Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Ethan Nadelman, and this is Psychoactive, a production
Speaker 1: of I Heart Radio and Protozoa Pictures. Psychoactive is the
Speaker 1: show where we talk about all things drugs. But any
Speaker 1: views expressed here do not represent those of I Heeart Media,
Speaker 1: Protozoa Pictures, or their executives and employees. Indeed, Heed, as
Speaker 1: an inveterate contrarian, I can tell you they may not
Speaker 1: even represent my own and nothing contained in this show
Speaker 1: should be used his medical advice or encouragement to use
Speaker 1: any type of drug. Today's episode is really quite remarkable. U.
Speaker 1: First of all, it's because of who our guest is.
Speaker 1: It's not often I'm going to be having former presidents
Speaker 1: on this show. And Juan Manuel Santos was the President
Speaker 1: of Columbia for eight years. He also won the Nobel
Speaker 1: Piece rise back in sixteen for his very courageous work
Speaker 1: trying to bring and successfully bringing a long civil war
Speaker 1: in Columbia, involving the far to a successful land. And
Speaker 1: he's been outspoken on issues the environment and free speech.
Speaker 1: So there's so many reasons I've admired President Santos over
Speaker 1: all these years. And one thing he did when he
Speaker 1: stepped down just shortly after. In twenty eighteen, he joined
Speaker 1: a very distinguished group called the Global Commission on Drug Policy,
Speaker 1: which is a group of former presidents and other world
Speaker 1: leaders who have decided the war on drugs is doing
Speaker 1: a lot more harm than good. Half of its members
Speaker 1: of its two days of members or sol our former
Speaker 1: Presidents Kofe and Nan the former head of the United Nations,
Speaker 1: used to be on it till his death. George Schultz
Speaker 1: and Paul Voker, the American Statesmen, were on it till
Speaker 1: their recent passing. But a remarkable group. So President Santo's welcome.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for joining me. Thank you, Ethan,
Speaker 1: and I'm very very glad to be here with you.
Speaker 1: We've on each other for some years and I'm very
Speaker 1: glad to participate in your program. Thank you. Yes, I
Speaker 1: we we had a really very interesting meeting for me
Speaker 1: back in twelve when things were really heating up, and
Speaker 1: I visited you in your office in Bogata and we
Speaker 1: had a frank conversation about the developments then. But I
Speaker 1: want to start off by asking you first. You joined
Speaker 1: the Global Commission a few years ago. Tell me why
Speaker 1: you did that and why you made that one of
Speaker 1: your priorities after leaving office. Well, I come from a
Speaker 1: country which perhaps is the country that has suffered most
Speaker 1: in this world War on drugs, Colombia. For years, for decades,
Speaker 1: I have been fighting this war, and we have sacrificed
Speaker 1: our best leaders, are best journalists, are best judges at
Speaker 1: a terrible cost. And we are still the number one
Speaker 1: exporter of cocaine to the world. Marks and my experience
Speaker 1: fighting drugs suffered sort of an evolution. I was a
Speaker 1: very hardliner. I was Minister of Defense before being president.
Speaker 1: We sprayed the coca plantations, We interdicted many, many thousands
Speaker 1: of tons of drugs. We went after the money of
Speaker 1: the drug traffickers, We went after the consumers, and we
Speaker 1: went after the peasants who were growing mariguana and the
Speaker 1: coca plants. And we did that with tremendous intensity, with
Speaker 1: the help of the US. The US provided funds and
Speaker 1: provided airplanes and provided helicopters, and we continued to have
Speaker 1: the problem. The same thing has happened to the world.
Speaker 1: We declared university the War a Drugs in the United
Speaker 1: Nations and President Nixon, and we still have the problem.
Speaker 1: So I started to learn that we were doing the
Speaker 1: wrong thing. I call it like in a static bicycle.
Speaker 1: You pedal, you pedal, you pedal, and you look to
Speaker 1: the right, you look to the left, and you're in
Speaker 1: the same place. So a war that has been going
Speaker 1: on for fifty years that has not been one. It's
Speaker 1: a war that has been lost. So you have to
Speaker 1: change your strategy. You have to change your mind frame.
Speaker 1: And so I started two change my mind frame. And
Speaker 1: now I am convinced that the only way to control
Speaker 1: the negative consequences of drug trafficking is by regulating and legalizing.
Speaker 1: That's the way to take out the money from the
Speaker 1: hands of the mafias and use it to fight the
Speaker 1: consumption of drugs, but with an approach of a public
Speaker 1: health issue. I also used very often in anecdotes that
Speaker 1: I read in one of the recent biographies of Western Churchill.
Speaker 1: Back in the twenties, during Prohibition, Churchill went through Canada
Speaker 1: and landed in California, and he asked for a drink
Speaker 1: and they said to him, no, no, Mr Churchill, this
Speaker 1: is prohibited here in the United States. And with that
Speaker 1: tremendous sense of humor that he had, he said, how
Speaker 1: strange this country is these huge profits that come out
Speaker 1: of the sale of liquor, you give them to the mafia's.
Speaker 1: In my country, we give it to the treasury. That
Speaker 1: encapsulates what I think has to be done in the
Speaker 1: war on drugs. And in my country, I have seized
Speaker 1: the largest amount of coke and marijuana in the history.
