Student: Mira Zavala! Student number: 10001080! Lecturer: Dr. Stephanie Simon! Thesis: Transnational Spaces/Political Geographies of Security! 10 july 2014! word count: 7.997
!
!
!
Humane Security
On how regulating cannabis in Uruguay corresponds to the human security approach.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
TABLE OF CONTENT!
!
!
1. INTRODUCTION!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
3.!
2. CASE DESCRIPTION - Drugs & Crime in Uruguay! !
!
5.!
2.1 Cannabis laws in the status quo ante!
!
!
!
!
7.!
2.2 Drug law reform!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
8.!
3. THEORETICAL FRAME & LITERATURE REVIEW! !
!
9.!
!
3.1 Security!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
9.!
3.2 Human Security and its threats!
!
!
!
!
!
10.!
3.3 Human Security approach - normative! !
!
!
!
11.!
4. DATA & METHODS!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
14.!
5. ANALYSIS & RESULTS! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
15.!
6. CONCLUSION & DISCUSSION!
!
!
!
!
!
21.!
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
24.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
“We called on governments to adopt more humane and effective ways of controlling and regulating drugs. We recommended that the criminalization of drug use should be replaced by a public health approach” (Kofi Annan, Global Drug Policy Commission).!
!
“We also appealed for countries to carefully test models of legal regulation asa means to undermine power of organized crime, which thrives on illicit drug trafficking” (Fernando Cardosa, Global Drug Policy Commission).!
!
1. INTRODUCTION!For over more than forty years narcotic drugs have been securitized in a strongly prohibitive manner. This was a result of ‘The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs’ of 1961 and the ‘War on Drugs’ approach, established in 1971 by President Nixon, declaring drug abuse ‚public enemy number one’ (Caulkins, 2005: 17). Unfortunately this securitization did not bring about the desired objectives of eradicating drug trafficking and drug abuse. In fact, many scholars argue that this securitization turned out to be rather counterproductive and nurtured a breeding ground in which drug trafficking could thrive (Baum, 1996: 48). By increasing the risk of transportation and distribution, the value of the product increases, making it an appealing market to enter (Baum, 1996: 32). This high-risk, high-revenue market attracts those looking to make a quick buck. Even worse, it attracts the underprivileged who already occupy one of the most vulnerable positions in society. In conditions of severe poverty and inequality the securitization of drugs creates a vicious circle, in which the first condition evokes and amplifies the other. (Caulkins, 2005). ! But a new wind is blowing in the realm of drug policy with a more progressive and ‘outside-of-the-box’ approach which is said to be revolutionary because the policy moves away from the securitization of drugs in an attempt to battle drug trafficking and drug abuse (Glasius, 2008: 9). It is rather based on the counterintuitive notion that policies should be more relaxed and flexible, giving freedom and autonomy to citizens, while protecting them from security threats which may actually harm them more than drug consumption. Uruguay takes a unique approach by experimenting with the
decriminalization, legalization and regulation of cannabis. This unique case study is relevant because it contests the current hegemonic paradigm in which drugs are viewed as an intrinsic threat and seen as dangerous and harmful. !
Uruguay redefines the kind of threat drugs can pose and concludes that the drugs themselves are not as hazardous as the excesses of drugs which threaten the Personal Security of citizens, through organized crime, violence and homicides. The President of Uruguay, José Mujica, intends to find a new, more efficient and humane approach, which can effectively regulate the trade and consumption of drugs, prosecute where prosecution is due and aid where help is needed. His objective is to drive business away from the big and dangerous drug cartels that hold a firm grip on power. He plans to do this in a number of ways. Firstly, by ensuring that consumers can acquire cannabis from the government. Secondly, by lowering the price below the present market price illegal competition will be driven out (Room, 2012: 39). These new approaches involve a more tolerant legislation on the production and possession of drugs, focusing on prevention rather than punishment, education and information about the consequences of drug use, and the rehabilitation of drug addicts (Ibid: 56). !
The purpose of this thesis is to comprehend why the legalization of cannabis is an approach that can contribute to greater human security. To answer this research question we have divided it into two sub questions. Firstly, we will look at the challenges Uruguay faced with drugs and how they posed a threat to human security. Secondly, we will look at what constitutes a human security approach and how the legalization of cannabis fits into this approach. !
We are aware that the relatively new drug policy has just been implemented and that to research whether it is effective would presently be premature. We will therefore focus more on the arguments, mechanisms and logic of the policy. The scientific relevance lies in the fact that this case study is unique and seems to fit in with the relatively new human security approach. We will make use of theories on what exactly constitutes human security, and on how threats to it need to be approached in order to ensure it. These theories are intended to elucidate and examine whether the policy approach in this Uruguayan case study is justifiable on this basis.!
2. CASE DESCRIPTION - Drugs and Crime in Uruguay !
Drugs have always been one of the major security issues in Latin America. The challenges have always differed from country to country, e.g. from cultivating, to distributing and trafficking. Uruguay has one of the highest rates of cannabis use in South America. A research done in 2006 by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in Uruguay showed that around 6 percent of the Uruguayan population consumes cannabis (World Drug Report, 2008: 8). Among school-aged children the usage rates approach 15 percent, which is the second highest in the continent. Moreover, in the period between 2001 and 2007 usage rates have quadrupled (Ibid: 9). This means that it is one of the most widely used drugs in Uruguay, followed by basuco, one of the most dangerous and addictive derivatives of cocaine. Usage of basuco has also quadrupled in the same period to 1.4 percent of the population (Ibid: 10). With a population of 3.3 million people the amount of drug users comes down to around 200,000 consumers of cannabis of whom 18,000 are daily consumers but up to 50,000 basuco consumers. The problems with cannabis and basuco differ greatly in scale. For basuco-addiction around 43.6 percent of consumers were being treated for drug addiction and other drug-related health issues. For Cannabis there have been no reports of any people being treated for drug problems (Ibid: 12). !
