List of Drug Rehabs and Alcohol Treatment in Texas
(888) 842-3167
If you are looking for a change of pace or a change of scenery and you are facing the mental and physical health problems associated with drug or alcohol addiction, then the state of Texas can offer you both along with treatment for your disorder. Texas has many beautiful and hospitable cities, including Houston, Dallas, Waco, and Austin, where you can obtain professional therapy to help you overcome your addictions.
Obtaining the appropriate treatment for an addiction disorder can play a crucial role in your recovery. Texas offers rehabilitation facilities that specialize in addiction therapy. You can receive individual counseling that will help to identify your weaknesses and determine the severity of your illness. This can also assist with your decision to commit to an in-patient program or to obtain services on an out-patient basis. It is very important though, that you do follow through with the program of your choice and make a conscious effort to achieve and maintain sobriety.
How to find drug and alcohol treatment in Texas can be very difficult. We have provided a Solutions-Based Directory for you to find rehabs that are affordable, low cost, no cost, insurance accepted, state funded as well as self pay. You can find out the way to get off heroin, cocaine, meth, ecstasy, painkillers, pills, xanax, marijuana and alcohol. Most treatment facilities either provide detox or work closely with a detox facility in Texas. Sober living facilities can be found in Texas.
Outpatient, residential, extended care, men's or women's, Christian, faith based, outdoor wilderness, dual diagnosis, mental health, behavioral health, detox and long term care are available to you in Texas.
Texas is known for the widespread epidemic of meth ( ice, crystal, glass, crank, methampetamine, tweak, tweek .) Treatment and detox for meth is becoming more and more popular in recent years. If you or someone you know needs help finding rehab or detox for meth, be sure to fill out our rapid response form on any page of this site. We are dedicated to the fight against meth. Meth is a dangerous drug that brutally kills people and ruins lives.
Heroin and opiates are all-too-often treated with methadone in large populations like Houston, Austin and Dallas. Detox and treatment for heroin ( dope, horse, smack, h ) is available to assist people with returning to a normal lifestyle without constantly relying on maintenance drugs like methadone and Suboxone. Another major area of concern for people in Texa are the synthetic drugs like Oxycontin ( Oxy ), Roxicet ( Roxy ), and Oxycodone. Recovery is possible and a new life can be found by simply completing the simple form below. We will help you find the proper detox for heroin and opiates.
Want to know if your insurance will be accepted at a treatment center? Whether you have Blue Cross / Blue Shield (BCBS), Aetna, United Health Care, Humana, Assurant, Unicare, Anthem, Carefirst, Cigna, Asuris Northwest Health, Celtic Insurance, Fortis, Golden Rule, Health Net, Kaiser, Shelter, Vista, Wellpoint, Accordia or even Medicaid, Tri Care, and state funded insurance – we can usually help you find what you are looking for. We work closely with thousands of facilities that accept insurance, whether it be in network or out of network. If you don’t have insurance, many facilities are now offering payment plans, financing, and some even offer scholarships. Simply fill out our rapid response form below to find the help you need now.
There appears to be a quite serious factual error in the piece 'More heroin for heroin addicts – is the Department of Health quite off its head?' by Kathy Gyngell online here:
I am unclear if this is only in the Mail Online or also in the print version. Regardless, in this piece the author states that:
"The last Cochrane Review on the matter concluded that, ‘No definitive conclusions about the overall effectiveness of heroin is possible’. The DoH, though, was persuaded that UK trials would prove this wrong."
Although not cited or linked directly (which, as an aside, would be useful - in fact I would suggest should be standard practice when referencing scientific literature) this appears to be quoted from the conclusion of July 2009 Cochrane study on 'heroin maintenance for chronic heroin dependents' which is available here:
"No definitive conclusions about the overall effectiveness of heroin prescription is possible. Results favouring heroin treatment come from studies conducted in countries where easily accessible Methadone Maintenance Treatment at effective dosages is available. In those studies heroin prescription was addressed to patients who had failed previous methadone treatments. The present review contains information about ongoing trials which results will be integrated as soon as available."
This study has, however, subsequently been updated twice. All Cochrane reports are subject to regular review, with any new study findings incorporated, and conclusions updated accordingly.
