The legalisation debate broadens

By T.W. | PUERTO VALLARTA

OVER the past six months the debate on drugs has moved into the open, as sitting heads of state have gone on the record for the first time to say that they would be prepared to consider legalising narcotics rather than fruitlessly fight them. One of the strongest advocates of radical reform has been Otto Pérez Molina, who was sworn in as Guatemala's president on January 14th. Mr Pérez, a former head of military intelligence, campaigned promising an “iron fist” against crime. He now suggests that the best way to crush Latin America's drug mafias might be to remove their main source of revenue from the criminal economy by legalising it.

On April 17th Mr Pérez took his message to the World Economic Forum (WEF) on Latin America, which is taking place this week in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. Mr Pérez's experience at the sharp end of the war on drugs makes him particularly convincing when talking about its futility. He told the WEF: “Twenty years ago, I was director of intelligence in Guatemala…We had great successes. A lot of cocaine was captured. Plantations of marijuana were destroyed. Also at that time many drug-trafficking bosses were captured. Twenty years later, I assume the presidency of the country—and I find that the drug-trafficking organisations are bigger.”

I did a quick interview with Mr Pérez after his speech. Here's a speedily translated, lightly edited transcript:

The Economist: Regarding alternatives to the war on drugs, how much progress have we seen in the past few weeks, at the Summit of the Americas [a gathering of regional presidents which ended on April 15th] and now here at the WEF?

Pérez Molina: The main thing I have found is an interest in listening and having a dialogue and supporting a proposal to innovate in the fight against drugs. It especially surprised me at the Summit of the Americas that countries such as Argentina, such as Chile, which it would seem were not so interested in the subject, were very well-disposed toward participating in the dialogue, to getting ahead and supporting the search for solutions to this subject. In that way there is an interest, universal and greater each time, in discussing these subjects. Now that we are here in a different forum, there is also interest in discussing it and hearing and proposing new alternatives in this fight.

The Economist: When you talk about alternatives, do you mean legalisation or decriminalisation?

Pérez Molina: We are talking about all alternatives. One cannot leave anything out if one is to study with scientific responsibility, with case studies, with data, with statistics, the different scenarios that we could decide on. So we are talking about decriminalisation and legalisation. Legalisation is like liberalisation, practically. Liberalisation would mean that you could sell anywhere—that would be the extreme. But we're going more down the line of regulation. That is to say, identifying each of the drugs, clearly marking the differences, what are the degrees of damage they do to health, and what are the restrictions that each one would need in order to be regulated. I think that is a much more suitable path to explore, and to give greater attention, in order to know if it is the correct route that we should follow.

And there are other alternatives that one can pursue. There are regional alternatives: we are discussing a criminal court with regional jurisdiction. But [drugs] are a subject of world interest. So at a world level, what other proposals can be pursued to find a better solution, to wage a better war, to have better results?

The Economist: Some countries employ harm-reduction policies for drug consumers. Do you think there could be a policy to reduce the harm done by the trafficking? Is it possible to fight drugs in a less harmful way?

Pérez Molina: I think so. I'll give you an example: today, more people are dying in Central America through drug-trafficking, and the violence it generates, than are dying in the United States through the consumption of drugs. That is to say, more die in the process of production, trafficking and transfer, than the people who are dying through the consumption of drugs. That is a good starting point from which to say: do we want to continue with these people dying through the criminality that drugs provoke, or [shall we] compare them with those who are dying through the consumption of drugs? So we would be converting a subject that today we see from the perspective of criminality and that we attack from the criminal side, to one that we attack from the side of prevention, education and healthcare. Those are the statistics and the data that we hope we will get from deep studies that have to be done, in order to go ahead and take appropriate decisions.

The Economist: Surveys in Guatemala show that most people are against legalisation. How can you convince them otherwise?

Pérez Molina: Well, I'd say to you that in Guatemala we have very low consumption. In the countries of Central America consumption doesn't even reach 3% [of people]. If we can find a discussion that can explain to the different sectors of the population what it is that we are confronting, I think that those numbers [in the opinion polls] could start to change. At the moment if you just ask someone in a survey, “Are you in favour of drugs being legalised,” I'm sure the figures would be very close to those that you mention, because the people are going to say no, we don't agree. But we are bringing about this dialogue, we are beginning this discussion and making more sectors participate, and creating more consciousness and more knowledge about what we are talking about, which I think is exactly the role of leaders. That is the role not just of leaders as in current heads of state, but also of the leaders of different sectors of society. We can debate, and create consciousness in the population that it is necessary to seek other alternatives, and not continue with the degree of criminality that today is punishing us in our country.