Speaker 1: I have extradited the largest number of column this to
Speaker 1: the US in history, more than fourteen hundred Colombians extradited
Speaker 1: to the United States. And I am now convinced that
Speaker 1: all this sacrifice, all this effort is in vain because
Speaker 1: we still today have the same problem as we had five, ten, twenty,
Speaker 1: or thirty years ago. So we have to change. So
Speaker 1: with that introduction, now I'm going to put you just
Speaker 1: a little bit on the spot. Person. Of course, so um,
Speaker 1: you know, the Global Commission, I just think has done
Speaker 1: an extraordinary job of opening up the debate and taking
Speaker 1: bold positions in favor of legal regulation. And some people
Speaker 1: will say, well, you know, all these prestigious presidents, why
Speaker 1: don't they just do the right thing when they were
Speaker 1: in office. Now they're coming around to it, and of course,
Speaker 1: you know, I think it's better that they do it
Speaker 1: even after office. Than just continuing to pretend that having
Speaker 1: done what they did was right. But the other thing
Speaker 1: is that many of the members of the Global Commission
Speaker 1: say what you just said, which is well, I was
Speaker 1: believed in the war on drugs when I was president,
Speaker 1: and then I came to see it didn't work. But
Speaker 1: I'll tell you something funny. So one of your predecessors,
Speaker 1: Caesar Gavaria, right, former Colombian president on the Commission, and
Speaker 1: I remember back in nineteen ninety when he was the
Speaker 1: president elect, and there's a meeting organized for him in
Speaker 1: Miami with a bunch of drug policy experts, and I'm
Speaker 1: part of that and I push it on the issue
Speaker 1: of drug legalization regulation. And first he dismisses me, blows
Speaker 1: me off, etcetera. And finally he looks at me and
Speaker 1: he goes eaton. Of course, I agree that legalization is
Speaker 1: is in my country's interests. But the day I say
Speaker 1: the word, the next day the US invades me by wish.
Speaker 1: I think he meant they would cut off coffee exports,
Speaker 1: but I mean there was a sense in which he
Speaker 1: knew better, and just to finish this off, you know,
Speaker 1: in there was a big United Nations General Assembly special
Speaker 1: Session on drugs, and it was a crazy event. They
Speaker 1: were talking about a drug free world, We can do it,
Speaker 1: all this crazy rhetoric, and so I drafted a public
Speaker 1: letter to Kofi Anan who was in the Secretary General,
Speaker 1: and it basically called for a major reform, major rethinking.
Speaker 1: Didn't call for the legalization, but big rethinking. And we
Speaker 1: got a half a dozen people from Columbia to sign
Speaker 1: that letter, and one of them was the former President
Speaker 1: edincour Another one was his foreign minister, Augusta Ramirez Ocampo,
Speaker 1: and another one was a part time politician who was
Speaker 1: then running a good Governance foundation named Juan Manuel Santos.
Speaker 1: So I don't know if you remember this, President Santos,
Speaker 1: but you signed that letter back in ninety eight saying
Speaker 1: the drug war is failing and it cannot work. So
Speaker 1: I am proud to say I don't want to sound presumptuous,
Speaker 1: but I was the only head of state that, as
Speaker 1: head of state back in the year two thousand and twelve,
Speaker 1: started to talk about league and station started to talk
Speaker 1: about changing the war on drugs. And I found a
Speaker 1: good partner. I found President Obama that said to me,
Speaker 1: you know you are right, And so I said, why
Speaker 1: don't we start, because this is an issue that one
Speaker 1: country by itself cannot solve. This has to be an
Speaker 1: international issue. Why don't we start trying to assemble a
Speaker 1: special General Assembly in the United Nations that would address
Speaker 1: this problem. But before that, we started to work at
Speaker 1: a regional level. This started in the America Summit that
Speaker 1: was held in Cartagena in the year two thousand and twelve,
Speaker 1: and I announced it publicly that we were going to
Speaker 1: start a crusade to change the war on drugs. In
Speaker 1: a General Assembly of the o S, by unanimous vote,
Speaker 1: they supported the call for a special General Assembly of
Speaker 1: the United Nations to address this issue. What happened, I
Speaker 1: underestimated the reaction that we were going to find from
Speaker 1: other areas of the world, the Chinese, the Russians, the
Speaker 1: Middle Eastern countries, they were all very much opposed. So
Speaker 1: unfortunately this General Assembly, in a way, it was a failure.
Speaker 1: We managed to make a little progress of introducing the
Speaker 1: public health as an issue of human rights is an issue,
Speaker 1: But what I wanted was the United Nations to change
Speaker 1: the paradigm, and we failed. And why I have a
Speaker 1: theory and my own experience when President Garria told you
Speaker 1: they would crucify me in my country. He was right,
Speaker 1: not only because at that time the US was with
Speaker 1: the policy of hardline punitive treatment to the world drugs,
Speaker 1: but also because this is a very sensitive political issue
Speaker 1: and very easy to manipulate. What happened when I started
Speaker 1: talking about legalization in Colombia, my political adversaries, among them
Speaker 1: the former president to really started to tell all the
Speaker 1: housewives that I was proposing to poison their kids with drugs.
Speaker 1: But that's what's going to be the consequences of my proposal.
Speaker 1: I used to go to different assemblies and the women
Speaker 1: were furious, why do why do you want to poison
Speaker 1: my kids? And I said what do you mean? And
Speaker 1: said why do you want to legalize drugs? And it
Speaker 1: was very interesting because I said, okay, let's let's talk
Speaker 1: about it. And I I asked many of them, listen
Speaker 1: to me. You are a mother, and if your kid
Speaker 1: it's caught with drugs, would you prefer your son or
Speaker 1: daughter to go to jail or to go to an
Speaker 1: institution to rehabilitate her or him if they are addicts?
