Interview with Zara Snapp - ExpoGrow 2016

Transcript of the interview with Zara Snapp:

Zara Snapp is consultant and representative of the Global Commission on Drug Policy of the United Nations. She has a degree in Political Sciences from the University of Colorado, a master in Public Policies from Harvard, is the author of the “Dictionary of drugs” and works on communication strategies in Latin America in regard with global reform on drug policies.

Good morning Zara,

Good morning, thanks

First question, a bit controversial. Internationally, which are the benefits for society from the War on Drugs started by Nixon in the 70s?

Well, I think very few have taken profit from it. What we have seen are countries paying a high price for this war leaded by Nixon.

We have seen a rise in the penitentiary, weapon, military and private security industries... we have witnessed this rise, a boom on this type of companies. And we also saw that Nixon and all Presidents after him could justify interventions in other countries, for having their focus on supply instead of demand. For focusing on eradicating cannabis, coca and poppy crops.

They have been focused on that so they could justify their need of military bases in Central America, Colombia... they have exported their policies to other countries. So, today, I think they haven't achieved their initial goals, although we know today that Nixon started this war with the aim of putting Afroamericans and Latins in jail, it was a way to stigmatize these groups, which were back then protesting against the war in Vietnam, they were altering their state of conciousness to better understand the world through substances and sacred plants.

So, he was trying to restrict and control... It didin't work, and what we've seen instead are violations of human rights, eradication of crops by aerial spraying, which has serious health and environmental consequences.

And we've also witnessed violence and corruption across Latin America and many other countries, it's not only Latin America. We have more news from that region and...there is more violence in Latin America and there is an urgency for reform, because we're in the same continent than the United States and we know that most of these plants and substances are exported to the US, which is the world's largest consumer.

In Uruguay, for example, where the plant is almost completely legal... Do you think that this regulation has some influence in surrounding countries? Do you think that, for being next to Uruguay, they can act as connecting vessels?

One could think that it could have an impact, but the regulation in Uruguay did not include tourism, although we know that there will be tourism, and I think that when you're planning a regulation, you have to understand that people will go to that place to smoke freely, we have seen it in Holland and in those states of the US which have regulated cannabis.

Then, I hope we'll see an effect in places where we have evaluations and can monitor what is happening, in countries where there is a de facto regulation like Holland or a very strict ruling like Uruguay, so we can get this data and keep on pushing reforms. What we've seen in Uruguay, unfortunately, is that we do have two ways of access home growing and clubs are operating, and everything is fine, but sale in pharmacies, which would be to democratize access so anyone can use it, any adult, is still not operating, and that's because of the strict control by the State.

That's because that is their context, those are their needs, Then, we have the Uruguay model and the Colorado model and I think that between these two... and we also have the Spanish model, the Sanish club model and Holland. But, between these models there are plenty of chances to develop public policies for each country, you can incorporate some things, like in Mexico where reparations for harm to victims against the war on drugs is somewhat important.

So, I believe there is an impact when one country takes this decision, and I hope it will impact across the region.

What can be done from the United Nations to encourage Governments to respond the petitions from cannabis users and patients?

The UN moves very slowly. They...everything they do, and especially at international level, is done by consensus. At present they are taking very short steps.

The best thing we can do is endorse national processes and make countries to feel pressed to change their legislation from the basis.

And we'll see a defection of conventions and the restrictions from conventions, because we know that it's not only the medical use. There is also a very important personal and therapeutic use, we could say that the definition of therapeutical use has expanded, it's not only people with medical conditions... but smoking a joint at home instead of drinking some wine to relax, that is therapeutic use.

Then, the UN moves very slowly. What we are seeing\Nnow is that the World Health Organization will form a group of experts who will examine the cannabis issue, and that as a petition of the Member States. Anything going on in the United Nations must be driven by Member States.

So, the interesting thing in the years to come is, since international consensus on the effectiveness of prohibition has failed, and I think it ultimately failed on the special session of the UN “UNGASS” in April of this year, what we'll see then is: how to reach bilateral, trilateral agreements, between countries?

Imagine if Canada, which wants to regulate the whole market... Canada, Jamaica, Uruguay and Colombia would like to reach an agreement to share seeds and good practices.

I think we'll see some changes in that sense at international level...we can't think that we can build a new consensus including these new models now. That's because you have Rusia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Philippines...they are implementing very conservative policies, which are limiting changes at international level. It's easier to maintain the prohibition and the status quo than to propose something new... and that affects reformist countries.

That's why I think we won't see major changes from the UN, but we can see studies, a new study from the WHO may say  “Yes, there are several uses, and we know it...”, may conclude that cannabis is not as bad as we've been told by history books and Nixon. I think we already know it doesn't work that way... And also, some times people should try it, to understand how the plant is. If you haven't tried it you can say things like “it drives you crazy” or “this happens...” And you know where we see all this? When smoking synthetic cannabis.

Synthetic cannabis should not exist! It's not necessary...but when you see it, large amounts of synthetic cannabis made in China are being used in New Zealand! They order it online, and that's because it is an island, and growing is severely punished.

And it is dangerous, right?

It's very dangerous! It's like...why does it exist? Why do all these new synthetic drugs exist? It's because you can't access what you want...after all, any user wants to know that the substance he is taking is of quality, that's all. We already do it with the clothes we wear, I want organic food... but we also do it with drugs.

Then I want my MDMA to be analyzed by Energy Control, or any other organization, and know its exact content. And how will I feel? And the first time that I'm using it, they tell me: “wait for 30 minutes and then you'll feel this and that...be sure to drink water...”

All this is related to harm reduction and how to reduce use related harm, promote the benefits, and also reduce harm caused by policies. So, for us harm reduction is not only related to use, but also to actual damages, the price for this war, and how to reduce them...

We hope we'll see more common sense. Zara, thanks a lot, see you at the Forum.

Thank you. Good luck and congratulations for your 15th anniversary.

Thank you