DOCSLIB.ORG

Drug Policy Debate

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Drug Policy Debate (formerly legalization harm reduction debate.doc) Michael Hallstone, Ph.D. drug_policy.pdf [email protected] Drug Policy Debate Introduction Since the mid 1980’s the US has approached our illicit drug problems by “waging the War on Drugs.” We have spent billions upon billions upon billions and locked up millions of people and still there is no compelling evidence that the US drug problem has gotten better. Perhaps it has even gotten worse. Actually our approach to the US drug problem has remained fairly constant since drugs were made illegal in the early 1900’s, it is just since the 1980’s that we’ve begun to be more punitive and using the “War on Drugs” metaphor. Drug usage rates certainly fluctuate somewhat over time but remain relatively constant and the availability of illegal drugs has not lessened. Clearly, a person can still buy any drug they want on the streets, and you want to know the dirty little secret about the War on Drugs? You can lock people up in prison for using drugs and that person can still buy any drug they want in prison [although it costs more in prison than on the streets]. Drug Policy Options Exist on a Spectrum or Continuum There has been considerable debate in academia on what we should do about our drug problem. The goal of this lecture is to describe some of the drug policy options. Some of these polices are quite different, but some are similar or related. When two policies seem similar it is because they are! Think about some drug policies as existing on a continuum or spectrum where there can be considerable overlap between them. There is often not definite discrete difference between some of these terms. So while it is easy to come up with discrete differences between legalization and prohibition, it is more difficult to do the same between some versions of legalization and decriminalization/harm reduction – they simply share a lot of guiding philosophies. So I am giving you this spectrum as a sort of conceptual framework. If you see some overlap or similarities between some of the models, then that is because they have a lot in common. 1 OF 21 Secondly there is no “one type” of any drug policy. There is no “one type” of legalization, but many types. The same could be said for all of the drug policy options – there is no one single type of decriminalization or prohibition. One can craft different types of legalization strategies, or prohibition strategies, etc. One way to conceptualize the various drug policy options is to pretend they exist on a spectrum or continuum or “number line.” From left to right there would be: Libertarian legalization legalization decriminalization/harm reduction prohibition punitive prohibition Very short descriptions of these five types Libertarian legalization – the most extreme form of legalization where all drugs are legal. The most extreme versions but no restrictions on the sale of drugs and the less extreme would do things like restrict the sale to minors, etc. But in an extreme version of legalization all drugs are available to be bought and sold. Legalization – a general term to describe all the various types of drug legalization. The underlying philosophy is that people have been using drugs for thousands of years to get high, and you are wasting vast amounts of public resources by attempting to discourage drug use using the criminal justice system – it’s just not going to work. Creativity is the only limit for the type of legalization scheme one can concoct. Legalizers want to stop treating drug abuse as a criminal problem and instead treat it as a public health problem. This differs from libertarian legalization, in that most legalization policies envision massive taxation and major government regulation the market. Decriminalization – this policy still keeps drugs illegal but removes the criminal penalties associated with possessing small amounts of drugs. Think of it like a traffic ticket as opposed to a jail sentence. You still can’t possess drugs but we are not going to lock you up in jail/prison if you are caught with small amounts of them. Some versions keep criminal penalties for “big time dealers.” Harm Reduction – this does not focus as much on whether or not a drug is legal or illegal, but rather seeks to reduce the harms drug have on the lives of users. The underlying 2 OF 21 philosophy is to work with drug users and have them adopt practices that reduce harmful behaviors. The classic example of harm reduction is giving clean needles to injection drug users because when they share dirty needles it spreads diseases like HIV/AIDS and hepatitis. Prohibition – the basic idea is to keep all drugs [typically excluding alcohol and tobacco] illegal and to attempt to discourage drug use from criminal penalties via the criminal justice system. Prohibition tends to emphasize the drug problem as a “criminal problem” to be fixed via the criminal