Speaker 1: Said the second rehabilitation, and I said, that's precisely what
Speaker 1: I'm proposing, and they said, ah, why don't you explain
Speaker 1: that a bit more? Now I understand. But the immediate
Speaker 1: reaction for many people, the assuming a hardline position is
Speaker 1: very popular. Let's kill the dog traffickers, let's hang them,
Speaker 1: let's crucify, and everybody applaudse. The other issue, it's much
Speaker 1: more difficult because it's another type of leadership. It's the
Speaker 1: same issent as making war and making peace. Making war,
Speaker 1: what type of leadership do you need? You need a
Speaker 1: leadership that is vertical. You give orders, you rally the
Speaker 1: forces around you, You satinize and accuse your adversary, and
Speaker 1: so you're a good leader. Making war. Making peace needs
Speaker 1: a really different types of leadership, more horizontal. Instead of
Speaker 1: giving orders, you have to persuade, you have to educate.
Speaker 1: And for example in the peace process, that I had
Speaker 1: persuaded a mother to forgive the people who raped and
Speaker 1: killed their daughter. Is very difficult, but it's the type
Speaker 1: of leadership that you need to change the paradigm in
Speaker 1: the world drugs and you have to persevere. And we're
Speaker 1: making progress. We're making progress. You see in the United States,
Speaker 1: which had the most hard life position, many of the
Speaker 1: states in the United States have the matter one I legalized,
Speaker 1: and you go to Europe and they're more and more
Speaker 1: convinced that this is the way to go, and we
Speaker 1: need to persevere and hopefully accelerate the work we're doing,
Speaker 1: for example, in the World Commission on Drugs. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: I'll tell you, President, I was really following what you
Speaker 1: were doing and saying back then very closely, and I
Speaker 1: was extraordinarily impressed because I knew already back then that
Speaker 1: you were thinking along these lines and we're looking for opportunities.
Speaker 1: And I remember a few months before I saw you
Speaker 1: in your office, I went to see President Calderon in
Speaker 1: Mexico in his office, and you know, here he is
Speaker 1: leading this bigjor war on drugs, crematical violence, taking on
Speaker 1: the narcos. But I also know that he had been
Speaker 1: saying some things like maybe we need to look at
Speaker 1: alternatives to the prohibitionist approach. And then that summit that
Speaker 1: you described and cart ahead of the Americans. How you
Speaker 1: handled that so beautifully, giving Auto Perez, the Guatemalan former
Speaker 1: general president, a chance to present, then giving President Obama
Speaker 1: a chance to respond, and thereby show there was some
Speaker 1: opening of space so I thought you were really being
Speaker 1: masterful in moving this forward in the midst of everything
Speaker 1: else that was going on. Because it's such a sensitive issue,
Speaker 1: and people who are in power, the first thing they
Speaker 1: want to do is rock the boat. If there's a
Speaker 1: danger that the boat right capsites, and these type of issues,
Speaker 1: it's better to not address them, especially when when you
Speaker 1: are also dependent on other countries. Is one of the
Speaker 1: circumstances that we have to live with is that since
Speaker 1: this is a multinational problem, it's a traffic that is
Speaker 1: multinational world. You need a multinational solution. And that is
Speaker 1: why people in power sort of are reluctant to start
Speaker 1: the process of changing. But fortunately we have more and
Speaker 1: more people that have realized this is the way to go.
Speaker 1: It's almost because, in a way, the situation of Columbia
Speaker 1: or Mexico or Guatemala or so many other countries is
Speaker 1: being stuck between a rock and a hard place. Right
Speaker 1: on the one hand, a global illegal commodities market in
Speaker 1: which you are in the middle and there's no way
Speaker 1: to really prohibit it effectively, and another hand, these massive
Speaker 1: political pressures both domestically and internationally. And I remember like
Speaker 1: one of the options was almost like imagining for Guatemala
Speaker 1: in this case, if we could only build a pipeline,
Speaker 1: right so that all the cocaine coming out of Columbia
Speaker 1: going through Central America could essentially go through a Guatemalan
Speaker 1: pipeline pop out the other end without all the corruption
Speaker 1: and all the black market, and maybe they could just
Speaker 1: tax it. But of course that was just a hypothetical
Speaker 1: and something that was a political and possibility. We'll be
Speaker 1: talking more after we hear this ad. When I look
Speaker 1: at Columbia, I mean Columbia really. I guess if you
Speaker 1: look at all the countries in the world that have
Speaker 1: been highly associated with drug trafficking and drug murders and
Speaker 1: drug crime and drug politics, why is drugs in Columbia
Speaker 1: is so fundamentally caught up with modern Columbia history over
Speaker 1: the last fifty years. Why do you think, Well, I
Speaker 1: think it's a combination of how we have a great
Speaker 1: entrepreneurs We have an ideal country from the geography point
Speaker 1: of view for marijuana and coca We became because of
Speaker 1: our special circumstances producers of marijuana and of cocaine, and
Speaker 1: the geography helped very much to expand the production and
Speaker 1: we had this war with the farc with the gorillas,
Speaker 1: and the gorillas controlled huge amounts of territory and they
Speaker 1: benefit from the drug trafficking. They said that they were
Speaker 1: not drop traffickers, but they taxed the drug traffickers and
Speaker 1: they financed their war with the proceeds of drug trafficking.
