
One  after another, Latin American leaders rose to the podium at the last UN  General Assembly to take a stand against the United States’ signature  security policy in the hemisphere — the war on drugs.
“Right here, in this same headquarters, 52 years ago, the convention  that gave birth to the war on drugs was approved. Today, we must  acknowledge, that war has not been won,” Colombian President 
Juan Manuel Santos said.
He 
noted that  his country, which received more than $3.5 billion in counternarcotics  aid between 2002 and 2011 and is frequently cited as a model by the  Obama administration, “has suffered more deaths, more bloodshed and more  sacrifices in this war” than almost any other.
Santos, as he has done before, called for changing course. He stated  that he led the effort in the Organization of American States to study  “different scenarios” (alternatives to the drug war) and commissioned  studies that will be made available to the public and evaluated in a UN  Special Session in 2016.
He concluded with a jab at the U.S.-led drug war. “If we act together  with a comprehensive and modern vision — free of ideological and  political biases — imagine how much harm and how much violence we could  avoid.”
Central American nations repeated the need for a new model. Costa Rica’s 
Laura Chinchilla cited a  regional agreement including Mexico and Guatemala “to reevaluate  internationally agreed-upon policies in search of more effective  responses to drug trafficking, from a perspective of health, a framework  of respect for human rights, and a perspective of harm reduction.”
Guatemalan president Otto Perez Molina, a military man who has somewhat ironically assumed the mantle of drug reform champion, 
told the UN  nations, “Since the start of my government, we have clearly affirmed  that the war on drugs has not yielded the desired results and that we  cannot continue doing the same thing and expecting different results.”
He called on nations to “assess internationally agreed policies in  search of more effective results” and urged approaches based on public  health, violence reduction, respect for human rights, and cooperation to  reduce the flow of arms and illegal funds.
Perez Molina openly praised the “visionary decision” of the citizens  of the U.S. states of Colorado and Washington to legalize marijuana, and  heralded “the example set by [Uruguayan] president Jose Mujica in  proposing legislation that regulates the cannabis market instead of  following the failed route of prohibition.”
Bolivia’s 
Evo Morales noted that  according to UN data, his country has made more progress on fighting  drug trafficking “after liberating ourselves from the DEA,” referring to  his decision to expel the U.S. agency from Bolivia in 2008.
He reported that coca cultivation has decreased since booting the  DEA, according to UN data. UN data shows a 12 percent decrease between  2010 and 2011 and another 7 percent between 2011 and 2012. He repeated  his 
claim  that the U.S. drug war is a vehicle for intervention and that his  country has proven that fighting drug trafficking regionally is more  effective than the efforts of the Drug Enforcement Adminstration (DEA)  and Narcotics Affairs Section, both banned in Bolivia.
“Another instrument of domination is the war on drug  trafficking. I want to tell you that through the efforts of the Bolivian  people and the national government…, after liberating ourselves from  the DEA through a national policy, and thanks to cooperation with  neighboring countries of Argentina, Brazil and Chile (I need to  recognize that it is a joint effort), we’re are doing better in the  fight against drug trafficking than with the DEA and the imposition of  the government of the United States.”
The Bolivian model includes a legal market for coca leaf and an  emphasis on dialogue with farmers to reduce cultivation. “The United  Nations has recognized the efforts of the Bolivian government in  fighting drug trafficking, but the U.S. decertified us. Who are you  going to believe — the United States or the United Nations?” the  indigenous leader asked rhetorically.
Mexico’s foreign minister José Antonio Meade 
used the same terms  as the Central American presidents, quoting regional agreements and the  OAS Declaration of Antigua, and placing a priority on prevention, arms  control, and opening debate. “With Chile, Colombia and others, Mexico  believes we must evaluate international polices, seeking more effective  responses with a health focus, a framework of human rights and a  perspective of harm reduction.”
He added that the “new global strategy” should come out of an open  debate that leads up to the extraordinary session of the General  Assembly in 2016.
This onslaught of drug war opposition is not welcome in Washington. The Obama administration has been 
actively trying to divert or mute Latin American calls to reduce militarized counternarcotics operations in favor of other approaches.
As U.S.-backed military forces are used to suppress indigenous  defense of natural resources and displace populations in areas coveted  by transnational investors, it becomes increasingly obvious that the war  on drugs is concerned more with maintaining and expanding U.S. military  influence in the region than eliminating drug trafficking, which a  recent report again shows has 
not diminished.
With even drug war ally Mexico challenging the drug war, the gauntlet  is thrown. The first to pick it up will have to be the U.S. government,  but that seems unlikely to happen. The drug war is a critical piece in  the Pentagon’s global deployment plans and it feeds hugely powerful  defense-intelligence industries. Obama has been a staunch supporter of  the drug war at home and abroad, with far fewer modifications in the  model than many expected.
The second challenge is to the United Nations itself. The UN Office  on Drugs and Crime (UNDOC) is locked into the criminalization paradigm  and is determined to defend it, regardless of facts, arguments or  popular opinion to the contrary. Experience has shown that moving that  monolith will not be easy, especially with the U.S. behind it.
But Bolivia has already proven that if it can’t be moved, at least it  can be chipped away at. After Bolivia’s failed attempt to get the  organization to reclassify coca leaf, the country seceded from the 1961  Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. When it later requested  re-accession with an exception for coca leaf chewing, only 15 of the  necessary 61 nations needed to block its return opposed it and the  pluriethnic nation was 
allowed to return with a precedent-setting exception.
One way or another, the current global prohibitionist regime is bound  to fall apart eventually. An increasing number of decriminalization,  legalization and regulation laws are showing that almost anything works  better than prohibition to deal with the health and crime problems  caused by drug use. Populations are no longer buying the moralistic  arguments of “good vs. evil” in the doomed fight against drug use and  are asking for the right to make their own choices.
Separating the illegal drug industry from the war industry by  regulating and treating drug use rather than pitching battles makes  sense. We should thank Latin American nations for having the guts to say  so.
Laura Carlsen is the director of the CIP Americas Program, in Mexico City 
www.cipamericas.org . This article was originally published as her column in 
Huffington Post.