As the Israeli-American war against Iran rages in the Middle East, is it possible that Saudi Arabia will get away with it more easily? Public reports strongly suggest that this is the case, which raises the question of why. The evidence is quite clear: so far, Iranian strikes against Saudi Arabia have been less […]
Originally published at Almouwatin.com
As the Israeli-US war against Iran rages across the Middle East, is it possible that Saudi Arabia is getting off more lightly? Public reporting strongly suggests that it is, which begs the question why. The evidence is pretty clear: so far, Iranian strikes on Saudi Arabia have been fewer in number and, at least in the first phase, less intense than […]
Originally published at Almouwatin.com
On March 9, 2026, before the United Nations Commission on Drugs in Vienna, Colombian President Gustavo Petro delivered a speech in which he sharply criticized prohibition and exposed the social roots of coca cultivation in Colombia. But the broader lesson of his intervention and […]
Originally published at Almouwatin.com
At the UN drug commission in Vienna on March 9, 2026, Colombian President Gustavo Petro delivered a speech that sharply criticized prohibition and exposed the social roots of coca cultivation in Colombia. But the broader lesson from his intervention, and from Europe’s own policy debate, is not that blanket legalization is the answer. It is […]
Originally published at Almouwatin.com
At the UN drug commission in Vienna on 9 March 2026, Colombian President Gustavo Petro delivered a speech that sharply criticised prohibition and exposed the social roots of coca cultivation in Colombia. But the broader lesson from his intervention, and from Europe’s own policy debate, is not that blanket legalization is the answer. It is that drug policy must move beyond false choices: states need stronger prevention and education, serious investment in vulnerable communities, intelligence-led international cooperation, and sustained action to dismantle the criminal and financial networks that profit from addiction and violence.
Speaking during the opening day of the 69th session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna, Petro gave one of the most politically charged interventions of the day. His speech, published by the Colombian presidency, challenged decades of orthodoxy on the “war on drugs” while forcing delegates to confront a question that has haunted Latin America for years: what happens when prohibition punishes the poor, enriches organised crime and still fails to eliminate demand?
Petro began with cannabis, using it as an example of what he sees as a historical and moral contradiction. Referring to the contrast between the human cost of prohibition in producing countries and the legalisation or normalisation of cannabis in parts of the global north, he asked why so many Colombians had died around a substance that is now legally sold in major American cities. His answer was blunt: “Prohibition implies the creation of the mafia. And the creation of the mafia implies death and violence.”
That line will be widely quoted, and with reason. It captures the core of Petro’s critique. But it should not be read too simply. His speech did not amount to a complete legalization blueprint for every substance, nor did it offer a permissive approach to drugs in general. What it did was reject the idea that criminal bans alone can solve a phenomenon driven by social despair, global demand, organised crime and massive financial flows.
That distinction matters. It is possible to accept Petro’s criticism of prohibition without concluding that blanket legalization is the obvious alternative. In fact, the stronger conclusion from Vienna is that neither formula, on its own, is sufficient.
Prohibition by itself has often fuelled black markets, corruption and violence, especially in fragile rural regions where poor farmers bear the costs and criminal organisations capture the profits. Yet legalization, by itself, would not automatically dismantle trafficking routes, criminal logistics, money laundering systems or the multinational distribution chains that today behave less like old cartels and more like transnational corporate crime structures. A legal market for one substance does not neutralise the networks that traffic others, nor does it solve addiction, predatory supply chains, synthetic drug threats or the public-health emergencies linked to abuse.
That is why the most credible reading of Petro’s intervention is not “legalize everything” but “stop pretending that repression alone works.” From there, the real policy question becomes more serious: how do states reduce demand, protect the vulnerable and destroy the criminal infrastructure of supply?
One of the most striking parts of Petro’s speech was his attempt to describe different drugs not only chemically, but sociologically. Cannabis, he argued, emerged in modern history as a substance associated with youth protest. Cocaine, by contrast, belonged to a different social order. “Cocaine is the drug of capital, no longer of protest,” he said. “It is necessary to increase the working day.” In another pointed phrase, he described it as “the drug of Wall Street.”
