 I think we're ready to start. Welcome, everyone. This is the first ever public debate about drugs here at Davos at the World Economic Forum. So we're very excited. This is historic. And we're very excited to have this panel here today. I want to start out by breaking protocol to the light of our organizers. So please keep your phones on as long as they're in silence. Just keep them on so you can share any photographs, video, ideas about what's shown here today. We're very happy to be co-hosting this Univision and Fusion with the World Economic Forum, as I said. And before I present the panel, who needs no introduction, really, I want to direct your attention to the faces in our backdrop. And that has to do with the fact that we're discussing this issue here today at a very high level with policymakers, with people who are involved in the human rights advocacy and, of course, who have a global perspective on this issue. But we're discussing also an issue that affects people all over the world, from the poppy fields in Afghanistan to the streets of New York to the slums of Rio or Ciudad Juarez in Mexico. So keep that in mind as we move along with our discussion here today. First of all, Kofi Annan, thank you so much for being here, president of the Annan Foundation, and of course, former Secretary General of the UN. Thank you so much. Thank you. We have Governor Rick Perry from Texas, Governor. You've been governor for 13 years now in Texas. Yes, sir. So thank you so much for being here. It's my honor to be here. The states are moving forward in the United States with drug policy. So it's very important to have the governor from Texas right here, President Juan Manuel Santos from Colombia. President, thank you so much. Thanks for being here again, and Kenneth Roth from Human Rights Watch. Thank you so much, Kenneth. Thank you. Let's get started. I warned you in the speaker's room that I was going to ask you to come up with two or three sentences that shares your stance on drug policy. So let's start with you, Kenneth. All right, I mean, in my three sentence version of drug policy, it's been a disaster. It has inflicted enormous harm in terms of a mass incarceration rate, enormous violation of our privacy, huge violence through the cartels that the increased prices have fueled, and for what? Drug use is not down. It is time for a different approach. It's time to reassess. And the problem behind all of this, really, is the criminalization of private drug use. It's time to look to alternative ways to discourage or regulate drug use if we see it as an evil compared to alcohol or tobacco, but to move beyond the criminalization that is causing so much harm with so little to show for it. President Sands. Well, I come from a country which probably is the country that has suffered most of all the countries in the world in this war against narco trafficking. At the same time, we have been readily successful in attacking and combating all the links of the chain. We have learned how to be successful against cartels, against production, against the marketing of drugs. But we, after 40 years, feel that we are in a sort of static bicycle. We look to the right, we look to the left, and we're in the same environment with the same problems. So what I think we should do is rediscuss the strategy that the world has against drug trafficking and try to encounter, try to find new ways, more effective ways to combat drug trafficking. Because what we are doing right now is not the most successful and the best thing we can do. Governor Berry. Enrique, thank you. And just before I start quickly, I want to say thanks to Professor Schwab for the invitation to come and participate here. Mr. Secretary, Mr. President, Ken, thank you all for participating. Well, I'm probably the only person who's going to be an anti-legalization individual on the podium tonight. And with that said, I want to say that I come certainly with an open mind and open ear. And some of the things that we've done in the states to address the issue of how we keep from criminalizing and keeping or using, if you will, the issue of initial drug use as a tool that puts people into prisons, that gives them the opportunity to become hardened criminals. And we've been very successful in the state of Texas with drug courts. And as a matter of fact, looking at the issues of criminalization and of dealing with those individuals who have been brought into our criminal justice system, today Texas criminal justice system is at 96% of capacity. When you look at other states like California that is well north of 150% of capacity, you have to ask the question, what are they doing in these different states? And we all compete against each other for ideas and concepts. So I bring to the table that I think it's bad public policy for the government to say here's one more substance that is not good for you. And science clearly tells us that this is a substance not good for you. How do we address the issues of substance abuse and criminalization? And I think that is what you're seeing some laboratories of innovation in the states be very successful with. Interesting. We're going to get in depth into that, Secretary General. Yeah. Let me say that I believe that drugs has destroyed many people. But wrong governmental policies have destroyed many more. And we need to really look at the policy and ask ourselves simply, sincerely, and honestly, is this policy working? What are the effects of this policy? And if it's not working, do we have the courage to change it? At least there is a need for serious public debate on this issue. In some countries where anyone you know knows someone who has been impacted negatively with the issue of drugs. But the question is, are we ready to make an honest review? You recently published an article at the end of last year calling for the end of the so-called drug war on drugs. And you say there's a clear evidence that this policy has failed. But still there's no commitment to changing things or looking for new approaches. What do you think that is? I think basically we feel that once you look at it, come at it from the point of view of education and health and help these people get off it, when we realize prohibition wasn't working, we had the courage to change it. If we admit that the drug policy and the repressive laws on drugs have failed, and it ends up throwing so many people in jail, I don't know if the governor can confirm this, but I'm told in the US, for example, the government spends more money on prisons than on education. Obviously there's something wrong when one is confronted with this situation. Is this a situation that can be defended? Isn't this a situation that is crying out for