Georg Wurth - Deutscher hanf verband - Im gespräch mit ethan nadelmann - Drug policy alliance

>> GEORG: Hallo zusammen. Ich stehe hier mit Ethan Nadelmann, dem Direktor der Drug Policy Alliance, der größten prohibitionskritischen Organisation der Welt und er ist vermutlich der einflußreichste Mensch der Welt, der sich mit dem Thema befasst. Ich denke, da übertreibe ich nicht. Außerdem ist er ein brillanter Redner. Ich war eben mit ihm zusammen in der Anhörung im Bundestag über den Antrag der Grünen über die Entkriminalisierung von Cannabiskonsumenten und es hat mal wieder großen Spaß gemacht, ihn reden zu hören. Ihr könnt Euch das Video sicher auch noch mal extra anschauen und wir haben jetzt das Vergnügen, ihn nochmal extra hier zu haben und ein paar Fragen zu stellen, da er ja wie gesagt nicht nur in den U.S.A. mitbeteiligt ist an den ganzen Diskussionen die da zur Zeit stattfinden und den Abstimmungen zur Legalisierung: Colorado, Washington, das wißt Ihr ja alle, aber auch in Südamerika, wo zur Zeit auch viel passiert. Also eine gute Gelegenheit, ihn mal zu fragen. So, Ethan ... Wir gehen jetzt zu englisch über und werden mal schauen, daß wir noch Untertitel kriegen. Aber man kann Ethan auch gut verstehen, da er aus New York kommt, auf jeden Fall auch für Leute verständlich, die sonst mit amerikanischem Englisch vielleicht Probleme haben. Nuja, Ethan ... maybe first we go to the States? >> ETHAN: Mhm. >> GEORG: And keep on that level. There's happening very much at the moment, I said before: Colorado, Washington with that legalize decision of the population. Now they are struggling with the federal level, if they can really bring it to reality to open up shops and so on. What do you ... what do you think ... what will be the outcome of that discussion process and how fast will it go forward? >> ETHAN: Well, now we are talking in April of 2013. And already month ago the attorney general Eric Holder said that he was about to issue the new policy. And so far he has not! And so my guess is that there is a lot of debate within the Obama administration and the justice department about what to do. And I think it's a real quandary. Because on the one hand you have these ballot initiatives to legalize marijuana which won overwhelmingly in both states. The marijuana legalization initiative in Colorado received more votes than Obama did in the election. And the one in Washington state we see almost as many as Obama and more than the candidates for governor and attorney general who won. So there is overwhelming popularity, clearly a very clear expression of the majority. No question that the public was deceived or confused. Obviously they knew what they were voting for. And then, if you look at this from the perspective of public safety, public order, public health, fiscal responsibility - from all those perspectives the right thing to do would be for the federal government to allow the state governments in Washington and Colorado to implement the regulations. To control it, to regulate it, to tax it in a responsible way, more or less like alcohol. But on the other side, you have federal prosecutors and federal police who don't want to allow for any exceptions. And you also have perhaps some fear by the Obama administration that if they allow these democratic governors in Washington and Colorado to implement these state, new state laws even though the federal law is opposed maybe they fear that then republican governors will say: "Well, now we want to violate federal law on the issue of immigration" or "guns" or "health care.". So I am not exactly sure why this is so difficult for the Obama administration but I think they're struggling in a very serious way to try to figure this out. [noise] >> GEORG: So you're not sure why it takes so long and how long it will take but you think they will get to the point at the end? >> ETHAN: Well, our hope is that the justice department and the white house will do more or less what they did with medical marijuana four years ago. Four years ago, the justice department issued what was called the Ogden Memo named after a justice department official in which they basically said when it came to the state regulation of medical marijuana they said: "It's all illegal under federal law but we will not make it a priority for federal prosecutors to go after it if it's legal under state law.". And that really opened up a lot of room for medical marijuana to expand in 2009 and 10. And then in 2011 the administration became concerned and they pulled back somewhat. So now our hope, 2013 - the issue now is no longer just medical marijuana, it's the broader regulation of legal marijuana for anybody over the age of 21 and the hope now is they will say the same thing: "It's all illegal under federal law but it is not a priority for federal law enforcement and if you, the state governments in Washington and Colorado can find ways to reassure us that Washington and Colorado will not be exporting Marijuana to the rest of the country then maybe we can find an accommodation.". That's our hope, we hear some rumors that it will go in that direction but we don't know. >> GEORG: Ok, so there is