committee as an opportunity tobegin instituting more pragmatic, beneficial and cost effective drug policies instead of hiding behindthe strictures of failed international efforts.Please read our comments policy before posting……………………………………………………………About the authorJohn Collins – LSE IDEASJohn Collins is a PhD Candidate in the Department of International History at theLSE where he researches the history of international drug control. He spent ayear in New York and Washington D.C. working with the Drug Policy Alliance onissues related to U.S. domestic drug policy reform, and is the programmeassistant for the Transatlantic  Relations Programme at LSE IDEAS.No related posts.

Adding nuance to drug control: Britain shouldn’t be afraid to move away from the flailing international drug regime

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online