i made at. last night director dennis with a central bank and major victory of the world and peered is also a member of some of the world's largest corporations and philanthropic organizations. he holds a master phd. [applause] >> thank you very much. i read almost everything that is published on the subject of trafficking in illicit

trafficking of all kinds and drugs. i have to tell you this is one of the best books i have read in years and i strongly recommend it. first because it breaks one of the patterns those that know don't write books and those that write very often don't know what they're talking about. as a reporter and a thinker and that is a very rare combination of thinkers to stay at home and meditate and reporters go in reporting that they did he does more than that. he reports, observes, collects data and then he is enabled to put it in a context that has a framework that is larger than just reporting. the other thing that makes this book unique is that the debate about drugs and drug trafficking has been dominated by law enforcement, by bob ayres,

physicians, lawyers and the like. more recently, we welcomed the arrival of the economist to the conversation. people try to say after all these are markets and why don't we then use some of the tools we rely on to understand market and all that, which is discouraging. it is a threat. we haven't had a day like this book that essentially takes -- if you look at the table of contents, it reads like the syllabus at harvard business school or any of the business schools. it talks about human resource management and corporate social responsibility and he goes down the items from the subjects

taught at business schools and say let's look how cartels use these things and let's use that and i think it's a temptation was very revealing and demented distortions from a ignorance by the war on drugs. the long practice is just no way of setting the stage to criticize the book. it's very good but i think be more fun for a year and more intellectually interesting and engaging if i tell you some of the things about the book better with debating. the first one and a very interesting omission is if you look at the index, there are three words that you will not buy them. one is money. is financed in the dirt is laundering and the like as money laundering.

he of course talks about that. but i would have loved to have a chapter about finance. how do these people manage their money. by that i may not just financially, but which is great. we attacking about containers full of dollar bills. what do you do with that? you or someone in mexico and you receive a container and is full of piles of half of cash. what do you do with that? you try to moderate. you try to inject it into the financial system and make it more usable and you pay a fee for that. but if a site industry connected to the vertical integration of the dark industry that is very lucrative. huge cover important sophisticated. in recent years amid the industry has had two major distractions. one is osama bin laden and the second is wall street had osama

bin laden distortion of financial markets came after 9/11 and it became clear that one of the main tools was to chase the money. going after the money became an important strategy for those people fighting if you understand the sources of funding of the terrorist networks coming you can get to them. if they created a very significant money laundering regime and the world that created us to the conditions or restrictions and requirements for the financial institutions and how to deal with money around the world. and that of course pass as a collateral damage.

if you're running at your cartel, and new-line as to help us at the problem of dealing with antiterrorist forces in the world. you have enough of the drug enforcement demonstration. you don't want to bringing the others. it is very important materials to keep distance from traffickers and terrorists. but that created a very important new challenge for people in the cartels that winners are the same cartels that the money laundering operations. but they had another disruption. there's a whole slew of new instruments available starting to emerge in the 90s and became quite significant in later years that is a very jaded financial instrument that we are suddenly available for cartels

and not that they solve the problem but they created new options if you wanted to launder money. that is one of the points i wanted to raise. the other that is not in the book has to do with lobbying. tom has a wonderful, wonderful engaging chap during corporate responsibility and you better spend the money i am the goodwill of the communities in which you operate, in which you become seeing that this is a terrible killer, but also someone who will -- finances soccer teams and build sports stadiums and funds churches and gives money away to friends and families. we have seen, though, reactions and pablo escobar was killed, people and maybe come out

lamenting because pablo escobar and his cartel were important elements. so it makes sense that corporate social responsibility, which is actually making a financial and other kinds of effort to gain the sympathy and support of the community is something that corporations do and drug cartels do. what else do highly regulated drug corporations around the world do? the lobby government. they influenced the regulatory systems. this is one of the most regulated industries in the world. in fact, it is so regulated that it is prohibited. but at the same time, it is one of the most lucrative cash-rich operations in the world. so why not assume that elect

trista d. companies and banks and telephone come in and spend all companies, they all spend a chunk of their revenues -- they invested in influencing government, and influence the regulators, and i regulators, and tried to steer the regulatory system in their favor. so why not assume that drug cartels to do exactly the same as they do. and that is why we see their presence in elections. that is why we see, you know, drugs and politics everywhere. that is why we see regulators better with their coworkers were bribed or incentive needed to look elsewhere and it tends to

curse and contain the cartels. that is another very important area that has even larger consequence is that the damage drugs due to the users. in fact, you could argue that drug use affects -- a coarse effects users and is harmful to health. you could also argue that it's harmful to democracy and for society, but even those of us who don't do drugs and i actively engaged in the same with the way the war on drugs is being fought because it is interfering in politics, correcting government and creating all kinds of conditions that affect all of us. and so, understanding from this it is very important and that is also very useful contribution of tom and his book. [applause]

