Toward Drug Legalization
A Conversation with Gustavo de Greiff

By Maria Botey Pascual
Por Esto!

November 14, 2002

The only path to ending narco-trafficking is drug legalization: that is to
say, the regulation of its production and sale. That is the thesis
maintained for almost ten years by Gustavo de Greiff, former Attorney
General of Colombia and former ambassador of the same country in Mexico,
who says that legalization doesn't have to produce a rise in the
consumption of drugs and, in fact, will end the violence, corruption and
the progressive breakdown of society caused by narco-trafficking.

According to de Greiff, it is precisely drug prohibition -- a policy that
gained force in the 1960s and 70s under the government of president Richard
Nixon as a response to street violence provoked by competition between
crime organizations for consumer markets. What provokes this violence, as
well as the commerce, is its illegal nature, producing enormous profits for
drug traffickers and corrupt authorities, a business that will be difficult
to stop as long as there are consumers.

Currently an investigator with the Colegio de Mexico, the former attorney
general of Colombia explained in an interview with the daily Por Esto! that
while he did that job he realized the futility of the drug war: "The police
arrested the drug traffickers, dismembered cartels, confiscated property,
destroyed laboratories, intercepted drug shipments and, in spite of all
that, nothing happened in the general panorama of the drug fight, because
it kept coming to the consumer markets, among those, the most important, in
the United States. The business is so profitable that if you disintegrate
one cartel, other narco-traffickers take its place in the market."

De Greiff used studies produced by the White House Office of Drug Control
to demonstrate that although the drug business is gigantic, it doesn't rise
to the $500 billion dollar figure that has been used to justify the
anti-drug policy. Rather, American consumers spend $57 billion dollars a
year on illicit drugs or on licit drugs used illegally. To produce a kilo
of cocaine and transport it to the United States requires an investment of
$2,500 dollars. Later, the North American dealer mixes it with other
substances such as talcum powder or flour to increase its weight and
distributes it in the street at a value of $20,000 to $30,000 dollars. The
enormous profits stay mainly in the United States, while a minor part of
the $57 billion dollars mentioned goes to Latin American traffickers.

The Harms of Prohibition

Beyond the street violence and the disintegration of the social fabric,
narco-trafficking causes an unmeasured enrichment of the traffickers and
also the corrupt officials, he stressed. "A prohibited business can not
have success without the collaboration by authorities who close their eyes
to the transport or sale of the drug in exchange for money or favors, the
same in producer countries and consumer countries. The corruption reaches
individuals at all levels of authority, from the police, to the Customs
officers, intelligence agents, airports, maritime port managers and, of
course, the politicians," he commented, adding that the profits have also
been used to buy arms that benefit violent groups active in the countries
of this hemisphere.

De Greiff stressed the importance of legalization of the business,
transport and sale of drugs so that the business stops being so monstrously
obscene, and to convert it into an ordinary business that additionally will
produce taxes that can be invested in the good of society. At the same
time, he underlined the billions of dollars that are spent annually to
repress drug trafficking that will then be able to be dedicated to other
goals. And it's that in the past ten years drug consumption in the United
States has remained more or less stable, but in the same time period the
government budget to fight drugs has gone from a billion dollars to
seventeen-and-a-half billion dollars (or the more than 18 billion requested
for the 2003 budget). This demonstrates the war on drugs is not effective
at all, he said.

Fear of Legalization

The doctor in law and former Colombian ambassador in Mexico indicated that
one of the great difficulties in bringing about legalization is the fear by
the population that drugs will be easier to obtain and raise the number of
users. However, the fact is that although drugs are prohibited, they are
reachable by any individual in any city of this continent who desires them,
he remarked. "Drugs are already everywhere, except that because they are
prohibited, small consumers that should be treated as patients go to jail
-- the bad joke is that nobody is rehabilitated in jail -- and the quality
of the product is worsened by the elements used to adulterate them (to
increase their weight and the corresponding profits), causing more damages
to the consumer than if they were pure, as medical research has shown on
various occasions."

In this sense, de Greiff used the example of the legalization of alcohol in
the United States, which ended the business of the large mafias involved in
it, and did not produce a rise in consumption. "The consumption did rise a
little while later due to the psychological problems related to World War
II," he said.

To support his thesis, he cited the study conducted in 1994 by the New York
Bar Association called, "A Wiser Path: Ending Prohibition," in which a
committee of experts (politicians, economists, sociologists, doctors,
chemists), after analyzing the issue of supposed rise in consumption under
legalization, came to the conclusion that the regulation of the production
and sale of drugs would not increase consumption notably, as long as
legalization is accompanied by medical treatment for addicts and
intelligent, honest, educational campaigns to discourage drug use. "Not the
stupid and tricky campaigns like the ones used today, that say if you smoke
marijuana or try cocaine two or three times you will become an addict: the
young people learn for themselves it is not the truth, conclude that
everything said is a lie, and decide to continue consuming," de Greiff
commented. He also cited the example of tobacco use, that in spite of being
more addictive than cocaine or marijuana according to scientists, has been
substantially reduced due to informative campaigns and without causing the
damages of prohibition "that would bring the formation of illegal tobacco
trafficking gangs, violence and corruption."

The Farce of the Drug War

Another of the obstacles to legalizing drugs are all the individuals
involved in the corruption, said de Greiff. "As has been said, all the
agencies involved in repression and monitoring, as well as the politicians:
Some because their jobs would be eliminated, and others because they would
stop receiving the benefits of narco-trafficking through bribes. Their
business would end."