An updated version of the study was published in August 2010
In this updated version, the conclusion was also updated to:
"The available evidence suggests an added value of heroin prescribed alongside flexible doses of methadone for long-term, treatment refractory, opioid users, to reach a decrease in the use of illicit substances, involvement in criminal activity and incarceration, a possible reduction in mortaliity; and an increase in retention in treatment. Due to the higher rate of serious adverse events, heroin prescription should remain a treatment for people who are currently or have in the past failed maintenance treatment, and it should be provided in clinical settings where proper follow-up is ensured."
The statement quoted by Gyngell, that ‘No definitive conclusions about the overall effectiveness of heroin is possible’ is no longer in the conclusion.
It was reviewed/updated a second time in December 2011, and the conclusion did not change:
The quote used would therefore appear not be from the 'the last Cochrane review' - indeed the most recent two Cochrane reviews do not include this quote. Please bear in mind that Cochrane is regarded as the gold standard in evidence based analysis of health interventions, and thus particular care needs to be taken when quoting them in support of a particular view.
Given that the updated conclusions no longer include the quoted statement, and the meaning of the conclusion is now somewhat different to what is implied in the Gyngell piece, I feel a correction should be made and the piece updated (or removed), along with an apology to both Cochrane Library for misrepresenting their work, and to readers for potentially misleading them.
I look forward to hearing from you
regards
Steve Rolles, etc...
Ive also pointed out the mistake in the online comments thread.
Just to note, there are certainly important debates to be had about the cost benefit analysis of heroin prescribing (Transform have made our own contribution here for example) and, as the Cochrane report makes clear - it is an intervention that current evidence only supports for a fairly small group of problematic injectors (although some newer evidence suggest wider applicability). The contributions of Kathy and others is certainly a valid part of the debate, whether you agree with them or not.
Clearly different interventions will work for different people, and these are decisions that need to be made by doctors and their clients based on the best possible evidence. That the Government has made this particular option more available based on new evidence (something you can obviously only get by doing the trials the Mail seems so critical of) is surely a welcome development. All other debates aside, making sure treatment providers should have the widest possible range of options available, informed by the best possible evidence, is unambiguously a good thing.
Anyway - this is really just to flag up that the Cochrane library has apparently been misrepresented in the Mail, and whatever one may feel about the heroin / drug policy debate, that is not a good thing.
Finally, if I've made a mistake about this - and these things do happen, Im happy to put up a correction and apology.
The debate on drug law reform continues to gather momentum in Latin America with another statement from the Colombian President on legalisation. As told by Colombia Reports:
Santos and Nicaraguan writer and former vice-President Sergio Ramirez discussed the possibility of legalizing drugs and the impact on Latin America, during a debate at the literature and arts Hay Festival in the coastal city of Cartagena."I know that this can't be the opinion of a state or the president of the republic, but I am a normal citizen, so I can [say it]. The solution is decriminalizing drugs. It must be decriminalized," Ramirez was quoted by Colombia's presidential website.
"I am not against this," Santos responded. "And I am saying this as president of the republic. This decision would be acceptable for Colombia if taken by the entire world." "Colombia maybe the country that has suffered most fighting drug trafficking. It has cost us our best leaders, our best journalists, our best judges and our best policemen," Santos added.
There is some confusion here (perhaps an issue of translation) between 'decriminalisation' (generally referring to personal possession/use) and 'legalisation' (generally referring to exploring regulated markets) although it is safe to assume, from previous comments made by Santos, that he is talking about the latter*.
In fact Santos is clear in his statements that he supports not only a debate on legalisation but that he would not oppose legal regulation of some drugs - notably marijuana and possibly cocaine - if it was a multilateral initiative. His reluctance to act unilaterally is understandable given not only the international nature of both the trade and the legal framework, but the serious diplomatic and political flak Colombia would risk attracting from the US and others.
He has also said he does not want to lead the debate, but is in effect doing just that with his regular comments on the subject. He is no doubt fully aware of the media impact they have, especially given Colombia's profile and influence, and its unique place in drug war history. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that he is making a considered and deliberate effort to push this issue forward on the domestic and international stage.
Comments from multiple sitting presidents are far harder for other governments to brush aside. Compare the US' cursory dismissal of the Global Commission report with the more diplomatic statements from the US ambassador to Colombia who acknowledged that legalisation was 'on the table' and 'had to be addressed'. Or the comments this week from U.S. Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman that she 'respects' the call for a debate despite not supporting legalisation.
