GA+2009+Issue+3

Issue: Legalization of narcotic drugs (marijuana, methamphetamine etc.)

Dear delegates,

Posted below are a couple of detailed starting point for you to begin resolution-writing with. It would not be very important for you to read through its entirety, but an understanding of the pros and cons of legalizing narcotics would definitely be very helpful to help you during the debate.

A brief summary of the main points and guiding questions provided below - There are two main options in solving the entire drug issue, Prohibiting drugs forcibly or legalizing **certain** drugs. - The argument for legalizing **certain** drugs is that prohibiting drugs has actually make the situation worse in some circumstances (Colombia, Afghanistan) that it would be logical then, to try a different method of solving the problem. - There are complications as to what kind of drugs should be legalized. Is marijuana safe? - How would this be implemented efficiently and effectively? - How can the UN aid in the process of legalization of drugs? - Is it even possible to legalize drugs?

-- The failure of the drug was has led a few of its braver generals, especially from Europe and Latin America, to suggest shifting the focus from locking up people to public health and "harm reduction" (encouraging addicts to use clean needles). This approach would put more emphasis on public education and the treatment of addicts and less on the harassment of peasants who grew cocoa and the punishment of consumers of "soft" drugs for personal use. That would be a step in the right direction. But it is unlikely to be adequately funded, and it does nothing to take organized crime out of the picture.

There are two main reasons for arguing that prohibition should be scrapped all the same. The first is one of liberal principle. Although some illegal drugs are extremely dangerous to some people, most are not especially harmful. (Tobacco is more addictive than virtually all of them.) Most consumers of illegal drugs, including cocaine and even heroin, take them only occasionally. They do so because they derive enjoyment from them (as they do from whisky or a Marlboro Light). It is not the state's job to stop them from doing so.

By providing honest information about the health risks of different drugs, and pricing them accordingly, governments could steer consumers towards the least harmful ones. Prohibition has failed to prevent the proliferation of designer drugs, dreamed up in laboratories. Legalization might encourage legitimate drug companies to try to improve the stuff that people take. The resources gained from tax and saved on repression would allow governments to guarantee treatment to addicts - a way of making legalization more politically palatable. The success of developed countries in stopping people smoking tobacco, which is similarly subject to tax and regulation, provides grounds for hope.

Legalization would not only drive away the gangsters; it would transform drugs from a law-and-order problem into a public-health problem, which is how they ought to be treated in the first place. Governments would tax and regulate the drug trade, and use the funds raised (and the billions saved on law-enforcement) to educate the public about the risks of drug-taking and to treat addiction. The sale of drugs to minors **should and always** remain banned. Different drugs would command different levels of taxation and regulation. This system would be fiddly and imperfect, requiring constant monitoring and hard-to-measure trade-offs. Post tax prices should be set at a level that would strike a balance between damping down use on the one hand, and discouraging a black market and the desperate acts of theft and prostitution to which addicts now resort to feed their habits.

Prohibition has not worked; the argument for **trying** legalization is strong.

31st March 2009

Under a trio of conventions passed by the United Nations in 1961,1971 and 1988, most countries have little discretion over how they manage drug taking. Other than for medical or scientific purposes, those that have signed up to the conventions- more than 10 countries to date, including nearly all of the rich world-must maintain the prohibition on the selling and possesion of narcotics. Some are enthusiastic in their upholding of the treaties. But others have grown frustrated and are finding ways of bending the rules.
 * Some countries are pushing the boundaries of liberalization.**

For the past century, the standard-bearrer of the prohibition movement has been American which imprisons more people for drug offences than any other country. But in 13 states the police are insructed not to arrest people for cannabis possession. In Europe, the coffee shops of Amsterdam famously sell cannabis alongside croissants! Other European countries are lenient about stronger drugs. Personal posession of any drug is **not** a criminal offence in Spain, Portugal, Italy, the Czech Republic or the Baltic states. Some German states and Swiss cantons are similarly relaxed, as it is so in some Australian states.

