You are on page 1of 9

PRESENTATION OF THE REPORT "THE DRUG PROBLEM IN THE AMERICAS"

Approximately 45% of all the cocaine users in the world live in the Americas, along
with approximately half the heroin users and a quarter of all marijuana users. The
consumption of cocaine paste, crac, inhalants, amphetamines and the a!use of
legal drugs has increased.
This consumption of prohi!ited drugs creates an illegal !usiness in our hemisphere
that generates some "5" !illion dollars in drug retail alone.
This illegal activity has led to the rise of giant transnational criminal networs,
which have expanded their activities to include, in addition to the production and
sale of controlled su!stances, the illegal tra#cing and sale of arms, piracy and
smuggling, human tra#cing, the control and exploitation of prostitution, theft,
illegal mining, idnapping and extortion, and the smuggling of migrants and organs,
among other criminal activities.
$n some of our countries, the activity of these criminals has resulted in massacres,
attacs carried out !y assassins, torture and deaths that have raised the death toll
to hundreds of thousands of people.
%oreover, it has led to the corruption of pu!lic and private o#cials at various levels
and caused damage to our economies and institutions that, in many cases,
jeopardi&es our democratic governance.
Although these are realities that a'ect each country di'erently, we are united !y
our concern over the pro!lem. The relationship !etween drugs and violence is one
of the main causes of fear amongst our citi&ens and has contri!uted to maing
security one of the most worrying issues for the citi&ens of the entire hemisphere.
This situation must !e faced with greater realism and e'ectiveness if we want to
move forward successfully. All of us who hold pu!lic responsi!ilities owe it to the
millions of women and men, young and old, mothers and fathers, girls and !oys who
today feel threatened to (nd clear answers and e'ective pu!lic policies to confront
this scourge.
The )eads of *tate and +overnment of the Americas, aware of this, moved forward
in ,artagena, one year ago when they gave an explicit mandate to the -rgani&ation
of American *tates, to .Analy&e the results of the current policy /on drugs0 in the
Americas and explore new approaches to strengthen this struggle and to !ecome
more e'ective.1
The 2eport, 3The 4rug 5ro!lem in the Americas,3 which $ now have the honor to
present to the 6eaders of the )emisphere !y way of his 7xcellency the 5resident of
,olom!ia, who was the ,hair of the *ummit of the Americas that commissioned it, is
the result of that e'ort. $n it, we have thoroughly examined the availa!le and
updated information a!out the si&e and characteristics of the consumption and the
!usiness of illicit drugs in our hemisphere, including their e'ects on the security of
our citi&ens, on the health of our peoples, and on the quality of our institutions and
their servants. To do so we have received valua!le contri!utions from pu!lic
servants, private specialists, academic experts and social and political leaders from
the entire hemisphere that contri!uted with their opinions, their inputs in speci(c
areas and, at all times, with their experience and goodwill.
8e have tried, in this 2eport, not to silence or hide anything. To show the pro!lem
just as it is and how it manifests itself in di'erent ways in our various countries and
su!9regions. To show the volume of money that changes hands and who !ene(ts
from it. To show how it erodes our social organi&ation and how it undermines the
health of our people, the quality of our governments and even our democracy.
8e called the (rst part of this 2eport the Analytical 2eport. $n it we o'er, in (rst
place, a de(nition of the pro!lem, an explanation of how we approached its analysis
and an examination of the reasons that led society to worry a!out the consumption
of certain su!stances and decide to put controls on them, due to the e'ects of
drugs on human health.
:ext we follow the entire process of drugs in the region, the part of the world in
which all of its stages are present in a dominant way; cultivation, production,
distri!ution and the (nal sale of controlled su!stances. $n each stage we review the
various forms this activity assumes, as well as its environmental impact and the
reaction of the *tate, its implications and its limitations.
8e also examined the consumption of the di'erent drugs in our countries, their
e'ects on social exclusion and the exercise of human rights, the possi!le forms of
treatment and prevention practiced today and, again, the reaction of our *tates.
There are two aspects connected with the process of the production, tra#cing and
consumption of drugs that deserve special attention.
The (rst is the so9called .drug economy.1 -ur 2eport contains an examination of the
pro(ts generated in each stage of the process, concluding that, while all pro(t in the
process, the greatest pro(ts are produced in the (nal stage, the sale to consumers.
The second aspect is an examination of the various forms of criminal violence
associated with the di'erent stages in the value chain of the illegal drug economy,
including that which taes place in during the consumption of these su!stances.
-n this point, we carefully considered the possi!le reasons why this violence taes
on greater intensity and virulence in some countries and, in particular, why the
greatest violence is not generated where the greatest pro(t is generated. The most
lethal criminality does not coincide with the greatest pro(t9maing. 5ro!a!ly, then,
there are other factors, such as greater or lesser institutional strength in our
countries and the greater impunity enjoyed !y criminals, which promotes the
violence lined to drugs.