Progress then, in taking the debate forward at least. But are we edging towards something more concrete?
In Colombia itself Santos' leadership on this issue ontinues to spark debate, support and opposition, but interestingly may have also prompted the creation of a national steering committee led by former General Secretary of the PDA party Bula Camacho, and former Attorney General Gustavo de Greiff's Office. they are proposing to run; "a vast campaign at the international level at UNASUR, the OAS and the UN....to move from the "timid proposal" made by President Juan Manuel Santos to take concrete steps for the international community to decide on decriminalization [probably meaning legalisation given the context] as a means to counter the scourge of drug trafficking.". This grouping is led by Santos' leftist opponents - but notably they are trying to outflank him as reformer, rather than the more familiar rhetorical drug war posturing in opposing such moves seen elsewhere, including the UK.
It remains to be seen who else gets involved, and with what resources, but getting the issue of legally regulating drugs on the agenda of the organisations Camacho mentions would be a major step forwards. And domestic pressure to speak up at the OAS, UNASUR or CELAC may be exactly what Santos wants.
With the ever growing confidence and assertiveness of the region, building a coalition of Latin American countries on the way to calling for increased policy flexibility at the UN level (that would atleast allow exploration of decriminalisation / rregulation models) really would be that over used phrase - a game changer.
*decriminalisation of personal use is less controversial in Latin America - already being in place in a number of Latin American Countries, including Mexico and Colombia - although the Colombian situation is in legal flux. See Drug reform in Latin America
Vast economic costs in terms of drug war-related enforcement
Thebriefing will form a key part of our outreach to mainstream NGOsworking in the criminal justice sector, building on the endorsements Count theCosts has already received from organisations such as the Howard League for Penal Reform and Make Justice Work.
Evidence from across the world reveals that although lawenforcement can show seemingly impressive results in terms of arrests andseizures, impacts on the drug market are inevitably marginal, localised andtemporary. Indeed, as the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimeacknowledges, one of the unintended consequences of the war on drugs is theso-called “balloon effect”, whereby rather than eliminating criminal activity,enforcement just moves it somewhere else. When enforcement does take outcriminals, it also creates a vacuum, and even more violence, as rival gangsfight for control.
The Count the Costs initiative has the widely shared goal ofa safer, healthier and more just world. It is time for all sectors affected bycurrent approaches to drugs, particularly those agencies, organisations andindividuals concerned with crime reduction, to call on governments and the UNto Count the Costs of the war on drugs and explore the alternatives.
The Allen Lane Foundation, for a second year running, haveoffered us an amazing opportunity to get your gift to End the War onDrugs doubled, and it starts TODAY.
Increasing numbers of politicians, policemen, doctors,journalists, and academics are acknowledging that the War on Drugs has failed.Even the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, which is responsible for enforcing thecurrent approach, has identified huge negative unintended consequences of thispolicy.
Deploying military and police to eradicate drug crops, ever morepunitive enforcement activities, and mass incarceration are expensive andinvariably counter-productive. The drug war is having a particularly devastatingimpact on some of the most vulnerable throughout the world. From Afghanistan, to Mexico, to the UK, leaving the drug trade in the hands of violentcriminals is destroying communities, and ensuring drug related heath harmscontinue to get worse.
Yet, we are now at a once-in-a-generation tipping-pointmoment. This year, we have seen a growing trend towards the decriminalisationof drug possession internationally, and a rising chorus of voices calling for a new approach to drug policy, with public figures such as theGlobal Commission on Drug Policy, (including Kofi Annan and four former headsof state), a former UK Defence Secretary, the editor of the British MedicalJournal, and the serving Presidents of Mexico and Colombia all questioning the war on drugs and calling for reform.
Transform has played a key role in shifting the domestic andinternational debate from the margins to the mainstream, and meaningful reformsare now a very real possibility. We need your help to build on thismomentum and seize this opportunity to end the war on drugs.
If you donate through our website today yourgift could be worth twice as much (and even more with Gift Aid). It's allthanks to the Allen Lane Foundation who will match gifts pound-for-poundonline. And, this year, the pot of matched funding available is worth £70,000 -that means there’s never been a better time to give.