It is an embarassing mess for the UN's Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), which prefers to highlight Sweden, a country that has implemented strict drug laws and can claim some success in its quest for a "drug-free" society. In Sweden, possession of any banned drug, including cannabis, earns a criminal record and sometimes a jail sentence (albeit one with an emphasis on treatment). Many countries have such lawes in theory, but Sweden carries them out: most of its prosecutions for drug offences are for mere possession, rather than dealing. A report from the UNODC in 2007 highlighted the country's lowish levels of drug use compared with elsewhere in Europe and praised recent falls in consumption. Sweden has a below-average number of "problem" drugs users too, though there is less in it, suggesting that the main effect of harsh laws may be to deter casual pot-smokers rather than to prevent serious addiction. Should other countries follow Sweden's example and to take the hardest possible tack towards narcotic drugs?

22nd March 2009

A hundred years ago a group of foreign diplomats gathered in Shanghai for the first-ever international effort to ban trade in a narcotic drug. On February 26th 1909 they agreed to set up the International Opium Commission - just a few decades after Britain had fought a war with China to assert its right to peddle the stuff. Many other bans of mood-altering drugs have followed. In 1998 the UN General Assembly committed member countries to achieving a "drug free world" and to "eliminating or significantly reducing" the production of opium, cocaine and cannabis by 2008.

First and foremost, the matter of illegal drugs has befuddled governments and associations worldwide. The debate of legalization has continued for decades yet we have not decided on anything. Among the public, there are a few existing myths and it would be best to address them.

**lllicit Drugs Are No Worse Than Legal Drugs Like Alcohol And Tobacco**
Yale law professor Steven B. Duke, who wrote America's Longest War: Rethinking Our Tragic Crusade Against Drugs, believes,"Our biggest, worst drug problem is the tobacco problem. Legalizing drugs will reduce the use of alcohol, which is far more damaging than any popular illegal drug."

Nevertheless, a given dose of cocaine or crack is far more dangerous than a drink of alcohol. Alcohol has an addiction rate of 10 percent, whereas cocaine has an addiction rate as high as 75 percent. Since the 1970s there have been more than 10,500 scientific studies which demonstrate the adverse consequences of marijuana use. Many of these studies draw upon data collected when most of the marijuana available in the U.S. was far less potent than that available today. Indeed, drug czar Lee Brown says that marijuana on the streets today is up to 10 times more potent than a generation ago. This fact contributes to its addictive nature.

**Legalization Makes Economic Sense**
Dr. Robert Dupont, founding director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and president of the Institute for Behavior and Health in Rockville, Maryland, refutes the economic myth. "We now have two legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco. We have 113 million current users of alcohol and 60 million tobacco users. The reason marijuana and cocaine use is so much lower is because they are illegal drugs. Cocaine and marijuana are more attractive than alcohol and tobacco. If we remove the prohibition of illegality we would have a number of users of marijuana and cocaine similar to that of tobacco and alcohol." Modern-day Netherlands is often cited as a country which has successfully legalized drugs. Marijuana is sold over the counter and police seldom arrest cocaine and heroin users. But official tolerance has led to significant increases in addiction. Amsterdam's officials blame the significant rise in crime on the liberal drug policy. The city's 7,000 addicts are blamed for 80 percent of all property crime and Amsterdam's rate of burglary is now twice that of Newark, New Jersey. Drug problems have forced the city to increase the size of the police force and the city fathers are now rethinking the drug policy.
 * Myth #3:**
 * Other Nations Have Successfully Legalized Drug**

Discussions on the legalization of drugs are abundant, from governments, NGOs and the UN yet it seems that not enough is done. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime no longer talks about a drug-free world. Its boast is that the drug market has "stabilized", meaning that more than 200m people or almost 5% of the world population, still take illegal drugs, **roughly the same proportion as a decade ago.** It is clear that something else must be done.