Whether one accepts that framing in full or not, the political purpose was clear. Petro was trying to redirect attention from the fields of Colombia to the societies that consume, finance and normalise the demand. In that sense, his speech was also a challenge to Europe. As the European Union Drugs Agency has warned, cocaine remains the second most commonly used illicit drug in Europe after cannabis, and its availability across the continent continues to rise.
Petro reserved even harsher language for fentanyl, which he called “a drug of death.” Here too, his point was not to relativise cocaine or cannabis, but to argue that the spread of different substances reflects deeper crises inside societies: loneliness, despair, pressure, competition and social fragmentation. It was a controversial analysis, but one that underscored a wider truth often missing from diplomatic statements: drug markets are not only a law-enforcement problem. They are also a mirror of social breakdown.
Where Petro was at his strongest was in linking coca cultivation to inequality and land exclusion. He argued that coca leaf in Colombia is cultivated not because peasant communities are naturally tied to the cocaine trade, but because generations of poor rural families were displaced from fertile land by violence and left with few viable alternatives. In one of the clearest lines of his address, he said coca cultivation persists because Colombia has not been able “to democratise land tenure and give poor peasants fertile land to produce food.”
That argument has major implications for policy. If coca cultivation is rooted in exclusion, then eradication without social reform becomes a revolving door. One plantation is destroyed, another appears. One family loses a crop, another enters the trade. The cycle repeats because the economic logic remains intact.
That is why Petro defended voluntary crop substitution so strongly. He said his government has already reached 42,000 hectares in voluntary substitution efforts and argued that this method is more durable than forced eradication because communities themselves participate in uprooting the crop. “Voluntary substitution means that the heart, the spirit, the desire of the peasant excluded for generations is on the side of this government,” he said, describing farmers physically pulling coca plants “out by the root.”
On this point, the speech deserves serious attention. States will not defeat illicit production in poor rural areas unless they provide real alternatives: roads, legal markets, schools, public services, land security, credit and the possibility that a child can build a future outside the narco-economy.
Still, substitution at the source is only one side of the equation. If demand remains strong, criminal markets adapt. That is where prevention becomes central. Petro’s speech pointed forcefully toward the failures of the old model, but Vienna also highlighted something else: prevention and education cannot remain secondary add-ons in drug policy. They have to become core state investments.
The European Union’s statement to the same session made that case in more institutional language. The EU called for an “evidence-based, integrated, balanced, multidisciplinary and human rights-centred approach” and explicitly prioritised “evidence-based prevention, early intervention, treatment, care, recovery, social reintegration” alongside stronger security action. That balance is important. Prevention is not moralising rhetoric. It is a practical strategy to reduce the number of future consumers and shrink the business base of organised crime.
For that reason, education matters far beyond school campaigns. It includes early prevention in families and communities, credible information for young people, support services in vulnerable neighbourhoods, mental-health resilience, and long-term public investment in places where criminal recruitment is easiest. Prevention lowers demand over time. Lower demand weakens the market. And a weaker market gives criminal organisations less room to grow.
Petro’s strongest operational message was not about legalization at all. It was about networks. He argued that modern drug mafias are no longer isolated cartels of the past but multinational structures involved not only in narcotics, but also in arms trafficking, human exploitation and wider forms of organised crime. In his words, today’s criminal structures are “multinational” and deeply embedded in global routes of money and luxury.
That led him to one of the speech’s most important conclusions: “The kingpins of kingpins are untouched.” He argued that they do not live in the producer regions of the south and that reaching them requires political will to follow the money into the international financial system and the world’s wealthy urban centres.
Here Petro’s argument intersects with a position that many European governments would recognise. The EU told the Vienna session that its strategy includes stronger information exchange, better forensic and investigative capacity, deeper operational cooperation with partner countries, disruption of trafficking routes and illicit financial flows, and action against criminal infiltration of ports and logistical hubs. That is the hard centre of any serious anti-cartel policy.