still a possibility for a kind of worst case that the federal government won't go with the whole thing and will say: "No, you're not allowed." - and then, what's the state level doing then? >> ETHAN: Well, that's a big question. Because if the federal government says: "No, you cannot do that" then the governors in Washington and Colorado have to decide: do they still try to regulate this stuff even though the federal government has not given a green light. You know, sometimes, the federal - the state officials will say: "We worry. What if we start to regulate it and tax it and control it and we're violating federal law, won't they arrest us?". >> GEORG: Right. >> ETHAN: Because technically it's against federal law. But on the other hand, if you look at the history of the United States - I believe no state official has been arrested for violating federal law while obeying state law in 150 years. So the threat and the fear is somewhat hollow but it's still one that is out there. >> GEORG: So then they could say: "Well, we do it anyway. If you want to prosecute it, federal level, then send the federal police, our police won't do anything." >> ETHAN: Yes, which is more or less what some have done with medical marijuana. So for example in New Jersey the republican governor Chris Christie, right, is very popular, very powerful, forceful guy, he's also the former federal prosecutor of New Jersey. And what he said is: "Look, I'm a former federal prosecutor, the chief federal prosecutor in New Jersey and I can tell you that New Jersey can implement this medical marijuana law, it does not violate federal law.". So when you have a powerful republican governor who many people want to run for president in three three years from now saying that, it suggests that there's a lot of room in the middle where it's a legal battle but it's mostly a political battle. >> GEORG: Ok, that ... in another another worst case. The federal government says "Well, we are not going to let you do that." and the state level people would also say: "Well, then it's too hot for us we leave it.". Then nothing happens. >> ETHAN: Well ... >> GEORG: But it's still also a possibility? >> ETHAN: Al ... yes, it's a possibility but already in the law it's now legal to possess up to an ounce of marijuana in both states. In Colorado it's legal to grow up to six plants in the privacy of your home. Both states already have legal medical marijuana and in Colorado you have hundreds of medical marijuana dispensaries around the state that are being regulated by the state government paying taxes, so there's already a model in that area, through the medical one. So if the state government decides it cannot set up a regulatory system, it may be that for example the localities, the cities, some of them, some of them begin to regulate it the way that San Francisco or Oakland or Berkley or other cities in California are regulating medical marijuana even though there is no state wide regulation. I mean as you can see, Georg, it's a complicated situation cause the federal law says it's all illegal, the state laws begin to vary, some places the local governments have the power to ban it or to accept it and regulate it. Right? So it's ... we're ... and meanwhile congress is doing nothing, they seem afraid to touch this issue. The republicans are most afraid although there are a few who are trying to do something. So it's really one of the most interesting political battles in America right now. I should also say, you know, when you look at the last election or look before. In 2010 when California had a marijuana legalization initiative on the ballot. A month before the election the U.S. attorney general Eric Holder made a public statement warning Californians that even if they legalized marijuana it was all illegal so they better watch out! And the initiative lost. It got close, it got 46,5% of the vote and some people believe that the attorney general's warning discouraged some people from voting in favor. Well, jump forward two years to September/October of 2012. Same issue, legalization initiative is on the ballot. Same issue, the former heads of the federal DEA and the former drug czars all appealing to president Obama and attorney general Holder: "Speak out, tell them it's not acceptable!". And this time, that'll worked. And why did Obama and Holder remain silent? Because they looked at Colorado - it could have gone either for Obama or for Romney in the election, is was what we call a swing state, they saw that young people were enthusiastically for the initiative. They saw that young people were undecided about their political loyalties so they decided it was betterto keep quiet. And now, the initial evidence - should we stop for a moment? >> GEORG: Hold on, let's wait a moment. [noise] >> GEORG: Ok. >> ETHAN: So now the initial evidence when they looked at who voted in Washington and Colorado the only survey I've seen shows that in Washington and Colorado the percentage of the voters that was under the age of 25 or 29, I don't remember exactly, was much higher than in most other states. And much higher than four years before which strongly suggests that