review and different policies? I would leave it there. Let's get into that a little bit. Kenneth, 1.5 million people are arrested every year in the US alone for drug crimes. The vast majority of those, 80%, around 80%, are for simple marijuana possession. And of those arrests, blacks and Latinos, are twice or sometimes three times more likely to be arrested than whites who consume marijuana at similar rates. So there's a racial component to drug policy and to this criminalization of drug consumption in the US. I mean, you're absolutely right, although your figures are off. Okay. So not absolutely right. No, it's worse than what you say. Human Rights Watch did a study recently where we went state by state looking at the ratio of whites who were imprisoned for nonviolent drug use and blacks. And as I recall, the worst state was Illinois, my place where I was born, which was something like a 50 to one ratio. If you were a black man, you were 50 times more likely to be in prison for drug use than a white man. So there's an enormous racial disparity. And indeed, I think Americans wouldn't put up with this degree of incarceration for mere private use of drugs if the burden was fared surely across the board. The fact that it is falling so disproportionately on a minority is part of why it persists. But it is the main driving factor behind America's enormous over-incarceration problem. And this is an issue not simply of misplaced resources as Kofi Annan mentions. It also destroys lives. I mean, you take people who are being given enormous prison terms, 15, 20, 25 years for use. And you have to say, how do you justify this? Yes, there is some harm to drug use. There's some harm to alcohol use. There's some harm to tobacco use. We learn to deal with those harms through education, through treatment programs, through non-penalization methods. And the issue isn't legalization. The issue is decriminalization. There's got to be a better way than ruining so many people's lives just because they, in the privacy of their own home or at a party, have decided to use drugs. And I mentioned the United States, of course. If we may ask Richard to explain the difference between legalization and decriminalization. Because often when you ask for change, they think you are asking for legalization of drugs. And there's a fine difference that I would want you to explain to our audience. Yes, that's worth dedicating time to. Yeah, I mean, the difference is quite simply. Criminalization means that you can be convicted of a crime and put in prison. And in the United States, the way it works, you get put in prison for a very long time. But you don't have to legalize. You don't have to say it's carte blanche, anything goes. You can still regulate it. You can make sure that kids under 18 don't get it. You can make sure that things are properly labeled, that doses are regulated, so you don't have overdoses. Ideally, in my view, you also regulate the supply chain, which is a way of undermining the market that fuels the murderous drug cartels. So I'd like it so that you can do the equivalent of going to a pharmacy to get drugs. It would kill the market that is driving violence in Colombia, in Mexico, in Guatemala. So that's what we estimated that drug cartels in Mexico would lose anywhere between $2 to $20 billion with the marijuana legalization in the United States. And I mentioned the US, because I had the figures from the US, but this happens also, the racial component and the socioeconomic component in Brazil, in Colombia, in Mexico, all over the place. Well, you were asking why Mr. Corfianan, the world has not reacted to this failure. Right. And I want to get your perspective and your perspective. I will tell you my point of view. This is an extremely sensitive issue politically. Usually, serving heads of state don't even touch the issue. They touch it after their heads of state. Why? Because it's very sensitive. That's why I proposed in the Summit of the Americas, I proposed to President Obama, to all the presidents of the Americas, that we give a mandate to the OES to study the problem in depth. Because most of the times, people approach this issue with prejudice, with a preconceived idea. So objective studies, really, what's going to happen with consumption if you legalize or if you decriminalize? We don't have those figures worldwide. So we have to start by looking for the actual facts. What is happening? What really are the problems? And then collectively, because this is an issue that not one country can solve it, it's a multinational, it's a world global problem. Collectively, we can then start to discuss new approaches, new ways to be more effective. And that's, I think, what we're doing. In next month or in March, there's going to be a meeting in Vienna. And there's going to be a general assembly, specifically in the United Nations, to discuss this issue in the year 2016. I hope that by then, all the think tanks, universities, and many countries could have a more clear idea of what to do. Because today, quite frankly, nobody really knows how to approach this. How to approach. And I interrupted you because, I mean, especially interested in your perspective and in Rick Perry's perspective, because you're both currently in government. And you might pay a political cost for taking a leadership decision. It's more popular to have the position of the governor than my position. I can tell you. In a state like Texas, there's a political cost for taking leadership in an issue like this. And here's an interesting thing. And I think it's really important that you laid out the difference between decriminalization and legalization. And often when we have this conversation, people talk about legalizing drugs. And I think, as you heard me say in my opening remarks, I am not for legalization of drugs. And what we've done in the state of Texas over the last decade through these drug courts is do exactly what you have said. Didn't get a lot of national publication of what we had done. And I will assure you that the Obama administration has not talked about Texas and bragged about what Texas has done too often over the course of the last five or six years. But the attorney general pointed out to Texas and the drug courts and the way that we have dealt with these over the course of the last decade to be able to decriminalize this issue and to lighten the load, if you will. No, Mr. Secretary, I do agree or disagree with you in that analysis. We don't spend as much money on incarceration as we do on education in the state of Texas. I'll close the net question. And that's a good thing. But the fact is what we have done, and again, I think states are laboratories of innovation. I hope other