Put plainly, the objective cannot only be to destroy crops or intercept shipments. It must be to dismantle distribution networks, freeze assets, expose money laundering, seize logistics chains, prosecute high-level organisers and connect intelligence across borders quickly enough to keep pace with organised crime. The state must be smarter, faster and more coordinated than the networks it is trying to defeat.
Petro came to Vienna to say that the old prohibitive model has failed too many communities in Latin America. On that point, his speech was powerful and, in important respects, persuasive. But the most useful conclusion for Europe and the wider international debate is not that legalization should simply replace prohibition.
The real lesson is harder and more demanding. Drug policy must leave behind simplistic binaries. States should not rely on prohibition as a final answer when it has repeatedly generated black markets and violence. But they should also not imagine that legalization would dissolve the criminal architectures that now span continents, as they will even increase them.
A serious strategy has to work at every level at once: prevention and education to reduce demand; public-health support for those at risk; rural development and crop substitution to reduce production; intelligence-sharing and law-enforcement cooperation to dismantle cartels and trafficking routes; and financial investigations strong enough to reach the upper tiers of the criminal economy. That is where the real struggle lies.
As The European Times has already reported from the opening of CND69 in Vienna, this week’s debate is about more than drugs alone. It is about what kind of states still have the capacity to protect life, confront organised crime and invest in prevention before violence becomes business. Petro’s speech raised that challenge sharply. The answer now depends on whether governments are willing to move from slogans to strategy and prevention.
Scientists at the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory were part of a team that identified the
Vienna has once again become a diplomatic crossroads as the 69th session of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs opens at UNODC headquarters, bringing together governments, researchers and civil-society organisations for a week of debate on prevention, synthetic drugs, treatment and the future direction of global drug policy.
VIENNA — The start of the 69th session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs has placed Vienna at the centre of one of the most consequential international policy debates of the week. From 9 to 13 March, delegates are meeting at the Vienna International Centre, home of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, to review drug-market trends, assess international commitments and negotiate how states should respond to trafficking, addiction, prevention and public-health pressures.
The Commission may sound procedural, but the political stakes are real. In a recent official UNODC explainer, the body is described as the United Nations’ central drug policy-making forum, where member states take stock of implementation and confront the rapidly changing reality of illicit markets. This year’s session opened under the chairmanship of Armenia’s ambassador to the United Nations in Vienna, Andranik Hovhannisyan, with acting UNODC Executive Director John Brandolino among the senior figures leading the week.
An official UNODC media advisory issued ahead of the session made clear just how broad the programme is. Alongside the plenary and formal negotiations, the organisation said the week would include 169 side events and 23 exhibitions. That number matters because much of the real policy argument around CND no longer happens only in formal speeches. It also happens in the smaller rooms, where governments, NGOs, clinicians, youth organisations and campaigners compete to shape the language and priorities of international drug policy.
If the plenary offers the official diplomatic script, the side events provide the more revealing conversation. They show which actors are pressing for tougher criminal-justice responses, which are arguing for evidence-based prevention, which want stronger treatment systems and which are framing drug policy more explicitly through public health or human rights.
The Vienna NGO Committee on Drugs, one of the main civil-society reference points around the annual session, has underlined that broader ecosystem in its updated guide for 2026 participants. It has also organised informal dialogues during the session with John Brandolino, the President of the International Narcotics Control Board, the CND Chair and representatives of WHO, UNAIDS, OHCHR and UNDP. That programme reflects a simple reality: the Vienna week is not only about state-to-state diplomacy. It is also about how civil society, health institutions and international agencies try to influence the global agenda.
A broader overview published by the World Federation Against Drugs shows just how varied the side-event calendar has become. Among the sessions highlighted are discussions on women, youth and mental health across the life course, building resilient youth and families for drug prevention, collaboration across the continuum of care in drug demand reduction, synthetic drugs and youth protection, and human-rights-centred drug strategies. Taken together, the programme suggests that CND69 is not dominated by one message alone. It is a crowded and often competing debate about what actually works.
