Transform Drug Policy Foundation Blog

Released today: new Count the Costs briefing on the crime costs of the war on drugs

2011-12-15T11:38:00.001Z

Click to download the PDF

This below is reproduced from the Count the Costs blog.

Far from eliminating drug use and the illicit trade,prohibition has inadvertently fuelled the development of the world’s largestillegal commodities market – a market worth hundreds of billions of dollars,controlled solely by criminal profiteers. Produced in collaboration withproject supporters Law Enforcement AgainstProhibition, Transform Drug PolicyFoundation, Release, theInternational Centre for Science in Drug Policy and Harm Reduction International, the latest Countthe Costs briefing outlines how this illicit, unregulated market generates:

Organised crime
Street crime
Mass incarceration
Violent crime
Crimes perpetrated by governments/states
Vast economic costs in terms of drug war-related enforcement

Thebriefing will form a key part of our outreach to mainstream NGOsworking in the criminal justice sector, building on the endorsements Count theCosts has already received from organisations such as the Howard League for Penal Reform and Make Justice Work.

Evidence from across the world reveals that although lawenforcement can show seemingly impressive results in terms of arrests andseizures, impacts on the drug market are inevitably marginal, localised andtemporary. Indeed, as the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimeacknowledges, one of the unintended consequences of the war on drugs is theso-called “balloon effect”, whereby rather than eliminating criminal activity,enforcement just moves it somewhere else. When enforcement does take outcriminals, it also creates a vacuum, and even more violence, as rival gangsfight for control.

The Count the Costs initiative has the widely shared goal ofa safer, healthier and more just world. It is time for all sectors affected bycurrent approaches to drugs, particularly those agencies, organisations andindividuals concerned with crime reduction, to call on governments and the UNto Count the Costs of the war on drugs and explore the alternatives.

Christmas Match Funding Challenge Starts Today! Double Your Gift And Help End the War On Drugs

2011-12-13T14:51:00.000Z

The Allen Lane Foundation, for a second year running, haveoffered us an amazing opportunity to get your gift to End the War onDrugs doubled, and it starts TODAY.

Increasing numbers of politicians, policemen, doctors,journalists, and academics are acknowledging that the War on Drugs has failed.Even the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, which is responsible for enforcing thecurrent approach, has identified huge negative unintended consequences of thispolicy.

Deploying military and police to eradicate drug crops, ever morepunitive enforcement activities, and mass incarceration are expensive andinvariably counter-productive. The drug war is having a particularly devastatingimpact on some of the most vulnerable throughout the world. From Afghanistan, to Mexico, to the UK, leaving the drug trade in the hands of violentcriminals is destroying communities, and ensuring drug related heath harmscontinue to get worse.

Yet, we are now at a once-in-a-generation tipping-pointmoment. This year, we have seen a growing trend towards the decriminalisationof drug possession internationally, and a rising chorus of voices calling for a new approach to drug policy, with public figures such as theGlobal Commission on Drug Policy, (including Kofi Annan and four former headsof state), a former UK Defence Secretary, the editor of the British MedicalJournal, and the serving Presidents of Mexico and Colombia all questioning the war on drugs and calling for reform.

Transform has played a key role in shifting the domestic andinternational debate from the margins to the mainstream, and meaningful reformsare now a very real possibility. We need your help to build on thismomentum and seize this opportunity to end the war on drugs.

If you donate through our website today yourgift could be worth twice as much (and even more with Gift Aid). It's allthanks to the Allen Lane Foundation who will match gifts pound-for-poundonline. And, this year, the pot of matched funding available is worth £70,000 -that means there’s never been a better time to give.

So, please, get your gift doubled right now. And, don'tforget to forward this message to your friends and family too, and help us makethe most of this amazing opportunity to end the War on Drugs and create asafer, healthier world.

We really do appreciate your help. Thank you and MerryChristmas

Caroline Pringle
Chief Executive

An evidence based experiment in the criminalisation of drug use – Czech it out

2011-12-12T13:33:00.000Z

We were surprised and impressed recently when we came across alittle known piece of work that shows how a government, well disposed to usingevidence to influence its drug policy, can employ science to make a positive difference.