It is mostly the rise in basuco that has engendered criminal activity in Uruguay. In 2002 there were around 8,500 reported robberies and in just a ten year timespan by 2012 this figure had almost doubled to 16,812 (Werb, 2011: 32). In 2005 a total of 188 homicides were registered, by 2012 this figure went up by 140 percent to 265, the highest number on record to date (Ibid: 35). In the poorer neighborhoods of many of the major cities, including the capital Montevideo, there have been reports of rising criminal gang activity related to drugs (Sevigny, 2004: 410). The individuals who get involved in this gang activity are virtually always young people from the lowest income groups and from other vulnerable sectors of society like low-educated single mothers (Ibid: 421). The problem lies in the fact that small dealers pay the price for the big and powerful cartels which have the means to bribe and corrupt many government officials like policemen, judges, prison-guards, and other bureaucrats. The cartels are able to do this because of the vast amounts of money
that goes around in the illicit market. The cannabis market has always been a lucrative one, generating between 30 and 40 million a year accounting to 20% of the overall drug revenues (Osimani, 2003: 425). On the one side this weakens the judicial system from the inside-out and on the other side it offers no systemic solution to the drug issues.!
Due to Uruguay’s strategic location adjacent to Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay and its large port in Montevideo it has become an important transit hub for drug trafficking to Europe. Specifically, from the landlocked state Paraguay, drug traffickers recruit Uruguayans to become drug couriers and dealers (Website Narconon). This illicit activities have brought forth a true prison crisis with ever increasing numbers of youths and other vulnerable individuals who are part of the lowest ranks of the drug-trafficking chain being locked up in prison. Uruguay has approximately 9,000 prisoners and 3,000 of them are held captive due to drug trafficking or drug related crimes, either because of dealing in these substances or because of criminal activity to obtain means to finance drugs. This is the second-highest prison rate in the whole of South America and it continues to rise causing overcrowding to rise to 138 percent occupancy with some prisoners even sharing a three-person cell with seven other men (website Drug law Reform). !
A study done in 2012 showed that drug-related offenses account for 15.3 percent which is the second highest percentage of arrests for different types of crimes (Website Drug law reform). The largest percentage of prisoners related to drug crimes is for armed robbery with 36.9 percent of prisoners, followed by the crime of theft with 14.8%, homicide with 12.6% and drug trafficking with 10,4 % (Website Drug law reform). Because there was no specified quantity up until the regulating drug law reform as to what defined personal use, 44% of the people prosecuted because of possession of cannabis, carried less than ten grams of the substance (Website drug law reform). The individuals who get involved in this gang activity are virtually always young people from the lowest income groups and from other vulnerable sectors of society, like low-educated single mothers (Website Drug law reform). Small dealers pay the price for the big and powerful cartels which have the means to bribe and corrupt many government officials like policemen, judges, prison-guards, and other bureaucrats, because of the vast amounts of money that goes around in this illicit market.!
!
!
!
2.1 Status quo ante - Laws and regulations for cannabis in Uruguay!
From 1974 up until December 2013 Law 14.294 was in effect which was modified into law 17.016 in 1998. This law permitted the consumption of cannabis but did not specify precisely what amount was considered to be ‘personal use’. At the same time there was a prohibition on planting, growing, harvesting and marketing of any plant that could be extracted into drugs or other substances which could be physically or psychologically addictive and harmful, with the exception of purposes for scientific research and medical use (Decree Law No. 14294). So any unauthorized plantation would be immediately destroyed or seized with the intervention of the Judge of First Instance Criminal Duty. They could even face from twenty months up to ten years in jail (Decree Law No. 14294 Article 3 & 30). However, the judicial system and prison system are plagued by delays in issuing sentences, insufficient use of alternative penalties and abuse of preventive detention as well as the abuse of raiding the houses of possible suspects (website Drug law reform)!
This legality of consumption, but illegality of production and distribution creates a legal paradox which leaves consumers of cannabis no other option but to obtain this commodity on the illegal market. But up to December 2013 this was an entirely clandestine market where the rules of the jungle applied and with no consumer protection as there would be in a regular marketplace. The drug cartels are known to be violent and will take the necessary means to get what they want. They will not shun threats, violence, oppression, or bribing if it will further their cause. Not only the civilian consumers but also the people in the drug market are very much at risk of getting harmed. This can hurt entire neighborhoods which are marginalized and become soil for drug wars to be fought on. These drug wars can be over territory, the claiming of debt, local demand for illegal drugs and other types of dominance, (Sevigny, 2004: 450). !
!
!
!
!
“The traditional approach hasn’t worked. Someone has to be the first to try
this” (President José Mujica, 2013)! 2.2 Drug law reform!
On July 31, 2013 The Uruguayan House of Representatives passed the bill that legalizes and regulated the market of cannabis. Then, in December of 2013, after a majority vote the Senate passed the bill establishing “state control and regulation of the import, export, planting, cultivation, harvesting, production, acquisition, storage, marketing, distribution and consumption of cannabis (Decree Law 19.172). A few days later the law was enacted and a bill for compulsory treatment for problem drug users was also passed by the senate. On May the second of 2014 Uruguay unveiled the legal framework for state control and regulation of cannabis (website Drug Law Reform). This made Uruguay the first country in the world to regulate the entire process chain of Cannabis.!
The bill permits three forms of cannabis cultivation. The first option is to grow it at home where individuals can possess up to six plants, with a maximum annual yield of 480 grams. The second option is through a membership club, this allows people to group together in cooperatives of between 15 and 45 members, and collectively grow up to 99 plants. The third option is that the state grants licenses to private enterprises to grow cannabis for commercial purposes, but the government remains the only lawful purchaser of this harvest. The harvest will subsequently be solely be sold in pharmacies, though it will be available without doctor’s prescription for those who have signed on to a federal registry. This will be a private registry and will be undisclosed to potential or current employers. This registration is to both prevent cannabis tourism and to monitor and limit the Uruguayan consumer to a quota of 40 grams per month (JND, 2011-2015: 10). Moreover the cannabis will be genetically marked in order to be traceable, this is to prevent export abroad (Ibid: 28).!
