Making cocaine history?
Last week, representatives of the Colombian government were in London to launch a campaign called ‘Shared Responsibility’. The aim of the campaign is two-fold. First is to improve intelligence links between enforcement agencies to combat drug trafficking. But more publicly, is the attempt to raise awareness among drug users of the impact their use has on the people of Colombia. Included in the delegation were five women whose lives have been dramatically affected by cocaine production and trafficking. Those who attended the launch event were also shown an early version of a publicity campaign showing the direct line from consumption in the west to impact in Colombia under the banner of ‘The Cocaine Curse’. Among the speeches, were predictable sideswipes at celebrities like Kate Moss for ‘glamorising drug use’ but more sensationally, a comment from Antonio Maria Costa of the UN Office of Drugs and Crime who stated baldly that Europe gets ‘the drug problem it deserves’, much to the fury of the German delegate. The Colombian Vice-President was at pains to point out that this campaign is not about blame but ‘shared responsibility’ – and that all he was trying to do is ensure that consumers have the information about what cocaine is doing to his country.
There are those who would argue that it is the prosecution of the ‘war against drugs’ itself which is the primary cause of the violence, corruption and ecological damage that Colombia suffers. Through Plan Colombia, the USA has pumped millions of dollars of aid money into the country, 80% allocated for enforcement and given on condition that Colombia agrees to an aerial spraying programme, itself highly damaging to the environment and the health of local people (Buxton 2006).
Despite claims of success in eradicating crops, there is much evidence of displacement to other regions of Colombia and to neighbouring Bolivia and Venezuela. So the problem is not really being dealt with, just shifted around the region where there is a growing movement agitating for the legalisation of the coca leaf.
On the other hand, maybe the Colombians have a point. It is most unlikely that cocaine users give a moment’s thought to the other end of the trail – and some of these will be the very same people who drink Fair Trade coffee and wear this week’s ‘feel good’ wrist band. And while it may be a fantasy, it is hard to argue that if there was a world-wide boycott of cocaine – the trade would collapse.
So a cheap publicity stunt masking the failure of prohibition or a valid strategy to reduce consumption that should give cocaine users pause for thought?
Sources of information
http://www.sharedresponsibility.gov.co/
Julia Buxton, The political economy of narcotic production, consumption and global markets (Zed Books, 2006)
http://www.colombiajournal.org/archive_drugs.htm
Other sources on information on Colombia can be found at DrugData our online database http://drugscope.soutron.com/home.asp
2 comments:
I take the point that it is the proscription of cociane that causes many of the problems - but this is not going to change overnight - or even in a decade - but what to do in the meantime? I know many people who consider themselves to be ethical consumers - who buy organic meat, eat fairtrade chocolate and so on yet use cocaine hydrochloride on a regular basis and enjoy the sense that they are doing something illegal. They would also be horrified to think that their behaviour is in anyway connected with the crack user on the housing estate.
These nice people are responsible and should be held accountable for what they do and to see its consequences in terms of the illegal trade that they endorse.
Were beer and whisky drinkers responsible for the violence in the US under Prohibition? Was there any violence related to alcohol trade after Prohibition? Think for yourselves.
I'd really like to see a RSS or Atom subscription service somewhere on the weblog.
Post a Comment