So, please, get your gift doubled right now. And, don'tforget to forward this message to your friends and family too, and help us makethe most of this amazing opportunity to end the War on Drugs and create asafer, healthier world.
We really do appreciate your help. Thank you and MerryChristmas
We were surprised and impressed recently when we came across alittle known piece of work that shows how a government, well disposed to usingevidence to influence its drug policy, can employ science to make a positive difference.
Earlier this month Steve Rolles and Danny Kushlick attendedan event at the House of Lords. One of the presentations was by Pavel Bem, a conservative MP in the Czech Parliament. He presented the results of an impactanalysis that effectively paved the way for the contemporary Czechdecriminalisation of drug possession in 2002. The initiative was, in effect, a perfect experiment:
This is the brief history:
1993 Governmental Drug Commission
1993 1st National Drug Strategy - drugs decrminalised for persoanl possession
1998 Criminal Law penalizing possession brought in
1999 Impact Analysis Project (PAD) of the New Drugs Legislation (GDC)
2002 PAD outcomes prove negative impacts
2002-10 New National Drug Strategy and New Penal Code - decriminalises possession
A period of decriminalisation of possession was brieflyinterrupted by recriminalisation. Following an impact analysis of the recriminalisation, showing negativeoutcomes, drugs were decriminalised again.
The first major post-communist reform of Czech drug laws was completed asearly as 1990. Among other legislative changes that were seen as returns todemocratic and humanistic values, capital punishment and punishment for simplepossession of illegal drugs were abolished.
However, in 1997 a proposal was submitted to the Czech parliament that wouldre-introduce criminal penalties for drug users for possession of any amount ofillegal drugs. The government subsequently submitted its own more modestproposal introducing criminalization of possession, but only for amounts thatwere "bigger than small", which was approved by parliament in April1998.
The law was subsequently vetoed by Vaclav Havel, then president of the Czech Republic.Then, the parliament overturned the president's veto and the amended law wentinto effect on January 1, 1999. Following these turbulent events, the NationalDrug Commission proposed that the government evaluate the impact of the newamendments by means of funding a scientific study.
The researchers were asked to address five hypotheses that the Czechgovernment wanted to have tested. The hypotheses were: "After theintroduction of the penalty for possession of illegal drugs, (1) availabilityof illegal drugs will decrease; (2) number of (prevalence of) current drugusers will decrease; or at least (3) the incidence of new users will decrease;(4) there will be no increase in the negative health consequences related toillegal drugs; and (5) social costs will not increase."
The study, "An Impact Analysis Project of the New Drug Legislation inthe Czech Republic" (October 2001), concludedthat the implementation of a penalty for possession of illicit drugs forpersonal use did not meet any of the tested objectives and was loss-making froman economic point of view.
Download the summary document by clicking on the image below:
The importance of this social experiment cannot beunderestimated. It shows that ifgovernment is willing to operate according to evidence then the policy changecan be made in accordance with it.
Whilst this was not a full impact assessment as weunderstand it, (for instance, it didn’t explore the possibility of legal regulation)it is important to know that this kind of work is possible to conduct and thatif done well, it can affect policy decisions.
Impact Assessment can be conducted at all levels of government, from city to transnational. We call on policy makers at every level to ensure cost-effectiveness of expenditure and demonstrate that key impacts are being achieved. And we ask drug policy activists to pressure them to do so.
Here are two books that would make excellent Christmas presentsthis year. The first is drugs historian,writer, broadcaster and Transform Trustee Mike Jay’s recently updated:
About which Julian Keeling in The New Statesman and Societysaid:
"Intelligent, witty, cogent and a bit pissed off,Emperors of Dreams is one of the best books on drugs I have come across, andshould be mandatory reading for anyone concerned with drug legalisation."
Coleridge and de Quincey swilling bitter draughts of laudanum, Sigmund Freudand Sherlock Holmes dallying with cocaine, Baudelaire and Gautier rapt inhashish fantasies behind velvet curtains, even Queen Victoria swallowing herprescription dose of cannabis - these snapshot images are familiar, but what isthe story which lies behind them? How did cannabis and cocaine, opium andether, mushrooms and mescaline enter the worlds of nineteenth century Britain, Europe and America, and what was their impacton the century’s dreams and nightmares?
