Punitive Control: How the War on Drugs Exacerbates Inequalities

By Esteban Acuña
Content made possible by Youth RISE and the Robert Carr Foundation
You can read the Spanish version here

«To political authorities –including United Nations authorities– the war on drugs seems like a very good instrument for political-social control, just as penal control is a good instrument for social control,» says Iban De Rementería in the seventh episode of Drugs As They Are, the Proyecto Soma podcast.

Ibán de Rementería is a philosopher and political scientist. He has been a teacher in the Master’s program on Drug Dependency at the Faculty of Social Sciences of the Central University of Chile. He is the author of several books and articles on drugs and crime, including The Drugs of the Detained, an investigation based on data about the types and quantities of drugs seized from individuals detained under drug laws in Chile. In this book, De Rementería exposes a problem that occurs in many Latin American countries: the majority of those detained by the police are drug users, even though drug consumption is not a crime.

As a result, in this episode, we talk about how poverty, drug consumption, marginalization, and dynamics of social control are intertwined. And how current drug policies have been used as a tool of control, especially in the most marginalized sectors.

This is a shortened reading version of the podcast episode available on our Spotify and YouTube channels.

In 2012, you were a columnist for El Ciudadano newspaper, and you were one of the few experts at that time who dared to talk about the failure of the war on drugs and the need to regulate the drug market. If addressing this issue is still complicated today, it was even more so ten years ago. What led you to be interested in the drug landscape?

My origins are somewhat curious. I dealt with drugs because in the 1970s, we all had some relationship with them. I didn’t like marijuana because it made me sleepy, and I wasn’t interested in falling asleep. All I do is drink red wine. When the coup happened in Chile, I emigrated to Colombia. In Colombia, I became interested in agrarian issues, rural violence, and wrote my master’s thesis on that topic. I had become a supposed expert in violence and was part of a group of violentologists in Colombia – I lived there for 13 years. While in that group, the United Nations recruited me to work in Peru on alternative development projects to coca crops in the Alto Huallaga. There, I delved into the drug issue, from production. And that’s when I realized that these policies are terribly distorted, terribly misguided.

Was there any experience or learning that made you change the way you saw or understood drugs?

The first research I conducted was a port-related investigation, about the port world, and I discovered who consumed cocaine. And this may seem like a silly anecdote, but it’s not. I discovered that cocaine users were three groups. First, Palestinian merchants who were very good at playing cards and no matter what would open their shops early in the morning the next day (and also had the resources to pay for cocaine). The second group was bank employees. Bank employees were well paid because, at that time, computers didn’t exist, and banking operations were a constant, constantly moving accounting operation, and they had a demanding and late-working job (and they also had the resources). The third group was journalists, who, at that time, did everything by hand and had to reach a certain time, which was the closing time, in the early morning, to make the plates and everything else, unlike now; so, they worked late into the night and had to be active the next day to collect the news, with the difference that they didn’t have money. That was my first systematic research on drug consumption.

After that study, you traveled to Colombia, the world’s leading producer of coca leaf and cocaine; then you went to Peru, which is the second in the world, and also worked on alternative development. What did you discover about these two key countries in the global drug trade?

It was complicated because the discovery I made led to a definitive disagreement with my bosses, who were the United Nations at that time. What I discovered is that peasants grow coca leaves because the coca leaf is paid for its production costs. Peasant economy has survived and is maintained by a very complex process called simple reproduction of capital. The drug trafficking economy starts with the demand for marijuana crops, poppy crops for morphine extraction and heroin production, and coca crops. There are others, but these are the three essential ones. This constitutes more than 90% of the international drug market. So, these crops respond to what happens in the third world: it becomes third-worldized in the international distribution of raw material production, including agricultural raw materials. The third world has always been a major agricultural producer. Over the years, starting in the 1970s, agricultural production, surplus agricultural production, or exportable production, no longer comes from the third world but from the first world. And it’s because the first world has subsidized agricultural production; they subsidize an average of 40%. So, what begins to happen? Agricultural production in the third world can no longer compete with surplus agricultural production in the first world. And what does that mean? The prices paid for the agricultural production of the third world are below its production costs. In contrast, drug traffickers, to have a supply of poppy, marijuana, or coca, have to pay at least for the production costs, which is the condition set by the peasant agricultural economy. The difference between capitalist economy and peasant economy, which is the same as with artisans and small producers, is that capitalist economy aims at the broad reproduction of capital, and the small economy, that is, the peasant’s, is satisfied with the simple reproduction of factors. That is, workers are content with the salary they deserve, plus the costs of equipment, plus the costs of raw materials, and they do not aim for the broad reproduction of capital, that is, capitalist profit. That’s why all small producers, when they deal with banks, go bankrupt because they cannot produce two incomes, that is, for themselves and also for the banks, because banks lend you money and take a portion of the agricultural surplus you generate. So, when I start proposing that what we need is to subsidize agricultural production that competes with crops, they tell me I’m crazy. Well, I say, why do developed countries subsidize then? Well, because they are national policies. Well, that’s it. So, once in Brussels, I was almost kicked out of a meeting for presenting all this very technically.