states will look at what we have done in the state of Texas from the standpoint of thoughtfully putting into place these drug courts where we give shock probation, where we give treatment, where we allow young people whose lives would be destroyed forever if they went into the prison system an opportunity to expunge their records and after a period of time to walk back into society or actually to stay in society and be contributing members. But still, Texas has one of the highest incarceration rates in the United States. I think the fifth form, drug possession. Around the fifth. And I want to get Kenneth's perspective on the drug courts too. But can I ask a very rich question? I haven't been governor forever. Well, 13 years is the period of time. If I could address Texas from that point. That's why I said it at the beginning. I think by all means, the drug courts, anything that decriminalizes is good. But in whether this is a lingering problem, whether it's your problem, there's a big problem in Texas. I mean, if you take Texas out of the United States for a second and compare it with the world. That's been talked about before. You know, I know. Yeah, I think you compare Texas to Germany. Texas has one third the population, two and a half times the people in prison. If you put Texas and put it on a global chart, there are only two island nations with a higher rate of incarceration than Texas. And drugs are not the whole problem, but drugs are about 20% of the problem. Don't get confused that we are soft on crime. Right. But we could have the broader conversation. But drugs are still about 20% of the problem. So I think anything that can decriminalize the approach to near use is very worth doing. Thank you. And which is what we're doing? I want to. You wanted to say something. No, that. No, I was saying. I don't know the thing. I think the discussions have clarified this question of the resources going to prisons and education. The governor massively says, has clarified that Texas doesn't spend more on prisons than on education. And I accept that. You said that sometimes it looks like we're on a static bicycle. And two years ago, President Santos. We were on a static bicycle, and we are more and more confused. I will ask you a question. Sure. How can I tell a peasant, a campesino, from mountains in Colombia that he has half a hectare growing marijuana, that he will go to jail because of that? If in Colorado or in the state of Washington, it's legal to smoke marijuana, how can you explain that? Not only that. 22 states have medical marijuana loss in the United States. This is a major contradiction of what is happening right now, which, in a way, shows the need to have a worldwide discussion, an in-depth discussion about this issue. Was it easy to advance this debate, this discussion, during your tenure as Secretary General of the United Nations? Well, it wasn't at the center. It wasn't at the center of discussions. The UN drugs program is based in Vienna. And most of the discussions take place there. You often have Attorney General's, Chiefs of Police. There's going there to have discussions. But it's moved up the political agenda now. And I don't think we can push it back. And I think it's important that they see it seriously. Kofiana is touching on a real problem at the international level in that drug policy is discussed by the law enforcement people in Vienna. And we need to stop viewing it simply as a law enforcement problem. We need to look at it as a public health problem. And the question is, it does some harm drug use. But the fight against drug use using criminal law does enormous harm by ruining people's lives by putting them in prison. But also, we haven't talked that much about this, by fueling the market that creates the drug cartels where you've had, you know what, 25,000 people disappeared in Mexico, 100,000 killed. And these are people killed not only by the cartels, but it's also then by the military response to the cartels. You have a virtual war going on along the US-Mexican border. And this is very much a product of the market that criminalization has created. I think this is the perfect time to transition into this issue. Just last week, the Surgeon General in the United States said that 8 million deaths, 8 million people have, are still alive, basically, thanks to the war on tobacco. So a little bit over 50 years ago, the first report from the Surgeon General came out in the United States. And it said that it warned about the dangers of tobacco. So here we have a public health issue being dealt, you know, as a public health issue. And higher taxation limits to where people can smoke, limits to the advertising of tobacco. And no criminalization. And of course, no criminalization. 50 years later, 8 million deaths have been prevented. And I'm not saying we've solved that issue, but I think we've come a long way. On the other hand, you have prohibition. Pretty much the same time frame, a little over 50 years. And that has brought about more production, more consumption, and more people dying because of this police approach to it. A public health issue being dealt with as a safety public issue. So isn't it time to take action? Is it a fair comparison? What? This is why I'm asking for, for us to take a serious, honest review of the policies I say as is today. And look at the history. And you've provided examples on alcohol and prohibition, the impact. And we have enough, even if we don't have it globally, we have enough in key countries to be able to make a judgment as to whether the policies we have today are working and why we should change them. And what you're outlining is that you don't have to just throw your hands up and say, drugs have, you know, carte blanche when you decriminalize. You can be quite aggressive in discouraging use through education, through opiate substitute programs. You can bring in needle exchange programs freely, which prevent HIV distribution. I mean, there's a lot you can do through education, treatment, and public health measures that would discourage use without ruining lives through criminalization and fueling the violence of criminalization. And the example in Portugal and all the way they've done this shows a good result. So it's a good example. Public opinion seems to be behind this around the world. But you have a reelection coming up? Public opinion in general, if you ask people, do you want the drugs to be decriminalized or legalized? In general, they say no. Why? Because they understand that the drugs are bad. And nobody, I think, disagrees that the drugs are terrible. They poison your kids. But the issue has to be looked at in a more comprehensive way. And when you weigh the pros and cons then