There is a major issue that is hardly ever discussed in the western countries, the countries that, because of their consumption of drugs, constitute the real source of the drug problem. As far as I know, the question has never been put forward in the anti-prohibitionist groups either.

In spite of this, the question is a very strongly and dramatically felt one in the countries that produce drugs, and particularly in Colombia. The fact is this: while we wait for the day in which we will be able to solve the drug problem, what is to be done about the big drug traffickers? Of course, the solution to this passes through the legalization of drugs at an international level. However, until this hypothesis becomes reality - and I unfortunately don't think this will happen soon - the drug mafia is corrupting and destroying the demoratic system (or rather, social life in it's whole) of the countries in which drugs are produced, and particularly so in Colombia.

The news recently given by some colombian friends are particularly serious. Panic has taken hold of the main colombian cities (hundreds of people have been killed by the bombs placed by the drug dealers in public premises: buses, markets, banks, even planes...) From 6 p.m. on, people go home and shut themselves inside. A lot of shops have to close down because the situation is getting worse and worse. The fear of dying in an attack is constant.

With this sort of situation, a fiery polemic is dividing the country: should government speak with the dealers in order to stop the ruin of the country? (Drug dealers have guaranteed that they would stop all terrorist actions as long as they are granted that, if arrested, they will not be handed in to the U.S., but judged in Colombia by Colombian justice...a justice that they could easily get away from thanks to the corruption and the fear that they have spread).

From an ethical or legal point of view, it is obvious that there is nothing to talk about with similar gangsters: their hands - apart from the drug traffic in itself - are soiled with too much innocent blood. It would be necessary to deal with them through justice, and with all the strictness and the guarantees given by law.

Now, from an ethical or legal point of view, we would never have come to the agreement which was reached in Colombia with the M19 guerrilla; an agreement that has lead (or shall lead) to amnesty for former guerrilleros and integration in the institutional life of the country.

And from an ethical or legal point of view, the crimes against humanity committed by the long sequel of dictators and accomplices of which we now celebrate the fall in this end of century, should never have been left unpunished.

So many crimes shouldn't have been left unpunished, and yet they have been left unpunished. And if we are deeply moved in front of so much injustice, the fact is that we politically approve of it and we even rejoice about it: in the name of reconciliation, peace, in favour of that extraordinary practice of non-violence that arose in Spain just over ten years ago, and that is currently used in Europe and in the East, whose very un-revolutionary name is: peaceful transition toward democaracy.

And if, in order to establish democracy, so many crimes are left unpunished, why not do the same thing when the safety of the democracy and the life itself of a country are involved? Why not think about how to establish an agreement with drug traffickers? An agreement that would of course make sense only if the traffickers accepted to stop their trade, stop the distribution of drugs, stop shut down their laboratories, and above all stop their mercenaries, their commandos, their armies...

I think we should answer yes to the previous question, but I'm not sure. Like Garcia Marquez in his article published recently by Agorà, I too hesitate and ask myself questions. On the one hand, I know that what I'm saying here in spite of everything helps to give a certain approval - contemptible and shameful - to the kings of organized crime. But I know, on the other hand, that this kingdom and these crimes cannot disappear if not by adopting an anti-prohibitionist legislation at an international level. In other words, the countries that produce drugs, and Colombia in particular, are giving their soul and their blood trying to fight against a drug traffick which would be damaged by anti-prohibitionist actions the same way as a mosquito bite would hurt an elephant. We all rejoiced when "El mexicano" fell the other day. It would be wonderful if Escobar, Ochoa, and all the assassins like them fell too. But we must not hope too much: the drug traffick is so profitable, and misery so deep, that sooner or later

other people would repalce them.

Let's speak clearly: a lot of blood has been shed in Colombia in the war against the drug mafia; but not a single drop of that blood has decreased of one gram the cocaine consumed in the U.S. and in Europe (and never will). Is it therefore fair that such a high price should be payed to obtain this result?

POST SCRIPTUM: After having written the previous text, I've read (thanks to Agorà, of course), the statement of Marco Pannella during his recent visit to Colombia. He talks about the problem I have just mentionaed. And he talks about it with an ambiguity that is similar to mine. On the one hand he says that it's not possible to negotiate with terrorists. That's quite clear. But he also admits that it is necesssary to talk with them. In a word: no to negotiation, yes to talks. Frankly, I see no difference, unless you say talking with them amounts to attempting to convince them, without offering them a counter-party, that they are indeed very nasty, and that it would be kind of them to put their weapons down....This is obviously impossible.