Earlier this month Steve Rolles and Danny Kushlick attendedan event at the House of Lords. One of the presentations was by Pavel Bem, a conservative MP in the Czech Parliament. He presented the results of an impactanalysis that effectively paved the way for the contemporary Czechdecriminalisation of drug possession in 2002. The initiative was, in effect, a perfect experiment:

This is the brief history:

1993 Governmental Drug Commission
1993 1st National Drug Strategy - drugs decrminalised for persoanl possession
1998 Criminal Law penalizing possession brought in
1999 Impact Analysis Project (PAD) of the New Drugs Legislation (GDC)
2002 PAD outcomes prove negative impacts
2002-10 New National Drug Strategy and New Penal Code - decriminalises possession

A period of decriminalisation of possession was brieflyinterrupted by recriminalisation. Following an impact analysis of the recriminalisation, showing negativeoutcomes, drugs were decriminalised again.

The following is taken from the TNI’s excellent Drug LawReform in Latin America Website:

The first major post-communist reform of Czech drug laws was completed asearly as 1990. Among other legislative changes that were seen as returns todemocratic and humanistic values, capital punishment and punishment for simplepossession of illegal drugs were abolished.

However, in 1997 a proposal was submitted to the Czech parliament that wouldre-introduce criminal penalties for drug users for possession of any amount ofillegal drugs. The government subsequently submitted its own more modestproposal introducing criminalization of possession, but only for amounts thatwere "bigger than small", which was approved by parliament in April1998.

The law was subsequently vetoed by Vaclav Havel, then president of the Czech Republic.Then, the parliament overturned the president's veto and the amended law wentinto effect on January 1, 1999. Following these turbulent events, the NationalDrug Commission proposed that the government evaluate the impact of the newamendments by means of funding a scientific study.

The researchers were asked to address five hypotheses that the Czechgovernment wanted to have tested. The hypotheses were: "After theintroduction of the penalty for possession of illegal drugs, (1) availabilityof illegal drugs will decrease; (2) number of (prevalence of) current drugusers will decrease; or at least (3) the incidence of new users will decrease;(4) there will be no increase in the negative health consequences related toillegal drugs; and (5) social costs will not increase."

The study, "An Impact Analysis Project of the New Drug Legislation inthe Czech Republic" (October 2001), concludedthat the implementation of a penalty for possession of illicit drugs forpersonal use did not meet any of the tested objectives and was loss-making froman economic point of view.

Download the summary document by clicking on the image below:

The importance of this social experiment cannot beunderestimated. It shows that ifgovernment is willing to operate according to evidence then the policy changecan be made in accordance with it.

Whilst this was not a full impact assessment as weunderstand it, (for instance, it didn’t explore the possibility of legal regulation)it is important to know that this kind of work is possible to conduct and thatif done well, it can affect policy decisions.

Impact Assessment can be conducted at all levels of government, from city to transnational. We call on policy makers at every level to ensure cost-effectiveness of expenditure and demonstrate that key impacts are being achieved. And we ask drug policy activists to pressure them to do so.

For more on Impact Assessment:

Transform has a long standing call for Impact Assessment,supported by a wide range of individuals and organisations.

Liberal Democrats conference motion

European Commission – Impact Assessment of legal highs

International Drug Policy Consortium – Impact Assessment Briefing

2 Literary Stocking fillers – Drugs and drug policy ‘Must reads’

2011-12-12T12:44:00.000Z

Here are two books that would make excellent Christmas presentsthis year. The first is drugs historian,writer, broadcaster and Transform Trustee Mike Jay’s recently updated:

Emperors of Dreams – Drugs in the nineteenth century:

About which Julian Keeling in The New Statesman and Societysaid:

"Intelligent, witty, cogent and a bit pissed off,Emperors of Dreams is one of the best books on drugs I have come across, andshould be mandatory reading for anyone concerned with drug legalisation."

Coleridge and de Quincey swilling bitter draughts of laudanum, Sigmund Freudand Sherlock Holmes dallying with cocaine, Baudelaire and Gautier rapt inhashish fantasies behind velvet curtains, even Queen Victoria swallowing herprescription dose of cannabis - these snapshot images are familiar, but what isthe story which lies behind them? How did cannabis and cocaine, opium andether, mushrooms and mescaline enter the worlds of nineteenth century Britain, Europe and America, and what was their impacton the century’s dreams and nightmares?