Cross-border-tracking and sale will be penalized with a minimum of 20 months and up until 10 years of imprisonment (Ibid: 36). Selling cannabis to minors and driving under the influence of cannabis will also be heavily penalized. In order to ensure this regulation and licensing of cannabis a new institution will be created named the Institute of Regulation and Control of Cannabis (IRCCA). It will be responsible for the authorization of cannabis,
and the cultivation, production and sale. But it also aims to promote and propose actions to reduce risks and harms associated with problematic cannabis use. This legislative framework aims to give back personal freedom and autonomy while at the same time monitoring and regulating the market to prevent harmful excesses.!
!
2. THEORETICAL FRAME & LITERATURE REVIEW!
2.1 Security - An objective policy goal, a subjective perspective!
When dealing with a security problem that affects the live of many citizens, involved either directly or indirectly, firstly the issue needs to be framed in a specific manner that allows for a fitting policy. A discourse needs to be developed which interprets the recurring issues in coherent and overarching manner in order to be able to give it a normative direction which policy can be founded upon. In the case of an issue which poses a threat to citizens then this becomes a security issue. But because of the infinite scope of threats to human beings security can roughly be categorized in fields such as social security, health and safety, financial security, communal and policing safety, national security, human security and many other types of security (Zedner, 2009 :9). !
Absolute security in the objective sense is achieved within a state free from threat, but due to the infinitely imaginable threats remains liable and ever fleeting. Due to its unattainable nature, security in the realistic sense of the word entails that one is being protected from threats. This can be either through, neutralization, avoidance, or through non-exposure to the risk. It is nevertheless a temporary state which more so implies the calculability and predictability of the future. (Ibid: 14).!
In the academic debate there are different interpretations of what constitutes as objective security. According to Shue objective security constitutes the protection against physical harm (Shue, 1996: 21). This is a quite concretely defined conception of security. This view is broadened and more abstract for the likes of Wolfers, who view security as a measure for the absence of threats to acquired values (Buzan 1991: 17, Lustgarten and Leigh 1994: ch. 1). These definitions of security are rather complimentary than mutually exclusive. Something becomes a threat when it has the capacity of depriving someone of something that they value. The manner in which something is valued is constantly in flux
and to a large degree subjective. Even though it is derived from material and social conditions it is also a perspective and individual sense of threat and risk. Thus subjective and objective security can have a degree of overlap but will differ in many other ways. If governments don’t take this into account while making fitting policy it can have adverse effects (Zedner, 2009: 17). Oftentimes the need to have control over possible threats functions as a way to justify means which can have adverse consequences by risking democratic liberties in order to securitize and may not improve the situation, or even worsen it. !
There are significant differences in perceptions and tolerance for these threats, these are determined by the social connectedness which is engraved in cultural and historic traditions. In turn, this guides the political action that is taken which matches the nations views on threat and security. This happens at all societal levels and all societal and political actors (Zedner, 2009: 11). In a way this is a very endogenous process where the societal and the political realm mutually influence each other. This is an ever-changing ever-evolving process because societies are always in flux adapting to progression and change in technology, in values and norms, economic prosperity or decay, external influences. Here comes the political responsibility to react to this and set out a line whereby these needs are met and the threats are addressed in a manner which ensures the maximum security in coherence with both the societal as well as the political.!
!
2.2 Human Security and its threats!
Traditionally the focus of security was the defense of the sovereign state against external threat, but this meaning progressed from the Post Cold War era and to a more comprehensive approach that covered internal threats as well. This is because many countries had domestic problems which where more urgent and more severe than a lot of external threats. State-security was no longer sufficient to guarantee the security of people in their everyday lives (Zedner, 2009: 40). In the mid-1990s there was a shift in the security paradigm, from state-centered security to a more people-centered view on security. Human security focused more so on promoting human rights and the provision of basic needs by protecting the vital cores of human lives and by enhancing human freedom and
human fulfillment. This means that fundamental freedoms are ensured, while simultaneously protecting people from critical and widespread threats. !
Human security as an umbrella-concept, addresses a multitude of threats to security such as, political, social, environmental, health, economic, personal and communal threats. These insecurities are very much interconnected and security in one realm influences security in another realm either directly or indirectly (UNDP HDR, 1994: 8). Due to its broad scope, human security is still a contested concept. Ranging from narrow view which only focuses on violent threats towards individuals, to proponents of a wider view which even include threats to human dignity, norms and values. In order for human security to have an instrumental purpose in relation to the drug problematic in this thesis, we will opt for a narrow view which focuses on Personal Security. !
When we look at what threatens Personal Security we look at what poses a threat to the three fundamental freedoms that are integrated in the Human Security concept; freedom from fear; freedom from want; and freedom from indignity (Ibid: 17). Freedom from fear means that individuals are protected from threats to their bodily integrity. This can be direct criminal activity, organized crime, physical violence between individuals or groups, but also from the state. Freedom from fear also covers less tangible factors like a threatening environment in a neighborhood, threats between individuals or groups, threats from the state as well as threats to the self, for example through drug abuse. The second fundamental freedom that needs to be ensured is the freedom from want, which refers to protecting individuals so that their basic needs are covered in terms of economic, social and environmental aspect of life. The last fundamental freedom that states need to provide for their citizens is the freedom from indignity, this aims at improving the quality of life through empowering and strengthening human self-reliance, autonomy and freedom of choice and opportunity (Ibid: 24).!
!
2.3 Human security as an approach to face drug issues!
Human security zooms in on the threats individuals may suffer in their everyday lives. Human security is a concept that integrates five fundamental principles by which these threats are approached and reduced. The human security approach is context-specific;
people-centered; prevention-oriented; multi-sectoral and comprehensive. The first principle that human security should be context-specific refers to variety of the different insecurities that threaten human security. Threats can differ in setting, community, country, cause, consequence, time, impact and so on. It provides a dynamic framework which addresses these different kinds of insecurities within this specific context by building on processes that are based on people’s own perception of what threatens and what doesn’t threaten them. By identifying the concrete needs and desires of a population and paying extra attention to vulnerable actors it enables creating solutions that fit the local reality (Tadjbakhsh, 2007: 52). It prioritizes security needs at a local level and looks at how this is impacted by global development in a responsive and adaptive manner.!
