In 2006 it premiered Blood diamonds, a film that denounced the financing of African wars with the extraction and trafficking of gems. In addition to showing the violence and illegal plots of that industry, the film hits a nerve by making it clear that behind the glamor and sparkle of diamonds there is an international division of labor. One in which the deaths and destruction of states and societies are in the South, while the intoxicating light of perfectly carved carats shines in the North.
With cocaine, on the other hand, the cultural industries are still being benevolent. They have built a rather epic visual and musical narrative. In it, narcos are a kind of antiheroes who, thanks to the trafficking of dust, achieve wealth, luxury and beautiful partners, despite coming from violent, patriarchal and unequal societies. They also show the playful side of cocaine, either in fun and relaxed parties of beautiful women and men, who never seem to be short of money, or as part of the routine of successful executives or bohemian creatives who live on the edge, using it as a source. of energy and recreation.
Even when the violent part of the business arises, they convey a benevolent image of consumers—who at most are presented as poor sick people—in front of dealers racialized, poor and violent, for whom there is only a police response and its logical consequence: death or prison. After the success of the different versions of Narcoswe suggest Netflix produce a sequel filmed in the City of London, showing how the international financial system legalizes the money of drug traffickers in its exclusive offices full of men in tailored suits, who walk quickly, without paying attention to the Rembrandt painting that presides over the facilities.
After the success of 'Narcos', we suggest Netflix produce a sequel filmed in the City of London, showing how the international financial system legalizes the money of drug traffickers
This would be no more than an anecdote if it did not reflect the vision of many political agents, and of a good sector of public opinion, who blames and holds the sellers responsible for cocaine consumption and its trade, while exonerating the buyers. It also assumes that the problem is that the producing and distributing countries of Latin America are failed and corrupt states that cannot control drug traffickers. It is a position that does not even consider that the key is that it is a multimillion-dollar business with very high profitability thanks to the illegality of the product and the loyalty of the clientele. And, although Latin America is its epicenter due to the determinism that being the producing area implies, the power achieved by criminal gangs in rich welfare states such as Belgium, Sweden or Holland is evidence of the great capacity of drug trafficking to corrode institutions. and the social structure.
In this sense, we must take into account that, although the degradation is more evident in small and weak countries, the groups that traffic have become more professional and the States are increasingly incapable of controlling the violence associated with the illegality of the business. As an example, in countries as diverse as Ecuador and Sweden The number of violent deaths increased and governments tried the same type of repressive response, using the army to suppress sellers who are generally racialized people from poor areas.
But cocaine is a global issue that must be addressed from postulates that overcome the inefficient—in light of the results—“war on drugs” promoted by the United States, whose approach is, basically, police and moralistic. The future of a region depends on it, Latin America, which concentrates the greatest problems of violence and attacks on institutions, but which, as has been seen, serves as a trigger or aggravator of the other problems that affect it.
It is paradoxical that the same marijuana that Nixon declared war on 50 years ago is now a tourist attraction in New York
Cocaine seized in Europe has tripled since 2016. Hence, the EU, as an actor that brings together high-consumption countries, has an ethical and political responsibility in the design of new global measures on drugs, since local solutions do not fit due to the political economy of their consumption. Beyond what is being done with police cooperation programs, it is worth paying attention to positions such as that of the presidents of Colombia and Mexico. Both proposed looking at the problem from supply and demand, reflecting on the possibility of controlled legalization as a way to reduce the millionaire income that drug traffickers and their partners obtain thanks to the illegality of the business.
It is paradoxical that the same marijuana that Nixon declared war on 50 years ago is now a tourist attraction in New York. Also, cannabis has become one of the star products for investment funds. Walking through Washington DC and smelling a joint shows the relativism of prohibitionism when there is a complex ethical and regulatory background, as demonstrated by the analysis of the opposing positions on the legalization of drugs.
The main argument for legalizing cocaine is that it would reduce the profits of drug traffickers by reducing their ability to generate violence and corrupt institutions. At the same time, funds and resources used in its fight would be released that could be invested in health or prevention programs that are practically non-existent today. The legalization proposals would be accompanied by control measures, such as those for tobacco or alcohol, products whose marketing is controlled and sometimes a state monopoly. However, the question is always latent as to whether States would be capable of exercising such control. The main reason for maintaining the ban is public health and is – rightly – focused on the risk of liberalizing the consumption of addictive substances.
If countries act separately, they will be at a clear disadvantage in the face of organized crime as a global phenomenon.
Having raised the dilemma, it is worth asking whether prohibition has worked as a prevention mechanism in view of the increase in global drug consumption and production despite the enormous resources dedicated to combating it: in Colombia alone, the United States spent an average of 500 million dollars annually (454 million euros) between 1996 and 2006.
Given the complexity of the issue of cocaine legality, it is necessary to deepen interregional and global agreements and collaboration. It is necessary to build platforms where joint prevention and intervention actions in the market are arbitrated. If countries act separately, they will be at a clear disadvantage in the face of organized crime as a global phenomenon.
If at this moment there is a field in which Latin America needs cooperation, it is in reducing the political, social and economic impacts of drug trafficking; even more so, when there is a direct relationship between the weekend streaks of young Europeans and the deaths and corruption on the other side of the Atlantic. Rethinking the legal status of cocaine should no longer be a taboo. It is desirable that people in producing countries can live in peace without the political instability, violence and death that the current business model causes.
You can follow Future Planet in x, Facebook, instagram and TikTok and subscribe here to our newsletter.
#plea #geopolitics #cocaine #Europe #Latin #America