And these contradictions seem to be deeply rooted in the same war on drugs, launched in 1970, which aimed to defeat drug trafficking, achieve a drug-free world, protect children, safeguard people’s health, a series of objectives that were never achieved because drugs still exist, supply and demand have increased, children and young people lack substantial information, making them more exposed to risks, and people with problematic consumption are even more marginalized. What do you consider to be the essential contradiction of current drug policies?

The United States has 50 states, and at this moment, 27 states allow, in one way or another, access to drugs. They continue to lead the international war on drugs, but within the country, they no longer wage the war on drugs. There have been internal debates between federal authorities and state authorities. You have a state like Oregon, which is a very unique state, that already allows all drugs. Today, the consumption of any drug is allowed, and it is the first state that allowed the consumption of marijuana 20 years ago. So, the issue is different. If you analyze European documentation a bit, you realize what they are interested in. For example, something that is very popular here in Chile is the Icelandic model. In the end, what they are interested in is controlling young people. So, you see that all anti-drug actions, even those presented as more positive, even those assumed, in quotes, from a risk management and harm reduction perspective, ultimately have the goal of controlling young people. Because that has a central interest in terms of social policy.

You wrote in one of your columns: «drug consumption, being a risky action, is used as an instrument of social control, aimed at poor users who lack power.» How paradoxical it is that, on the one hand, drugs are considered responsible for generating disorder in society, and on the other hand, they can be used or are used by governments, as you explained, to exert certain control. At what point does it become a tool of social control?

We must distinguish between a hypothesis that seems false to me. Some people claimed very categorically that the consumption of heroin had been introduced in the popular neighborhoods of Madrid by the Civil Guard. In Chile, I also found that they said the police were distributing base paste among young people. And that’s not true. I mean, police officers may distribute, but that is not a systematic policy. What is true is that, under the pretext of pursuing drugs because it harms the population, I can control the population, and the best proof is what is happening right now in Chile. We are concerned about the war on drug trafficking, while we are unable to address the issue of pensions. As simple as that.

There is also an inequality in access to information. Today we face overinformation, post-truth, fake news. We probably never had access to information about drugs like we do now. How do you think the media is currently addressing these new perspectives on drugs?

Talking about the media, especially in the case of Chile, is talking about how the media is controlled. If I compare it to Spain, yes, the media are controlled by big economic sectors, but in Spain, they have a wiser policy. El País newspaper has a more or less open drug policy. In the case of El Mercurio, there was a moment when it had a certain open policy because one of its executives had a neoliberal policy perspective on drugs. And the rest of the media did not, because the media in general play on drug trafficking information. And that’s what is happening now. Crime has not increased; rather, it has decreased, but what has increased are homicides. And homicides are related to conflicts between ‘cartels,’ which are related to business. Because, of course, there is a problem in the drug business: if I give Juancho a million pesos in cocaine hydrochloride, and then he starts acting foolish, I can’t go to the police station and say ‘look, Juancho owes me a million pesos in cocaine hydrochloride, and he refuses to pay.’ So, you have to go collect. And I’m not going to repeat the horrors that happen in that.

And the other case is that it can’t continue to be that every time a person is arrested with a quantity of drugs, the prosecutor has to necessarily take them to court… In Chile, today, the second cause of detention is drug-related, and the second population in prisons is there for drugs. Of them, 70% had less than 3 grams, that is, it’s a gigantic joke. So, today, 22% of prisons are filled with people serving sentences for drug trafficking. I believe that now the situation is worse because before, the judge could decide whether a gram, two grams, five grams, were an amount for your personal use, but you still had to go through the whole process, use all those judicial instances, instead of pursuing other crimes that really affect the population. But you have to think that in Chile, 90% of crime victims are violent robberies or thefts, and at the same time, 90% of those crimes have no known suspect, and you cannot carry out any process. That is, it is total impunity. Meanwhile, on the other hand, you have prisons filled with dudes who had four grams in their pocket.

In your book «The Drugs of the Detained,» you reveal this common problem of the war on drugs in which users end up being the most affected by drug laws. Most detainees are ultimately for consumption or possession. The overcriminalization of users is clearly documented in Latin America, yet it seems that it is not enough to question this unfair model, to say the least… Why is it so difficult to change this punitive approach to drugs for one focused on human rights?