>> i can respond to that. >> first of all, money laundering and sent them that could be on. but by the chance to do a second edition of the book, there could be some more in that. in the meantime a great book available called alyssa by moises naim that covers this book very, very well. on the lobbying, i think that is a very important positive and i cover some of that in the chat or on the way in which the cartels are sharing. they are moving to countries in central america where wages are lower in mexico. you see similar things going on in the cartel business.

this in a low cartels setting up operations in countries like guatemala and honduras. lobbying is part of that really. honduras was the original republican expression comes from the fact the american fruit companies were so easily able to lobby the government that people said that these companies are the ones that really run the place. it's literally a banana republic did now you see something similar. the drug cartels find it in the same way are able to lobby some of these governments very easily because the institutional capacity in these countries is very though in some cases. some of them make mexico a strong date. you do see a lot of this -- they do name is corruption. that's what they are doing than a corrupt people. go ahead.

>> by the way, if you want to check that, too. we are going to offer the floor too late to be called on. keep it short. we are going to start over here. >> good afternoon. thank you for your time and inside. a big fan of all of your work. my name is david medina and i'm finishing up my masters international security at gw. i've seen a lot of this firsthand growing up and i've also seen it on the streets here at the united states. my question to the both of you as what type of business are you

saying that the corporate level is that these contemporary cartels and the organized criminal groups? are you seeing individuals, mbas, masters or phd, high level of education to create the sophisticated networks of trafficking in laundering? >> okay, i will go first. in my experience not so much the question is do you find cartel people with mbas on the whole not, i remembered one trafficker, can't remember who it was, but one mexican trafficker who all has these nicknames, he was relatively -- had a high level of education. generally not. the way that they work his pretty sophisticated, though. the tricks of the trade of businesses.

i don't get the impression the cartel people bucket in fact done and said let's do what they do. they've driven to this same strategies. that's how the mechanism works. sorry i've lost my train of thought. there's another part to your question i think. >> i suppose it the logic of the market could remix a company successful is company successful is the same as what makes a cartel successful. that is one of the whole the cartels mimicked attack takes a successful firms. >> very quickly, there are two generations i think that are the visionaries and pablo escobar was fine. he was the one tom mentioned. these are people that early on,

people than understood sooner than anybody else opportunities created by globalization and technology and markets. and they created very sophisticated business operations without a lot of training. they were instinctual entrepreneurs feared that they were visionaries. then what happened, especially mexico in recent years when tom was there was that the war against the cartels essentially had all of the leaders. what is fragmented to his sacking, or generation, third layers of the hierarchy they are. the new guys are far more crazy, far more operational. so there is a deterioration in the quality of the top management because there is a

fragmentation of the big cartels usually take off many, many cartels run by many leaders who are far more limited in their vision and skills and far more violent than their predecessors in the strategic. in terms of skills and higher education requirement that you mentioned that they may not have it, but they do hire them. they usually have a good lawyers. they usually have pretty good people and technology communications. when i did elicit, i interviewed some of the people trying to get done. they have ip technologies more advanced and more modern sophisticated than what the law enforcement organizations have. they also have very good people.

you may say they are not members of the cartel. they are just service providers. >> hayek, i am also colombian. i'm also a master student. there seems to be a moment of catharsis when a lap american president becomes latin america next president or secretary general becomes an ex-secretary general but they suddenly see the light. we need to work on this and this becomes a vice result. what is your comment on that? why aren't acting public service figures and public servants were active on this? you might type in about legalization issue presumably. when the stinginess we see a few more sitting prez that speaking out more about this. we certainly had the example and