The second principle that human security should be approached in a people-centered manner refers to viewing individuals as the most important referent object and keeping their needs and vulnerabilities at the highest regard. Programs should be developed to empower and strengthen the resilience of individuals and communities, emphasizing on their capacities of the affected community. Policy should be build on giving citizens back autonomy and freedom through inclusion and participation (Ibid: 68). !
The third principle in the human security approach it that it should be prevention-oriented. The idea is that early prevention can reduce the impacts of threats and to provide long-term solutions by addressing the root causes, risks, threats and hazards to human security. It can also be cost-effective by emphasizing early prevention instead of late intervention. By developing mechanisms that reduces possible harmful effects and offering help to individuals who have become victims. This is a two-fold approach. On the one hand it focuses on the systemic and comprehensive protection of citizens in a ‘top-down’ approach, on the other hand it aims at the empowerment of the people in a ‘bottom-up’ approach (Ibid: 8). The first building block; protection, requires the state to develop and sustain norms, policies and institutions that are vital in protecting citizens and safeguarding human rights and basic goods like health, education and employment at micro-level. However, this responsibility extends beyond the State towards self-governance and local capacity building through regional organizations, civil society and non-governmental actors as well as the private sector (Ogata, 2002: 37). Which leads us to
the second building; empowerment, this deals with developing the capabilities of individuals and communities to make educated and autonomous choices (CHS, 2003: 10).!
The fourth principle of the human security approach is that it should be multi-sectoral. As we have mentioned before this refers to the seven different types of human security threats but also acknowledges how these different types relate and influence each other. They can be mutually reinforcing through a domino effect that one insecurity provokes another. This effect can resonate throughout an entire region and even affect international security. This principle ensures and promotes dialogue among key actors and stakeholders from different fields and sectors (Ibid: 21). It ensures that these policy can be implemented in a coherent and coordinated fashion throughout the different fields which it affects. When the positive as well as the negative implications of the different sectors affected are being monitored it can be used as feedback to reevaluate and reshape policy to make optimize it.!
The fifth principle is overarching in the sense that policy should not be fragmented to deal with threats and insecurities. It stresses the need for cooperative, integrated and sustainable approaches. It attributes the same importance to political, economic, social, cultural and civil rights and liberties, and how these may be threatened. It stresses the multitude of threats that one issue can bring forth not only within but across borders as well. Therefore it calls for regional as well as multilateral cooperation.!
The five pillars on which the human security approach is based challenge governments to look beyond traditional security approaches which are often based on force, prohibition, threat, monitoring and repression. The capacities needed for this are coping mechanisms and are based on the knowledge acquired from past catastrophes. These need to be adaptive strategies that are responsive to the needs of the citizens of a nation (HDR, 1994: 16). In order to reduce violence and crime it is essential to implement an integrated and multidimensional approach than covers the variety of factors which contribute to this, such as poverty, public order, education, health and social cohesion. It is important to engage a variety of stakeholders in the participatory processes in order to promote dialogue between the government and their citizens. This will foster civic engagement and promote mutual trust between the government and its citizens. Moreover the human
security approach stresses the importance of addressing the root causes of violence and criminality by taking preventive action (Ogata 2003: 57)!
To ensure that these five elements of the human security approach are safeguarded and implemented a participatory program, five stages can be defined. Stage one is presenting the program design to the affected community. In this stage it is important to create opportunities for feedback to ensure that the program fits the needs of the community. In stage two a committee needs to be established to oversee the implementation. This stage requires cross-community dialogue to promote joint and collaborative management and use of local resources for the program. Stage three requires that tasks and responsibilities are allocated. Stage four is about the mobilization of local resources and stage five is about establishing monitoring and reporting mechanisms (UNTFHS, 2009: 21).!
!
3. DATA AND METHODS!
In order to answer these questions, the thesis will be set up in a qualitative research strategy with a unique case study design. The sources of data that will be analyzed are official documents derived from the state, mass-media outputs and virtual documents. The chosen timeframe that will be analyzed starts from 2011 when the debate about legalizing the personal consumption of Cannabis started until up to now where the bill is passed. Because Uruguay has just recently introduced the new cannabis policy it is not yet possible to do a quantitative research design by measuring how effective the policy is by comparing the levels of crime before and after its implementation. But what we can do is a qualitative design which tries to explain the logic of the policy and how it corresponds with a human security approach. How they think they will achieve this, how it will come into effect and how will it contribute to more security. To answer these research questions we will start by collecting and analyzing official state documents, such as bills, law, speeches, debates, policy documents. To accompany this media documents will be used to get a clear broad view of the impact of the new policy. The analyzing will be done by using a theoretical framework which describes what constitutes as human security, what threatens is, and with what approaches it is ensured. In the analysis we will look at how it shapes policy.!
ANALYSIS & RESEARCH RESULTS!
The aim of this thesis was to get clearer insight on the threats Uruguay faced with drugs and crime and to comprehend what kind of approach Uruguay took by legalizing and regulating cannabis in order to create safer environment for their citizens. To be able to answer this research question we divided into two subquestions. The first subquestion asks what the challenges were with drugs in general and cannabis in particular and how they posed a threat to human security. The second subquestion explores how the new regulatory cannabis policy fits in the human security approach. !
!
1. How an unregulated cannabis market threatened human security in the status quo ante.!
In order to be able to interpret and analyze the drug challenges that Uruguay faced and how they posed a threat to security we will use the theory of Human Security as have been outlined in the theoretical framework. As has been elaborated on in the theoretical framework, Human Security covers a wide range of what constitute as a threat to individuals, varying from threats to bodily integrity to threats to personal norms and values. We argued that for the concept to be of instrumental value, we opt for a narrow definition of Human Security which entails Personal Security. !