The question seems simple but is complex because to political authority, to political authorities, including United Nations authorities, this seems like a very good instrument for political-social control. The war on drugs, just like penal control as we understand it, is a good instrument for social control. In the research you refer to, I found evidence in courts that said, literally, «there are traces of resin on a paper that could be marijuana,» and that was the evidence. That’s why there was a conflict with the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court threw all those cases out and said, this is not evidence of anything. And no one talked about it. I pick it up there in the book.

We are accustomed to attributing the deterioration of relationships in vulnerable populations or communities to drug use. You have mentioned that it’s not the drugs but rather the economic, social, and cultural deterioration that further marginalizes and impoverishes. How does this dynamic of drugs unfold around the most vulnerable populations?

It’s somewhat similar to what was done before with alcohol. There were even people who believed that alcohol should not be sold to the poor because they were individuals with low resistance levels. I had a relationship with Canada, where the government sells alcohol. They are public liquor stores that operate during office hours, from 9 to 12 and from 2 to 6, with some on duty. If you’ve already had too much to drink, they won’t sell to you. So, when you go to buy alcohol, you find a number of indigenous families, very deteriorated, asking you to buy them whisky because they couldn’t get it themselves. Therefore, even my friends, who were progressives, would say, ‘No, it’s because those people have low alcohol resistance.’ That’s a lie; there is no such thing. But myths are created because there is a need for control. In the case of drugs, it’s the same: there is a sector of the population that believes drugs are the origin of all evils. If my wife cheats on me, it’s because she became a drug addict; if my children mess up, it’s because they became drug addicts, and so on.

It’s the same narrative that often associates drug consumption with the most vulnerable populations. I remember that at one point, an authority in Chile claimed that poverty and lack of education increase drug consumption. You responded by pointing out that a look at the evidence shows that the majority of substance users are not poor individuals but rather the more affluent classes. However, drug consumption is often attributed to the poorer classes. Why is that? Is it different from the role drugs play in affluent spaces?

Drugs in populations serve the same role as in other places. I have conducted fieldwork, and I remember that women in the hills of Valparaíso would ask me, ‘Well, but you, the ones working with drugs, what’s the issue with marijuana?’ Because all the women there, aged 40 to 50, smoked marijuana. This is a popularized consumption, and I don’t need to explain the same for alcohol or smoking. In other words, the most serious health problem we have in Chile is tobacco consumption. I am not a supporter of a war on tobacco either, but in Chile, it kills 17 thousand people, and globally it kills around 3 million. And neither in Chile nor anywhere else has anyone died from marijuana. Deaths due to cocaine are minimal. If you are a heavy cocaine user and have a heart problem, you will die from a heart attack, but it’s not a direct relationship. Cars kill many more people than all drugs combined.

In lower-income neighborhoods, people manage their mental health by buying on the street, not psychotropic drugs but medicines, even if they may be expired because people try to self-administer. Ultimately, these are all central nervous system sedatives. Now, of course, these people are very deteriorated, and in these neighborhoods, husbands kill their wives under the influence of alcohol, yes, but almost never, in the case of femicides, do they say it’s under the influence of a drug, but rather alcohol. So, these are overlapping issues, but they don’t have a causal relationship. In other words, I agree that the guy who hits his wife probably wouldn’t have done it if he hadn’t been drinking. But it’s the macho structure of our culture that is decisive in femicide, not red wine.

In one of your columns, you mentioned, «Generally, all analyses of psychoactive substance consumption and its causes focus on the why, on the passive. They do not inquire about the for what, about the active and useful uses.» And more enjoyment and pleasure are often attributed to the more affluent middle classes, while drug consumption by poorer individuals is often attributed to the result of a life with voids. How does this inequality, when talking about drugs, affect or distinguish drug consumption among social classes?

There are no significant differences. It is precisely because of the perspective of risk management and harm reduction that I posed the central question as not why but for what because that is the functionality of drugs. If I am depressed, I take a stimulant. It is precisely the management of mood, so to speak. People aim to manage anxiety, depression, and anguish, and they use all these substances, whether psychoactive medications, cocaine, cigarette smoking, or smoking base paste or marijuana, to manage this mood disorder.

In Chile, 50% of medical licenses are for mental health reasons. What comes next, I believe, is 8%, which includes sprains and such, and in third place are cardiovascular issues. I think that’s a substantial piece of information. The fact that 50% of medical licenses are for mental health indicates something conflicting in the field of mental health. On the other hand, according to the Central Bank itself, 70% of households in Chile owe 70% of their income. So, obviously, that has an impact on the mental health of the population, and that is never addressed.

