The drug policy reform movement is based on the fundamental fact that the “war on drugs” has failed.2 On the other hand, those who propose a more repressive approach as a central focus of these policies have not been able to demonstrate a real reduction in the production, distribution, sale or consumption of psychoactive substances in the region or in the rest of the world3. On the contrary, illicit drug markets currently trade in products of higher psychoactive purity and lower prices.4 However, legal regulation is not a silver bullet or a panacea. Regulation of drug markets does not replace national policies on education, social security, decent employment, poverty reduction or, of course, good parenting. Legal drug regulation only minimizes the prevalence of problematic use and the risks and harms associated with use, including overdose deaths, by providing comprehensive and objective information about substances. In addition, it ensures the availability of and access to prevention, harm reduction, treatment and social reintegration services, where necessary. Regulation removes barriers that restrict or prevent access to health services and restores the primacy of public health in drug policy. The Special Rapporteur on the right to health has examined the impact of international drug control on human rights and remains deeply concerned that existing policies contribute to an environment of heightened human rights risks, which in many cases can lead to widespread and systematic violations of human rights. If we think about how this business would start operations, we can see where these risks may arise. The bill states that a regulatory commission would be responsible for pricing “to protect public health, with a particular focus on the well-being of children and youth and the reduction of problematic cannabis use.”1 In addition, the same commission would be responsible for issuing licenses to franchisees in the country and for each state.2 States must protect, respect and fulfil people`s right to health by allocating the maximum available resources to ensure access to affordable and quality health services. These include access to essential medicines, palliative care, comprehensive drug prevention and education, drug treatment and harm reduction. Five models for the legal regulation of drug supply can therefore be imagined.13 Based on what we see in other markets, or what has been implemented in relation to other psychoactive substances, the availability of medicines can be controlled by: a) medical prescription systems or in places of supervised use; (b) sale in pharmacies; (c) authorised points of sale; (d) establishments approved for sale and consumption; e) Sale by unauthorized suppliers in individual cases.
Drug legalization will not eliminate organized crime This has led more and more groups of politicians, businessmen, social leaders, communicators and academics to “think outside the box.” More and more of us are arguing that drug policy reform is not only important, but necessary. The issue is of paramount importance to those of us who are improving the quality of democracy and seeking to move towards social justice. However, this requires thinking about new models of public policy on drugs. Authorized distributor. Current best practices for the licensed sale of alcohol and tobacco provide a less restrictive and more flexible infrastructure for the licensed sale of certain non-medical and low-risk drugs. Such a system would introduce various combinations of regulatory controls to treat the seller, point of sale, product and buyer, if applicable. As a direct precursor to these legally binding multilateral agreements, the international regime is based on the International Opium Conventions of 1912 and 1925 and the Convention on the Limitation of the Production and Regulation of the Distribution of Narcotic Drugs of 1931, to which the League of Nations is a signatory. However, as suggested by other authors and for the purposes of this article, “drug regime” refers to the one that has been in force since the Single Convention of 1961, while the narrow interpretation and enforcement of this regime is referred to in the text as the “war on drugs”5. It is also important to recall that the drug regime has two central bodies: a decision-making body, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), and another treaty monitoring body, the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), responsible for monitoring compliance with treaties by signatories to the 1961 and 1971 Conventions. Violence among transnational criminal organizations in Mexico has recently sparked an increasingly intense debate that makes the legalization of narcotics appear a “sacred cure” for the situation. The United States remains opposed to the legalization of drugs because the available evidence shows that our common drug problem poses a serious threat to public health and safety, and that addiction is a disease that can be prevented and successfully treated.
Today, drug use, both legal and illegal, already has too many social, health and safety consequences. Studies show that policies that make drugs more accessible are unlikely to eliminate the black market or improve public health and safety. Hemispheric experiments with drug policy models The old question of whether drugs should be legalized or not is crude and very vague. With this in mind, academics, social and political leaders in the region have made slow progress in recent years in defining a number of key concepts that help to propose more precisely alternatives to prohibition. Legalization is defined as a process by which the status of an activity changes from prohibited to authorized. However, it is important to note that the term “legalization” describes a process, not a public policy model. Therefore, the legalization of one or all currently controlled drugs may lead to the implementation of different public policies.11 There is no turning back. After thousands of deaths, increasing consumption, excessive spending and human rights violations, the wave of drug policy reforms in Latin America brings a glimmer of hope to a region where costs are already too high. But what can countries in the region do to make the most of these changes? Fortunately for those who want to reform this legal framework, there are signs that the system is not as strong as it was years ago; In fact, he is staggering.6 In recent years, we have seen examples of “soft defectors” from the regime, such as the decriminalization of drug possession for personal use; the growing emphasis on harm and harm reduction programs,7 the regulation of medical and recreational marijuana, and Bolivia`s withdrawal and compliance with the Single Agreement, which provides for a reserve for the traditional use of the coca leaf in Bolivian territory.8 .
