While UNODC has recognized these unintended consequences, neither UNODC nor any other multilateral agency has conducted robust, representative, evidence-based and sustained studies to assess the costs of the war on drugs in its multiple dimensions. For this reason, various civil society organizations have joined forces to quantify these costs through the global “Calculate the Costs” campaign,10 which groups impact into seven main areas: (a) development and security; (b) public health; (c) human rights; (d) discrimination; (e) crime; (f) the environment and (g) the economy. Some states have taken steps to decriminalize personal drug use to improve the safety and well-being of their communities. The thematic report on international drug control provided examples of the positive results of decriminalization for public health and safety (A/65/255). The criminalization of drug use and possession for personal use has had a negative impact on the health, safety and human rights of individuals and communities around the world. It removes or imprisons the most vulnerable from life-saving health interventions, with significant public health implications. Criminalization increases incarceration rates, prison overcrowding and overburdened criminal justice systems, and puts individuals at increased risk of arbitrary detention and inhuman or degrading treatment while in detention. Treating personal possession of drugs as a crime exacerbates discrimination. People are more in conflict with the law, which reduces their chances of employment, education and other opportunities for social inclusion. The drug policy of the government of Andrãs©Manuel Lépez Obrador, or the lack thereof, was one of the critical points of this government. With little certainty about how the issue will be handled, the president on Thursday presented progress on “what has been done and is being done on drugs.” The presentation mixed seizure data with sobering content on the consequences of substance use. Thus, the official strategy of the last three years has been limited ± to intercepting shipments arriving in Mexico or circulating in the©national territory and, without reaching a conclusion, to discussing the possibility of legalizing drugs “in a non-destructive manner or with mild effects”. The death penalty for drug-related offences does not meet the threshold of “most serious crimes” under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Arbitrary deprivation of life goes beyond judicial executions and includes summary executions by military and police personnel, as well as the unnecessary use of lethal force in drug law enforcement. Drug control measures can exacerbate violent criminal drug markets, where homicides increase dramatically. States must therefore ensure full compliance with international human rights law and existing standards on the use of force in counter-narcotics operations. The Minister of National Defense, Luis Cresencio Sandoval, is the one who presented this Thursday the results of the fight against drugs at the morning conference. According to the official report, the government has destroyed about 307,000 poppy plants and 53,000 marijuana plants so far during this six-year term. However, what worries the executive branch most are synthetic©drugs such as heroin, methamphetamine or fentanyl, which have gained momentum on a wave that is difficult to contain and have more serious health consequences than natural ones. In the past three years, ± the government has dismantled 127 labs that illegally produced methamphetamine and heroin, according to the report. In Sinaloa alone, about 54 were found. They found 19 in Michoacán and 14 in Jalisco. Restrictive policies are a barrier to drug use and help reduce costs and associated social problems. 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 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. Modern drug prohibition began in the nineteenth century when the medical-chemical industry began producing many powerful addictive drugs. The central objective of statutory regulation as a model of public policy is to protect, promote and improve public health. To this end, it must be recognized that drug policy is first and foremost a public health issue, that it must always seek to reduce the risks and harms associated with drug use, that all drug use is risky and that a distinction must be made between the harms associated with drug use and those associated with drug policy. In Washington, an excise tax of 25% has been levied on the sale of cannabis (although the effective tax rate will likely be 30% to 40%). That money will go into a “marijuana fund,” 55 percent of which will go to health care, 25 percent will be invested in addiction treatment and drug education, 1 percent will go to marijuana research, and the rest will go to the state treasury. In addition, vertical integration is prohibited: producers and processors may not participate in the retail trade.