<inally, we analy&e the legal and regulatory alternatives to address the pro!lem, in
particular their origins and characteristics, current trends in decriminali&ation,
reduction of penalties and legali&ation, the potential costs and !ene(ts of these
alternatives and the review of other legal alternatives.
The Analytical 2eport provides, we hope a succinct summary of the current reality of
the 4rug 5ro!lem. The 2eport on *cenarios for the 4rug 5ro!lem in the Americas
=>"?9=>=5 is an examination of the various paths that the phenomenon could tae
in the coming years.
8e are aware that there is not just one possi!le future !ut many alternative or
com!ined futures@ !ecause the complexity of the drug pro!lem gives rise to
di'erent visions or points of view, which are expressed in many de!ates. And, on
that !asis, various policy options can !e adopted with very di'erent consequences.
*tarting from that premise, a group of people, specialists and participants who have
dealt with the drug pro!lem from very di'erent angles, have set forth four
possi!ilities on what the .drug pro!lem1 in the Americas could !ecome in the
future.
:one of them represents what will happen or what we want to happen, !ut all of
them could come to pass if certain events tae place and if some political decisions
are taen. To understand these possi!ilities, to analy&e their causes and e'ects, and
to draw conclusions a!out them, is a tas that we consider not just useful !ut
necessary for our individual and collective reAections on the pro!lem.
Three of the four scenarios discussed 9 3Together3, 35athways3 and 32esilience3 B
descri!e alternative futures depending on the relative weight placed on institutional
strengthening, experimentation with legal changes or the a!ility to react to the
pro!lem from the community. The fourth, 34isruption,3 warns of what might happen
if we fail in the short term to arrive at a shared vision that allows us to unite our
e'orts to address the pro!lem, while at the same time respecting our diversity.
<rom each of these scenarios a variety of collective and multilateral opportunities
and challenges emerge that should !e leading factors in the su!sequent discussion.
8ith drugs, as with any complex social pro!lem, there is a wide range of
motivations and !eliefs that inAuence the social fa!ric. ThatCs why we !elieve that
the scenarios are a good starting point for our leaders and ultimately, our people, to
arrive at collective and sustaina!le policies in the midst of diversity.
5resident *antos;
As $ have said, !y mandating us to prepare this report, the )eads of *tate of our
hemisphere gave us a great responsi!ility. At the same time, they prescri!ed very
precise limits for our response to it. That is why we lay out facts that will assist in
decision9maing, !ut do not propose solutions. That it is up to our leaders, who will
have a (rm !asis for their deli!erations in future de!ates.
)owever, we have allowed ourselves to draw some general conclusions, found at
the end of the Analytical 2eport;
<irst, although the drug pro!lem in the Americas is expressed in a single process, it
allows for di'erent treatments in each of its phases and in the countries in which
they tae place.
The health pro!lems associated with su!stance a!use are certainly present in all
our countries, as there is evidence of drug use in all of them. )owever, although the
increase in consumption in *outh America is alarming, the use of drugs is still
greater in the countries in the north of :orth America, which, together with 7urope,
continues to !e the main destination for drug tra#cing from our hemisphere.
Dy contrast, the impact on the economy, social relations, security and democratic
governance is greater in the countries where cultivation, production and transit tae
place, located in *outh America, ,entral America, %exico and the ,ari!!ean.
*econd, while some countries have greater resources and stronger institutions to
!etter address damages related to the illicit maret and illegal drug use, others
su'er a clear institutional weaness that leads to a practical ina!ility to address the
pro!lem.
The lins !etween drugs and violence in our countries are complex, with greater
impact on those countries in which the *tate is not a!le to deliver e'ective
responses.
Those countries in which criminal activity reaches more intense levels of violence
and cruelty are also the countries where the geographical reach of institutions tends
to !e limited, which su'er from a lac of coordination and institutional articulation,
limited (nancial and human resources, and a lac of information needed to guide
the de(nition and implementation of security policies.
%oreover, there exists, a situation of widespread impunity, which explains the
existence of an equally widespread culture of lac of respect for the *tate. $n the
context of this lac of respect for the *tate, a vicious circle is created in which the
community decides not to use the institutions /crimes are not reported, disputes are
resolved privately, people tae justice into their own hands0 !ecause the police do
not chase o'enders, courts do not deliver justice, and prisons do not reha!ilitate
and often serve as a haven for criminals who continue to operate as such from
!ehind !ars.