Speaker 1: So it's a combination of different circumstances. And they say
Speaker 1: that the way that we started exporting the first exports
Speaker 1: of drugs and Colombia was marijuana from a region called
Speaker 1: the Sierra Nevada Santa Marta, which is a beautiful region,
Speaker 1: and that a Swedish ship arrived in the border Santa
Speaker 1: Marta full of American sailors that had been in Vietnam
Speaker 1: and that they they have heard of this Santa Marta gold,
Speaker 1: which was the best money one and the girl in
Speaker 1: the world. And they asked somebody there, do you have
Speaker 1: money Juanna Santa Marca. Of course, what do you need?
Speaker 1: It said, can you bring me a pack? And they
Speaker 1: brought it back and he was going to pay ten
Speaker 1: dollars and they said, don't know, it's tempestos. He said,
Speaker 1: is that cheap? So they bought all the production put
Speaker 1: in the Swedish ship, and the legend says, this is
Speaker 1: the first big export of money iguana, and that part
Speaker 1: of the Columbia, that's the part where previously during the
Speaker 1: Spanish and the British, the pirates used to be very
Speaker 1: much present. So there was a culture of contraband there,
Speaker 1: and so the marijuana traffic became more and more important.
Speaker 1: And suddenly from another part of Colombia called Medagan, where
Speaker 1: our industry grew. Because they are very effective entrepreneurs, they
Speaker 1: started to discover that there was also a market in
Speaker 1: the US, in Los Angeles, in New York for cocaine.
Speaker 1: The coca plantations were in Bolivia and in Peru, and
Speaker 1: they came through Colombia. They had some laboratories and were exported.
Speaker 1: But they found out that a kilo of cocaine was
Speaker 1: much more profitable than the king a kilo of marijuana.
Speaker 1: But the logistics of taking a kilo of coca and
Speaker 1: a kido iguana to the United States market with the same.
Speaker 1: So they started switching or adding of the roots that
Speaker 1: they had in the marijuana exports the cocaine, and that
Speaker 1: grew and grew and grew, and what the what the
Speaker 1: bodon was saying to you, the Central American countries became
Speaker 1: sort of places to export to those countries and then
Speaker 1: re export and that was a great business. And that
Speaker 1: also contamidated the mafia's there, the criminal bands there, the
Speaker 1: corruption there, and the problem they have right now all
Speaker 1: of Central America is huge. Well, there was also you
Speaker 1: left out one drug. I mean, there was a period,
Speaker 1: I think right before you became president in two thousand
Speaker 1: and ten all of the world right was getting their
Speaker 1: heroin from Afghanistan, but the United States most of it
Speaker 1: was coming from Columbia for about a decade until Mexico
Speaker 1: displaced it. And I was curious. I never quite understood that.
Speaker 1: Was it just that the Mexican traffickers were decided they'd
Speaker 1: rather just grow it themselves and ship it and cut
Speaker 1: out the Colombians Or was there actually a successful suppression effort.
Speaker 1: Was it a simple market dynamics and lower costs of
Speaker 1: production in Mexico. I remember, I remember that the early
Speaker 1: part of my government, the police took me to a
Speaker 1: place in the south of Colombia to eradicate supposedly the
Speaker 1: last hector of Amapola in Colombia. I did that, and
Speaker 1: I showed the flower and I said, this is the
Speaker 1: last actor. Well it wasn't the last, and as long
Speaker 1: as you have the demand, you will have supply. But yes,
Speaker 1: this very effective suppression. Because the productional Polo was very
Speaker 1: much concentrated, and because the gorillas did not control that region,
Speaker 1: we were able to be more effective. But immediately, immediately
Speaker 1: the balloon effect, they went to Mexico, and Mexico was
Speaker 1: much closer to the US, so they became much more
Speaker 1: efficient in providing heroin than Columbia. Well, now there's something
Speaker 1: else interesting and actually very complimentary about Colombia, which is
Speaker 1: obviously Peru has gone through terrible problems. Right, they had
Speaker 1: a shining past Centro Luminoso gorilla group, not unlike the
Speaker 1: FARC or others that was a real threat. Mexico has
Speaker 1: had major problems over the years. Bolivia was almost a
Speaker 1: coca you know, empire at some respects. But one of
Speaker 1: the things that I noticed in Colombia was the extent
Speaker 1: to which not just intellectuals but even politicians would at
Speaker 1: one moment or another step out and say we need
Speaker 1: something different. Why in your country and not in these
Speaker 1: others does this happen? That's a good question. That's a
Speaker 1: good question. Well, I think that our our democracy is
Speaker 1: a bit stronger than the democracy and other countries, and
Speaker 1: the cost of being controversial might be not as as
Speaker 1: high politically, and because I think we've suffered more from
Speaker 1: the drug war than the other countries. The other countries,
Speaker 1: they were very very much concentrated. You didn't see in
Speaker 1: Lima the effects of the expectation of coca from to
Speaker 1: Columbia or to the United States. In Colombia, you start
Speaker 1: to see the effects of the drug trafficking also in
Speaker 1: the cities Mainta and the violence that generated the big,
Speaker 1: very strong, invincible drug cartels. Remember the Mayan cartel, the
Speaker 1: Counti cartel. They were taking over the country. We reacted
Speaker 1: against that at a very high cost because we were
Speaker 1: feeling how they were just destroying the country, destroying our democracy.