Emperors of Dreams paints a fresh and startling picture both of today’sillicit drugs and of the nineteenth century in general. It shows that the ageof Empire and Victorian values was awash with drugs, and traces their coursethrough the rapidly evolving arenas of science and colonial expansion and thedemimondes of popular subculture and literary fashion, putting into context thedrug habits and references of writers as diverse as Coleridge, de Quincey,Baudelaire, Dumas, Conan Doyle, Robert Louis Stevenson, William James andSigmund Freud.

See here for more reviews

The second is former Guardian Society Editor Malcolm Dean’s:

Democracy Under Attack – How the media distort policy and politics

Geoff Mulgan,former Director of the Prime Minister's Policy Unit and the Cabinet Office'sStrategy Unit in Tony Blair's Government says of the book:

"Malcolm Dean has been uniquelywell-placed to witness innumerable policy successes and failures, and the oftendistorted lens through which they have been covered by the media. Thisthoughtful and wise book will be invaluable for anyone working in the mediawho's involved in explaining social policy, and to anyone involved in socialpolicy who needs to get the media on their side."

How big a beast is the media? Can right wing tabloidsinfluence social policy using their ability to fan fears and prejudices? Malcolm Dean, the Guardian's longstanding chiefmonitor of social policy, expertly indicts his own trade through a series ofseven case studies. Drawing on four decades of top level Whitehallbriefings, topped up by interviews with 150 senior participants in thepolicy-making process, the book is packed with new insights, and colourfulstories, from events in Whitehall'scorridors, culminating in a damning list detailing the seven deadly sins of the'reptiles' (modern journalists).

It has a cogent, detailed and comprehensive description of UK drug policyshenanigans from 2000-2007, including contributions from Transform.

Reviewed in Camden New Journal

Its only competition covering this period isin The Diaries of Chris Mullin – A view from the foothills, 2009. Which, amongst other gems, gives the inside dope on Mullin's groundbreaking leadership as Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee Drug Policy Enquiry of 2001/2.

If you are purchasing online, please do it through Transform's Amazon Account, to donate to Transform as you purchase. All books have a link to www.amazon.com where the book is available to purchase. If purchased through these links, thanks to the Amazon Associates affiliate programme, Transform receives a ten percent donation of the cost of the book.

Go on, fill your snow boots!

US Ambassador to Colombia says legalisation debate is 'on the table'

2011-12-07T16:30:00.001Z

An interesting development in the Latin American drug law reform debate this week. In an interview with Spanish newspaper El Pais on Monday (as reported in Colombia reports), US Ambassador for Colombia, Peter Michael McKinley, when the question of Colmbian president Santos' recent remarks on drug legalisation came up, said that the issue 'had to be addressed':

"the issue presented itself several times in the last 20, 30 years, and it is now a question that is on the table, and what is always important in political debates is to analyze the options present."

McKinley, was clear however, said that even though the debate is taking place, the U.S.

"remained opposed to legalization."

According to the report, the ambassador went on to describe Colombia as an important ally of the U.S. in the struggle against narco-trafficking, and praised the evolution of the Andean country over the last decade.

"The transformation of the past ten years in Colombia in terms of security, struggle against narco-terrorism, construction of institutions or strengthening democracy is something not only recognized by Colombians, but by governments on an international level,"

The significant part of this is the opening quote that acknowledges the active debate happening in Latin America, that legalisation is 'on the table' in that debate, and that it is important to analyze all the options. This is ofcourse a long way from endorsing a reform position, indeed he makes the US opposition all too clear. However, the statement is effectively an endorsement of the Santos position - that there needs to be a debate of the options, and legalisation (or as Calderon puts it 'market alternatives') needs to be amongst them.

Even this acknowledgement of the importance of a debate and analysis of options feels like progress in the context of the historically entrenched viewpoint and hawkish drug-war posturing.

Home Affairs Select Committee announces major new drugs Inquiry

2011-11-30T21:15:00.001Z

The Home Affairs Select Committee today announced a major new Inquiry into the UK's drug policy. The terms of reference are as follows:

"DRUGS

The Committee will undertake a comprehensive review of drugs policy in the new year. The Committee will examine the effectiveness of the Government’s 2010 drugs strategy and the UK Government’s contribution to global efforts to reduce the supply and demand of illicit drugs. Specifically, the Committee will consider:
The extent to which the Government’s 2010 drug strategy is a ‘fiscally responsible policy with strategies grounded in science, health, security and human rights’ in line with the recent recommendation by the Global Commission on Drug Policy
The criteria used by the Government to measure the efficacy of its drug policies
The independence and quality of expert advice which is being given to the government
Whether drug-related policing and expenditure is likely to decrease in line with police budgets and what impact this may have
The cost effectiveness of different policies to reduce drug usage
The extent to which public health considerations should play a leading role in developing drugs policy
The relationship between drug and alcohol abuse
The comparative harm and cost of legal and illegal drugs
The impact of the transfer of functions of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse to Public Health England and how this will affect the provision of treatment
The availability of ‘legal highs’ and the challenges associated with adapting the legal framework to deal with new substances
The links between drugs, organised crime and terrorism
Whether the UK is supporting its global partners effectively and what changes may occur with the introduction of the national crime agency
Whether detailed consideration ought to be given to alternative ways of tackling the drugs dilemma, as recommended by the Select Committee in 2002 (The Government's Drugs Policy: Is It Working?, HC 318, 2001–02) and the Justice Committee’s 2010 Report on justice reinvestment (Cutting crime: the case for justice reinvestment, HC 94, 2009–10).”

Organisations and individuals interested in making written submissions are invited to do so by Tuesday 10 January 2012. Submissions should be no longer than 2,500 words. Further advice on making a submission can be found below."

It is a very wide mandate (perhaps too wide?) but the content of the questions is significant, with a clear focus on some of the key themes in the drug policy and law reform debate raised by the groundbreaking 2002 HASC drugs inquiry, and those that have developed subsequently.

Of note is the fact that the Global Commission Report (that made a range of pragmatic recommendations including decriminalisation of drug possession and an experiment with legalisation/regulation) - is mentioned at the outset, and the previous inquiry's final recommendation specifically alluded to at the end. This was:

We recommend that the Government initiates a discussion within the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways—including the possibility of legalisation and regulation—to tackle the global drugs dilemma

So there is a clear focus on the harms of prohibition and the law reform debate - obviously directly reinforced by a number of the other questions.

On past experience it's clear the Committee would not be raising these issues if it wasn't genuinely interested in them, and one senses the positive change in the political climate around this debate, in the media, in mainstream politics, in the public, and in Parliament have all laid the foundations for what could, potentially, be a very important piece of work.

A note of caution should come from the the last time the Committee tackled the drug issue - 2010's report on cocaine - which was very poor, disappointing on almost every front. It's not clear who is driving this latest move, but it's welcome that it is happening and, as with the previous inquiries, we encourage interested parties to provide evidence, particularly those beyond the usual suspects. The Count the Costs initiative provides a steer as to who they might be. Do contact us for help.

New Count the Costs briefing on the environmental costs of the war on drugs

2011-11-30T14:18:00.001Z

The below is reproduced from the Count the Costs blog.

Continuing our engagement with organisations and individualsoutside the drug policy sector, we are today pleased to announce thepublication of the Count the Costs initiative Environment Briefing. We intend to use the briefing to encourage environmental NGOs – such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the World Wildlife Fund – to take a public stand on the drugs issue and advocate for reform. And we urge drug policy reformers and those in the environmental movement to use the briefing to encourage campaigns and policy people in green NGOs to engage with drug policy.

Examining a range ofenvironmental issues surrounding the war on drugs, the briefing includesseveral case studies as well as sections on:

The futility of drug crop eradications
The aerial fumigation of drug crops, a practice that is still permitted in the world’s second most biodiverse country, Colombia
The deforestation that occurs as law enforcement drives drug crop producers into ever more remote and ecologically valuable regions
The pollution caused by unregulated, illicit drug production methods

While some of the consequences of the war on drugs arerelatively well known and understood by those aware of the issue, theenvironmental impacts of current drug policy are seldom given properconsideration. This must change. As this briefing outlines, if theseenvironmental costs are to be minimised or avoided, alternative forms of drugcontrol must be explored.

The briefing is available online as a PDF, with print copiesavailable on request.

Transforming Drug Policy: A Shared Responsibility

2011-11-29T11:56:00.001Z

The column below by Transform's head of External Affairs, Danny Kushlick, was published today on thejournal.ie website under the title: Prohibiting drugs hasn’t worked – so why are we still trying?

PRESIDENT JUAN MANUEL Santos of Colombia spent two days in London last week. He stated quite categorically that “cocaine is killing my country”, and that cocaine users should refrain because they are contributing to the mayhem in Colombia.