He cited examples that have been publicly exposed of police who seize drugs
but only declare half the volume and sell the rest, cases in which large
shipments are seized in order to free up other routes through which larger
quantities are passing, DEA agents who target some money-launderers while
they protect others who practice the same activity, or politicians
scandalized by their own drug consumption in private but who promise to
combat narco-trafficking in public, while they receive the profits from the
corruption and they are also using drugs.

De Greiff mentioned, at the same time, the political game that is played
with the numbers of arrests and seizures, that the governments use to
publicize their own success in the drug war and to continue justifying the
repressive policy, "when, in reality, there is no such success although
they imprison more and more drug dealers, since the drugs continue flowing
in the same quantities to the consumer markets."

The government most interested and invested in the policy of the drug war
and at the same time is its grand promoter, he said, is the United States
government, which has used the policy to subjugate the countries of Latin
America. On one end they use the "de-certification" process. De Greiff
notes: "They've used this on multiple occasions as a threat when U.S.
conditions that have nothing to do with the drug war are imposed, as was
the case in 1995 when the U.S. Ambassador in Colombia conditioned that
country's certification on changes in a banana export agreement with
Europe." On the other end they use political and military intervention,
more and more, to try and maintain domination and protect the warehouse of
cheap natural resources for the United States.

Politics, the Media, and Legalization

Remembering that on various occasions politicians throughout the continent
have announced their support for legalization (including Mexican President
Vicente Fox who once publicly expressed the need that, one day, drugs be
legalized), the former Attorney General of Colombia commented that the
majority of Latin American politicians are convinced that the drug war is a
farce or at very least ineffective: "I speak with many politicians. And
many tell me that I am right, that it is the only solution, but they don't
dare say so publicly because they will then be accused of connections with
narco-trafficking, like what happened to me."

Asked about the possibility that the politicians will decide to speak out
and promote what they see as necessary -- legalization -- de Greiff said
that, "what is needed is courage, and, disgracefully, there are few brave
politicians in the world. But if there were, and above all if various Latin
American countries would unite against this farce, without fear of the
economic sanctions by the United States, a new day would dawn."

Completing his suggestion, he said that one way to pressure the politicians
would be to demonstrate the failure of the repressive drug policies to the
public: "Then the politician will be afraid to be associated with a failed
policy. At least the honest or pragmatic politician would feel that way. As
for the dishonest politician, we have to take away his business, and that
would be made possible by legalization."

Another problem that the legalization proposal encounters, he continued, is
found in the grand disinformation campaigns promoted, above all, by the
most interested party: the United States government, a game in which
journalists are paid (with money or with information) to affirm again and
again that the only solution to the problem of narco-trafficking is
repression and that, if legalized, drug consumption would rise. "That's how
it's understood, including in Colombia, with all the evils that the
production and sale of drugs have cost, a recent poll says that only 36
percent of the population is in favor of legalization, and that's because
they are afraid of expanding the drug problem," he said.

For that reason, he insisted, it is necessary to continue educating the
population, showing the people the lies that are said about the drug war,
demonstrating that it is not certain that, in spite of the continuing
arrests and seizures, the narco-trafficking is not being stopped; showing
them that the corruption continues growing and it's not the case that
repression is beneficial. The supply is available to anyone in spite of
prohibition. Teaching people to avoid consumption, and these other points,
are necessary topics of information campaigns so that the people are
careful about drugs, while the addict should be offered the chance to enter
a health clinic and not prison. It's already been demonstrated that
treatment can succeed, he said.

Decriminalization and the Benefits of Legalization

Gustavo de Greiff said that in spite of the obstacles in the path toward
legalization -- "it may be that I don't live to see it because I'm already
many years old (he was born in 1929), but I know that some day drugs will
be legalized and it will be shown that we were right" -- there are helpful
signs in the world such as the experience of decriminalization in Holland,
England, recently in Portugal, and the decriminalization of marijuana in
some of the 50 United States, with more voices throughout the planet who
clamor now for a change in strategy in relation to drugs.

However, he stressed that decriminalization is not enough: It would only
avoid that the consumers go to jail or that the dealers have a more
peaceful consumer, but it will not end narco-trafficking nor the current
corruption by authorities who enrich themselves at alarming levels while
those who suffer are the consumers and the general population.

The solution of the problem of drug trafficking is legalization of drugs,
he repeated, and he specified that legalization doesn't have to mean sale
in open markets but, rather, the regulation of the business, the
production, the transport and sale, with permits for each activity, control
over the quality of the product so it is not adulterated, and legal limits
such as not selling drug near educational institutions, not advertising
their sale in the media, etc., and always accompanied by prevention
campaigns against abusive consumption and offering medical treatment to
addicts.

De Greiff concluded that this is the way to destroy the business of the
narco-traffickers, to end the corruption and the criminal violence that
this illicit activity brings, to stop drug money from being used to buy
weapons, and to stop the United States from using drug policies to maintain
a subjugated Latin America. He added, ironically, "Of course, beyond direct
economic pressures, currently the government in Washington counts with new
excuses to do that."

Publisher's Note: Former Attorney General and Ambassador Gustavo de Greiff will be one of the featured speakers at the historic, first-ever, America-wide drug legalization summit, titled "OUT FROM THE SHADOWS: Ending Drug Prohibition in the 21st Century," February 12-15, 2003, in Merida, Yucatan. To register to attend this important gathering, or for more information, see: http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/shadows/