Speaker 1: That did not happen in Peru or in other countries
Speaker 1: because it was a much more low profile mafias that
Speaker 1: did not want to take over the country but want
Speaker 1: to simply run their business. So, President, let me ask
Speaker 1: you if I can about some of your relationships with
Speaker 1: other Latin American leaders on this drug issue. I mean,
Speaker 1: with the exception of the hard left. You know Castro
Speaker 1: in Cuba, Uh, you know Nicaragua, Uh, Venezuela, which are
Speaker 1: totally opposed to any drug reform. As far as I
Speaker 1: could see, you would have support across the spectrum. And
Speaker 1: so here you have um we mentioned before Otto Perez Melita,
Speaker 1: a right wing former general. But what about did you
Speaker 1: ever discuss this issue with Mohika, the former left wing
Speaker 1: guerrilla and who became president of Uruguay, who was just
Speaker 1: focused on marijuana, or with Able Morales who was the
Speaker 1: left wing leader, former Coca union leader who you know,
Speaker 1: we go to the United Nations meetings in shoot Coca,
Speaker 1: but never seemed to get all that involved. What were
Speaker 1: your conversations with guys like that about during the American summit.
Speaker 1: My approach to diplomacy was very different from the approach
Speaker 1: that Peterson had. Remember that we had a very hard
Speaker 1: confrontation with Venezuela and with Ecuador. And when I came
Speaker 1: became president, I was thinking about the peace process. So
Speaker 1: I said, listen, in diplomacy, you need to talk, and
Speaker 1: so I started talking to challenge through the Ecuadoria in
Speaker 1: a president to everybody, Lula and the Moxica and ever Morales,
Speaker 1: and those were the ones that supported in the oas
Speaker 1: the resolution calling for a change in the drug war. Today,
Speaker 1: unfortunately you will not find that support because, for example,
Speaker 1: in Brazil you have now a very hardliner also NATO
Speaker 1: in the presidency and he prefers this approach of punitive,
Speaker 1: hardline war against rugs because that sounds politically correct, and
Speaker 1: so he's not going to risk the possibility of sacrifice
Speaker 1: in popularity changing his views. And so we have seen
Speaker 1: a shift to the rights in that America against the
Speaker 1: progressive stance we sa is the drug traffic. That's what
Speaker 1: I feel. But yes, I did speak to them. Choice
Speaker 1: at that time was very much in favor, very much
Speaker 1: in favor. Yes, I think what has happened in Venezuela
Speaker 1: is that the drug traffic has become become a part
Speaker 1: of their economy. But at that time that did not happen.
Speaker 1: So when Chows did support that, and he thought that
Speaker 1: that was the the correct way, also because he saw
Speaker 1: it as an anti imperialist stand, the same as Morales.
Speaker 1: Now this is this is this war on drugs is
Speaker 1: an imposition of the US of the empire, and so
Speaker 1: for different political reasons. But I remember having long talks
Speaker 1: about this issue, because when you are convinced about something
Speaker 1: that has the consequences that we've seen in the last
Speaker 1: decades and we're still having the consequences today, you sort
Speaker 1: of become passionate about about the issue. And that's what
Speaker 1: has happened to be among many issues with this issue. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, it's funny when you tell me the story
Speaker 1: about your conversation with Chaves. I remember hearing that when
Speaker 1: the Guatemalan president Otto Paris was talking to the other
Speaker 1: Central American presidents and there was some interest in Honduras
Speaker 1: and El Salvador et cetera in Costa Rica, and then
Speaker 1: he talked to Artega in um Nicaragua, and I heard
Speaker 1: what Ortega's response to Otto Paris was, Look, if you're
Speaker 1: doing this to get money from the gringoes, I totally
Speaker 1: supported if you're serious, forget about it, right. So it
Speaker 1: was just a kind of cynical kind of response. What
Speaker 1: about with Calderon, the Mexican president, who's a good friend
Speaker 1: of mine and we became very good friends, and we
Speaker 1: still our friends. He was elected president with the banner
Speaker 1: of hardline position against the drug cartels. That was one
Speaker 1: of the issues that got him elected, so this could
Speaker 1: be interpreted as a shift. But he went along even
Speaker 1: though he was reluctant. He supported the resolution, but he
Speaker 1: was not very much convinced that that was the Routetoo.
Speaker 1: I remember my conversation with it. Seemed like he got
Speaker 1: the basic logic of why prohibition was doomed to failure,
Speaker 1: but he was so preoccupied with fighting the narcos and
Speaker 1: the frustrations of that that he felt there was nothing
Speaker 1: in between at all. Um. I think, in fact, he
Speaker 1: in one of the last speeches he ever gave his
Speaker 1: president when he went up to the u n at
Speaker 1: the end of two thousand twelve, he may have been
Speaker 1: one of the first, if not the first president to
Speaker 1: use the phrase drug prohibition to refer to that, which
Speaker 1: was an interesting step out. And what about his successor?
Speaker 1: Pinionetoto was quite open was it was quite the collaborative
Speaker 1: in this stand. However, however, people who surround him, people
Speaker 1: from the army, from the Navy, they had another stand.
Speaker 1: It was very difficult, for example, even to get a
Speaker 1: an agreement that we would working but nature myself for
Speaker 1: the two navies two collaborate interdicting drugs in the c UH.