justice system. Punitive Prohibition – not only are drugs illegal and we impose criminal penalties for possession but we impose stiff or severe or very punitive criminal penalties. So not only are we going to lock you up, but we are going to lock you up for a long time. More In Depth Discussion of Drug Policy Options Recall our various policy options Libertarian legalization legalization decriminalization/harm reduction prohibition punitive prohibition While I will discuss these five basic types, please be aware that there is no “one kind” of legalization or one kind of prohibition. There can be mixtures of all sorts and creativity is the only constraint. For example we practice a drug policy where alcohol is legal but other intoxicants are illegal. You could have a type of legalization where only marijuana is legal but all the other “harder” drugs are still illegal. So just be aware that a country’s drug policy can combine many ideas to form an “ideal” public strategy to address their drug problem. So for example, Holland has decided to legalize alcohol, tobacco, and to [de-facto] legalize cannabis, while still making all other drugs illegal. Recall also there is overlap between some of these categories. 3 OF 21 Libertarian Legalization On the far left [or actually far right politically] of the spectrum are those who advocate a Libertarian legalization.” This is an extreme viewpoint that believes that literally all drugs should be legal. Depending upon ones brand of libertarianism one can even go so far as to say not only should all drugs should be legal, but also the government should have no role whatsoever in taxing or regulating the sale and manufacture of drugs. That is a pretty extreme view but there are some versions of libertarian style legalization where all drugs are legal but restrictions are put on sales [like no sales to minors]. This standpoint has gotten a lot of attention due to some rather extreme conservatives who have advocated for drug legalization such as Milton Freidman the economist, William F. Buckley the political commentator, and former Secretary of State George Shultz. There are some rather left wing academics who have advocated this view too, although probably not from such a libertarian stance. Legalization As Ethan Nadlemann argues there is not “one kind” of legalization. We could chose to make all drugs legal with various restrictions, but we could have all sorts of versions of legalization. n marijuana legalization only n medical model similar methadone maintenance for all drugs, where you get a prescription for your drug of choice from your doctor n removing criminal sanctions but taking great regulatory steps to restrict consumption. would transfer resources from punishment to education and treatment (although this standpoint is best described as “decriminalization.”) Regardless of the exact type of legalization, the basic idea is that the criminal justice system is never going to solve our drug problems. Rather than making drug users criminals, our drug problems should be approached from a public health and/or medical standpoint. People have been using drugs for thousands of years and one will never ever get rid of use. Legalization advocates would point out that the US went on a massive imprisonment binge for drug related offenses and have not made an appreciable dent in our drug problem. They would suggest it is impossible [or at least economically wasteful] to “teach” a person to quit using drugs by locking them up in a cage. They would also point out that the law enforcement system will never get rid of drug dealers. [And actually, it is because drugs are illegal that makes drug dealing so profitable in the first place!] There is so much money to be made in selling illegal drugs that there 4 OF 21 will never ever be a shortage of people willing to take the risks. So you can arrest and imprison a drug dealer for very long periods of time [and we do this in the US], but eventually another one “pops up” to take his/her place. By the way this is known as the “push down – pop up” phenomenon or dynamic. You can push down drug dealing in one country or neighborhood but another country or neighborhood pops up to take its place. One example of this is the cultivation of opium poppies to make opium [heroin comes from opium]. When the Taliban were in power in Afghanistan, there was very little if any opium production there – opium production had been “pushed down” by the Taliban. But parts of South East Asia [and Latin America] increased their production to meet the world demand (opium production “popped up” in South East Asia and Latin America).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bridging the Gap: a Practitioner's Guide to Harm Reduction in Drug