and you are able to explain, for example, on the human rights, from the human rights perspective, simply by taking away those huge profits that go directly to these gangs that are multiplying by the day in Central America and South America, we're starting to have really big problems in Brazil, in Argentina, all around. They're growing. To take away those huge profits, simply to do that would be an enormous, enormous benefit for humanity. And you go to Afghanistan or you go all the corridor from the Middle East to Europe. I was in Spain yesterday. The Spanish consumption is going up. UK consumption is going up. But the profits from drugs are also going up. Also, they're becoming more powerful. During the last week, President Obama, the majority leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, and Republican governor Chris Christie, they all talked about marijuana legalization. So there's political momentum in the US. Do you want to jump right into that? Notwithstanding the two politicians on the dice here, we'll take ourselves out of the picture because we certainly would never jump out in front of a parade just because that's where the public sentiment seems to be going. But the fact is, I think it's very important for science to continue to play a most important role in this before we jump to some conclusion, before we run out and get in the front of a parade that's going somewhere because we think that's where the public opinion is. And I want to share just one thing or make a response to the Secretary about Portugal and the legalization of drugs there. In the five years since that has occurred there, 40% increase in the murder rate in that country. So now, again, anecdotal, I totally understand it. But the fact is, we need to look at all of the data, the science. The young Congressman Kennedy lectured the president a little bit on his remarks about marijuana, that he smoked as a young man. And alcohol is basically the same. And Kennedy said, Mr. President, do not make the mistake that the marijuana that was used 30 years ago is the same today as it was or that is today genetically improved, incredibly potent drug. So again, science needs to be front and center before we make any decisions at the level of the legalization or even the decriminalization of some of these substances that we're talking about. I mean, decisions are being made. 22 states have legalized medical marijuana in the US. Two states have recreational use. Now, New Hampshire can become the first state to legalize marijuana through their legislative branch. And you know that I am a staunch proponent of the 10th Amendment, that the states need to be given substantially more authority in making decisions, whether it's on their health care or whether it's issues like this. And then the people will decide where they want to live, whether it's economic policies or whether it's social policies, the issues of traditional marriage or abortion and the restrictions of abortion, I might limit it that. But those states, according to our Constitution in the United States, should be allowed to make those decisions and not this one-size-fits-all mentality that we seem to see coming out of Washington DC today. You want to say something? There's one other issue that I think is important to mention here. This is the perfect example of where the balloon effect becomes effective. Colombia, we have managed to reduce production of cocaine 60%. We were able to dismantle the all-powerful cartels. They were invincible according to the world press. All of them are, drug lords are dead or in jail. We have been very successful in destroying the labs and the chains of marketing. We still have the problem, but what has happened? Central America and the Caribbean and Mexico are in flames and our neighbors are now producing more than Colombia. So the balloon effect is really working there. So that's why I insist that we must approach this problem multinational, all the world if possible, because otherwise it will go from one place to the other. We went by the book. The war on drugs, according to the United Nations, was applied in Colombia perfectly and look what happened. This is a perfect example of something that doesn't work very well. And that's why we need all of us to have a new approach. Kenneth, before opening up the questions to the public, are we moving at a fast enough pace? Because we've been talking about the need for a new approach for a while now. Now we have more voices, important voices, coming to this debate. We have a debate here and that was for the first time. But are we moving fast enough? Obviously I want to see things move more quickly, but there's been very good experimentation in the United States. I agree with Governor Perry that we want to let the states experiment. And I think the federal government has wisely backed off. And so with the handful of states that are now decriminalizing marijuana use, they're saying, OK, as long as within some limits, we'll let you do that. And that's a healthy approach. I think we want to see that kind of experimentation taking place at the international level, too, which means revising the drug regime in Vienna. Because the international treaties are terrible in this area. And we've got to interpret them in a way that allows for this kind of experimentation. Because frankly, as President Santos says, this balloon effect is real. And the reason for it is the massive draw of drug profits, which are a direct consequence of criminalization. The way to stop the balloon from simply shifting is to puncture it. And you puncture it by destroying the market. You do that by decriminalizing. And suddenly there's nothing left for the cartels. Let me just inject there and ask you and the panel's opinion, because we talk about the monetary aspect of this. What is the answer from the standpoint of the banking industry's responsibility because the fact of the matter is if you're not able to launder these dollars and you use them in other ways, it becomes somewhat of a negative impact upon the drug cartel. So what is the responsibility of the banking industry in this issue? Let's follow the money for her. So one of the difficulties we have had in Colombia for many years is that when we go after the money, suddenly there's a wall. And you cannot penetrate that wall. The secrecy of the banking industry is one of the impediments to be more effective in going after, especially the money. When you fight the chain, the price goes up link by link. If you go, the most expensive but the least effective is going after production. If you seize the cocaine when it's in the US market, for example, it's much more harmful to the chain. Because of the margins of profit. But