Speaker 1: The Mexican Navy was not very, very enthusiastic about it,
Speaker 1: and I always thought, why what is the question? Sometimes
Speaker 1: life converted you into a Voltaian. Voltaire used to say,
Speaker 1: think bad about something and you might be right, And
Speaker 1: so I was always puzzled with the people around on
Speaker 1: this particular issue. Yeah, you know, it's interesting you frame
Speaker 1: it that way, because I remember for many years the
Speaker 1: spring of the coca crops with click phost fate, the
Speaker 1: herb side eradicating agent was a very controversial issue. And
Speaker 1: I talked a few days ago with a friend of mine,
Speaker 1: Aljandro Gaviria, your former Minister of Health, and he told
Speaker 1: me about meeting with you to discuss this issue about
Speaker 1: ending just ending the aerial eradication, even though there was
Speaker 1: huge US pressure to keep it going, and you simply said, yes,
Speaker 1: let's do it. Why had you, I mean, there was
Speaker 1: gonna be political fallout from my government. Why were you
Speaker 1: so ready to do that then? Because what I told
Speaker 1: you at the beginning, my experience convinced me that that
Speaker 1: didn't work, and that the consequences of spraying were terrible
Speaker 1: in terms of the environment, in terms of public health,
Speaker 1: and we even had a big route with equal equal
Speaker 1: took us to the International Court of Justice, sued Colombia
Speaker 1: and we were going to we were going to lose
Speaker 1: that legal battle. But the the the main reason is
Speaker 1: that it did not work. You sprayed, and immediately those
Speaker 1: campesinos went and replanted, or they even invented ways to
Speaker 1: protect themselves refrained. There's something called panella, which is which
Speaker 1: is extracted from show ground, and they put panella on
Speaker 1: the leaves and the spray did nothing to them. So
Speaker 1: it did work and had terrible consequences. And when at
Speaker 1: another guardian, I said, really it's not working. Oh what
Speaker 1: would the United States? What would they say? And I said, well,
Speaker 1: I don't care what they say. I think it's the
Speaker 1: correct thing to do. Are you convinced the minister and
Speaker 1: he said yes, well I'm convinced also, let's finish it.
Speaker 1: Of course, it's a big reaction. They still today they
Speaker 1: say that Colombia is producing coca and has increased the
Speaker 1: production coca because of that decision. That is absolutely nonsense.
Speaker 1: It's not because of that decision. And so yes, I
Speaker 1: took the decision convinced that I was doing the correct thing,
Speaker 1: and that was about eight years ago. I am still
Speaker 1: convinced that that is correct, the correct decision and the
Speaker 1: worst mistake. Enough said this publicly that President Dookie can
Speaker 1: do right now, and he's thinking of re establishing the
Speaker 1: spray because you will have all these peasants who if
Speaker 1: they don't have an alternative, they will die to continue
Speaker 1: to give food to their children. And that's why in
Speaker 1: the peace agreement we included substituting coca for legal crops.
Speaker 1: And let me give you a comparison. If you eradicate
Speaker 1: by force or you spray, the rate of replanting goes
Speaker 1: up to so after eradicating, they go and replant. We started,
Speaker 1: after the peace process was signed, a very aggressive and
Speaker 1: ambitious program of voluntary substitution. We paid the families and
Speaker 1: we gave them instruments to plant something else that was legal.
Speaker 1: And the United Nations verified how much replanting occurred with
Speaker 1: that policy and they be planted was less than one percent.
Speaker 1: So you see the difference up to sev seven oh
Speaker 1: and less than one percent. That's the way to do it. Well,
Speaker 1: let me challenge you on this, e bit, okay, because
Speaker 1: I have huge amount admiration for what you did. With
Speaker 1: the FARC agreement, obviously, and it had contained obviously an
Speaker 1: entire chapter about drugs, and obviously investing in the livelihoods
Speaker 1: of the camposinos was crucial. But when it comes to
Speaker 1: the big global picture, it's not going to affect the
Speaker 1: drug problem or the global cocaine markets, right, because even
Speaker 1: if you get a hundred thousand Campesinos switching out of coca,
Speaker 1: they'll just be replaced by people elsewhere in Colombia, Bolivia, Peru,
Speaker 1: maybe Ecuador. So for Colombia it may have been crucial,
Speaker 1: but globally it's a wash. I agree with you. That's
Speaker 1: because of the balloon effect. Yes, if you continue to
Speaker 1: have a demand for marijuana, of cocaine, of heroin in
Speaker 1: the consuming countries, you will have to supply. This is
Speaker 1: the contrary of what the econs name the says law.
Speaker 1: This is Frenchshire economists that the production creates its own demand. Well,
Speaker 1: in this case, the demand creates its own production. So
Speaker 1: and it's so profitable that, yes, if we were able
Speaker 1: to eradicate all the production of cocaine in Colombia, you
Speaker 1: will immediately see and you're seeing it in other parts
Speaker 1: of the world, in Asia and Indonesia. And that has
Speaker 1: been the history of this issue since the Open Wars.
Speaker 1: That has been the reality. The problem is that sometimes
Speaker 1: because of political reasons, global leaders and global politicians don't
Speaker 1: like to accept that. Let's take a break here and
Speaker 1: go to an ad. One of the things that I
Speaker 1: take pride in from my work in the US is
Speaker 1: that we really initiated the whole. I mean, the question becomes,
Speaker 1: how could it be that the United States, which championed
Speaker 1: the drug war domestically and globally for almost a hundred years,
Speaker 1: nonetheless became the global leader in marijuana legalization. And a
Speaker 1: lot of it started with a very strategic approach with
Speaker 1: legalizing medical marijuana in California in and then continuing to
Speaker 1: other states and beginning to change the dialogue, and you know,
Speaker 1: and then ultimately resulting in first Colorado and Washington in
Speaker 1: twelve and other states. And I look in Latin America
Speaker 1: now and I see that that's one of the few
Speaker 1: drug reform issues which seems to be moving forward all
Speaker 1: around the continent. And I think you played a key
Speaker 1: role in making Columbia one of the leaders in this. Yes,
Speaker 1: And for example, nobody would have imagined that that would
Speaker 1: happen in Mexico and did in Colombia. Unfortunately, the current
Speaker 1: government very conservative and very hardliner, and they started to
Speaker 1: go back. They started to criminally eyes again the consumption
Speaker 1: of drugs. And there's one exact date that I use
Speaker 1: a lot as an example to tell the Columbians to
Speaker 1: open their eyes. The three of November, when President Biden
Speaker 1: was elected, eight states in the United States legalized bod iguana.