guatemala, no longer such a great example perhaps then what happens to him. but he was a president in office he very clearly said legalization is what we need to do. people will stand by that. you run this campaign of manager at and came into office and said look, i spent my career in the armed forces destroying these fields of opium poppies only to see them grow back next season and it stopped working. we need to change it. you see people like see people like him, people like santos and columbia and a handful of others. but otherwise, the reason really is the penalty you talk about on the whole, you're going to invite this sort of disapproval of important allies such as the united states and you're probably not going to get very far. but it's changing now and seems to be changing things quite a

lot is the way in which the united state itself is experimenting with legalization and legalize marijuana. that has given a license if you like to other countries to go ahead and be more explicit about this. if it hadn't been for the critics they are meant with marijuana here, and medical marijuana and other recreational, it would have been much harder for a country like uruguay or jamaica to go ahead and do the same thing. if you look at something grandma said, what he said about a country like jamaica and it's an issue and has to be interpreted maybe even five years ago. it's a big space.

the pakistan suddenly understand. we may see a change of my friends and we may see more sitting president and prime minister's speaking out in and pushing the issue a bit harder. >> i think tom is exactly right. essentially the short answer to your question is that the prohibition to smoke went to the prohibition to use peak. their prohibition regime created a culture and a narrative that essentially said if you are not for prohibition you must be in favor of totaling legalization and that means you have to park it narcotraffickers or you are not to be trusted as a leader. i'm talking about politicians. i was a member of the commission called the commission for drugs and democracy in the america that included president carlos from brazil, carpio from columbia and people like me.

we spent a couple of years talking to everybody, law-enforcement types, doctors, all kinds of people. we came out with a strong with board recommending the legalization of marijuana. but mostly what we felt was a need to create space between prohibition and legalization. i don't think anybody seriously cannot do that every day for everyone and every time should be legalized. that would be an extreme position that i think is viable. did i do think that there are spaces between total prohibition and legalization, they need to be asked or considered what happens in this result that the social asked them in to a policy which is also what tom suggests in his cover story in the

columns. but the story here is one that needs to create a safe space for politicians to talk openly about the possibility of prohibition. if you are politicians of mark, i interviewed a lot of feet of congress here and they all agreed that you have a very strange situation in which everybody agreed the war and drugs with failing that it could not be changed, which was a very un-american kind of thing because this is the can-do country pragmatic. yes, senators would tell you this is not working but we cannot change it because the politics are not to good while, the politics have moved and now it is safer for politicians to express now about prohibition.

>> yeah, we are going to have one question here. >> thank you. i'm a graduate student at the security studies program. >> i wanted to hear your thoughts on how you see the similarity between the legal enterprises and drug cartels under the length of other not say that there's. thank you. >> sorry. i just want to make sure i understand the question. how i see the similarities between the car doesn't come to master the lines of nonstate. sorry, i didn't quite get what you're getting at. >> some similarities between legal enterprises and drug

cartels. how do you see this same relation between legal enterprises? >> okay yeah, i see what you mean. i mean, it's a good example not just because they're heavily involved in the trip is this themselves. another example has been in the news recently, the so-called islamic state has taken a some of the functions of ordinary companies. it supposedly is involved in a big way in the oil industry in places like iraq. today using ordinary business tactics in that way. trying to think of other examples. people often talk about the way in which islamist terrorist groups have used social media that the mac and gather support

online resources like twitter and facebook and the one and there's something almost company like about the way some of them organized themselves into recruiting. so i suppose in a way maybe it's a subject for a follow-up book. but the idea of using business is to look at nonconventional types of organizations might be one that you could apply that to you. i don't know enough about the marker is some of them to push it much further. i imagine you could extend examples in a similar way. >> i wanted to pick on one recently said. do you believe more drug should be legalized or you have concerns about a particular substance that should be replaced? the mac really good? try to get to the bottom of the economist that you mentioned. i think on balance my position is probably all mainstream drugs

would fare better if they were regulated by doc durst rather. [applause] one place in america where it's safe to say that. is the kiddo went to church. i'm probably preaching to the converted here. i think it's important to make the case when you talk about legalization are not always necessarily talking about a total free-for-all. the way they legalize heroin, it's a very restricted form of legalization run by doctors. i think it is worth sort of making clear that when you really get down to the detail of legalizing and regulating drug, even like marijuana which is relatively safe, you have to make quite difficult situations. just to give a totally uncontroversial at info, which i expect even the most part are libertarians would agree with,

most people would agree with the continuing prohibition of marijuana for children. but that's under 21, but if you like. not that marijuana is legalized, there's questions asked about whether, for instance edible should illegal for concentrates. this does raise an interesting question because as far as i'm tearing, one of the big reasons for legalizing drugs, with its marijuana, or anything else is to take the market away from organized crime. in the case of the edibles market, you are not really doing that. you're actually creating a new market that didn't exist before. said the low cartels did not sell hash brownies. dakota colorado in the shops there and the legal entrepreneurs there have been just what the market does. they come up with a whole range of very good, very appealing products. drinks, sweets, you name it. i think this is a bit of a worry, actually.