    Bridging the Gap A Practitioner’s Guide to Harm Reduction in Drug Courts by Alejandra Garcia and Dave Lucas a Author Alejandra Garcia, MSW Center for Court Innovation Dave Lucas, MSW Center for Court Innovation Acknowledgements Bridging the Gap: A Practitioners Guide to Harm Reduction in Drug Courts represents an ambitious reimagining of drug court practices through a harm reduction lens. It was born of two intersecting health emergencies—COVID-19 and the overdose crisis—and a belief that this moment calls for challenging conversations and bold change. Against this backdrop, Bridging the Gap’s first aim is plain: to elevate the safety, dignity, and autonomy of current and future drug court participants. It is also an invitation to practitioners to revisit and reflect upon drug court principles from a new vantage point. There are some who see the core tenets of drug courts and harm reduction as antithetical. As such, disagreement is to be expected. Bridging the Gap aspires to be the beginning of an evolving discussion, not the final word. This publication would not have been possible without the support of Aaron Arnold, Annie Schachar, Karen Otis, Najah Magloire, Matt Watkins, and Julian Adler. We are deeply grateful for your thoughtful advice, careful edits, and encouraging words. A special thanks also to our designers, Samiha Amin Meah and Isaac Gertman. Bridging the Gap is dedicated to anyone working to make the world a safer place for people who use drugs. Thanks to all who approach this document with an open mind. For more information, email [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Harm Reduction Interventions in Substance Abuse Treatment
    Prepared by: Karissa Hughes April 2018 Harm Reduction Interventions in Substance Abuse Treatment 1 Philosophy/Overview ● Harm reduction is a client-centered philosophy that engages clients in the process of behavior change even if they are not motivated to pursue abstinence from substance 2 use or refrain from engaging in other risk-taking behaviors as a treatment goal. ​ ● Harm reduction challenges the traditional notion of abstinence as a universal treatment goal for problem substance use. It focuses on reducing the harm of drug use to the user and society (health, social, and economic consequences) for people unable or unwilling to stop using drugs rather than requiring abstinence as a condition of treatment. o Harm reduction strategies are community-based, user-driven, non-judgmental and address systems that isolate and marginalize individuals. o Harm reduction acknowledges that clients often seek out substance abuse treatment services to address risky injection practices and sexual risk-taking behavior, even when they are not interested in changing substance use patterns. ● Many people who use drugs prefer to use informal and non-clinical methods to reduce their drug consumption or reduce the risks associated with their drug use. Thus, harm reduction is a public health philosophy and service delivery model to reduce the risks of drug use while respecting the dignity and autonomy of individuals. o Harm reduction policies and practices emphasize the human right for the highest attainable standard for health of people who use drugs. o The approach is based on the belief that it is in both the user's and society's best interest to minimize the adverse consequences of drug use when the person is unable or unwilling to discontinue using.
    [Show full text]
  • Talking Tobacco Harm Reduction
    TALKING TOBACCO HARM REDUCTION // WHAT’S HARM REDUCTION? Harm reduction is a range of Do they make sunbathing or pragmatic policies, regulations driving 100% risk-free? and actions. Reducing health risks by providing less harmful forms No – but they do make them of products or substances, less harmful by reducing the or by encouraging less risky risk of illness or injury. behaviours. Sun cream and seat belts are We believe non-combustible nicotine Next Generation Products everyday examples of harm (NGPs) are also an effective form of reduction in action. harm reduction for adult smokers who wish to continue using nicotine – relative to conventional cigarettes. // INTRODUCING TOBACCO HARM REDUCTION Science demonstrates smoking a For adult smokers, the greatest risk of cigarette is the most harmful way to disease stems from burning tobacco and consume nicotine. inhaling the smoke. // WHAT IS THR? Tobacco smoke contains over 7000 The undisputed best action adult chemicals – nicotine is one of them. smokers can take to improve their Around 100 are classified by public health is to stop all tobacco and health experts as causes or potential nicotine use entirely, but many are not causes of smoking-related disease. interested or willing to take this step. Numerous public health bodies1 While the science suggests nicotine is believe transitioning to nicotine addictive and not risk-free, it’s neither products that are substantially less carcinogenic nor the primary cause of harmful than inhaled tobacco smoke smoking-related diseases. is their next best option – we agree. Contains 7000+ Contains chemicals, 100 significantly of them harmful fewer and lower or potentially levels of harmful harmful.