the most successful is when you go after the money. And there we have a bottleneck. We don't hear a lot about banking institutions paying the price for laundering money. Recently, I think it was HSBC that was penalized for it. But is there also something to be said about the financial institutions? I haven't really looked into that. But obviously it's an important aspect. But nothing of what we are discussing here is going to be easy to do. And we should expect difficulties. And it's also, we've focused a lot on the US. But it's not a US problem alone. It is a global problem. We need to educate the public. We need to educate families. And they themselves know drug is a bad thing for their children. They will resist. But we need to have a serious public debate that leads to serious reform of the drug regime, starting including the international regimes that govern this. Because if we look at the difficulties alone, we cannot do much. And even the movement in the US regarding marijuana, which is a step in the right, it's only a step. There's much more to be done. How do we organize ourselves as an international community to ensure that enough countries and enough momentum is created to really break the back of this drug problem once and for all? You talked of the Caribbean and all this. They are moving to West Africa. The drug cartels move to Guinea-Bissau using the West Coast through the Sahel to get drug to Europe. One of them flew a Boeing 707 to Mali, offloaded the goods, and burnt the plane. It shows you the margin. If you can burn a 707 and still make profits, the margins are getting so. The tentacles are quite wide. And I agree with Richard that we should also start looking at the international regime. In your experience, is it possible to build such a coalition? I mean, it depends on how you have to get civil society involved. We cannot leave it to the politicians alone. Earlier today, I was telling a group that civil society and individuals have power, which we sometimes don't underestimate. They have power through their votes. They have power through their statements and actions, the choices they make. And they can put pressure on the leaders. And where leaders fail to lead, the people can make them follow. The people can lead. And this is an issue. In some country, everyone knows someone whose child, mother or father, has been affected by drugs. This is not a situation we want to work with. What has prevented us from rising up and making loss of noise that no politician can ignore? I think we can open the questions to the public. I see a few raised hands. So someone's going to come up with a mic. We have one on this side. And I think we should have one on the other side. So let's start right here, because the mic is closer to that side. And then we'll come up to the front row. Thank you. If you can just say your name and with the questions directed to you. My name is Ja Ping from China, Beijing. I run an NGO. My name is the Health Governance Initiative. Basically, I'm a lawyer. So my understanding about the topic is there is a whole debate currently in the previous years about drug policy. If I regard the drug user as a client or consumers and I regard the drugs itself as a goods and I regard the so-called cutters and the so-called big drug dealer or the criminal organizations as a corporate or entrepreneurs. So my question to Mr. Governor Perry is, do you believe that if we put the consumer clients into the jail, can successfully make those corporates then be bankrupt and be eliminated from the world? And my second question to Mr. Rose is, I always confuse, is do you believe that if we, as we claim, dealing with these organizations, corporates, eliminate these entrepreneurs, can successfully reduce the supply to the society, to the consumers, because human beings, as because they bring a change because of addictions. So people naturally are pursuing pleasure. So do you believe that this could stop the player pursuing of human beings? Generally speaking, the issue of putting the supplier in the jailhouse, you don't really get to the real culprit. You find some people in the chain, and again, that has some effect. I would suggest to you a relatively small effect. I think it's more important. If you're going to hurt the supplier of these drugs, that you go after them where the real pain can be distributed and that is in their pocketbook and that is through the banking system that I think is all too often not engaged in this process. And one of the other things that, again, back to science and having the public's engagement of these young people, our children, our friends that we see whose lives are being impacted by this, where science is being more engaged in finding some innovative solutions with compounds and what have you that can block the euphoric nature of these drugs and what have you. So not to get off subject, but I think it's another important thing that we challenge our public institutions, our higher education institutions, our federal governments who fund research for certain things that plague us as people, whether it's cancer or whatever it might be. But drug addiction is one of those that I would suggest to you we probably don't spend enough money on both in the education side and finding the solutions to. First of all, I completely agree with Governor Perry that the treatment and education are key here. Treatment at this point, though, is undermined by criminalization because a lot of the addicts run away from the government, not toward the government to get treatment. The banking system, I used to be a prosecutor. Prosecutors are not dumb. They know to go after the money. But it's very hard to get the money. So I don't think that that's the panacea. Prosecutors are already trying to get the money. But money is like water going down rapid. You may put an obstacle here or a boulder there. It's going to find its way down to people's pockets. And so I think what you've got to do is stop the flow of the money. And so to come to your question, it is even if we assume the same demand for drugs, the money involved will rapidly diminish if the price goes down. And the price will go down if you decriminalize. So somebody's going to still have to supply the drugs. I want them to be ordinary businesses. I don't want the profits to be so enormous that people are literally willing to kill for them. Because that's what we have right now. So he has a benefit for the... I mean, that money can be used on public health to have a... Obviously, you can tax and stuff, too. But frankly, if you decriminalize, prices are going to go down. And so these enormous profits that people are literally willing to kill their way to get, that's going