8e recogni&e that there are pro!a!ly other conditions that help explain the rule of
crime and violence in some of our countries. That our individual histories as nations,
our cultures and idiosyncrasies and especially the situations of poverty and social
inequality that characteri&e some countries, are also present, in a decisive way, in
explaining this phenomenon. )owever, it seems equally undenia!le that at the core
of any solution there will always !e a need for formal institutions that e'ectively
ensure pu!lic security and truly ensure the welfare and prosperity of all.
Third, drug consumption requires a pu!lic health approach in all of our countries,
with more resources and more programs in order to succeed.
:ational, international and hemispheric policies on drugs have gradually adopted
the view of dependence as a chronic, relapsing disease, which requires a health9
oriented approach that integrates a wide range of policies. These include promoting
healthy lifestyles, protecting users with measures to limit the availa!ility of
psychoactive su!stances, prevention, treatment, reha!ilitation and social
reintegration.
4rug treatment should !e present at all levels of general and speciali&ed care in the
health system, with special emphasis on early detection and timely intervention at
the primary care level. $n our report we show that there is a signi(cant gap !etween
the vision of pu!lic health and care services for pro!lems of psychoactive su!stance
consumption in many of our countries.
<ourth, addressing the drug pro!lem requires a multi9pronged approach, with great
Aexi!ility, with an understanding of di'erent realities and, a!ove all, the !elief that,
to !e successful, we must maintain unity in diversity.
+reater Aexi!ility could certainly lead to acceptance of the possi!ility of changes in
national legislation or to promoting changes in international law. <rom there, if one
accepts the fundamental notion that drug use is not a criminal act, then users
should not !e su!ject to punishment, !ut to care and reha!ilitation.
Also, it is important to recogni&e that there is an ongoing de!ate a!out the
legali&ation or de9penali&ation of marijuana with initiatives underway in some of our
countries, as well as a disposition to deal with the issue that does not exist with
respect to other drugs, such as heroin, cocaine and amphetamines, where the
proposals for legali&ation or de9penali&ation are largely rejected.
:aturally none of these changes should put in dou!t the advances made thus far in
terms of collective action on drugs in our hemisphere, !ut rather should !uild, on
this !asis, more realistic policies, which consider the needs of the individual, and
also the needs of the whole.
$n that !alance !etween the individual and the collective, !etween national
sovereignty and multilateral action, we have !ased our coexistence and all the
associative structures that we have created in the course of our histories as nations
that are independent !ut united and supportive in the international arena.
5resident *antos, o#cials, distinguished guests.
8ith this, the -A* +eneral *ecretariat has responded to the explicit mandate that
the *ixth *ummit of the Americas conferred upon us.
Dy delivering this 2eport today, through you, we are encouraged !y the sincere
aspiration, which $ now have the privilege of presenting to the entire hemisphere,
that it is not a conclusion !ut only the !eginning of a long awaited discussion.
Than you.
http;EEwww.oas.orgEenEa!outEspeechFsecretaryFgeneral.aspGs,odigoH"?9>>?" =5
Iuli =>"?
-ver less than a decade, pu!lic opinion has shifted dramatically toward support for
the legali&ation of marijuana. <or many years, opinion on the issue was quite sta!le,
!ut the turn of the millennium unsettled this long9standing consensus; sentiment in
favor of legali&ation has increased !y => points in just over a decade. The
proportion of Americans who view marijuana use as immoral has fallen from 5>
percent to ?= percent in just seven years. A recent national survey showed a narrow
national majority in favor of legali&ation, and its supporters translated this
sentiment into !allot initiative victories in ,olorado and 8ashington *tate in =>"=.
*ome of the change is liely to !e dura!le. The 49to9" edge that opponents of
legali&ation enjoyed twenty years ago has almost certainly vanished permanently.
%omentum is on the side of those favoring legali&ation. *upport for legali&ation is
especially strong among the young, while the only age group staunchly opposed
consists of those J5 years old and over. Knless the younger generation su!stantially
alters its views as it ages, generational change alone is liely to eep support well
a!ove the levels of the relatively recent past, even if enthusiasm for legali&ation
wanes.
-ne possi!le explanation for the shift is a sharp decline over the past generation in
the proportion of Americans who see marijuana as a .gateway1 to harder drugs.
That decline has !een steepest among those who have never tried marijuana. $n
addition, some surveys have found that a slim majority now !elieves that alcohol is
more harmful than marijuana to !oth individuals and society. The implicit syllogism;
if we long ago ceased regarding alcohol use as morally wrong, why should we
continue to thin this way a!out marijuana useG
The temptation is to conclude that the trend in favor of marijuana legali&ation is
inexora!le, similar to the Aow of opinion in favor of same9sex marriage. $n the case
of gay marriage, generational di'erences are so strong and support among young
Americans for gay marriage is so high that a dura!le, long9term majority in favor of
such unions seems inevita!le.