having marijuana legalization on the ballot increased the turn-out, the voter turn-out in the United States, especially among young people. And as you know, in the United States, barely half the people vote. So when you ... and young people especially don't vote in large numbers ... so if this is bringing young people out to vote and affecting the way they perceive politicians, it means that the marijuana legalization issue is not just about marijuana anymore. It may be an issue that begins to decide the fate of much bigger elections. >> GEORG: That's something the German politicians still have to understand how important that issue is for the locals. But let's ... >> ETHAN: Well, let me just say, I mean, the the the the the work that you and your association did, like in the United States, of on the Internet posing the question to Angela Merkel and the number one question she was asked is about marijuana sends a certain message. What we saw in the United States is that Obama and the people around him did not know how to understand it. And then we saw that the election results nobody in the White House nobody in the political establishment expected this. Even I did not expect to win both initiatives with 55% in both states. So the the transformation in public opinion is so rapid that the political establishment still does not know how to digest it. It's a little bit like the issue involving gay marriage where the shift in American public opinion has happened at more or less the same rates with marijuana legalization and gay marriage. But with gay marriage it's much more in the political system. Elected officials are being forced to take positions whereas marijuana legalization we don't have the same political influence of the gay rights movements. We don't have the same number of politicians. But we have almost the same percentage of public support. >> GEORG: When we go some years forward now, maybe if you look five years later, ten years later, and I'm sure you have a lot of other states now planning such initiatives to legalize marijuana completely or ballot initiatives to try this ... what is your guess how the development will go forward? How long will it take for example until more than half of the US States have legal marijuana shops? >> ETHAN: Yeah >> GEORG: Do want to try and guess? >> ETHAN: Yeah, well, look, there are reasons for pessimism and optimism. The reasons for pessimism are to look at medical marijuana. In 1996 a majority of Americans, maybe 60%, supported the legalization of medical marijuana. By the early 2000s it was at least 70%. There are now 18 states that have legalized medical marijuana. In theory, that means 36 senators in the Congress out of 100 total. But not one member of the US Senate has stood up to defend the rights of the States on medical marijuana. There has been no congressional legislation. The White House has been scared of the issue. And that's with 65 to 70 percent support for the legalization of medical marijuana and we would basically win in any state if the politicians were not in the way, right? So that's the reason for pessimism. It suggests you can have two-thirds of the public with you but the federal government will not budge and that it will take a long time to work through the state legislatures. The reason for optimism is that public opinion on marijuana legalization has shifted so rapidly, you know, from 36% in favor and 60% against in 2006 to 50% in favor and 46% against, you know, as of last year. I mean that's a remarkably rapid shift in public opinion in a very short period of time. So that suggests to me that maybe this could move much more quickly. Normally, you know, in the United States roughly half the states allow the public to change the law through a ballot initiative process and half the states don't allow that process. So with medical marijuana the first states were through the initiative process and then Hawaii became the first through the legislative process. And since that time half have been through the initiative process, half through the legislative process. I think with marijuana legalization it will probably be similar. So expect California to legalize marijuana in 2016. Expect Oregon to do it in 2016 maybe sooner. Expect Alaska, you know 14, 16, 18. So expect probably four to six states to legalize marijuana in 2016 or 18 and then already we're seeing bills being introduced into legislatures. What we don't know is if there will be a sudden rush like what happened with the repeal of alcohol prohibition. Which is one state after another just starts to repeal their own prohibition laws and says to the Federal Government: "You're being ridiculous, we need to do the policy which works for people here locally" And that's what's hard to predict. >> GEORG: And when you say the politicians don't follow the public opinion, here in Germany you also people ask us all the time why don't the political politicians legalize? What kind of lobby is behind behind it? What do you think: is it just the stupidity of the politicians or is it some kind of pharma lobby or alcohol lobby or who is behind that very slow process and all these pushing