but then the legalization of now, there's a political argument brewing because the argument is made up of a quite strange alliance of, you know, real libertarians and neoconservatives. a lot of people who want to legalize drugs or police officers, people that president molina who see it as a more effective way of regulating. they don't particularly think it's everybody's right to do with their body. they see this as a way of getting drugs under control. the question of perjury and legalization, these two sites can get along quite happily. when you come down to a situation that colorado in the discussion to tax it high to discourage consumption or though to kill the black market, sheila edibles, concentrate these two sites which so far have been allied with find themselves on opposite ends of the argument that we don't always going to happen and ends in colorado it's relatively

libertarian and uruguay conservative. i'm interested to see what will happen in places like canada which will probably set the rules that one day we'll follow ourselves in the u.k. and elsewhere. that is the interesting question for me. >> how many of you have been in the marijuana shop in colorado? don't worry. the cameras are not done yet. what do you think should not illegal. >> again, that is the exact question we should be asking. when we say legal or not legal, we need to think about what are the details. the devil is in the details. it has to do with how and if you as the toms said. there are many, many answers -- questions that need to be answered. one could easily say marijuana is relatively easy.

but what about crack and how do you do that? are you really ready to legalize crack and how do you do that and how do you distribute it and who is in charge? which doctors are going to be in charge of prescribing crack? so you know, that is sent in with five very hard. the question should never be legalized or not legalized. that models the conversation get that inhibits the ability of the society to experiment and learn, to find ground to understand what can be tested and tried and perhaps adjusted. and so, you know, i will stay away from everything has to be legalized all the time. it won't work. >> we are going to continue. a gentleman here. and then you.

>> bruce levin said the center for regulatory effect in this. the discussion so far today have all focused on the legal at the cultural substance is, but the federal government may now be embarking on a very different sort of experiment, making the popular legal agriculture subsidies illegal, which should be menthol flavored cigarette, and not get in some places around the world and is currently under consideration in the u.s. could both of you please speculate on how you think the market -- the illicit market and so forth would respond in the event of such a ban? >> good question. i suppose when you buy something -- when you ban something, you will immediately create an illegal market of some sort. menthol cigarettes are bad for a come from in europe. they've been banned for a while

along with any other flavored cigarettes. as far as i know, there actually hasn't been annexed lotion in the legal menthol cigarettes. it seems to have been something phased out relatively straightforwardly. the ideas favors regrets are more likely to appeal to children. there's a similar debate underway that i've read the other day recently in australia a ban on those kind of vodka jelly things that you can buy for the same reason. they look nice. they appeal to children that they are not for children. here i realized i can't -- i don't feel too bad about those bands. i'm in favor of legalizing drugs. but once it's legalized, parts of the benefit of legalization as it gives you the ability to shape exactly what market you have. flavored cigarette in the

streets of alcohol in them, does start to that i don't particularly have a civil liberties problem with is being banned. i tell you it does seem odd to me at the moment, which is the fact the united states in many ways, the cigarette industry is facing stronger restrictions. not least in the business of advertising. if you go to colorado, you see more ads and tobacco and it's because of the agreement a decade or so ago that they would stop most of their advertising. marijuana companies on the other hand have their constitutional rights of free speech and said they use it. it is an odd sort of contrast their in which this new drug that is still banned in many states, marijuana is that the regulated in colorado than tobacco. you get kind of dummy bears in colorado and you soon might not

have menthol cigarettes. there is a weird inconsistency there. having been there be something myself, i'm kind of edging towards the more sort of conservative side of the legalized in fact true. that is kind of wife and myself. as they claim down on things that flavored cigarettes don't really bother me. i can see the strong argument on the other side and i was back it. but i think marijuana regulators to look at things like cigarettes and alcohol insane if we do a cigarettes by the way of marijuana. >> thank you very much. i'm joe katzman, retired foreign service officer with the state department and i spend about 20 years in latin america appear to agree to attend columbia, colombia, venezuela and ecuador. i just wanted to make one observation that is the current