In the case description we have given an outline on the situation in Uruguay as it has been from 1974 up until the regulatory policy in 2013/2014. In this period cannabis was first decriminalized but the entire supply-chain was still severely securitized. This posed a serious threat to Personal Security in three ways. As has been described in the theoretical framework, human security entail that there is freedom from fear. In Uruguay this was not the case prior to the regulatory drug policy.!
First, there was no freedom from fear for consumers of cannabis because of the covert nature of the illicit market and the lack of rules and regulations that protect consumer and producers of these goods. In this illicit market there is no institutional actor who is concerned with the security and health of the consumer nor the risk of minors accessing the drugs. Like with a legal market, an illegal market works in a similar fashion where agreements and deals are made between supplier and demander throughout the
production process. The only difference being that in a legal market one can go to court when a contract is breached to get a reimbursement through a court ruling. In an illicit market there are no possibilities for legal enforcement of contracts. When there is conflict is between individuals or gangs it makes it impossible to settle their dispute in a legal manner. If a contract is breached, threatening measures are taken in order to claim the necessary monetary compensation and often times these threats surpass the amount that is due as a means of deterrence. In a best case situation, criminal gangs or drug cartels will not shun making threats, in the worst case they may actually turn to violence. This creates a hostile environment where people who were directly involved in the drug supply-chain either through consumption, distribution or cultivation are at risk of physical harm. !
This necessity for threat, coercion, force and violence becomes a self-perpetuating force intensifying in an upward spiral through mutual punishment and retaliation. This emphasizes the power of the drug cartels and undermines the regulatory and intervening power of the state. The illicit drug market becomes a parallel realm where the rules of the jungle apply and allegiances are formed and rivalries are established. These rival drug gangs are a second major source of threat and insecurity for the community. In a battle for dominance and control over territory. (Werb, 2011: 90).!
Secondly, it poses a threat to personal security, because of the risks it poses to health of citizens. With an unregulated drug market there is no monitoring or assuring that individuals are educated and safe in their consumption of cannabis or other drugs. This can severely increase the risk of slipping to hard drugs, with severe addiction and other health risks. Drug dealers and traffickers try to maximize profits at any costs. As the statistics have shown in the case description, the real health and addiction risks lie significantly more in Basuco a dangerous derivate of cocaine than in cannabis itself (Ibid: 93). Because there is no market segregation in the supply of cannabis and basuco, they are both obtained in the black market. It is in a drug dealers interest to sell the drug which is the most addictive and will keep the costumer coming. Cannabis can easily be used as a so called ‘gate-way drug’ into more addictive and harmful drugs.!
Thirdly, because of the vast amounts of money that go around in the illicit market many government officials like policemen, judges, prison-guards, and other bureaucrats are
corrupted and bribed by powerful drug cartels. This means that the judicial and policing system which is supposed to protect citizens from harm do not function adequately. On the contrary because of the lack of legal clarity on what constitutes as personal use many consumers were being arrested and prosecuted. This means that the state threatens the security of drug users and small-time dealers who barely form a menace to society, but the powerful drug cartels and drug barons bribe their way to freedom and continue their criminal activity. On the one side this has the effect that it weakens the judicial system from the inside-out and on the other side it offers no systemic solution to the drug issues (Caulkins, 2005: 49). !
!
2. How does the new drug policy correspond to the human security approach.!
Like any other government Uruguay recognizes the health threats and risks of Cannabis. But at the same time acknowledges that there will always be a demand for these kind of substances, even if they are obtained illegally. Their aim is to reduce any possible risks to the personal security by bringing a dangerous and clandestine market to a more overt realm where the government can regulate and monitor the consumption, while at the same time undermine the dangerous drug cartels. Uruguay has ten clear divined objectives on what they aim to achieve with the new regulatory cannabis policy. These include the institutional strengthening of drug and money laundering policies; generating scientific evidence, establishing a reduction of demand; promoting and strengthening a progressive gender perspective; strengthening protective factors; political risk and damage reduction; decentralization and territorialization of all drug policy; control of supply and regulation of use of psychoactive substances; promoting and encouraging humanistic drug policies in the international and regional field that respect human rights; and establishing a quality set of intervention parameters through a continuous assessment system (JND, 2011: 14).!
The regulatory policy fits in with the human security approach because it is very much context-specific, as it tries to deal with the specific problems Uruguay deals with. In the case description we gave an overview on what threats to personal security Uruguay deals with. As we mentioned in the case description the legality of cannabis consumption but
the illegality of the cannabis production forced individuals to obtain it in a dangerous and illicit market. By legalizing the entire supply chain of cannabis, consumers are no longer forced to purchase their cannabis in the dangerous and illicit drug market. They can safely grow their own cannabis, join a cannabis club or purchase it from registered pharmacies (JND, 2011-2015: 65). Moreover, because of the existence of an illicit drug circuit there is no market segregation of drugs. Soft drugs as cannabis are just as easily obtained in the illegal market as hard drugs like basuco are. By bringing cannabis into the legality it is separated from the dangerous drugs basuco which of the 50.000 consumers in Uruguay over 43,6 percent were treated for drug addiction. !
This is a very prevention-oriented approach. While the traditional War on Drugs approach focused on the threat of drugs by looking at the consequences, such as crime, addiction and violence. Uruguay looks at the root-causes for the problematic issues with drugs consumption and production. The consumption of drugs is often rooted in the search for relief and escape from reality. Problematic consumption is correlated with the lack of knowledge of the short and long-term excesses of drugs. On the production side we see that underprivileged individuals who live in poverty and lack the means and tools to escape this are easily seduced into drug trafficking. The new regulatory drug policy aims at protecting and promoting social resources for labor, education, recreation and cultural reintegration. This reduces social suffering and vulnerabilities for both consumers and producers and makes it less likely for them to get involved in problematic drug use (Fernández Pereira, 2005: 12). Regulating cannabis is therefore a top-down approach which can reap bottom-up advantages through social development of the most vulnerable sectors by promoting individual autonomy, freedom and the ability to become a self-sufficient citizen on which the society as a whole can benefit from (Glasius, 2008: 42). !