back? >> ETHAN: Well, I think the single most powerful force is what we call in America the Prison-Industrial-Complex. But specifically with marijuana, it's interesting. You know we s ... we believe with good reason that a lot of this is about money and jobs, right. The Prison-Industrial-Complex employs millions of people either directly or indirectly. It's a hundred-billion-dollar industry in America now and the drug war is a major part of that. But interestingly the single most aggressive opposition we have doesn't come from financial interests, it comes from the prosecutors. In America we have, you know, the adversarial system of justice, unlike in Europe where some of it is a more inquisitorial and the prosecutor is a little bit like a judge. Our prosecutors have become bloated with power and they they they're opposed to almost any sorts of reforms: opposed to harm reduction measures, opposed to efforts to reduce overdose fatalities, opposed to efforts to reduce incarceration. And they are opposed on the marijuana legalization issue. And the police, also, they are so used to enforcing these laws they even though privately they may agree with you and me, organizationally: "No we have to keep this illegal, we have to", you know? So what you see is that they're the most powerful force. I think that secondly some of the ... this is gonna change. But if I look at who does the Drug Czar in America meet with every week? It's not with people like you and me. It's with some of the old drug warriors, the anti-marijuana fanatics who are always in his ear, all the time. So that's part of it. I think there's less stupidity involved. I mean a generation ago, you know the older generation they didn't know the difference between marijuana and other drugs, right? They didn't, you know? But this generation knows! I mean this generation of people in their 40s, 50s and 60s - either they used Marijuana when they were younger or their friends did. So there's a lot of awareness about the reality of marijuana. And that while Marijuana can be addictive for some people, for most people it's not that much of a problem or even a problem at all. So I don't think its ignorance. And then I think some of it is just - you know the expression to be afraid of your own shadow? There's this sense that for so long Americans were being - American politicians were afraid of being called soft on drugs, soft on crime. And now, there's less and less basis for that fear in real politics. But they're still afraid of their own shadow. They're still afraid that that might be what they'll be accused of. But there's a very rapid change that is very connected to the generation change. There's a different language and thinking among younger politicians, even republican politicians. And that's why I think this change is happening so fast. >> GEORG: And what about alcohol lobby? You think they don't play a role in that whole thing at all? >> ETHAN: Well, a little bit. I mean the alcohol lobby I think put in a little bit of money against the marijuana legalization in California. Sometimes they contribute because they are asked. But so far I think that for the alcohol companies, the tobacco companies, the pharmaceutical companies and the consumer good companies I think basically their view is to stay out of this battle. To let other people - like you and me - legalize it and they will then hope to rush in and begin to take over the industry. And my - I'm not fighting for what I would call the "budweiserization" or the "mil..." or the "marlboroization" of marijuana. My preference would be to see marijuana be legalized with a sort of micro-brewery model. Or a wine ... vineyard model. And the fear in America as in many country is that it's the big corporations which will take it over. But to my mind even that is preferable to having this remain entirely underground with the violence, the criminality, the arrests, the loss of life and livelihood. I'll also tell you: a few years ago I was sitting at the beach in California and one of those little planes with an advertisement went flying by. And it was an advertisement for one of the beers maybe Miller or Michelob or Budweiser. And the advertisement said: "Its 4:20. Time for a Michelob" or a Miller or something, right? So what you could see I don't know if that was authorized at the most high levels of the Annheiser Bush, the big beer corporation. But clearly at the lower level people were aware that they're appealing to peoples' desire to have a good time. And that for more and more young people, you know, having a smoke of a joint, a beer, it's a way to relax. It's part of the culture. So I have not seen them make a major effort. With the pharmaceutical industry, you know, for them, they there it is a different story. I think they're the racers. They're trying to pharmaceuticalize Cannabis before it becomes legalized more broadly. I mean ultimately, the best strategy would be to have both happen. You legalize cannabis the plant so people can buy different varieties, you know, in stores and use it and it's labeled and people get a license to sell from the government like with alcohol. And then