    [Show full text]
  • Harm Reduction and Currently Illegal Drugs Implications for Nursing Policy, Practice, Education and Research
    Harm Reduction and Currently Illegal Drugs Implications for Nursing Policy, Practice, Education and Research Discussion Paper This paper has been prepared by the Canadian Nurses Association (CNA) to stimulate dialogue on a particular topic or topics. The views and opinions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the CNA board of directors. CNA is the national professional voice of registered nurses in Canada. A federation of 11 provincial and territorial nursing associations and colleges representing 143,843 registered nurses, CNA advances the practice and profession of nursing to improve health outcomes and strengthen Canada’s publicly funded, not-for-profit health system. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transcribed, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher. © Canadian Nurses Association 50 Driveway Ottawa, ON K2P 1E2 Tel.: 613-237-2133 or 1-800-361-8404 Fax: 613-237-3520 Website: www.cna-aiic.ca ISBN 978-1-55119-349-6 March 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5 I. Illegal Drug Use in Canada .................................................................................................. 7 Health
    [Show full text]
  • DEMAND REDUCTION a Glossary of Terms
    UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Sales No. E.00.XI.9 ISBN: 92-1-148129-5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document was prepared by the: United Nations International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP), Vienna, Austria, in consultation with the Commonwealth of Health and Aged Care, Australia, and the informal international reference group. ii Contents Page Foreword . xi Demand reduction: A glossary of terms . 1 Abstinence . 1 Abuse . 1 Abuse liability . 2 Action research . 2 Addiction, addict . 2 Administration (method of) . 3 Adverse drug reaction . 4 Advice services . 4 Advocacy . 4 Agonist . 4 AIDS . 5 Al-Anon . 5 Alcohol . 5 Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) . 6 Alternatives to drug use . 6 Amfetamine . 6 Amotivational syndrome . 6 Amphetamine . 6 Amyl nitrate . 8 Analgesic . 8 iii Page Antagonist . 8 Anti-anxiety drug . 8 Antidepressant . 8 Backloading . 9 Bad trip . 9 Barbiturate . 9 Benzodiazepine . 10 Blood-borne virus . 10 Brief intervention . 11 Buprenorphine . 11 Caffeine . 12 Cannabis . 12 Chasing . 13 Cocaine . 13 Coca leaves . 14 Coca paste . 14 Cold turkey . 14 Community empowerment . 15 Co-morbidity . 15 Comprehensive Multidisciplinary Outline of Future Activities in Drug Abuse Control (CMO) . 15 Controlled substance . 15 Counselling and psychotherapy . 16 Court diversion . 16 Crash . 16 Cross-dependence . 17 Cross-tolerance . 17 Custody diversion . 17 Dance drug . 18 Decriminalization or depenalization . 18 Demand . 18 iv Page Demand reduction . 19 Dependence, dependence syndrome . 19 Dependence liability . 20 Depressant . 20 Designer drug . 20 Detoxification . 20 Diacetylmorphine/Diamorphine . 21 Diuretic . 21 Drug . 21 Drug abuse . 22 Drug abuse-related harm . 22 Drug abuse-related problem . 22 Drug policy . 23 Drug seeking . 23 Drug substitution . 23 Drug testing . 24 Drug use .
    [Show full text]
  • 2.3 Harm Reduction – What Is It and Why Is It Useful?
    SENSIBLE CANNABIS EDUCATION A Toolkit for Educating Youth 2.3 HARM REDUCTION – WHAT IS IT AND WHY IS IT USEFUL? By the end of this section, you will: 1. Understand what harm reduction is 2. Understand practical ways to reduce the harms associated with cannabis use, through both abstinence and the reduction of risky behaviours for youth who are already using cannabis WHAT IS HARM REDUCTION? “Taking a pragmatic approach to this generally understood phenomenon, harm reduction avoids taking a uniform stance that substance use is bad, but instead focuses on getting accurate and unbiased information on the harm of use to potential users, in order to help them make informed decisions about whether to use, and if they choose to use, what precautions to take to minimize their risk.”277 Harm reduction is a philosophy that underpins public health approaches to drugs and drug use, and attempts to reduce the harms of drug use without necessarily reducing drug use itself. Harm reduction acknowledges that there are inherent risks involved with a range of behaviours and that there are ways to reduce those risks. Harm reduction can also be understood in the context of a range of activities other than drug use, as simple as wearing sunscreen or wearing a helmet. REDUCING CANNABIS-RELATED HARMS In order to ensure cannabis education is suitable for all young people, discussing strategies to reduce the harms of cannabis use is of critical importance to supporting responsible and safe use among those youth who may choose to use cannabis. In 2017, the Canadian Research Initiative in Substance Misuse (CRISM) released an evidence- based guide on how to improve health and minimize risk for Canadians who use cannabis.278 The following discussion relies on CRISM’s “Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines” (LRCUG), however, it is tailored to youth based on feedback from our content committee and contributors.