The government will offer cannabis at 1$ a gram which will give them an economic advantage and will help outcompete the drug cartels who sell bad quality cannabis for high prices. This is due to the risk premium which adds value to drug dealing and trafficking. When drug dealing is no longer lucrative it reduces the likelihood of Uruguayan citizens being dragged into the smuggling or dealing of drugs because of the decrease of economic advantages drug trafficking has. Drug-related crimes like robberies
and assaults to obtain financial means to purchase drugs will also be reduced due to the low price by which cannabis will be offered. !
This policy fits into the Human Security approach because it is people-centered. As has been described in the case-description, Uruguay has around 200.000 consumers of cannabis who do no harm to others. Even though cannabis is decriminalized, still 44% of judicial cases are for people who have been detained with less than 10 grams of cannabis (Ibid: 23). By legalizing the entire supply-chain of cannabis, the government has consideration for the needs of individuals and communities by respecting the autonomy of citizens to consume cannabis if they choose to do so and be able to obtain it in a safe and legal manner. The policy is also inclusive and participatory by letting citizens who wish to consume cannabis either grow it themselves, by forming a cannabis club or purchasing it at a pharmacy (Ibid: 25). It protects them by not exposing them to drug dealers who are dangerous and have an interest in maximizing profits instead of protecting them from physical harm and harm to their health. Like with any other market actors are entitled to legal protection if they would have a dispute with another actor in the supply-chain. !
But with a more relaxed legislation the government looks after the possible vulnerabilities of citizens. By putting quota on the amounts that can be cultivated and consumed the government protects its citizens from possible health risks and addiction. It also prevents minors below the age of 18 to obtain these drugs because they are more vulnerable and more susceptive to the addiction and health risks of cannabis (Ibid: 42). !
Another part of the program is the enforcement of Systems of Drug Information Health Centers in order to track problematic drug users, improve management and generate statistics (ibid: 20). In order to achieve this its is important to guarantee that citizens who want treatment get the financial assistance they need in order to recover. Especially if someone is in needs of emergency health care they should be referred to the appropriate services . Especially problematic hard drugs user who use cocaine of other derivates of cocaine. !
The legalization of cannabis is multi-sectoral because it not only legalizes cannabis for national production, distribution and consumption but it also integrates elements which prevent international drug-trafficking. By genetically modifying the DNA strains of
cannabis, it prevents it from being trafficked abroad and makes it traceable to the origin in Uruguay. Moreover, the registration will make cannabis only accessible to Uruguayan citizens which will prevent international drug tourism in Uruguay. In addition there will be educative programs which are aimed at prevention, this program educates young citizens about the risks of drug use. The advertisement of cannabis is prohibited as well as the consumption in public places and driving under the influence of marihuana (JND, 2011: 18).!
The new drug policy is prevention-oriented, context-specific, people-centered and multi-sectoral. This makes it comprehensive because it doesn’t just target the excesses in single-minded approach with prohibiting and banning drugs., but rather focuses on promotion of healthy values and habits, prevention, harm reduction, treatment, rehabilitation, and social reintegration in order to control the supply of drugs. To make sure that these objectives are obtained the Cannabis Drug Policy is joined by the Social Development Policy. The money that will be collected from the cannabis tax revenue will be invested in the treatment of problematic users. Moreover it will also be invested in social services. By combining these two policies into one comprehensive strategy it makes it possible to create sustainable, fair and equitable human security. !
Therefor the strategy is decided into two approaches to cope with this new freedom, one is to focus the policy on prevention and education and the other it on treatment and social integration. By combining these two a more comprehensive approach is established were public social health is approached in the broadest sense with a focus on early detection, harm reduction and social solidarity (ibid: 14). !
!
6. CONCLUSION!
The new cannabis policy acknowledges the interconnectedness and root causes of the drug problematic. It takes into account that in order to ensure personal security, it must follow the three core principles of human security; freedom from fear; freedom from want; and
freedom from indignity. The Uruguayan governments implants these concepts in their new
regulatory cannabis policy by linking human development, respecting human right and safeguarding personal health. By acknowledging that a situation where the consumption
of cannabis is legal but the production and distribution is not sustainable and does not protect citizens because it pushes them to an illicit market. Moreover it perpetuated the existence of a black market where the illegality raises up the risk premium and attacking underprivileged youngsters. !
Moreover, the lack of supervision and regulation increased the danger in usage because individuals who choose to consume drugs are were not being educated in the risks and harms attached to it and could even purchase harder and more dangerous drugs in the same illicit market. The government had thus created an environment where drug cartels could thrive freely because the lack of regulation. Because of the amounts of money that went around in this market drug cartels had the financial means to bribe and corrupt government officials who were responsible for the protection of citizens. This incentive caused the incarceration of thousands of small-time dealers and criminal heavyweights went free.!
Once the threats and their causes were identified, the Uruguayan government decided to go for a human security approach instead of a traditional oppressive security approach. As we explained in the theoretical framework, the human security approach is based upon five fundamental pillars on which policy is to be constructed in order to ensure human
security. The policy needs to be context-specific, prevention-oriented, people-centered,
multi-sectoral and comprehensive. In the analysis we argued how the regulatory drug policy corresponded with these five fundamental principles. We argued that the ‘one-size-fits-all oppressive War on Drug approach did not suit the Uruguayan situation since the consumption of cannabis was already decriminalized since 1974. The new regulatory policy acknowledges this and enabled consumers to purchase cannabis in a legal and safe environment, as well as segregating the hard drugs from soft drugs.!