prohibition paradigm really created two industries and one of course is the illicit ones, and that the other is the police present enforcement side and that industry depends on me after. if you knows there is more of a legalization, though the pushback i believe from everybody who depend on massive amount of u.s. and other assisted support police agencies. you have a for-profit prison industry and the united states that depends on the supply of people being arrested for drugs, for consuming drugs. what is your comment on that on the fact that these parallel

industries that depend on each other in a fit from the status quo and both of them at pushback against any legalization? >> it's a good point. one of the appealing things to many people about legalization as it could have potential to reduce the prison population which certainly in this country is extraordinarily hot it is one of the things the number we write about it, we always need a broken y-axis to accommodate the united states. it's really unique in this respect. but you are right for the people who run the prisons. perhaps that might not be so appealing. one thing that interested me in colorado at the other month, i asked the authority asked the authorities there in denver about legalization had done to their policing needs a kid i was expecting him to say great, we

don't -- we have more tend to do other more important stuff. to some extent that's true, but they surprised me by saying simply position it had to hire more police. they say the reason is now with god is quite complex regulatory framework. before there was just a straight or dan. if the police on marijuana to on marijuana they did that was bad. they need that person was breaking the law. there is now in colorado to get a complaint from a neighbor saying my neighbor is going to much cannabis, can you come and sort it out. they will say well, i think there's a half a dozen each. these are mine. the sunspots and my brother-in-law in the side of town. he's quite a big regulatory challenge. so far they've had to hire more people with the nuanced regulations than they had before

to fail to enforce, but to try to enforce the all-out van. i suspect you may find that for all the kind of pro-prison lobby and, you will soon have a powerful lobby on the other side and we are already seated on the cannabis lobby some of the legalization. more and more money is getting behind the pro-legalization initiatives. if you look at the money go into each side of the campaign that i outlined a bit in the book that do guess that his campaign tends to have more funding than the no side because businesses are getting behind it. we know from the past that tobacco companies are the into this as a possible line of business. i suspect that though you will have strong lobbying against you may find the lobby and gave her is soon but it's great.

>> when you see the stereotypes used when describing drug trafficking, like, for example, when the capture of top brokers and, people kept saying the single man ran the cenozoic cartel. we know that is not true entirely. though which i did figures that you mostly hate of the private industry. >> a question. one of the things most frustrating is that prices paid very often you see it reported that there is a big burst of opium poppies in afghanistan with a street value in london of

however many billion pounds. of course it is not worth at that stage in the supply chain. the kind of the numeracy involved in calculating the value for drugs at different stages is an important one. one of the things that really bugs me most if you're talking about the stereotypes, it is the way that drug traffickers have managed to cultivate a reputation as being almost kind of lovable roads. there's a chapter in the book for a talk about their publicity efforts and public relations. and you can see how effect that they've been. you may have heard of howard marks has written an autobiography called mr. nice which is one of his aliases. he describes it as a great kind of enjoyable escapade. and yet he was funneling money into: he aware of is being used, as you know, to murder people in the thousands.

i think this sort of willingness to describe drug traffickers in the split is sort of lovable jokey terms is a real problem actually. it is something people in the rich world just don't get. i come across people in britain and introduced people in the states who are similar who are paid to visit amnesty international and human rights watch and yet the win by cocaine. have you in 1800 bunnies been spent? is the least fair trade business owners. all of this is just evident that what an effective job for traffickers have done to ponder and that is one thing that irks me. i'm proposing is to be absolutely clear about the way he spends his money and that was a deficient b. was far too quick to sort of line and method nothing of the sort as you well know. that would be one thing i would

highlight. >> i would just add that if you want to have the best collection of stereotypes about, just read sean penn in their view. re: you have everything you need to know about the ways of understanding the drug wars. >> did you find references to how much can and should of each drug is problematic because not all of these lead to addiction. marijuana is only a fraction of service are problematic. when it comes to cocaine, a larger share -- how much consumption of this drug is actually problematic? >> been trained to think within the boat. the book is mostly focused on the supply side than they did in

fact. but that the cartels. you can do interesting comparison fair. for some interesting study about them which i believe i said in the book of one point, where the authors compared to the sort of effective dose of particular drugs with a lethal dose. in other words, how much does it take to get you high and how much does it take to kill you. they you. the measure these against each other. i forget the exact figures, but for alcohol to give an example we are all familiar with, the extent of the cape is the ratio something like 10 to one rate debts into one. it takes a couple pints to get a bit drug, if you turn 24 pints you may be at the risk of death. her is just about the lowest it was something like five to one and given the illicit type of is a very you're ready you can be how people overdose quickly if they take something purer than they used to.