Speaker 1: That same day, the Colombian House of Representatives, because of
Speaker 1: the pressure of the government, rejected a law to do
Speaker 1: the same thing. And so what is the consequence of this?
Speaker 1: The money stays in the US, That's where I tell
Speaker 1: my fellow collumbience, and the violence stays here in Colombia.
Speaker 1: You're exporting your You're being stupid by not legalizing it.
Speaker 1: We are much more efficient producers of bard iguana. And
Speaker 1: then the Californians or in Colorado or Oregon. And when
Speaker 1: you prohibited here, you will continue with a violent and
Speaker 1: the mafia's and the United States is legalizing it. But
Speaker 1: another issue here is how do you explain it. Campasino
Speaker 1: who grows body want but he's doing something illegal and
Speaker 1: he has to go to jail. If you have the
Speaker 1: United States legalizing it, they tell you, is that not stupid?
Speaker 1: It is with the reality. I remember after we legalize
Speaker 1: marijuana and Colorado Washington, reading the papers, President Santo's condemns
Speaker 1: the US for their their hypocrisy. Here you are legalizing
Speaker 1: your own country and still expecting us to keep eradicating
Speaker 1: the plants in our own And I think, I mean,
Speaker 1: I guess in a way what happened in Colorado and Washington,
Speaker 1: and then I guess Mohican Uruguay really did help open
Speaker 1: up space to move this issue forward. And even your successor,
Speaker 1: d K is being respectful on the medical marijuana piece, right, yes,
Speaker 1: because and no, and and the pressure has been a
Speaker 1: big pressure because a lot of companies started to invest
Speaker 1: in Colombia and they said, you can't just go go back.
Speaker 1: So with the medical marijuana, he has been much more positive.
Speaker 1: But for recreational purposes he's still very very reluctant. But
Speaker 1: so now I have because they asked me, I have
Speaker 1: a much more radical stand. I think we have to
Speaker 1: legalize the coca production or not. I know that we're
Speaker 1: years from that, but also we need to regulate and
Speaker 1: legalize all the drugs because otherwise if you if you prohibit,
Speaker 1: the word prohibition is the keyword. If you prohibit, you
Speaker 1: you create all kinds of terrible collateral damages. So as
Speaker 1: we're speaking, it's the middle of May, uh and we
Speaker 1: don't know what will happen by the time people here
Speaker 1: this in this summer. But there is a cocaine, a
Speaker 1: very thoughtful cocaine legalization bill in the Congress of Columbia.
Speaker 1: Now right, it's that, would you know, allow the coca
Speaker 1: products to be sold openly and make cocaine powder cocaine
Speaker 1: strictly regulated and not allow crack cocaine to be sold
Speaker 1: to decriminalized. So are you able and are you willing
Speaker 1: to be speaking out in favor of this bill? Are
Speaker 1: you hesitant to have already spoken in favor of this bill?
Speaker 1: But unfortunately I don't see that this bill will pass. No,
Speaker 1: it's the beginning, though, it's the beginning. Yes, I think
Speaker 1: we have to try again explain much more. The world
Speaker 1: is to teach the Colombians why this is good, because
Speaker 1: the image they have, they said, this is terrible. This
Speaker 1: president is poisoning kids. Well, you need to do on
Speaker 1: a big effort to explain that it's the contrary that
Speaker 1: we are. We're we're doing something to to benefit many
Speaker 1: of the kids that today, for example, are in the
Speaker 1: criminal band because of group trafficy or adds. This is
Speaker 1: precisely to address this issue with much more humane and
Speaker 1: effect to approach. So a question I asked virtually all
Speaker 1: my guests, and I'm gonna ask you. Let me frame
Speaker 1: it in this way. When President Obama wrote his first autobiography,
Speaker 1: he talked about having been a young man smoking marijuana,
Speaker 1: trying a little cocaine. So, if you were writing your
Speaker 1: autobiography and being open about what your own past experience was,
Speaker 1: what is your own past experience with these substancestive and
Speaker 1: illegal the same as Obama's. I smoked my first joint
Speaker 1: of marijuana in Kansas, the University of Kansas, and the
Speaker 1: first time I tried coke was here in Columbia. Uh.
Speaker 1: But so my answer is I follow Obama, I think, okay?
Speaker 1: And another question, Columbia really in somers And I don't
Speaker 1: know if you've ever heard of a professor named Richard
Speaker 1: Schulte's He was the famous Harvard the godfather of ethnobodany,
Speaker 1: and he was he was a mentor of Wade Davis.
Speaker 1: That's right, that's right. He was a great right on
Speaker 1: these issues. And what I've heard is that Colombia probably
Speaker 1: contains more natural psychoactive natural substances and plants. And part
Speaker 1: of this is part of the indigenous culture in Colombia.