to go away. Then it'll be the normal profits of, say, the pharmaceutical industry, which, you know... How do you know that the price will go down? Have they gone down in Colorado and Washington? Well, no, but I mean, that's still operating in a world where it's illegal to supply the stuff. In other words, would you... The supply's there. Well, but the supply's got to get from Mexico or to Columbia or whatever to the United States, which is still illegal. We haven't seen a big price differential after the legalizing in Colorado and Washington. Yeah, it's just, I think... I simply ask the question. Yeah, don't understand the point, but I think it's really too small a part of the market. In other words, right now, the large profits that are to be had in drug distribution come from the risks involved. You know, you're risking long prison terms. And so who's going to do that? Well, they're only going to do it if they're paid gobs of money. And that drives the price up. If you actually did decriminalize and create some kind of normal, regulated distribution method, the profits would be way down and these murderous cartels would be undermined. If you do it across the board, like with prohibition, the alcohol prices came down. It's the logical... Economics will say that, but I was asking because in many experiments that has not happened. I don't know why, but it hasn't. I think it's just too... Whether it's Portugal or Colorado, those are too small to be a real market. Fairness, we really don't know. I mean, we have an educated guess, but until these policies are implemented and we have enough time to evaluate them, we really don't know with full certainty, right? True, but we don't know for sure. But why would it be different from cigarettes or alcohol? You have normal companies supplying cigarettes and alcohol. You don't have this awful, murderous violence attached to it because the profits are normal corporate profits. It's not these exaggerated profits that come from having to take the risk of spending the rest of your life in jail. Like I said, between $2 to $20 billion will be taken away from drug court cells in Mexico with marijuana legalization in the US. That's a lot of money for corruption, for arms, for violence. We have a question over here. I know we can get the mic and then one over here so we can put one on each side. Thank you. I might be under the mistaken assumption that we're talking drugs just as marijuana. Or are we talking about drugs across the board? Because I'm absolutely convinced that we do need different policy, we need a lot more interconnection between countries and dealing with all that on drugs generally. I'm on the fence about the legalization of marijuana. Only because we know what alcohol does. It's been incredibly destructive and yet a very enjoyable as well way of socializing. It's a very social drug in that sense. Marijuana has changed over the years. There's lots of different forms of it. There's skunk, there's all sorts of things that have very, very serious health implications. And the effects that marijuana have at that level almost are the equivalent of 30 years of binge drinking. I mean, it happens very quickly in terms of loss of memory, certain areas, your lungs, you know, came in, all that sort of thing. And these kids are doing it at levels that are very dangerous. But I don't know if I'm against legalization of marijuana. And what I'm seeing here is a sort of mix-up. I find heroin and ecstasy and other drugs very different in a way to marijuana. Although there are health implications to marijuana, as there is to alcohol, as there is to anything. Or tobacco. Tobacco, though, it's a social thing. It's the most addictive drug known to mankind. It's the most addictive, but you can function socially within a community. You don't have to become a criminal. What my question is, do you differentiate seriously between, for example, marijuana and what's happening now in the States and other hard drugs? Hard drugs. Or is it just across the board here? I think it's an excellent question. Who wants to address it? It's a very difficult question. And a lot of discussions are being made about that exact issue. Many people say, well, marijuana is the first step and cocaine is the second. One induces the other. Some people have that theory. Some people say they have proof of that. If you approach this problem from the point of view of taking away the profits from the gangs that are, the criminal gangs that are growing because of those profits, one would say, then you have to do this with all drugs. The public policy health issue, I would say, should be different. Marijuana is different from cocaine. It's different from ecstasy or heroin. I mean, heroin is the most addictive, the queen of all drugs. That's why it's called heroin. Right behind syrups. So I would say that you need a differential approach from the health public policy point of view. So I think the economics of this is, and I don't come at it just from an economic standpoint, but I think it's interesting to maybe have that discussion economically. Because we've heard here that if we'll take the economics out of this, then it will go away to a manageable degree. We take away the violence and those types of things. But the question for me is if the economics of this is what really drives us. And we as a society and we as government say it is OK for you to smoke marijuana. We have decriminalized it. Basically make it say that it's OK for you to use. Be thoughtful about it. You hear the bad things that come from it. What is that going to cost society? I mean, what is the medical cost to this world when we send that message, when influential men and women stand up in front of these young, influenceable young people and say it is OK? Is it more than the cost of that money to the cartel? Or is it less? I don't know. I think it's an issue of if the devils of prohibition outweigh those of legalization. But also this question of OK. I mean, I don't think anybody would say that the message around cigarettes is that it's OK. The governmental message on cigarettes is these are awful for you. But you have a right to use it. You're selling that message over the last 40 years. When I was a kid watching those actors and actresses on TV, the message was it's OK. And that's gone. That's gone. How much did we spend to reverse that? I'm just not sure as a society, we want to start down that path. And then 30 years from now going, you know what? We made a mistake in 2015. And we need to go back and re-educate the public about marijuana. I would start on day one saying, drugs don't use drugs. Not good for you. But it's your right. And the harm from criminalizing that use is much worse