there is the pharmaceutical one that's isolating the specific ingredients of Cannabis and making them available in a medicinal form in, you know, in pills or whatever form works best. Ideally, those things work in tandem. But I think ideally the pharmaceutical companies would like to keep cannabis illegal. And then to monopolize cannabis by pharmaceuticalizing it entirely. Which would make the price much higher, the availability lower. It would involve the medical industry in ways that are not necessary but I think that's their thinking. >> GEORG: Ok, let's go beyond the U.S. Next part would be of course South America where there's also happening a lot. For us this is important because our politicians always say: "We can't do anything because of the international treaties.". So it's important to see somewhere the first country to go out of it. We've seen this in Bolivia with the coca plant but now we are waiting for the first legal marijuana state of the world. And the question is, for example, will it be first the States or will it first be Guatemala where we also hear about this process. When you say now it's taking a couple of years before a majority of the US states will have that and we can really talk about the whole country having it then probably South America will do the first step? >> ETHAN: Well, remember first of all, when it comes to the international conventions there are multiple approaches. I mean many of us will argue that we should reform the convention and remove coca, you now the leave, and cannabis from the convention. And what, you know, so that's - but that's gonna take a long time because there is an entrenched international bureaucracy and it's very hard to revise these treaties. It's worth trying but understanding it will take a long time. The second approach is the Evo Morales approach which was to withdraw from the treaty and then rejoin but with an exception. The third approach is to do what the European governments did when they began to implement *** maintenance programs and save injection rooms and even needle exchange in the early years. At that point the international narcotics control board, a sort of international watch dog for the UN anti-drug treaties, said it was illegal under the international conventions. And what did the Swiss do? And the Dutch and I think the Germans? They said: "You have your lawyers, we have ours. Our lawyers say it's ok under the conventions.". So this - the next approach is for national governments to say to the UN organi ... organizations: "Our interpretation of the treaty says this is ok.". The fourth approach which I think Urugay is probably cause now the race: is it gonna be Ur ... is it gonna be Colorado, Washington or Uruguay in - which is gonna be the first implementation ... >> GEORG: With real shops on their own. >> ETHAN: Exactly. And I think Uruguay is also looking for a way to try to accommodate some of the concerns of the UN international treaty but not to accept that it provides a ban on what Uruguay can do. So I think that there's more and more interest in finding what we would call the wiggle room, the gray area to allow this to proceed. I mean it would be a tragedy to have a conservative interpretation of these international conventions stand in the way of a regulatory policy that serves the interests of public safety, public order, public health and fiscal responsibility. >> GEORG: When we talk about South America. We said Guatemala is now doing this process to convince their own population that marijuana legalizing would be a good idea. What about other South American countries? We have heard that many countries are thinking about other solutions there. But which ones? And do you think it's really realistic that another country will make the step Guatemala is doing now? >> GEORG: And how long will that take? >> ETHAN: Well, it's very interesting because when you look at president Santos in Colombia and president Otto Pérez Molina in Guatemala and President Mujica, José Mujica, in Urugay what's remarkable is that in all three countries the the drug policy reform or even decriminalization or legal regulation that they're advocating for is not supported by a majority of the public. When Otto Pérez Molina, when they did a national survey after he'd been in office for six month I think it turned out his position on the drug issue was the least popular position that he was advocating for. For Santos in Colombia, he has his predecessor Uribe attacking him all the time on this issue and others. In Urugay, when President Mujica proposed this in June last year it turned out only 40% of the public support it. And there is a big generation gap with young people in favor and the old people not understanding why this should be discussed, right? Now, if you ask why are each of those presidents raising this issue? What you realize is that they're demonstrating this very rare quality called leadership. And there's - they're actually stepping out ahead of public opinion based upon solid evidence and experience to put forward an idea and provoke public debate even though the majority is not with them. You know ... [pedestrians