Is it possible to change global drug policies considering the resistance of authoritarian countries that use them as tools for social control?

At the United Nations, all of Europe supports changing drug policies. The United States has always been ambiguous, as we discussed earlier. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are all in favor of change. In Latin America, the majority also supports changes. Which are the countries that do not want any change? These days, people are being executed in Singapore for carrying 8 grams. In Asian countries, the only country allowing something at the moment is Thailand, but in all other countries, the penalties are terrible, whether for possession, carrying, trafficking, or any other reason, including use. One can see a dissemination of an authoritarian and macho culture. In Muslim countries, drug possession is punishable by death, and so is homosexuality. I mention this not to speak ill of Muslims; I know it’s not the fault of Muslims but rather of that governance model. The Taliban recently ordered the closure of all ladies’ hair salons, just to show the extreme to which they go. Someone might say, well, did this gentleman come to talk about [the fight against] drugs or about sexism? But they are very similar because they are part of the same matrix.

So, what do we have? All these African countries and Asian countries, including the People’s Republic of China, Cambodia, and Vietnam, are all terribly authoritarian and constitute the majority in the United Nations. Not even a comma has been changed in international drug laws. And who determined that? Well, Asian and African countries, which are the majority. And why? Because for them, this type of policy, that is, machismo, the fight against drugs, are instruments of control within their countries.

I will quote your phrase again: «The discourse claiming that 70% of those who commit crimes in the country do so under the influence of drugs is not supported by any scientific evidence. It is a purely rhetorical statement constructed from a forced misconception, often used by advertisers, abusing the results and conclusions of statistical research.» To this, you can add the idea that drug seizures on the streets work; you have also had to say that it has no effect and is more of an advertising effort. You said, literally, «seizing more or less has no impact on the quantity of drugs available on the streets.» What problems have you encountered in confronting the common sense that seems to be lacking in the drug discussion? How has it been for you, over so many years, to talk about drugs and constantly combat misinformation?

The consequence is that working on drugs from a critical perspective marginalizes you. They don’t publish you, they don’t take risks, they don’t give you studies. Interestingly, during the toughest times of the government, I was called to conduct studies and such, but since Bachelet’s government, I have never been called again, not even during this one. So, well, the latter might be an old man’s complaint. But, to put it in general terms, they don’t consult you, which for someone means that you don’t have a job. When I returned to Chile, I saw that there were certain sectors interested in changing policy, and I feel more and more lost about that.

You mentioned earlier that young people are being targeted a lot. In one of your columns, you point out that in Chilean society, there has been an alleged connection between drug use and youth violence. Moreover, you say that the population has been made to feel threatened by the mere presence of young people, and you have also said that those in power, in quotes, fear parties and young people. What is happening with young people?

Young people have been a dangerous class since May of ’68. When General de Gaulle asks French intelligence services about the reason for youth rebellion, what they inform him is that young people who smoke marijuana are to blame. I believe that ’68 is a very important cultural key in contemporary history. Currently, 80% of the French acknowledge that their entire modernity, cultural modernity, acceptance of homosexuality, gender equality, etc., is owed to what happened in ’68. Even though it was a failed rebellion, it produced cultural changes that are the present. I believe that from there, there is a fear of young people.

Finally, I want to quote another paragraph from your book that caught my attention because it talks about the dynamics behind drug arrests. You said, «The dynamics of arrest, police classification, judicial disposition, and entry into prison work through a series of filters through which only those who do not have the means to buy drugs, enter a network of confidences that buy their freedom in exchange for information, and, in general, those who do not have the solvency to eliminate police, judicial, and penitentiary pursuit. In practice, it is a mutual permissiveness between traffickers and police. The people who end up in judicial custody are the ultimate recipients of this market in which they have not found a privileged position and perform the role of scapegoats in punitive social rejection of drugs.» With this quote, it seems to me that it is clearly demonstrated how this war on drugs poses a series of highly unequal relationships in reality. Is the inequality revealed through drugs the same as the inequality in the system we live in?

We all know that the system works to prosecute someone who steals a chicken and not the one who takes the bank for the house. The poor go to jail, and the others are sent to take ethics courses.

---

This podcast is a production of Proyecto Soma and is made possible thanks to the support of the international organization Youth Rise and the Robert Carr Fund.

The interview was conducted by Esteban Acuña Venegas | Francesca Brivio was in charge of coordination | General editing was supervised by Raúl Lescano | Sound editing was done by Santiago Martinez Reid | The music is a composition by Dr.100.