than whatever public health consequences are there from use. I would ask the governor, do we agree that what we've been doing for the last 40 years? How long ago, Mr. Kofi Annan, the UN declared war on drugs 40 years ago? Are we better off? Well, I ask this question, how long have we been at the war on terror? Let's stick to that first war, the war on drugs. But I think there is a point here in the, did we fight the war on drugs correctly every day? No. Over the 40 years. The war on terror been fought correctly every day? No. Two different wars. Well, they are. But the point is, 40 years of war on drugs, I can't change what's happened in the past. What I can do as the governor of the second largest state in the nation is to implement policies that start us towards a decriminalization and keep young people from going into prison that can destroy their lives. That's what we've done over the last decade. So I think there is some innovation that is going on in the states that can translate not just to Oklahoma or California or New York, but to Switzerland, to France, to other countries that have this drug issue facing them, that there are some alternatives without going kind of that big, full step in saying, we're going to decriminalize and send the message. Patricia, it's OK. But what if you were to take this step as an intra-measure? Keep the criminal law where it is. But just as a matter of policy, you're the governor. Say, we are not going to prosecute people. We're going to ignore this criminal law for now. We're going to put all drug users into these alternative courts where you deal with treatment or whatever non-prison means. Which are very controversial. Yes. But that way, you're still keeping the message. It's still a crime. You're not saying it's OK. But you're stopping the imprisonment of people. And you also say that you deal harshly with the dealers, with the drug dealers and those who corrupt the young ones in society. There is some legitimacy in that argument. And you're seeing some states take steps into that direction as we've done in Texas. But the idea that, again, I believe in the judicial system. Sometimes I don't agree with the federal courts in Texas and the country and the Supreme Court. But I do live with their decisions. But the fact is, I trust the courts. The legislature sets policy. Directing the courts. And then if the legislature wants to say, you know what, we're going to across the board legalize this, then those states should be allowed to make those decisions. But you're in charge of prosecution. In other words, the legislature sets the law. You as governor, working with your attorney general, decide which laws to enforce and which not. And you as the executive. I just agree with you there. I follow the direction from the legislature. They make the law. Now, there's a point in time where, as the chief executive officer, I get to either veto it or sign it. But I don't, after they lay out the law, get to interpret what that law is. But what you can do is say, I've got limited prosecutorial resources, limited prison resources. I'm going to focus those limited resources on more important things. On murder, on domestic violence. I'm going to not waste resources for the time being. I argue that we have done that in the state of Texas as well as any state. It's the reason that our prison population is at 96% of its capacity. And you've got California that's well over 150%. Let's move on. You want to say something? Now, I was going to say that I applaud your efforts and the initiatives you are taking in your state. But that is precisely what the Global Commission report requests, that we should look at these young people, approach it from education and health point of view. Not automatically throw them into prisons. And from what you're telling us, this is happening today in Texas. And I think that is great. And I hope others will take that enlightened approach. And when I started, I said drugs, which we all agree are bad, have destroyed many lives. But wrong governmental policies have destroyed many more. And you are beginning to roll that back in Texas. And that is what we would want to see happen in other cities. Let's leave the money side apart. But the protection of the young people, making sure they don't come out of prison worse off with no prospects for the future. And we say, we've improved society. We locked them up because they had a gram of marijuana. And I think what you are doing is the right. And it's in the spirit of the recommendations of the Global Commission. And I applaud you. We have the last one question then. Last question over here. Yes, my name is Adam Blackwell from the Organization of American States, the organization that produced the drug report that President Santos referred. And thank you again for your leadership, sir. I'd also like to do a shout out for the Global Agenda Council that I happened to lead of the World Economic Forum on illicit trade and organized crime. Because I think one of the issues that you have spoken about is how do we get? And how do we trace? And how do we deal with the financial flows? And this comes to my question to all of you or any of you. Do we really think that these criminal networks or criminal enterprises, if we take away the drug economy, are not going to move to something else? And what is that else? I need a second comment on that. I will answer that. We're not going to do away with organized crime. They go to some other illegal mining or whatever. But you're seeing a phenomena which is extremely dangerous and extremely harmful. Small bands, small kids in the micro traffic, there you can make a difference. And going back to something that Mr. Kofi mentioned, education. When one goes to the communities and discusses with the mothers this issue, and you start by asking, would you agree with decriminalization? And they all say no, because they have a paradigm. They say drugs, gangs, and the violence in the neighborhood, they connect that. When you explain to them the whole issue, they start changing their minds. And that brings me back to the basic problem, the political problem. Why has the world not changed its view on this issue? Because politically, it's very costly. You have to make a tremendous effort, education effort, to make the change viable. That's what we have the responsibility to do. The OAS study, which is a great study. They made a marvelous exercise through scenarios using a methodology which was geared towards making people who had very different views agree on something. We have to start by analyzing the different scenarios and making a tremendous effort in educating the public in order to make the political decision viable. And at the