thereupon as far as everybody knows is impossible to overdose and many people have tested that theory to destruction. last night's >> will have questions. right over there in the back. >> thank you dammam from the national center on exploitation that links all forms of rotation, rather sex trafficking, prostitution,, et cetera. i would really like to know observations made during your research regarding the sex trafficking and sex industry and i guess at the intersection are parallel and also the second part to my question, what you believe is the root demand of both industries.

>> that's good question. you do find overlap in a cover to some extent in the book in a chapter done on the different industries and to which the cartels are diversifying. pick any other business they are looking for different ways to use the skills they have to make money. but trafficking business, but the trafficking business can they get into that barracks to use smuggling paid what they specialize in this getting things over the border without being detected and that is a skill that can be applied to people and the same way can be applied to drug. what we see as the mexican cartels are getting more and more involved in the business of trafficking migrant. not always the sex. most of the migrants are people who pay a fee to be brought across the border of the room record. in some instances they have been trafficked for exploitation. the numbers on this are quite interesting. the proportion of migrant living

illegally to the united states over the mexican border for the past two decades, the proportion using a people trafficker has increased dramatically. in the 1970s the great majority of people went on the road. it was relatively easy to cross the border. it has been rising steadily and the later survey found that 90 of the legal immigrants use out that they paid trafficker. this as a result of the crackdown at the border which has increased the price as low of the fee abuse and a coyote. you can actually do a chance. i've got one in the book, the number of hours spent policing the border against the average price of services and their perfectly correlated. the more we spend money on enforcing the border, the more we drive it price of the the services of people trafficking. because crossing the borders

were difficult than it used to be, the cartels have a more professional smuggling operation that others are getting more heavily involved in it. for then the test become a nice earner. the majority are people who want to go to work, too straightforward for. a proportion of them are people being trafficked against their will. it's a worried development that the cartels which are so good at getting people are across the border are now turning their attention which is a particularly horrible one. >> afternoon. a master student security policy also at gw. out to thank you today. your books are required reading in one of my classes. there's been a lot of talk today about columbia. the much discussed may be more in depth the upcoming potential peace process and how that can affect the cocaine marketed the

drug trade in general. you have a script that has a huge share in the cocaine business market right now. if they agree to cease could not do the days after the accord, essentially have a huge player act scene abruptly. huddy think that will affect the drug trade in colombia, cocaine trade in colombia and maybe the web in general and maybe possibly speculated the security side of an unfair exit the market, are you going to have a power vacuum and people battling to control the marketing colombia or could there be some different transition we have it being yet. thank you. >> is a very good question. nobody quite knows the answer. but you would wonder i suppose the question i would have with the witch might do businesses do. 11 of the big stories of the past decade is that every 10

countries manage to drive us out of one country, it very often pops up in another one. people talk about the balloon effect sometimes in latin america because sometimes he tried them on the phone room and they take precedent somewhere else if that is what we saw used to beat peru has been made cultivated. they went to columbia, and it went back to career. that's where we are now. as far as i understand it, peru is made provider in the world. i would suspect it's far from a done deal that they will, but if they did, i would keep an eye on peru and bolivia and have a look at that. but unless up with the latest news on the talks to be honest. >> i'm a supporter of the peace process at columbia. i hope it goes well. i hope this site and i hope it works. but those are all hopes.