Emperors of Dreams paints a fresh and startling picture both of today’sillicit drugs and of the nineteenth century in general. It shows that the ageof Empire and Victorian values was awash with drugs, and traces their coursethrough the rapidly evolving arenas of science and colonial expansion and thedemimondes of popular subculture and literary fashion, putting into context thedrug habits and references of writers as diverse as Coleridge, de Quincey,Baudelaire, Dumas, Conan Doyle, Robert Louis Stevenson, William James andSigmund Freud.
Geoff Mulgan,former Director of the Prime Minister's Policy Unit and the Cabinet Office'sStrategy Unit in Tony Blair's Government says of the book:
"Malcolm Dean has been uniquelywell-placed to witness innumerable policy successes and failures, and the oftendistorted lens through which they have been covered by the media. Thisthoughtful and wise book will be invaluable for anyone working in the mediawho's involved in explaining social policy, and to anyone involved in socialpolicy who needs to get the media on their side."
How big a beast is the media? Can right wing tabloidsinfluence social policy using their ability to fan fears and prejudices? Malcolm Dean, the Guardian's longstanding chiefmonitor of social policy, expertly indicts his own trade through a series ofseven case studies. Drawing on four decades of top level Whitehallbriefings, topped up by interviews with 150 senior participants in thepolicy-making process, the book is packed with new insights, and colourfulstories, from events in Whitehall'scorridors, culminating in a damning list detailing the seven deadly sins of the'reptiles' (modern journalists).
It has a cogent, detailed and comprehensive description of UK drug policyshenanigans from 2000-2007, including contributions from Transform.
Its only competition covering this period isin The Diaries of Chris Mullin – A view from the foothills, 2009. Which, amongst other gems, gives the inside dope on Mullin's groundbreaking leadership as Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee Drug Policy Enquiry of 2001/2.
If you are purchasing online, please do it through Transform's Amazon Account, to donate to Transform as you purchase. All books have a link to www.amazon.com where the book is available to purchase. If purchased through these links, thanks to the Amazon Associates affiliate programme, Transform receives a ten percent donation of the cost of the book.
An interesting development in the Latin American drug law reform debate this week. In an interview with Spanish newspaper El Pais on Monday (as reported in Colombia reports), US Ambassador for Colombia, Peter Michael McKinley, when the question of Colmbian president Santos' recent remarks on drug legalisation came up, said that the issue 'had to be addressed':
"the issue presented itself several times in the last 20, 30 years, and it is now a question that is on the table, and what is always important in political debates is to analyze the options present."
McKinley, was clear however, said that even though the debate is taking place, the U.S.
"remained opposed to legalization."
According to the report, the ambassador went on to describe Colombia as an important ally of the U.S. in the struggle against narco-trafficking, and praised the evolution of the Andean country over the last decade.
"The transformation of the past ten years in Colombia in terms of security, struggle against narco-terrorism, construction of institutions or strengthening democracy is something not only recognized by Colombians, but by governments on an international level,"
The significant part of this is the opening quote that acknowledges the active debate happening in Latin America, that legalisation is 'on the table' in that debate, and that it is important to analyze all the options. This is ofcourse a long way from endorsing a reform position, indeed he makes the US opposition all too clear. However, the statement is effectively an endorsement of the Santos position - that there needs to be a debate of the options, and legalisation (or as Calderon puts it 'market alternatives') needs to be amongst them.
Even this acknowledgement of the importance of a debate and analysis of options feels like progress in the context of the historically entrenched viewpoint and hawkish drug-war posturing.