Dut while it is true that the country is unliely to return to overwhelming opposition
to legali&ation, it is much less clear that opinion on marijuana will follow the exact
trajectory of opinion on gay marriage. :ot all hot9!utton social issues are created
equal. -n a!ortion, for example, generational trends indicate continuing division;
young adults are not signi(cantly more pro9choice than their parents and
grandparents. 8hile the country is liely to arrive at a consensus on gay marriage,
the same cannot !e said of a!ortion.
8hich trajectory, that of gay marriage or a!ortion /if either0, is more liely to augur
the path that opinion on marijuana may taeG 8ill the country see the emergence of
a !road pro9legali&ation consensus, or rather of a dura!ly divisive cultural
disagreementG 8ith an eye to those questions, this paper sees to explain the
forces !ehind the move toward legali&ation, and their limits. -ur (ndings include;
L $n a num!er of respects, the structure of pu!lic opinion regarding marijuana
legali&ation is distinctive, at least in todayMs political context. Among todayMs
divisive issues, support for marijuana legali&ation is unusual in cutting across party
lines. +enerally, !road shifts in cultural attitudesNnota!ly the rise of the "OJ>s and
"OP>s counterculture, and then the !aclash against it in the "OQ>sNcan trump the
inAuence of party. +ender plays a role, !ut not necessarily the role one might
expect; women are to the .right1 of men, more liely to oppose legali&ation.
Decoming parents appeared to have moved !a!y !oomers toward a more
conservative stance on legali&ation, !ut more recent (ndings suggest that
parenthood may not !e as strong a factor in determining oneMs position as
previously thought. )owever, married parents are more liely to oppose legali&ation
than unmarried parents.
L Attitudes toward legali&ation are mared !y am!ivalence, especially on the
conservative side. %any of those who favor legali&ation do so despite !elieving that
marijuana is harmful or reporting that they feel uncomforta!le with its use. Among
conservatives, many who !elieve marijuana should !e illegal nonetheless support
statesM right to legali&e it and tae a dim view of governmentMs a!ility to enforce a
!an.
L *upport for legali&ation, though growing maredly, is not as intense as opposition,
and is liely to remain relatively shallow so long as marijuana itself is not seen as a
positive good. 8hether opinion swings toward more ro!ust support for legali&ation
will depend heavily on the perceived success of the state legali&ation experiments
now under wayNwhich will hinge in part on the federal response to those
experiments.
L That said, demographic change and widespread pu!lic experience using
marijuana imply that opposition to legali&ation will never again return to the levels
seen in the "OQ>s. The strong consensus that formed the foundation for many of
todayMs stringent marijuana laws has crum!led.
The authors would lie to than the 5ew 2esearch ,enter for the 5eople and the
5ress for providing us with su!stantial detail from 5ewMs %arch "?9"P, =>"?, survey
on attitudes toward marijuana, and %ichael 4imoc, director of the center, for
answering so many of our questions. As readers will no dou!t have already noticed,
we rely heavily on the 5ew study in our analysis. 8e also wish to than Anna
+reen!erg and her colleagues at +reen!erg Ruinlan 2osner 2esearch for sharing
many insights from the companyMs extensive research on !ehalf of groups
supporting the legali&ation of marijuana. 8e are grateful that AnnaMs analysis and
her insights are never clouded !y the leanings of her clientsNwhich is as things
should !e in survey research.
$$. A * tudy in Am!ivalence
Decause of the generational di'erences in attitudes toward marijuana, as weMve
seen, opinion on legali&ation would at (rst glance seem liely to follow the path of
attitudes toward gay marriage. Dut there are several uncertainties. There is
evidence suggesting that, as young adults move into marriage and child9rearing,
their support for legali&ation wanes. Detween "OP> and "OO>, sentiment in favor of
legali&ation among !a!y !oomers fell !y more than half and did not regain its
previous pea until =>">. $f millennials were to undergo a similar process as they
entered parenthood /or if there were large changes in the American cultural
landscape0, the current momentum toward legali&ation could a!ate.
%oreover, compared with attitudes toward same9sex marriage, support for
marijuana legali&ation is much less driven !y moral conviction and much more !y
the !elief that it is not a moral issue at all /see Appendix, ,hart 40. A signi(cant
minority favor legali&ation, not !ecause they thin that smoing marijuana is an
a#rmative good, !ut !ecause they dou!t the a!ility of law to enforce a prohi!ition
against it. *imilar dou!ts, !aced !y a decade of experience, led to the collapse of
support for the "Qth amendment and the end of 5rohi!ition in the early "O?>s. $tMs
also important to note that many Americans continue to !elieve that smoing
marijuana is harmful to those who use it. Although a majority !elieve that alcohol is
more harmful to individuals and to society than is marijuana, alcohol continues to
enjoy much !roader social acceptance.

You might also like