same time, I think this discussion proves that we have to study the problem much more. We don't have hard data that allow us to make concrete, defined decisions. We know where we should start going towards a new direction. But what exactly? Where do you draw the line? You were talking about decriminalization or maybe a bit more. Where do you draw the line? I don't have the answer, but we need to find this answer. All of us together. No, I wanted to go back to the lady who asked the first question. She started one of the premises she based her question on, is that we are creating the impression it's OK to use drugs. Nobody on this panel is advocating that. We all agree it's a terrible problem. Drugs are bad and one should try and discourage people, particularly young people, from using drugs or becoming engaged. What we are saying is the repressive laws measures have not worked. In fact, it's caused more problems. I raised a young person with a bit of cocaine or marijuana and he threw him in jail for 20 years. As a mother, what do you do with that son when he comes out? What's the future for him? And we are saying, instead of that, educate these people, give them advice, give them health support, and don't throw them in jail and destroy their lives. I think when you talk about drug policy, you have two components, a public health component and a public safety component. I think what's been discussed here is how do we subtract the public safety component that's been so harmful, this punitive approach to drug policy from the equation? One last question over here. Former Secretary Kofiana, I really appreciate that you have brought to this debate the importance of civil society engagement to this matter. In Latin America, I belong to a group named Latin American Platform on Drug Policy, which is a civil society movement. I would like to know better your ideas about civil society engagement, since it's a broad and very large concept. Please, thank you. I think civil societies have played very important roles on many issues. I recall when we were dealing with the HIV-AIDS, for example. There were things we got done that we couldn't have done with our civil society. Richard would agree when we were trying to establish the International Criminal Court in Rome, the Rome Statute. We couldn't have done it with our civil society. On the approval of Millennium Development Goals, you were there. When civil society comes up and they link up and really move an agenda, the politicians pay attention. You can push an issue up the political agenda for them to say, people are interested in this. We need to take a look at this. Not just make noise, but put forward proposals and link up with other civil society organizations in Latin America and around the world. And your voice will be heard. Politicians know what hurts and what pays. We have just a couple of minutes. So just as we started, let's conclude with two to three sentences. And I'm going to start again with you, Kenneth, putting you on the spot. First, just responding to a few of the things that came up. I think we are talking about all drugs. But you don't necessarily want to treat each drug the same. And first of all, by decriminalizing and regulating, you can start controlling the dosages that are available. So you're not just trusting some black market. You can go and look at the packaging. And it's listed there what you're getting. So that actually improves public safety. We have to recognize that there's certain things, just as you don't want to drive when you're drinking, there's certain things you shouldn't be doing when you're using Coke or marijuana. And to regulate what you can do while you're using certain drugs is a perfectly appropriate public safety thing. But that doesn't mean you criminalize every single use. In terms of the question, how do we know that these cartels won't just move on to some other crime? That is a concern because when you have created this virtual army that can outgun the local police, yes, the drug market may dry up, but they can move on to extortion or kidnapping or trafficking, which they do, yes. But there's nothing like the profit of the drug trade right now. So if you deflate that balloon, you are making it more difficult for these heavily armed cartels to maintain themselves. And you're reducing the incentive for people to come in there who see that this is the easy route to the easy life. Nobody goes flocking to a cigarette company because of the enormous profits to be made. Nobody's jumping to get in with their AK-47 so they can distribute beer. These are just normal, boring markets now. That's what we want to make the drug market. They're telling me that we have very short time, so. Simply the simple fact that we are discussing this issue here at the World Economic Forum is a great step forward. This issue must be discussed by everybody, the whole world. And through that discussion, try to find more effective ways to deal with this problem that we are not being successful in dealing with the problem. And the more discussion we have, the issues that were brought here demonstrate how difficult it is, the different approaches. But it's very, very important to discuss it and try to start building consensus. The civil society must play a very proactive role. Politicians must be a bit less hypocritic in the sense of bringing the issue and discussing it openly with the public. It's such a hot issue politically that people simply don't like to discuss it. We must discuss it because the problem is growing. Yes. Thank you, President Santos. Governor Perry. Thank you. I don't think I can add anything to the discussion we've already had for the last hour. But I want to say, again, thanks to Professor Schwab for allowing me to be on the stage with some individuals who I have great admiration for. Richard, thank you for your passion. And for all of you, thank you for being here and being engaged in this process. Because the fact is, without you, it would be pretty boring up here, even with Kofi Ann. You were a great supporter. Thank you so much, Governor Perry. I think it is increasingly accepted that the current policies on drugs are not working and that we need to take a very serious look at it and make the adjustments necessary. And I'm glad that some courageous leaders are taking the lead. And I would hope that we would also have a very serious public debate that will push this issue further. And we are doing a vision and a future want to chronicle that debate. And we appreciate your participation in this forum. And of course, the World Economic Forum for having the courage to promote this discussion today. So thank you so much. And thanks, everyone, for being here today.