Foreign Policy in Focus.
It is said that drugs – be they natural or synthetic, legally
prescribed or illicitly consumed – and poisons only differ in dose.
Indeed, today’s drugs vary tremendously in the personal and
interpersonal harm they are wont to cause, from the largely innocuous
caffeine in beverages like coffee or tea to the mind-altering
psychotropic heroin. Some are little more than recreational substances
consumed for the purpose of eliciting a psychological reaction. Still
others are entrenched in cultural and spiritual practices.
Because of the varying levels of addictiveness, potential for
self-harm, and negative effects on family and community dynamics,
governments around the world have historically explored ways to reduce
associated dangers through legal means.
In an effort to codify international laws on commonly abused
substances, the global drug control regime—a cooperative international
effort spearheaded in large part by the United Nations’ Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961—was
established. It has since promulgated global norms that regulate or
prohibit the production, trade, and supply of certain drugs. In doing
so, it has sought to curb global production levels and decrease drug
consumption by organizing specific drugs into schedules of varying legal
controls. By establishing four schedules—with Schedule I being the most
restrictive—the regime provides a framework with which to improve, as
the Convention promises, the “health and welfare of mankind.”
However, national efforts to reduce drug-related crime and overall drug use have largely failed in places like Mexico, Guinea-Bissau, and Burma.
And international strategies have not done any better. These failing
initiatives reflect a poorly driven global drug control regime that is
ripe for reform. Because drug use (estimated to have contributed to 12.4 percent of all deaths worldwide in 2000) and crime-related deaths remain high in many parts of the world, it is crucial for international actors act sooner rather than later.
Today’s drug scales do not adequately take into account the
scientific and empirical evidence for proper scheduling, relying on
anachronistic, ideological standards for classification and draconian
legal penalties. This not only impedes more humane and effective health
policy initiatives, but also champions antiquated norms that have not
stood the test of time. To have alcohol and tobacco—which, after years
of prolonged use, have been shown to lead to numerous health issues—so
readily available to certain adults while restricting cannabis and
ecstasy (MDMA)—which have been shown to be generally less harmful by comparison—is deleterious to the integrity of the control system.