The Committee will undertake a comprehensive review of drugs policy in the new year. The Committee will examine the effectiveness of the Government’s 2010 drugs strategy and the UK Government’s contribution to global efforts to reduce the supply and demand of illicit drugs. Specifically, the Committee will consider:
The extent to which the Government’s 2010 drug strategy is a ‘fiscally responsible policy with strategies grounded in science, health, security and human rights’ in line with the recent recommendation by the Global Commission on Drug Policy
The criteria used by the Government to measure the efficacy of its drug policies
The independence and quality of expert advice which is being given to the government
Whether drug-related policing and expenditure is likely to decrease in line with police budgets and what impact this may have
The cost effectiveness of different policies to reduce drug usage
The extent to which public health considerations should play a leading role in developing drugs policy
The relationship between drug and alcohol abuse
The comparative harm and cost of legal and illegal drugs
The impact of the transfer of functions of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse to Public Health England and how this will affect the provision of treatment
The availability of ‘legal highs’ and the challenges associated with adapting the legal framework to deal with new substances
The links between drugs, organised crime and terrorism
Whether the UK is supporting its global partners effectively and what changes may occur with the introduction of the national crime agency
Whether detailed consideration ought to be given to alternative ways of tackling the drugs dilemma, as recommended by the Select Committee in 2002 (The Government's Drugs Policy: Is It Working?, HC 318, 2001–02) and the Justice Committee’s 2010 Report on justice reinvestment (Cutting crime: the case for justice reinvestment, HC 94, 2009–10).”
Organisations and individuals interested in making written submissions are invited to do so by Tuesday 10 January 2012. Submissions should be no longer than 2,500 words. Further advice on making a submission can be found below."
It is a very wide mandate (perhaps too wide?) but the content of the questions is significant, with a clear focus on some of the key themes in the drug policy and law reform debate raised by the groundbreaking 2002 HASC drugs inquiry, and those that have developed subsequently.
Of note is the fact that the Global Commission Report (that made a range of pragmatic recommendations including decriminalisation of drug possession and an experiment with legalisation/regulation) - is mentioned at the outset, and the previous inquiry's final recommendation specifically alluded to at the end. This was:
We recommend that the Government initiates a discussion within the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways—including the possibility of legalisation and regulation—to tackle the global drugs dilemma
So there is a clear focus on the harms of prohibition and the law reform debate - obviously directly reinforced by a number of the other questions.
On past experience it's clear the Committee would not be raising these issues if it wasn't genuinely interested in them, and one senses the positive change in the political climate around this debate, in the media, in mainstream politics, in the public, and in Parliament have all laid the foundations for what could, potentially, be a very important piece of work.
A note of caution should come from the the last time the Committee tackled the drug issue - 2010's report on cocaine - which was very poor, disappointing on almost every front. It's not clear who is driving this latest move, but it's welcome that it is happening and, as with the previous inquiries, we encourage interested parties to provide evidence, particularly those beyond the usual suspects. The Count the Costs initiative provides a steer as to who they might be. Do contact us for help.
Continuing our engagement with organisations and individualsoutside the drug policy sector, we are today pleased to announce thepublication of the Count the Costs initiative Environment Briefing. We intend to use the briefing to encourage environmental NGOs – such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the World Wildlife Fund – to take a public stand on the drugs issue and advocate for reform. And we urge drug policy reformers and those in the environmental movement to use the briefing to encourage campaigns and policy people in green NGOs to engage with drug policy.
Examining a range ofenvironmental issues surrounding the war on drugs, the briefing includesseveral case studies as well as sections on:
The futility of drug crop eradications
The aerial fumigation of drug crops, a practice that is still permitted in the world’s second most biodiverse country, Colombia
The deforestation that occurs as law enforcement drives drug crop producers into ever more remote and ecologically valuable regions
The pollution caused by unregulated, illicit drug production methods
While some of the consequences of the war on drugs arerelatively well known and understood by those aware of the issue, theenvironmental impacts of current drug policy are seldom given properconsideration. This must change. As this briefing outlines, if theseenvironmental costs are to be minimised or avoided, alternative forms of drugcontrol must be explored.
The briefing is available online as a PDF, with print copiesavailable on request.
PRESIDENT JUAN MANUEL Santos of Colombia spent two days in London last week. He stated quite categorically that “cocaine is killing my country”, and that cocaine users should refrain because they are contributing to the mayhem in Colombia.
This line of argument emerged from a campaign developed in Colombia called Shared Responsibility. His rhetoric is especially interesting because in the Observer he recently called for a debate on the legalisation of cocaine. So what exactly is he saying, and why is it relevant for the people of Ireland?
First, let’s be absolutely clear – it is not cocaine, or cocaine use per se that is killing his country. The chaos and violence emerges from the cocaine market prospering under global prohibition. This is what creates the violence surrounding its production and supply; in precisely the same way that the prohibition of alcohol did in the US in the twenties. So Santos finds himself in a double bind: whilst he and his government have been highly critical, they are necessarily political supporters of the global war on drugs, a venture initiated and heavily backed by the US and other key allies.
