A War With No Victory

The dismal findings of the 2009 National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) showed that drug use is higher than ever in the U.S., except for one illegal drug: cocaine. 

And why is that?

Cocaine, often referred to as the “caviar of drugs”, is a recreational drug that has been around for decades, and although according to the 2010 UN World Drug Report demand seems to be waning in its largest markets, it is increasingly becoming popular in a widening range of countries. Cocaine comes in two forms, powder cocaine and crack; the first associated with economic success in some circles, the second with prostitution and drug crime. 

Traditionally crack use was rare outside of U.S., but according to the report, Latin American and some parts of Africa have reported an increase in the use of the substance. As a matter of fact, the UN Drug Report relates that there is a clear divergence between Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries and developing countries: use is declining in the former, and increasing in the latter. It seems as though lesser amounts of cocaine are reaching its “mature” markets, such as North America (6.2 million users in 2008) and Europe (4 to 5 million users). In fact, increasing demand in other markets is attracting cocaine traffickers.

U.S. is number one in cocaine consumption, consuming 165 metric tons in 2008, followed by Europe (124 mt), Canada (14 mt), and surprisingly Mexico (17 mt). The emerging markets of South America and Mexico should pay close attention to its rising number of consumers because of all drugs, cocaine is the most problematic.

Despite global cocaine use increase, the NSDUH reported that in the U.S. the number of cocaine users is declining. In 2006, when President Calderon declared the war on drugs there were 2.4 million users. In 2008, the NSDUH reported 1.9 million users and in 2009 1.6 million. Could it be that the war on drugs is actually working? The cocaine business is less profitable as well. According to the UN Report, in 2008 the value of the market was worth $88 billion, when in 1995 it used to be worth almost double ($165 billion). (Prices are adjusted to inflation)

The biggest market for cocaine is North America, followed by Europe, and finally Oceania. Even though the number of users is not so high in Australia the retail price of cocaine is so high, that Oceania is the third most important market for cocaine cartels. In fact, the Sinaloa Cartel, headed by the “Chapo” Guzman (whose fortune is listed in Forbes), supplies half of the cocaine consumed in Australia’s east coast.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, in 2009 cocaine availability, in correlation to consumption, is decreasing. The trend began in 2006. Indicators such as seizures, price, purity, work-place drug tests and ED (Emergency Department) data points to less availability. Federal cocaine seizures decreased 25% between 2006 and 2009. Since 2006, there was a price increase from $94.73 to $174.03 in 2009, and cocaine purity also declined from 68.1% to 46.2%. All this indicates less availability in the American market.

The most important question here is: Why is less available? The Department of Justice points to several potential causes for cocaine shortages such as increased law enforcement in Mexico and transit zones, lesser cocaine production in Colombia, cartel violence, and cocaine flow to non-U.S. markets. Peruvian and Bolivian production capability and trafficking networks cannot fill the vacuums in U.S. cocaine supply left by decreased Colombian production. Colombia has reported more cocaine seizures than any other country, and this coincided with fewer seizures in the Southwest Border since 2007.

Due to a combination of Colombian enforcement policy and U.S. (divine?) intervention with Plan Colombia, cocaine production patterns have changed. Before the cocaine boom in Colombia, most of the raw production originated in Peru and Bolivia. This output was refined into cocaine in Colombia in the 70s. However, in 1997 coca cultivation in Colombia surpassed the crops from Peru and Bolivia, becoming the biggest market supplier. Only a few years later (2000-2009), with the war against Colombian cartels, coca cultivation decreased by 58%. Simultaneously, cultivation rose by 38% in Peru and doubled in Bolivia (112%), both no longer depending on Colombia to refine the product. The results of the drug war were that in 2008 Colombia, Peru and Bolivia produced the lowest level of cocaine in five years and considerably less than 2007 (865 mt).

So drug wars affect availability, purity, increase prices and perhaps (perhaps!) have an influence in diminishing consumption. But how can governments ignore the Colombian blood bath that followed Plan Colombia, and the rising death toll in Mexico? It is worth the ultra high costs in lives, money and political stability?

Twenty-four years ago, in 1986, the U.S. Defense Department commissioned a two-year study by the RAND Corporation, which stated that militarization to interdict drugs that enter the U.S. would have little or no effect in the market and in addition, could elevate profits for cocaine cartels and manufacturers. Around ten years later, the Clinton administration ordered yet another study by RAND, which concluded that $3 billion should be switched from federal and local enforcement to treatment. Why? Because that is the cheapest way to deter drug use, and 23 times more effective than the war on drugs. (This is discussed in Noam Chomsky’s Rouge States).

No doubt, cocaine trafficking is a security threat because its high levels of profits have financed organized crime (like Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia; FARC) and it thrives on corruption and breeds it at the same time. It results in tens of thousands of deaths annually, but unfortunately, it also accounts for the innocent deaths of tens of thousands in South America, and Mexico as well.

What seems most sad to me is that in the U.S., one fifth of people aged between 12 and 17 stated that it would be “easy” to get cocaine. In spite of the economic, political and human costs of the Colombian and the Mexican drug war, the decrease of cocaine use in the U.S. has been almost insignificant, and has increased in other countries. 

The UN Drug Report even accounts the decline in cocaine use in the US to prevention and treatment, not enforcement, and that the fight against drug cartels may be legitimate but it does not reduce the cocaine market. Quite the opposite, it breaks up big cocaine cartels allowing smaller groups and more competition, lowering prices, finally leading to a higher use. What appears to be most surprising is that despite all that has happened in Colombia and the reports stating that drug wars are not effective, both the U.S. and Mexican governments insist on pursuing a war that they are never going to win.

Ana Johnson

 Lic. en Estudios Internacionales 
Universidad de Monterrey