Washington Times special correspondent John Zaracostas interviewed Professor Hamid Ghodse on the findings of the latest International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) annual report. Mr. Ghodse, 70, a national of Iran, has been a member of the INCB since 1992. He also is a professor of psychiatry and drug policy at the University of London and a member of the World Health Organization’s advisory panel on alcohol and drug dependence.
Question: The annual INCB report is critical of many practices of illicit narcotics trade and use around the world and is particularly hard-hitting on the illicit cultivation of opium poppy in Afghanistan, where production has dramatically increased by 17 percent to 193,000 hectares and over 8,000 tons of heroin.
At the same time you’re asking the Afghan government to take firm action against corrupt officials at every level. How bad is corruption and is this fueling the situation on the ground?
Answer: The opium production in Afghanistan is out of control and has been so for the last four or five years and getting worse. There are many factors contributing to that element of the cultivation and production, and not only opium production but the conversion to heroin. Opium in Afghanistan, we believe, is really — at this time — an insurgency problem, and the production, security and insurgency perpetuate each other, and that goes hand in hand with other elements of the difficulties, such as the poverty and the informal sector…. Seventy percent of production is taking place inside provinces on the country’s border with Pakistan, an area mainly controlled by the Taliban.
With regards to corruption, it occurs at many levels, at the senior level, administration, at the management, et cetera, but that is not extraordinary, because wherever in the world you have drug trafficking and international crime related to drugs they are very much fertile ground for the corruption of officials, and that is what part of the problem in Afghanistan is.
Since the Taliban regime fell in 2001, production has not been as staggering as it has been in the last two, or three years, where it seems the insurgency and the Taliban are making the use of drug-related money for financing their activities.
Q: How much of the production is illicit?
A: Not a single square meter is legal. All of it, 100 percent is illicit and is illegal. The Afghan government has not produced, nor intends to produce legal cultivation. And the Afghanistan government is not even in control of the illicit production, and all of the legislation, which they have in place, do not produce any opium.
Q: Colombia has many hectares under cultivation and at the same time a big effort to eradicate a lot of the illicit cultivation. What’s the situation there? Your report highlights production in the border areas between Colombia and Ecuador, which has dramatically increased.
A: Overall, the eradication in Colombia has been successful. Already, Colombia has reduced very much the cultivation of coca, and we are very much pleased with the trend over the last couple of years. But, of course, the issue in the border areas is the drug traffickers and drug marketers in the illicit market. And organized crime always try to extend the limits wherever they can increase their activity with impunity. The border area provides more opportunity for them to do so.
But cultivation in Bolivia and Peru has also increased. We are concerned about overall production of cocaine, because although the overall area of the cultivation in these three countries over the last five or six years has decreased significantly, the amount of the production of cocaine has remained more or less the same because of the better horticulture technology, the better cultivation of crop and the better production of cocaine. Unfortunately, production still remains just over 900 tons for the last years.
Q: There seems to be more eradication of illicit narcotic crops in Colombia. In 2006, there were 213,000 hectares, whereas in Afghanistan only about 9 percent of the crop was eradicated last year, only a fraction more than the year before. Why so little eradication in Afghanistan?
A: In Afghanistan, the political will of President Hamid Karzai is there, but the question is the central government does not have control over parts of the country where cultivation happens — mainly four or five provinces…. So, if you don’t have control over the areas, eradication becomes very difficult. A second element in the eradication in Colombia is mainly aerial spraying, whereas in Afghanistan it’s mainly manual. In some parts of Afghanistan, some states have not cultivated opium, but they have replaced that with illicit high-quality cannabis.
Q: The report also cites a recent study, which found that of more than 3,000 Internet pharmacies examined — most located in the United States and the United Kingdom — only four were accredited as verified Internet pharmacy practice sites, viewed as a serious concern as they are used as outlets for abuse of prescription drugs.
A: Yes, indeed, the studies illustrate the number of illicit Internet pharmacies. They have been very active in marketing illicitly drugs in many of the countries, and that is an issue of concern for the board, and we have been addressing the issue over the last few years and brought it to the attention of the governments.
We have been convening expert group meetings, and we are hoping to produce sort of guidelines for the countries to take certain action. We hope to issue the guidelines in a year or so. But the Internet pharmacy is quite worried because the public and the consumer are not protected at all.
They are not protected for the quality of what they buy, for the safety, for the efficacy of the drugs, which they get, and they are breaking the law also because controlled drugs have to be provided by prescription from a doctor, and when we look at the information data, we see that many of the Internet pharmacies, over 90 percent of them, do not require a prescription. We don’t have control over their behavior. It’s a very difficult subject.
They are international drug traffickers.
Q: Your report also raised concerns that celebrity drug offenders can “profoundly” influence public attitudes and especially young people, who idolize many of them. How serious is this?
A: Very much indeed. Leniency towards the celebrity drug offenders can profoundly influence public attitudes, public values and behavior toward drug abuse, particularly among young people.
And these cases involving celebrity drug offenders, which you can see in the media reporting, can also profoundly affect the public perception about the fairness and proportionality of the response of the justice system. The public becomes more cynical about the justice system when they see celebrities can get away with a similar offense as a noncelebrity.
The number of celebrities who have received leniency by the judiciary and the law-enforcement authorities have a profound effect on young people, as they are looking to celebrities as role models. But celebrities — in music, the arts — can also play a very positive role against drug abuse and drug problem. They can be the ambassadors of drug prevention, and they can really be role models. Many of them are.
But a few break the law and are drug offenders, and they should be dealt [with] in the same fashion as noncelebrities.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.