Yesterday, Colombian President Gustavo Petro appeared before the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, where he firmly criticized outdated anti-drug policies (such as cannabis prohibition) and proposed alternatives to state violence.
This is far from the first time Petro has expressed these views before the international body. True to form, the president spoke during the opening session in Vienna, offering a fresh and unorthodox perspective on drug policy. His speech was published in full on the Colombian presidency’s website.
Petro began by mentioning, almost in passing, how the “problem” of drug use is a relatively recent invention in human history, when in fact, for the most part, these substances have long existed alongside us. Efforts to ban, restrict and demonize drug use are fairly recent and inseparable from political agendas with ulterior motives, resulting in “flawed public policies” that, according to him, should be evaluated.
Weed for protest, cocaine for capital, fentanyl for the apocalypse
One of the pillars of Gustavo Petro’s speech at the UN revolved around cannabis; more specifically, its prohibition and its effects on societies around the world.
In the United States, the demonization of marijuana has a long history, reaching a turning point during the Vietnam War and its association with youth protests and the anti-war hippie movement. The global prohibition of cannabis, rooted in US political interests, had devastating consequences for countries in the Global South, as Petro emphasized. He also questioned how many Colombians died as a result of this war, which was not theirs, suggesting that some form of compensation might be warranted.
Regarding the War on Drugs, the Colombian president doesn’t mince words: “Prohibition leads to the creation of the mafia, and the creation of the mafia leads to death and violence.” Contrary to the still-prevailing view, Petro reiterated how drug trafficking mafias emerge because of prohibition and are fueled by it (an idea increasingly supported by research and real-world data).
He then compared the history and use of weed to that of cocaine. The president argued that cannabis was primarily used by young people as a form of protest and rebellion. In contrast, the “cocaine-consuming society” that emerged later responds to a different kind of motivation: “Cocaine is the drug of capital, no longer of protest.”
Petro argued that the use of this drug is rooted in the logic of neoliberalism and a society where competition reigns supreme: “It’s necessary to increase the workday. It’s related to the desire of the worker, man or woman, to work more and earn more.” He added, “What it reflects is a lack of affection and an addictive need for work and money. That’s why it’s known as the Wall Street drug.” What draws attention here is how the president placed the addictive element not in the substance itself, but in the capitalist logic of accumulation.
Now, it’s impossible to discuss the drug crisis today without mentioning fentanyl, whose misuse and trafficking are wreaking havoc in an increasing number of societies. The Colombian president described it as “a drug of death: no longer of protest, no longer of intensive work, of the desire to have more, but of giving up on life.” He further refined his social analysis of substance use, associating fentanyl use with an apocalyptic society, tainted by necropolitics, with no positive future on the horizon. For him, we are talking about societies “that don’t want to have children, of absolute loneliness… An anti-culture: that of the extinction of humanity. Fentanyl is the drug of the climate crisis.”
He also stated bluntly that “fentanyl is suicide. For those who consciously consume it, knowing what it entails, it’s because they already carry a desire to commit suicide.” However, it is important to clarify that one of the biggest problems with this substance is that it is often used as a cutting agent for other drugs, increasing addiction without people even knowing what they are consuming. Thus, fentanyl is not always consumed knowingly or in response to such a death drive.
The president justified this type of analysis (less chemical and more social) because he considers questions like “what consequences does prohibition have, on which societies, and how can those consequences be measured” to be urgent. For Petro, the answer is deeply intertwined with “the very evolution of contemporary human society, its conflicts, its structure of production and consumption, and its power.”
Coca cultivation in Colombia: Alternatives to combat drug trafficking
“I’m on the OFAC list. I shouldn’t be here”: such was the abrupt shift in topic midway through his speech. This refers to his recent inclusion on the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), an agency responsible for imposing economic sanctions under the pretext of protecting US national security. This measure was taken in the context of Donald Trump’s serious accusation that the Colombian president is a “drug kingpin,” and the country’s decertification as a partner in anti-drug efforts.
Petro responded with concrete data: “I’m accused of being an ally of the drug traffickers at the very moment when we seized the most cocaine in Colombia. We reached 3,300 tons at the very moment when coca leaf cultivation began to decline.” This figure not only represents a world record in this area, but also, according to the president, includes zero fatalities.
However, instead of focusing on the drama of personal accusations, Petro took the opportunity to shed light on the history of coca cultivation in his country, from the perspective of a producer rather than a consumer, since the plant has historically had little cultural use in Colombia. The reasons, he revealed, have more to do with the consequences of social inequality in the Global South than with the preferences of his population. Thus, the president connected factors such as the lack of democratization in land ownership, political interests, and the violence of drug trafficking.
“Coca leaf is grown in Colombia because it is one of the most unequal societies in the world, and because its social inequality stems from the land-tenure structure,” he explained. “It is cultivated by farmers who have been displaced for decades and generations from fertile land through violence, death, and massacres… Violence that in 75 years has resulted in 700,000 deaths.”
Faced with this alarming situation, Petro asked: “What is the most serious policy to implement there?” Criticizing aggressive solutions such as the use of glyphosate or the destruction of fields, the president proposed crop substitution: that is, giving farmers access to fertile land and fostering a market where their products can compete.
He then went on to describe the benefits of voluntary—not forced—crop substitution, which “already covers 42,000 hectares in the south and center of Colombia’s most productive regions,” offering farmers hope for a better future and reducing coca production destined for illegal trafficking.
But he also warned that progress remains limited without international support and coordinated strategies among countries, criticizing Colombia’s exclusion from anti-drug trafficking efforts. “Why have we been decertified when we are demonstrating effectiveness?” he asked. “Alliance meetings are held excluding Colombia, when in the case of cocaine, Colombia is essential because of its experience.”
Here, he was referring to the last meeting that took place in Miami last week, resulting in an agreement both unoriginal and ineffective: a tougher stance against drug trafficking. Groundbreaking. Regarding this, Petro commented: “I don’t criticize the formation of political coalitions… but I do think that with 17 small, weak countries lacking experience in confronting cocaine, a shield for the South cannot be created; it will be breached.”
He also made an effort to reframe the phenomenon of drug trafficking, which has changed significantly in recent decades and grown far more complex and violent. “Pablo Escobar’s mafias were children playing compared to today’s mafias, which are multinational, including Albanians, Italians, French, Mexicans, Brazilians, Americans, and Colombians,” he explained, also attributing to them the trafficking of weapons, organs, and humans for sexual exploitation.
He also located the real culprits behind this system—not in Colombia or its peasantry, but in the “luxury cities” of the Global North and the international financial system that supports them, and asserted that they can never be challenged without genuine political will.
Ultimately, Petro concluded with an unusual call: to combat drug abuse by transforming consumer societies with “a greater effort of compassion and love,” promoting social and economic equity at the root of production. Thus, the Colombian president echoed the numerous calls from various organizations to change the focus of the War on Drugs to one that prioritizes human rights, health, and well-being.