Furthermore it differentiated from the War on Drugs approach by targeting root-causes of the consumption side as well as the production side of drug-trade, before it focused on the consequences and excesses of it. When looking at the supply side of drugs, the government recognized that individuals who are underprivileged can be easily persuaded to join a market where they can earn quick and easy money. With the new cannabis policy the government competes hard with the drug cartels by offering cannabis for a dollar per
gram and therefore undermines the economic advantage that they have. The policy also focuses on empowering and protecting individuals through eduction on the risks of drugs and making cannabis financially accessible to those who still choose to use it. This mechanisms reduces the chance that individuals will turn to crime to obtain the monetary means to finance their drug-habit. !
The War on Drugs approach did not respect nor consider the personal autonomy citizens have in order to live freely. By prohibiting drug use and sanctioning anyone who dares to get involved in it, it doesn’t take into account what needs and desires citizens have. Uruguay tried to opt for a more people-centered approach which guarantees the principle of freedom of indignity. It doesn’t approach citizens how cause no harm to society as criminals, instead it provides a legal framework which protects consumers and producers and represents them if they would need to settle a dispute. Even though citizens are free to consume cannabis, the government still takes on the responsibility by prohibiting minors from purchasing cannabis and sets quota that limits cultivation, distribution and consumption. This way the government can monitor if cannabis use is not getting dangerously high and offer rehabilitation when cannabis use becomes problematic. !
The Uruguayan government is very aware of its unique position on a regional and global level and takes into consideration that the rest of the world does not yet have such a liberal approach to drugs issues. They take this into account in their policy by prohibiting drug tourism, because cannabis will only be made available with registration. This corresponds with the multi-sectoral approach which the human security aims at.!
These different facets that have been described above make for a overarching and comprehensive approach. All these efforts are made in an attempt to create a more safe and secure environment where personal security is ensured and the drug cartels no longer rule and have the power which they used to have. By legalizing and regulating the production, acquisition, storage, marketing and distribution of cannabis and its derivatives. The Uruguayan state tries to get its grip back on state control to improve citizen security. This provides the state the tolls to regulate supply and demand reduction more efficient and comprehensive, which will enable the state to battle organized crime and criminal activities that affect the safety of the population (Senators speech, 2012). But
also have the mission to promote and propose actions to reduce risks and harms associated with problematic cannabis use. This legislative framework aims to give back personal freedom and autonomy while at the same time monitoring and regulating the market to prevent harmful excesses. If Uruguay manages to demonstrate that his comprehensive approach can contribute to ensuring higher levels of human security where citizens are free from fear, from want an from indignity it may inspire other nations to reevaluate their drug policy and look to new ways which correspond to the issues that they face. !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Bibliography!
Accessed 04.19.11 Dimensions of Human Security. New York: Oxford University Press. Chapter 2, pp. 22-40.!
Alkire, Sabina. 2003. “A Conceptual Framework for Human Security”. CRISE Working
Paper. Centre for Research on Inequality, Peace and Human Security. Queen Elisabeth
House, Oxford University.!
Application of the Human Security Concept and the United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security, Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, United Nations. !
!
Baum, Dan. Smoke and mirrors: The war on drugs and the politics of failure. New York: Little, Brown, 1996.!
!
Bewley-Taylor, D., Hallam, C. and Allen, R. The Incarceration of Drug Offenders: An Overview Beckley Foundation/International Centre for Prison Studies http://
www.idpc.net/php-bin/documents/Beckley_ Report_16_2_FINAL_EN.pdf Accessed 04.19.11!
Caulkins, J., Reuter, P. Iguchi, M.Y. and Chiesa, J. (2005) How Goes the “War on drugs”? An Assessment of US Problems and Policy Santa Monica, California: RAND http:// www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/2005/ RAND_OP121.pdf Accessed 04.20.11 ! Cave, Damien (2012) South America Sees Drug Path to Legalization. New York Times!
Commission on Human Security. 2003. Human Security Now: Final Report, New York: CHS.! Costa, A.M. (2008) Making drug control ‘fit for purpose’: Building on the UNGASS Decade E/CN.7/2008/CRP.17 http://www.unodc.org/documents/
commissions/CND-Session51/CND-UNGASS-CRPs/ECN72008CRP17E.pdf Accessed 04.20.11!
Fernández Pereira, Juan Pablo: Seguridad Humana, Tesis doctoral, Programa de doctorado en seguridad y prevención, Departamento de Derecho Público y Ciencias
Histórico-Jurídicas, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, 2005. !
!
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: Summative Evaluation of the Human Security Program, http://www.international.gc.ca/about-a_propos/oig-big/2004/ evaluation/human_security-securite_humaine.aspx?lang=eng !
!
Gasper, Des. 2004. “Securing Humanity – Situating the Human Security discourse” Paper for 4th conference on the Capability Approach, University of Pavia, September 2004.!
Giorgina Garibotto, Leonardo Caliocchio, Laura Latorre, Laura Scarlatta.‘Mercado Pasta Base de Cocaína en Uruguay, com- plejidad y prospectiva’, Research project on characteristics of the consumption of and market for PBC in Montevideo and the metropolitan area. Uruguay, 2006 (to be published soon).!
!
Garibotto, Giorgina. "Prisons and drugs in Uruguay." Systems Overload: Drug Laws and
Prisons in Latin America (2010).!
!
Glasius, Marlies. 2008. “Human Security: from Paradigm Shift to Operationalisation: Job Description for a Human Security Worker”, Security Dialogue Vol. 39(1): 31–54.!
Godfrey C., Stewart D., and Gossop, M. (2004) “Economic analysis of costs and
consequences of the treatment of drug misuse: 2-year outcome data from the National Treatment Outcome Research Study (NTORS)” Addiction 99 (6) pp.697-707!
Greenwald, G. (2009) Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies Cato Institute http://www.cato. org/pub_display.php?
pub_id=10080 Accessed 05.07.11 !
Hallam, C. and Bewley-Taylor, D. (2010) “Mapping the World Drug Problem: Science and Politics in the United Nations Drug Control System,” International Journal of Drug Policy, Volume 21, (1), 2010, pp. 1-3 !