The global prohibition of certain drugs (not alcohol or tobacco of course) for non-medical use came into being with the signing of the United Nations Single Convention on Drugs of 1961. The economics of prohibition means that commodities that are mere plants at the point of production, become worth more than their weight in gold by the time they reach Western consumers. There are now an estimated 250 million illegal drug users worldwide.
Tragically and predictably, by the mid 80s, organised criminals, insurgents and paramilitaries the world over had built huge empires on the extraordinary profits (with margins as high as 3,000 per cent) gifted to them by the prohibition. To confuse matters, the war on drugs was now conflated with the war on organised crime. And so the ‘Drug Problem’ was made manifest. ‘The people of Ireland are tacitly supporting the policy that is killing Colombia’
Most UN member states (including Colombia) are signatories to the UN Single Convention on Drugs – including the Republic of Ireland. And that is why Mr Santos’s statement about cocaine is of direct relevance to Irish people. The people of Ireland are tacitly supporting the policy that is killing Colombia.
But it is not just Colombia. Prohibition – the global war on drugs, is killing many others in Afghanistan, Guinea Bissau and Mexico (where over 40 000 have died in drug related violence since 2006). Ireland is a party to prohibition in principle and in law We are all in this together – it is a shared irresponsibility.
A poll earlier this year, commissioned by the European Commission sought the views of young people on drug policy throughout the EU. The highest levels of support for legalisation were from the citizens of Ireland and France, with 21 per cent saying that legalisation is one of the most effective ways of dealing with drugs.
There is clearly a mood to change policy and law, and at the very least to begin a debate on alternatives. So, why can’t a genuine, high-level debate begin? Fear and ignorance amongst both voters and politicians clearly underlie much of the stasis holding the current policy in place, but ‘politics’ is at least as important.
It is instructive to look at the drug policy trajectory of two world leaders – Barack Obama and David Cameron. Both are former users of illegal drugs and both held reform positions before they reached high office. Once in high office their views apparently shifted to more hawkish, populist positions.
‘Alternative views cannot be tolerated’
The fact is that the long standing system of prohibition has created an environment in which alternative views cannot be tolerated, resulting in the increasingly understood ‘retirement syndrome’, whereby recently retired government officials fall over each other to call for legalisation – freedom from political office allowing them to speak their minds.
Irish support for reform is reflected in the work of Paul O’Mahoney’s, The Irish War on Drugs: The Seductive Folly of Prohibition, in the politicking of Independent TD Luke “Ming’’ Flanagan, and the thoughtful policy development of Sinn Fein. In a recent news story, junior health minister Róisín Shortall – who is in charge of Ireland’s drugs strategy – said she had an “open mind” in relation to Portugal’s decriminalisation model. She said she was “particularly interested” in the country’s “yellow card” system, which warns users about their behaviour and tries to steer them away from drugs.
However, if Ireland is to free itself from the shackles of a policy developed in a bygone era, one which preceded the sixties drug culture and the widespread normalisation of recreational drug use, it will require politicians to step up to the mark and call for reform.
Mr Santos’s position is not completely coherent. He is fighting a war on drugs at the same time as calling for a debate about ending it. However, he has taken a courageous stance in calling for a debate on legalisation and regulation (to understand what this might mean see Transform’s groundbreaking bookAfter the war on drugs – Blueprint for Regulation). He has shown leadership, but undoing the global prohibition will take more than that.
In order to transform drug policy into one that is effective, just and humane, UN member states will need to develop a coalition willing to act in concert to challenge the status quo. They will need to call on their peers to Count the Costs of the War on Drugs and explore the alternatives. This is about turning shared responsibility into something more than rhetoric. Putting in place a system of state regulation and control is no panacea.
However, Ireland can share the responsibility for global drug control and support President Santos in raising the debate on legalisation and regulation. Remaining silent on the issue at national and international levels is no longer an option for Ireland or for any other UN member state, for whom the status quo means support for the killing of Mr Santos’s country.
Danny Kushlick is the head of external affairs at the Transform Drug Policy Foundation. For more information, you can visit Transform’s website, blog, subscribe to their Facebook page or follow them on Twitter.
Close
Don't Show This Again
Get Help Now 
