A crucial bit of horse treading is going on now in Geneva. The result of the deal will affect the lives of millions. The wrong decisions will lead to the deaths of millions. But America’s voice in this discussion is still speaking with the voice of former president Bush. Three American Congressmen have asked Obama to intervene.
The UNGASS review will be followed by a new United Nation policy of drugs. The previous ten-year plan was insane. It began in 1998 with the aim of ‘the total elimination, or a substantial reduction in the cultivation and use of all illegal drugs. ‘ Progress has been nil.
The USA is still at odds with many countries. Americans still cling to drugs prohibition even though they have 2 million people in jail – mostly young blacks for drug offences. Other countries have reduced drug harm by using health solutions such as needle exchanges.
In Vienna now US negotiators are trying to push through anti-drug programmes that were promoted during the former Bush administration but which are no longer advocated by President Barack Obama. Barack has had a personal involvement in drugs use and speaks with authority.
Three Democrats in Congress have written to the new US ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, calling for intervention. The US delegation should be given new instructions from the new administration, the letter advised. "Otherwise, we risk crafting a UN declaration that is at odds with our own national policies and interests, even as we needlessly alienate our nation's allies in Europe."
The US delegation in Vienna denied that Bush-era policies were being “rammed through”, but said instructions from the Obama administration had not been received. According to a news agency Obama "gave tacit support" to harm-reduction strategies that are seen "as crucial in the fight against drug-related diseases such as HIV/Aids."
Obama wants a Political Declaration including language to "develop, review and strengthen" drug-treatment programs to include "harm reduction measures aiming at preventing and reducing the adverse health, social and economic consequences of drug use and dependence." That’s good sense. These policies work.
The US representatives — along with those from Russia, Japan and Colombia — insisted the language be removed. Countries in support of harm reduction are fighting back.
The three Congressmen have been involved in campaigns to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDs. Following ten years of abject failure in UN policy, a change is essential.
How is it possible that the USA representatives can battle against the will of their own President?
I've heard GB talking at Davos and I have to say he is doing real damage to this country with him blaming someone, anyone, rather than accepting that the lack of regulation he devised for controlling the worst excesses of the finance industry. He seems to accept absolutely no responsibility for ANY of this and frankly I'm not listening anymore. This is a pity for some of the good stuff like Health and School spending but frankly its getting lost in the 'GB Show'. An if you stand up and say 'British jobs for British workers' then you might have done better to think that one through - bitten by a soundbite , hey maybe thats justice !!
Oh by the way marajuana is not a drug , its a herb...
Posted by: Tony | February 01, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Thanks Richard and John.
I would not disagree with a wrd of that. But I remains hopeful after reading Obama's autobiography. A younger prime minister in Britain in the shape of a Milliband might help.
Posted by: PaulFlynn | January 31, 2009 at 11:23 PM
Prohbition is the greatest Job Creation scheme ever devised. With the Police Justice system and Prison system almost dependent on the prosecution of our own citizens for the use of illegal drugs many of which are less harmful than alcohol or tobacco.
In America because drug users assets are seized and funneled into the Police coffers this engenders corruption on a grand scale resulting in many innocent people imprisoned or sections of society discriminated against. THe private prison system in the US relies on the huge numbers of Prisoners of the War on drugs to maintain them.
The pharmaceutical companies are scared to death that Cannabis will be made legal because the medicinal properties of this plant that can be grown by anyone for free (its a weed after all) would replace many of their over-priced often inaffective (but with dangerous side affects)drugs.
IT is said that the industrial production of hemp which has a miniscule amount of THC in it, yet is banned would destabilise the cotton producers and provide an alternative to fossil fuels etc. Remember the first model T ford was designed to run on Hemp oil.
If overnight our prisons were emptied by the almost 50% of those imprisoned for Prohibition related crime and a similair drop in court time and Police activity huge numbers of these would be out of work.
Paul you ask how the republicans can battle against the will of their president I suggest this is purely money and self interest.
It has nothing to do with minimising harm but its perpetuation so that they can imprison their own citizens and profit from it.
Posted by: John | January 31, 2009 at 05:14 PM
Where do you start? Clearly the war on drugs, drugs tsars and the rest of enforcement efforts have failed. In whose interest is it that they continue? No-one's except for example the police to get opportunities to swan around beating down doors (incidentally how long is it going to be before we get the drip feed that if only they could use the anti terrorism laws to the fight drug trade and the other master criminals aka as the British public?) and dash around heroically; the spend on all sorts of surveillance etc.
The start must be a proper review of the real dangers of drug use with a presumption of legalisation of the lot so for example we can return to the former posiiton here that heroin was controlled through prescription and the users were able to manage their habit without recourse to criminality agaisnt the poor communities where most of them stay. But which government would have the courage to do it? Not this one I'm afraid nor the next one assuming the Tories win.
Posted by: Richard T | January 31, 2009 at 11:13 AM