    [Show full text]
  • Integration of Supply and Demand Reduction Strategies: Moving Beyond a Balanced Approach
    E/INCB/2004/1 I. Integration of supply and demand reduction strategies: moving beyond a balanced approach 1. The ultimate goal of both supply and demand 1987 Comprehensive Multidisciplinary Outline of reduction strategies is the same: to minimize or Future Activities in Drug Abuse Control5 and in eliminate the use and abuse of illicit drugs. If that goal various resolutions of the General Assembly, the is attained, the development of substance use disorders Economic and Social Council and the Commission on and the health and social problems associated with Narcotic Drugs. them will also be reduced. Since the supply of and 6. The General Assembly at its twentieth special demand for illicit drugs are inextricably connected, session adopted the Declaration on the Guiding programmes aimed at reducing the drug problem Principles of Drug Demand Reduction (Assembly should be integrated, complementary and mutually resolution S-20/3, annex), in which it called for a reinforcing rather than isolated or competing activities. balanced approach between demand reduction and 2. Illicit drug use is a complex behaviour dependent supply reduction, each reinforcing the other, in an upon the individual, his or her environment and the integrated approach to solving the drug problem. The drugs themselves. Illicit drug markets at all levels are Joint Ministerial Statement and further measures to affected by the interaction between the demand for implement the action plans emanating from the drugs and their availability. The interaction is twentieth special session of the General Assembly, influenced by social, cultural, economic and political adopted during the ministerial segment of the forces.
    [Show full text]
  • Reducing Cannabis Harms: a Guide for Ontario Campuses
    Reducing cannabis harms: A guide for Ontario campuses About This Guide This guide explores issues related to cannabis use and provides readers with an overview of health approaches that can reduce the harms and risks associated with it. Any campus professional — whether faculty, academic advisor, counsellor, or student services professional — working with students who use cannabis will be able to refer to the guide for information. The first section will give you a better understanding of cannabis, the Ontario context, the substance use spectrum, as well as substance use disorders and problematic substance use. Section 2 looks at the reasons why students use or don’t use cannabis, the effects of cannabis use on the brain in adolescents and young adults, the link between cannabis use and mental health, the effects of language and stigma, and strategies that campus professionals can use to reduce harms when directly engaging with students. The final section provides concrete steps for developing a campus-wide cannabis-use framework to reduce harm. While the focus of this guide is on cannabis use by students, not campus staff or faculty, this is in no way meant to minimize the need to address the broader scope of mental health, substance use, and well- being on campuses, including among faculty and staff. Each post-secondary institution has unique strengths, circumstances, and needs. For this reason, while the broad areas addressed in this guide are relevant to all institutions, it is not meant to be prescriptive or to serve as legal advice pertaining to cannabis use legislation. As of its writing, the information in this guide is accurate and reflects current research and legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • Harm Reduction / Drug Policy Reform Notes
    Questions and answers on the issue of a regulated market for currently illegal drugs Mark Haden Vancouver Coastal Health Draft: February 2012 For the past decade I have been involved with public presentations which explore the failures of drug prohibition. In these presentations I recommend a public health, human rights model of drug control which brings all currently illegal drugs into a regulatory framework. The following is a list of the most common challenges I experience: Q1: Are you saying that you want to legalize all drugs? A: No: Legalization is often interpreted to mean that the current capitalist free market system would be used to advertise and distribute currently illegal drugs. The goal of the free market is to increase consumption. The concept of a regulated market is instead guided by Public Health which has the goal to reduce the health and social problems associated with drugs. Q2: What do you mean by a regulated market for illegal drugs? A: A regulated market would actively control drugs based on the principles of public health and human rights. Prohibition paradoxically stimulates a illegal market that makes concentrated and sometimes toxic, drugs widely available. The goal is to greatly reduce or shut down the illegal market and regulate drugs in a way that reduces harm to individuals, families and our society as a whole. Seeing drug use as primarily a health and social issue rather than a criminal issue allows us to explore a wide range of tools to manage the problems associated with drugs in a more effective way. Q3: Are you saying “yes” to drugs? A: No – but we are saying “yes” to using more effective ways of controlling drugs and their problems.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of Decriminalization of Drug Use in Portugal
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Kent Academic Repository BRIEFING PAPER FOURTEEN December 2007 THE BECKLEY FOUNDATION DRUG POLICY PROGRAMME THE EFFECTS OF DECRIMINALIZATION OF DRUG USE IN PORTUGAL Caitlin Hughes1 and Alex Stevens2 The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme (BFDPP, www.internationaldrugpolicy.net) is a non-governmental initiative dedicated to providing a rigorous independent review of the effectiveness of national and international drug policies. The aim of this programme of research and analysis is to assemble and disseminate material that supports the rational consideration of complex drug policy issues, and leads to more effective management of the widespread use of psychoactive substances in the future. The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme is a member of the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC, www. idpc.info), which is a global network of NGOs specialising in issues related to illegal drug use and government responses to the related problems. The Consortium aims to promote objective debate on the effectiveness, direction and content of drug policies at national and international level. INTRODUCTION THE 2001 CHANGES IN Portugal In 2004, the Beckley Foundation reported on the legal changes that In July 2001, Portugal introduced a new law, Law 30/2000, which took place in Portugal in 2001 (Allen, Trace & Klein 2004). This significantly changed the legal response to drug users. The new law report aims to provide an updated overview of the effects of these decriminalized the use, possession and acquisition of all types of changes, using data from the evaluations that have been carried out illicit substances for personal use, which was defined as being up to and from new interviews with key stakeholders in Portugal.