One of the clearer themes running through this year’s side events is the push to give prevention more policy weight. That does not mean the enforcement agenda has disappeared. Rather, it means more actors are arguing that governments cannot claim to be serious about reducing harm while continuing to underinvest in programmes aimed at stopping drug use before it escalates.
Within that strand, a side event titled “The Hidden Costs of Ineffective Drug Prevention” adds to the week’s discussion by focusing on the economic and social consequences of poorly designed prevention policies. Organised by the Fundación para la Mejora de la Vida, la Cultura y la Sociedad, the session examines what is lost when prevention remains underfunded or disconnected from evidence-based practice. Its announced speakers include Robert Galibert, president of the Foundation for a Drug-Free Europe; Akira Fujino of Japan’s Drug Abuse Prevention Centre; Dr Francis Ndé, identified on the event materials as a medical adviser at the Council of the European Union; and Julie Delvaux, programmes director at Fundación MEJORA.
Another prevention-focused session, “From Implementation to Impact: Outcome-Based Capacity Building in Drug Education”, organised by the Foundation for a Drug-Free World, turns to the question of how education programmes can be measured not only by outreach but by practical results. According to the event announcement, speakers include Jessica Hochman, the foundation’s executive director; Juan Carlos Morales of Guatemala’s Executive Secretariat of the Commission Against Addictions and Illicit Drug Trafficking; and William W. Wu, Chief of Police of the Compton Unified School District Police Department in the United States. The emphasis is on local capacity, youth protection and whether prevention tools can move from broad messaging to demonstrable impact.
The significance of these events lies in the larger argument surrounding them. In Vienna this week, drug policy is not being discussed simply as a technical matter of treaty implementation. It is being debated as a contested field where public health, criminal enforcement, education, rights language and political credibility all collide.
Some sessions emphasise resilience, families and early intervention. Others focus on synthetic substances, digital environments and the speed with which new threats spread. Still others are framed around human dignity, community support and the need for policies that do not treat treatment, prevention and recovery as separate silos. That breadth reflects a growing recognition that the illicit drug market has become too adaptive for any one-dimensional answer.
At the same time, the coexistence of so many themes also shows why the Commission remains politically sensitive. States often agree in principle on balanced, evidence-based responses, but disagree on what that balance should mean in practice: more resources for prevention, stronger policing, greater harm-reduction capacity, tougher supply controls, or some combination of all four.
The setting matters as much as the programme. Vienna remains one of the few places where the international system’s legal, security and health conversations are concentrated under one roof. In the case of CND69, that means governments, international organisations and NGOs are all trying, in parallel, to influence how the world defines an effective response to drugs in 2026.
That is why the side events deserve close attention. They are not a decorative annex to the official meeting. They are where the policy mood becomes visible. They show which narratives are advancing, which coalitions are forming and which parts of the global debate are gaining institutional traction.
For European readers, the Vienna session is also a reminder that many of the same arguments heard inside UNODC — over synthetic drugs, prevention, youth vulnerability, treatment capacity and evidence-based policy — are already shaping debates in Brussels, Strasbourg and national capitals. The value of watching Vienna is not only to follow what the United Nations says, but to see where the next phase of the argument may be heading.
Hungary’s data protection authority is meant to protect citizens from abuse. But when secrecy, surveillance and political power collide, European courts and institutions have repeatedly raised the same troubling question: is the watchdog truly independent, or only independent on paper? Hungary’s National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (NAIH) is supposed to be […]
Originally published at Almouwatin.com
Access to a smartphone has become essential for daily life in the United States. There is a growing
Which low-cost airline is best for Europe in 2026? There is no single winner for every traveler. Ryanair still dominates in terms of overall reach and fares, easyJet offers one of the best balances between network and convenience, Wizz Air remains particularly important in Central and Eastern Europe, Vueling is […]
Originally published at Almouwatin.com