Speaker 1: And now we're seeing this blossoming of psychedelics research and
Speaker 1: also in the desire to include, you know, the native
Speaker 1: populations in this. I'm curious, how are where are you
Speaker 1: of this, of this tradition in Colombia and what it
Speaker 1: implications might be. Well again, later in life, I have
Speaker 1: been learning about the the wisdom of the indigenous communities.
Speaker 1: I had an experience with them when I was Minister
Speaker 1: of Defense. There was this friend of mine who was
Speaker 1: after my Minister of the Environment, who took me to
Speaker 1: talk to the indigenous communities in the high mountains of
Speaker 1: the Sierra. But he said, as Minister, you can because
Speaker 1: of the war, their leaders had not been able to
Speaker 1: come together for for a long time. You can help
Speaker 1: them come together simply by picking them up and bring
Speaker 1: them into this place, this beautiful place high the mountain.
Speaker 1: So I did that, and I went there with my family,
Speaker 1: my wife and my few kids, and these governors they
Speaker 1: are called or the mammos, arrived and they said to me,
Speaker 1: we have to speak among ourselves before and then we'll
Speaker 1: speak to you. Well, I thought it was one hour
Speaker 1: or two hours. They spent thirty hours talking and chewing
Speaker 1: coca they called Mambia chewing cocca for thirty hours, and
Speaker 1: then they called me in and they start to explain
Speaker 1: to me other culture, all their their philosophies. There, their
Speaker 1: vision about justice, especially their vision about the environment, and
Speaker 1: how they are our older brothers. So I was very
Speaker 1: much impressed with am and I started to to hear
Speaker 1: them more. And when I got inagurgated as president. The
Speaker 1: day I was innagurgated, I went to them and asked
Speaker 1: for their permission, because they are our older brothers. As
Speaker 1: a gesture to recognize them as the indigenous communities that
Speaker 1: were here before anybody, I asked for their blessing to
Speaker 1: go to Congress and be intagorated, and they said yes,
Speaker 1: and they gave me a mad date. They said, you
Speaker 1: must make peace but not only among people, among human beings.
Speaker 1: You must make peace with nature because we have a
Speaker 1: disconnection with nature, and you, unfortunately going to suffer because
Speaker 1: she is mad, and when she's mad, we all suffer
Speaker 1: the consequences. And one week later, even one week later
Speaker 1: after I got in degradated Colombia was hit by the
Speaker 1: worst Ninia phenomenon in the history of Columbia, that the
Speaker 1: worst natural disaster. The first year I was in office,
Speaker 1: the first year and a half, was administered a fludded country.
Speaker 1: So I became engaged with them. They started to teach
Speaker 1: me about the environment, about how rich our environment in
Speaker 1: Columbias and how we had to protect it. And that's
Speaker 1: why we put in place very aggressive environmental policies to
Speaker 1: protect our biodiversity, to protect our rivers, to protect these
Speaker 1: ecosystems that are only in Colombia. And I am now
Speaker 1: convinced that we have to hear these Indi discribunities all
Speaker 1: around the world in Columbia because they have more wisdom.
Speaker 1: If we hadn't heard them before, we were not facing
Speaker 1: this existential threat, which is climate change. And they have
Speaker 1: been saying this for a long long time. Well, Wammanuel Santos,
Speaker 1: that's a beautiful way to conclude our conversation on the
Speaker 1: wisdom of the indigenous people. So thank you ever so
Speaker 1: much for taking this time to have this conversation, and
Speaker 1: I look forward to our past crossing before long. Syco
Speaker 1: Act is the production of I Heart Radio and Protozoa Pictures.
Speaker 1: It's hosted by me Ethan Nadelman. It's produced by Katcha
Speaker 1: Kumkova and Ben Cabrick. The executive producers are Dylan Golden,
Speaker 1: Ari Handel, Elizabeth Geesus and Darren Aronovski for Protozoa Pictures,
Speaker 1: Alice Williams and Matt Frederick for I Heart Radio and
Speaker 1: me Ethan Nadelman. Our music is by Ari Belusian and
Speaker 1: a special thanks to Avivit Brio, Sef Bianca Grimshaw and
Speaker 1: Robert Beatty. If you'd like to share your own stories,
Speaker 1: comments or ideas, please leave us a message at eight
Speaker 1: three three seven seven nine sixty. That's one eight three
Speaker 1: three Psycho zero. You can also email us as Psychoactive
Speaker 1: at protozoa dot com or find me on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Ethan Nadelman. And if you couldn't keep track of all this,
Speaker 1: find the information in the show notes. Next time I'm Psychoactive,
Speaker 1: I'll be talk talking with Dr Nora Vocal, who has
Speaker 1: headed the National Student on drug abuse since two thousand
Speaker 1: and three. That's the lead research funding agency in the
Speaker 1: world about drugs. I have to say I was a
Speaker 1: bit surprised she accepted my invitation to join us, so
Speaker 1: this should be a particularly good episode. There's one issue
Speaker 1: I think, going back a number of years ago, where
Speaker 1: if I pat myself on the back, I think I
Speaker 1: was more right than you were, which is people were saying,
Speaker 1: if you're gonna legalize marijuana, you're gonna see this explosion
Speaker 1: in adolescent used of marijuana and problematic use. You were right.
Speaker 1: I was expecting the use of my one among adolescence
Speaker 1: would go up, and overall it hasn't subscribed to Cycleactive
Speaker 1: now see it, don't miss it.