|
|
 |
|
 |
| |
| |
Endorsements of the Report |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| |
Fernando Henrique Cardoso
Former President of Brazil
The report of the Global Cannabis
Commission convened by the Beckley
Foundation is a valuable contribution to our thinking on
the thorny subject of illicit drugs. It is based on solid
research and it is argued in an imaginative and yet realistic
fashion. The failure of the 'War on
Drugs' strategy is quite evident around the world, but
the alternatives are not easy to grasp. A paradoxical condition
prevails, where prohibitionist laws coexist with a growing
diversity of real life alternative practices.
In Latin America, however, we can no longer
afford to look the other way. The human and the institutional
costs are too high. We need to change our way of thinking and
acting on this matter. New policies must be based on empirical
data, not on ideological assumptions and dogmas. The notion of
focusing on cannabis, as proposed by the Beckley Commission, is
a key contribution to the debate. It points towards more
efficient and more humane methods of dealing with this matter.
Fernando Henrique
Cardoso
November 2008
Jaswant
Singh
Leader of the Opposition in the Upper House, India
I agree with the conclusions and
recommendations of the Global Cannabis
Commission Report. In India, historically and culturally,
associations with psycho-active substances have never been a
cause of social concern. Because of the nature and
self-regulating systems of our society, India has never really
needed any externally imposed 'rules', or even 'management' of
its production, consumption or ceremonial and ecclesiastical
intake. Such activities, never 'hidden', were and are accepted
as cultural norms, restricted only by society's restraints.
Consequently, cannabis, opium and similar natural products
remained free of any 'underground' dealings - until, that is,
'control and commerce' arrived.
It was the British East India Company that
first made opium a commercial commodity, leading to the Opium
wars with China of 1839 and 1856. Legislation inevitably
followed, but this marginal legislation, as introduced by the
British, had no impact for instance on Rajputana, which
continued to live by its own ancient social and cultural mores.
We still do.
After independence in 1947, as part of its
'modernization process', India adopted the Western or US method
of drug control, signing the Single Convention of 1961, and
enacting the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act of
1964 which, ignoring the cultural specificity and plurality of
the Indian situation, committed India to eradicate 'all cultural
usage' of cannabis within a 25-year time span. Cannabis (which,
in India can grow anywhere) and opium products were made
illegal. Sadly, we in India had not even publicly debated
this important legislation, nor had we researched it well enough
before adoption.
|
|
|
|
| |
This legislation has changed the nature of our drug trade.
Traditional farmers were replaced as suppliers by criminal
networks. The sale of cannabis and opium became as risky as
selling modern psychotropic drugs, so the emphasis shifted to
selling 'chemicalised' hard drugs with higher profit margins. This
became a permanent shift.
Politically unsettled conditions in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and many parts of India has
seen the involvement of several militant groups in the drug
trade.
Fortunately, rural India still stands
largely unscathed, and India's cultural norms remain. But for
how long will this constructive, culturally organic solidarity
last in our rural hinterland? I have no answer to this troubling
thought and question.
Yours sincerely,
Jaswant Singh
27 November 2008
Jan Wiarda
Former Chairman of European Police Chiefs
During my 45 years of service in the
police, from sergeant to Chief Constable of The Hague, and
chairman of the EU-Police-Chiefs, I have been a privileged
witness of the war on drugs. I saw in the 1960s the decline and
fall of the post-war approach of authoritative maintenance of
public order. I saw how the older generations wrestled with the
completely different attitude of the baby-boomers in the 1960s
and 1970s. The consumption of stimulants became more and more
widespread, with negative effects for the addicts themselves,
and for their relations with society.
I was pleased by the introduction of the
more realistic, sensible approach of regulating the availability
of cannabis for consumers, and the harm-reduction programmes for
users of other stimulants, such as methadone programmes, needle
exchange, user rooms, etc. The majority of my colleagues
in the police were also in favour of the new policies, even if
it was not always easy to cope with the conflicting interests of
drug-users and law-abiding citizens. But in the end, the policy
worked to the advantage of both the individuals and society. I
am astonished by the ongoing world-wide pressure, from the early
1980s to the present day, to continue and to intensify the war
on drugs, instead of turning to a system of regulation and
control. Huge investments in eradication and crop-substitution
(as in Columbia and Afghanistan), huge investments in
enforcement, in investigative powers and manpower and
criminalisation of users have had little effect on drug
production and consumption.
But now it is time for change! The
Beckley Foundation has had the stamina and endurance to
bring about the Global Cannabis
Commission Report, Moving Beyond Stalemate. The
outstanding scientists who composed this report point the way
ahead - to a world that is not taken hostage by a misconception
of human behaviour towards stimulants, and a world that is not
terrorised by organised criminals whose only interest lies in
expanding the war on drugs, because it is the real source of
their profit.
The time for change has come.
Jan Wiarda
10 December 2008
|
|
|
|