    [Show full text]
  • Treatment, Prevention and Harm Reduction Interventions for Different Forms of ATS Use
    Correlation European Harm Reduction C Network Briefing Paper Treatment, prevention and harm reduction interventions for different forms of ATS use Correlation European Harm Reduction C Network 1 Correlation European Harm Reduction C Network Colophon This C-EHRN Briefing Paper was developed by Rafalea Rigoni, Nienke Liebregts and Katrin Schiffer and is based on the results and findings of the ATTUNE study and other relevant literature. More info via: wwww.correlation-net.org https://www.correlation-net.org/attune/ Authors: Rafaela Rigoni Nienke Liebregts Katrin Schiffer Review: Graham Shaw Copyright ©2021 Coyright remains with the publisher. Publisher: De Regenboog Groep/ Correlation-European Harm Reduction Network Stadhouderskade 159 1074BC Amsterdam Netherlands Correlation European Harm Reduction C Network Correlation-European Harm Reduction Network is co-funded by the European Commission This project has been made possible by 2 Correlation European Harm Reduction C Network List of Acronyms 4-FA 4-Fluoroamphetamine (C9H12FN), also known as para-fluoroamphetamine (PFA) 4-MA 4-Methylamphetamine (C10H15N) ADHD Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ATS Amphetamine Type Stimulants ATTUNE study Understanding Pathways to Stimulant Use: a mixed-methods ex- amination of the individual, social and cultural factors shaping illicit stimulant use across Europe CDU Currently Dependent User CNU Non-dependent Current frequent User EMCDDA The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction EU European Union FDU Formerly Dependent User FFU
    [Show full text]
  • War on Drugs: Report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy
    WAR ON DRUGS REPORT OF THE GLOBAL COMMISSION ON DRUG POLICY JUNE 2011 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS GLOBAL COMMISSION Asma Jahangir, human rights activist, former UN Special Rapporteur on Arbitrary, Extrajudicial and ON DRUG POLICY Summary Executions, Pakistan Carlos Fuentes, writer and public intellectual, Mexico César Gaviria, former President of Colombia Ernesto Zedillo, former President of Mexico Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former President of To learn more about the Commission, visit: Brazil (chair) www.globalcommissionondrugs.org George Papandreou, Prime Minister of Greece Or email: [email protected] George P. Shultz, former Secretary of State, United States (honorary chair) Javier Solana, former European Union High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Spain John Whitehead, banker and civil servant, chair of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, United States Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations, Ghana Louise Arbour, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, President of the International Crisis Group, Canada Maria Cattaui, Petroplus Holdings Board member, former Secretary-General of the International Chamber of Commerce, Switzerland Mario Vargas Llosa, writer and public intellectual, Peru Marion Caspers-Merk, former State Secretary at the German Federal Ministry of Health Michel Kazatchkine, executive director of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, France Paul Volcker, former Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve and of the Economic Recovery Board Richard Branson, entrepreneur, advocate for social causes, founder of the Virgin Group, co-founder of The Elders, United Kingdom Ruth Dreifuss, former President of Switzerland and Minister of Home Affairs Thorvald Stoltenberg, former Minister of Foreign Affairs and UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Norway EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The global war on drugs has failed, with Our principles and recommendations can devastating consequences for individuals be summarized as follows: and societies around the world.
    [Show full text]