Henman, A. and Metaal, P. (2009) Coca Myths Transnational Institute Drugs and
Democracy Program http://www.tni.org/archives/reports_drugs_ debate13 Accessed 04.21.11!
High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. 2004. A More Secure World: Our
Shared Responsibility. Report of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change.!
Human Security Unit (2010): Training Manual. Human Security Regional Training, New York, p. 10 !
!
Human Security Unit – OCHA (2010): Applying the Human Security Concept in Project and Programme Development, Implementation and Impact Assessment, Regional Training Workshop, San José, Costa Rica, 12-15 October. !
!
Hughes, C.E. and Stevens, A. (2007) The Effects of Decriminalization of Drug Use in Portugal Oxford: Beckley Foundation http://www. beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/bf/ 2007_Caitlin_211672_1.pdf Accessed 04.20.11 !
In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All. Report of the
Secretary General of the United Nations for decision by Heads of State and Government in September 2005.!
D C Des Jarlais. Harm reduction--a framework for incorporating science into drug policy.
American Journal of Public Health January 1995: Vol. 85, No. 1, pp. 10-12.!
!
Jolly, Richard and Basu Ray, Deepayan. 2006. “The Human Security Framework and National Human Development Reports”. NHDR Occasional Paper 5, Human Development Report Office of the UNDP.!
Junta Nacional de Drogas (2011-2015) Estrategia Nacional para el Abordaje del problema drogas. Presidencia de la República de Uruguay.!
Lalander, P. and Salasuo, M. (Eds.) (2005) “Drugs and Youth Cultures: Global and Local Expressions” Helsinki: Nordic Council for Alcohol and Drug Research !
Legislative innovation in Drug Policy: Latin american initiative on Drugs anD Democracy martin Jelsma, transnational institute!
!
Metaal, P. and Youngers, C. eds. (2011) Systems Overload: Drug Laws and Prisons in Latin America Transnational Institute/Washington Office on Latin America http://
www.druglawreform.info/images/stories/documents/ Systems_Overload/TNI-Systems_Overload-def.pdf Accessed 05.16.11!
Míguez, Hugo, and Raquel Magri. "National study of drug habits in Uruguay]." Acta
psiquiátrica y psicológica de América latina 41.1 (1995): 13.!
!
National Drug Intelligence Centre (2010) National Drug Threat
Assessment Washington: US Department of Justice http://www.justice. 17 gov/ndic/ pubs38/38661/index.htm Accessed 04.18.11 !
Nef, Jorge. 1999. Human Security and Mutual Vulnerability: The Global Political Economy of
Development and Underdevelopment, Second Edition, Ottawa: IDRC Books.!
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2009)
High Commissioner calls for focus on human rights and harm reduction in international drug policy Geneva: United Nations http://www.ohchr.org/ documents/Press/
HC_human_rights_and_harm_reduction_drug_policy. 18 pdf Accessed 04.18.11 ! Ogata, Sadako. 2002. “State Security – Human Security”. Brown University Ogden Lecture, 26 May, 2002.!
Osimani, María Luz. "The challenge of implementation of preventive programs in a developing country: Experiences, situations, and perspectives in Uruguay." Clinical
infectious diseases 37.Supplement 5 (2003): S422-S426. !
!
P A O'Hare; R Newcombe; A Matthews; E C Buning; E Drucker, Reduction of Drug-Related
Harm!
Reuter, 14 P. and Trautmann, F. (2009) A Report on Global Illicit Drug Markets
1998-2007. European Commission http://www.exundhopp.at/www1/ drogenbericht.pdf Accessed 04.19.11 !
Reuter, P. and Pollack, H. (2006) “How much can treatment reduce national drug problems?” Addiction 101 (3) pp. 341-347!
Room, R., Fischer, B., Hall, W., Lenton, S. and Reuter, P. (2008) The Global Cannabis Commission Report Oxford: Beckley Foundation http://www. beckleyfoundation.org/ pdf/BF_Cannabis_Commission_Report.pdf Accessed 04.20.11 !
Robin Room. (2013). Legalizing a market for cannabis for pleasure: Colorado, Washington, Uruguay and beyond. Addiction. doi:10.1111/add.12355!
!
E. Schatz, K. Schiffer and J.P. Kools (2011) The Dutch treatment and social support system for drug users IDPC Briefing Paper, January 2011 http://www.idpc.net/publications/ idpc-paper-dutch-drug-treatment- program Accessed 05.08.11!
Seidensticker, Ellen. 2002. “Human Security, Human Rights, and Human Development”. Paper presented at the Harvard Kennedy School, 6 February 2002.!
Sen, Amartya. 2000. “Why Human Security?” presentation at the International Symposium on Human Security, Tokyo (July) pp. 1-11.!
Sevigny, E. and Caulkins, J.P. (2004) “Kingpins or Mules? An Analysis of Drug Offenders Incarcerated in Federal and State Prisons” Criminology and Public Policy 3:3, 401-434! Sunga, Lyal S.: “The Concept of Human Security: Does it Add Anything of Value to International Legal Theory or Practice?” en Power and Justice In International Relations, Ashgate, University of Innsbruck, Austria, p. 132. !
!
Shinoda, Hideaki. 2004. The Concept of Human Security: Historical and Theoretical Implications.!
Tadjbakhsh, Shahrbanou, and Anuradha M. Chenoy. 2007. Human Security: Concepts and
implications. London: Routledge.!
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 1994. Human Development Report 1994 –
New!
UNODC (2008) 2008 World Drug Report Vienna: United Nations 15 http:// www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/WDR-2008.html!
“What is ‘Human Security’? Comments by 21 Authors”, Security Dialogue, Vol. 35, No. 3, September 2004, pp. 347-87.!
Werb, D., Rowell, G., Guyatt, G., Kerr, T., Montaner, J. and Wood, E. (2011) “Effect of drug law enforcement on drug market violence: A systematic review” International Journal of Drug Policy vol. 22 pp. 87–94!