passing] >> ETHAN: They're not playing to public opinion they're seeking to lead. And if you say: "Well, what's their ulterior interest, their motivation, what are they really trying to get? It's impossible to figure out what their ulterior motive would be.". So, you know, in Guatemala they're not proposing to legalize marijuana domestically. And in Colombia not so much. I mean, president Santos in Colombia said that he thinks for the world as a whole, the best approach would be the legalization of cannabis. But then he says: "Colombia is not gonna to be the first one!". What's so impressive about Mujica in Uruguay is he said: "It makes sense, let's do it - we'll be the first!". He's not even talking to the other presidents about it. He's just thinking about little Uruguay and what would be the the best policy to do there. So I think that Santos and Otto Pérez are providing real leadership, Mujica in his own way. And then it's interesting because the President of Costa Rica, Chinchilla, is being supportive of the new debate. The president Correa from Ecuador, who is more of a chavista and not in such good relations with the others, he also is trying has pushed some reforms within Ecuador and also speaking about it a little bit. He feels a little bit self-conscious because his father served time in prison, I think American prison, for selling drugs when he was young. But what you see is new leadership. In Chile, the current president is not supportive but Michelle Bachelet who is the former president and maybe the next president - in one of her first speeches a few month - a month or so ago she said: "We need to reconsider our drug policies.". So there is a growing discussion and legitimization of debate. The Global Commission which helped to open up this discussion their single line motto was: Break the taboo! Break the taboo! They said: "We don't have the answers. We can look around the world for what's looking useful. But we need to put all options on the table. We've spent 50 years discussing a thousand different prohibitionist approaches. Now it's time to discuss a thousand different legal regulatory and public health and decriminalization and public health approaches. It's time" ... "not to say" and for people say: "But we don't know how we would do it!". Of course we don't. We're just beginning the process. But it's about legitimizing the discussion about the legal regulation where the prohibitionist policy has failed for so many years. >> GEORG: And if we now have a look to the whole world. In Europe it's a little bit difficult to say if it's going forward or backward or nowhere. We have countries where it's going forward definitely like Spain, we have countries backward like a little bit in the Netherlands or nothing happens like in Germany, at least regarding Cannabis. Then in the Americas we obviously - things going forward. What about the whole world at all ... at its ... the whole thing including Asia, Australia, Africa? We hear hear hear nothing about that, what's going on there drug policy ... ? >> ETHAN: Well, ... >> GEORG: What do you think where we are going with our planet in terms of drug policy? >> ETHAN: ... I mean, if, if you, if I look at the world in, you know, take four areas of the world. In the United States we have very remarkably rapid progress on cannabis reform. So my country unbelievably has become the global leader on cannabis reform. When it comes to incarceration we're the global leader on locking people up like - more than any democratic society in history. And we're number one in the per capita incarceration. We are beginning to turn around but very slowly. And we are very slow on harm reduction. When you go to Europe and harm reduction is much more accepted, even here in Germany: you have safe injection rooms, you have low threshold centers, you have *** prescribing, you have methadone, buprenorphin - I mean harm reduction, a more pragmatic approach has more or less helped solve some of the problems of 20 years ago. But everybody becomes tight about cannabis, all right? You look in Norway which used to be very prohibitionist like Sweden. And now it's really moving in a more European direction. But also very un-cannabis! Then you look in Denmark who are now *** prescribing very much more progressive policy, more like the rest of Europe. The Czech Republic: moving forward, also in a better way. Poland recently with a decriminalization measure. Spain with the Cannabis Clubs. So, you see, I think in Europe a little more progress than decline but it lacks the dynamism that you saw in the 1980s and 90s and early 2000s. Then in Latin America, there is not so much happening on the ground in Latin America. Small efforts at harm reduction and decriminalization of drug possession either through the courts or the legislature. But not a lot on the ground. It's more happening at the elite level, the presidents, the cabinet, the business leaders saying: "We need a different approach because the global prohibitionist strategy is doing more harm than good.". In Mexico. In Monterrey and Mexico City where business leaders are saying: "We need to have a debate, discuss legalization.". No