in essence you can can use tom's approach of using business metaphors to apply to other fields and use it for the peace process and said that essentially what is going on is the governor of columbia is launching a friendly takeover of the franchise. so they buy the franchise. that doesn't it appears that that is that brand. they are to have another brand that replaces that in colombia. it is hard to imagine that just because the government of colombia signed an agreement that the whole industry cocaine

and drugs in colombia will disappear. that vacuum will be filled both in colombia and elsewhere. the good thing it was essentially providing security for drug cartels. i was under the ideology of social redemption, fighting for equality and justice. but they were essentially mercenaries who were providing security to the drug cartels in the drug trafficking operation. how that is gone and they will be replaced as service providers. the others will provide security . as far as when far as what else will happen is a lot about move to venezuela. it is rapidly becoming a failed

state and capable of control borders. a lot of the operations and kingpins are operating in the border and territories and is today the main sewers of drugs in europe. they come from the andes and they are essentially in venezuela, to europe and elsewhere. essentially what will happen is we'll see a transfer of operations for another country and another for organizations. spinach is selected on march 30th we are hosting the event on the peace process at columbia. 4:00 p.m. will have -- debating on the merit of the accord. we have time for one last question. the gentleman with the green tie over there.

>> hello. >> the guy with the green tie. thank you, mr. chairman. this question -- could you comment on the recent initiative sponsored at the u.n. and guatemala and honduras for they are basically out to see that justice is done. do you see these as something necessary in countries that are dominated by cartels like mexico or is there a venezuela. thank you. >> what a great question and what a difficult answer. i don't know, but as you all know what we are talking about at some point there is a guatemala outsiders come the judicial system, essentially

u.n. sanction body came to the side, on a corruption essentially. they had been for the decisions concerning magistrate and all that. tom covered that in detail, so ask them also. so it is a horrible thing when you say as a country i have to recognize that i'm not capable of providing just as, you know, but i have to outsource that because i cannot do it because there's not enough voters are magistrate for people to be immune to the temptations of drug cartels and others. it's a very sad story. but at the same time it's a very practical answer. and so, the answer is i don't know. i think it's a great question.

this is going to be mostly small or weak countries. i cannot imagine mexico and brazil decided they cannot handle the justice system and i'm going to call the polyester rennet you is going to be small countries most way. but you may know much more about this is >> i don't think i do, but i'll quickly add this to the dilemma for them. it reminds me of the extradition question in countries like mexico that this question should they started outsource the whole thing about cap overdo it at home? i'm not sure i know the answer either. i suspect possibly the best thing is compromised whereas in the short term the outside interventions can help. a priority in the long run has to be given the domestic system functioning properly. i see things like guatemala or the equivalent in honduras.

i think they've done good work saved and guatemala. but they can't go on forever. they should probably have a time limit and the emphasis should be on building institutional capacity at home. same with the presents. you've really got to fix the domestic system. >> you said you wanted to have a final word. >> at my final word. i wanted to make sure at some point in the conversation we would raise the issue that we may be fighting the cold war in which we are fighting the war on drugs that are harvested and imported in the next war for the current war out to be drugs that are not harvested and nonimportant been made at home and made here. you know that i'm talking about crystal meth and all kinds of drugs that are synthetic petrochemicals, all of that. that kind of rock are growing quite quickly and are quite

significant. there's a great chapter in the book about the cartels diversifying. the first diversify its ui dimension, they diversify tradespeople strapped income of but they also show some interest in it and post about how they are diversifying into methamphetamine and others have. so it may be the conversation we just sat, imagine the conversation we just had dismounted foot impartation. there's no introduction. there is no fabrication. there is not that any things we discuss here dude not apply in the main drugs we are talking about in the lab and not harvested. instead of being imported from a third work country are made somewhere in the united states. the whole breaking that's an area that i think creates all kinds of analytical challenges that are even less clear than

the ones we have. >> you point out something interesting in the book. he figures suggest that a society has decided to tolerate a certain amount of dealing for as long as about violent. what about when it's producing the drugs here in the united states? >> you are right here there's a big change. historically there's been a division between producer countries like colombia and in the countryside united states. and now we see this lovely now where consumer countries are producing more drugs in countries like colombia consumer drugs if they get richer, they adopt all kinds of middle-class habits including drug taking. if the middle-class bias basically. in some ways this could help the politics of the process. intel body to balance her

countries like the united states and western europe had been quite content to wage the war against drugs which has a terrible cost on the supply side. the costs are not incurred in their countries did they say as far as we can see we will stop the stuff from getting here. things will change on both fronts. if consumer countries are becoming reduced her countries, they are going to think twice about reading a lapse in the same way they suggest they might be in another country. equally you might find that producer countries, with the columbia upper mexico might start thinking about the issue differently if they start getting this sort of epidemic of drug taking of the sort that we've seen in the rich world. ..