place else except in Mexico where major business leaders are saying this. Then you look finally in Asia and Africa. And it's mostly very depressant. But on the other hand, if someone had said to you ten years agothat now, you have needle exchange programs and methadone maintenance programs in Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, China, Af ... Iran? People would have thought you're crazy. But now those programs exist in small ways in all of those countries because they realized they did not want *** to spread. The other thing is that when the Global Commission Report came out in June of 2011 I saw all the media. It was the first time that these issues were in the media in Asia and Latin America. I mean everywhere. In India, big - this started popping up in the media! Parts of Africa! And the fact that Kofi Annan was on the Global Commission. And he joined the Commission because he looked at West Africa and he saw West Africa headed the way of Central America and the Caribbean with narco states and horrible corruption. So I think that you have just the beginning of the discussion going on in Asia and Africa - with a long way to go. It can be very depressing to hear the African discussion because it's almost as if they feel destined to follow in the footsteps of the crazy policies in Latin America and Afghanistan. That they just don't know there's an alternative. So, it's beginning but it's very slow. >> GEORG: Ok! What else if you got - you mind to tell our viewers ... >> ETHAN: Well, ... >> GEORG: ... as the last point? >> ETHAN: I think it's that when people ask: "Where is all of this going?". Whether in my country or your country or globally. You know, if if you accept the notion that the legalization of *** and *** and methamphetamine like alcohol and cigarettes is highly unlikely in the coming decades - there's no public support for it, there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about, you know, it's negative consequences even though it would have very positive consequences in reducing crime, corruption and violence. So the question is what are the - what are the answers? I'd say it really comes down to three major reforms that need to happen and I think will happen in many parts of the world. The first one is: remove cannabis from the prohibition regime. Take it away. Treat it like alcohol. Controls, taxation, regulation maybe limitations for young people but that's half the drug arrests in the world! That's so much of the police corruption, it's maybe 30% of the global drug trade or more, I mean, it's a it's a - that would be a very big piece. And this is as we see beginning to happen in my country and it will happen in other countries as well. The second one is: decriminalize. End the criminalization of drug possession of small amounts for your own use, what we would call the Portugal model. Portugal, 12 years ago, decriminalized drug possession. Nobody gets arrested for drug possession, nobody gets drug tested and punished for testing positive for drugs. Treat addiction entirely as a health issue. And for the people who use other illegal drugs but don't cause a problem - ignore them, essentially. And now the results from Portugal are in. It's tremendously successful in reducing crime, in reducing arrests and overdose and *** and Hep-C, all of that, and without an increase in drug use. It also can reduce the low level police corruption. The third is the most difficult. That is to embrace a policy whereby anybody, any drug addict or heavy user who is so determined to use and buy his drugs that he will buy them on the black market if that's the only choice. With those people it is better to say: "You can go to a clinic, you can buy your drug from a legal source.", right? Now, already we have in Europe and a little bit in Canada small programs to allow *** addicts to get pharmaceutical ***. The great challenge is: how do you provide a means of allowing legal access to drugs like ***, ***, amphetamine for the addicts, for the heavy user in a way that does not make it available to everybody, right? Allow the recreational users to continue to go to the black market but remember: with most drugs, it's a small minority of the drug users who consume the large majority of drugs. It's true with alcohol and many other drugs. So if we can take most of the heavy users and addicts into a system whereby they can get their drug legally and maybe then be encouraged to take it in less dangerous forms and encouraged to reduce their use and encouraged to stop but still allowed to get it, I think that would be the best way to take away the market from the gangsters, the criminal organizations that exercise so much power and violence around the world. Those three pieces, I think that's the future of drug policy reform all over. >> GEORG: Ok, thank you. And then I wish you a nice flight back and hope to see you at your next conference in ... at the end of this year. >> ETHAN: In Denver in October. >> GEORG: Yeah. >> ETHAN: Ok. Georg, thank you very much. >> GEORG: Bis zum nächsten Mal! >> ETHAN: Thank you. >> ETHAN: Ok. >> GEORG: The last piece was for the camera, right - I think?