This line of argument emerged from a campaign developed in Colombia called Shared Responsibility. His rhetoric is especially interesting because in the Observer he recently called for a debate on the legalisation of cocaine. So what exactly is he saying, and why is it relevant for the people of Ireland?

First, let’s be absolutely clear – it is not cocaine, or cocaine use per se that is killing his country. The chaos and violence emerges from the cocaine market prospering under global prohibition. This is what creates the violence surrounding its production and supply; in precisely the same way that the prohibition of alcohol did in the US in the twenties. So Santos finds himself in a double bind: whilst he and his government have been highly critical, they are necessarily political supporters of the global war on drugs, a venture initiated and heavily backed by the US and other key allies.

The global prohibition of certain drugs (not alcohol or tobacco of course) for non-medical use came into being with the signing of the United Nations Single Convention on Drugs of 1961. The economics of prohibition means that commodities that are mere plants at the point of production, become worth more than their weight in gold by the time they reach Western consumers. There are now an estimated 250 million illegal drug users worldwide.

Tragically and predictably, by the mid 80s, organised criminals, insurgents and paramilitaries the world over had built huge empires on the extraordinary profits (with margins as high as 3,000 per cent) gifted to them by the prohibition. To confuse matters, the war on drugs was now conflated with the war on organised crime. And so the ‘Drug Problem’ was made manifest.

‘The people of Ireland are tacitly supporting the policy that is killing Colombia’

Most UN member states (including Colombia) are signatories to the UN Single Convention on Drugs – including the Republic of Ireland. And that is why Mr Santos’s statement about cocaine is of direct relevance to Irish people. The people of Ireland are tacitly supporting the policy that is killing Colombia.

But it is not just Colombia. Prohibition – the global war on drugs, is killing many others in Afghanistan, Guinea Bissau and Mexico (where over 40 000 have died in drug related violence since 2006). Ireland is a party to prohibition in principle and in law We are all in this together – it is a shared irresponsibility.

A poll earlier this year, commissioned by the European Commission sought the views of young people on drug policy throughout the EU. The highest levels of support for legalisation were from the citizens of Ireland and France, with 21 per cent saying that legalisation is one of the most effective ways of dealing with drugs.

There is clearly a mood to change policy and law, and at the very least to begin a debate on alternatives. So, why can’t a genuine, high-level debate begin? Fear and ignorance amongst both voters and politicians clearly underlie much of the stasis holding the current policy in place, but ‘politics’ is at least as important.

It is instructive to look at the drug policy trajectory of two world leaders – Barack Obama and David Cameron. Both are former users of illegal drugs and both held reform positions before they reached high office. Once in high office their views apparently shifted to more hawkish, populist positions.

‘Alternative views cannot be tolerated’

The fact is that the long standing system of prohibition has created an environment in which alternative views cannot be tolerated, resulting in the increasingly understood ‘retirement syndrome’, whereby recently retired government officials fall over each other to call for legalisation – freedom from political office allowing them to speak their minds.

Irish support for reform is reflected in the work of Paul O’Mahoney’s, The Irish War on Drugs: The Seductive Folly of Prohibition, in the politicking of Independent TD Luke “Ming’’ Flanagan, and the thoughtful policy development of Sinn Fein. In a recent news story, junior health minister Róisín Shortall – who is in charge of Ireland’s drugs strategy – said she had an “open mind” in relation to Portugal’s decriminalisation model. She said she was “particularly interested” in the country’s “yellow card” system, which warns users about their behaviour and tries to steer them away from drugs.

However, if Ireland is to free itself from the shackles of a policy developed in a bygone era, one which preceded the sixties drug culture and the widespread normalisation of recreational drug use, it will require politicians to step up to the mark and call for reform.

Mr Santos’s position is not completely coherent. He is fighting a war on drugs at the same time as calling for a debate about ending it. However, he has taken a courageous stance in calling for a debate on legalisation and regulation (to understand what this might mean see Transform’s groundbreaking book After the war on drugs – Blueprint for Regulation). He has shown leadership, but undoing the global prohibition will take more than that.

In order to transform drug policy into one that is effective, just and humane, UN member states will need to develop a coalition willing to act in concert to challenge the status quo. They will need to call on their peers to Count the Costs of the War on Drugs and explore the alternatives. This is about turning shared responsibility into something more than rhetoric. Putting in place a system of state regulation and control is no panacea.

However, Ireland can share the responsibility for global drug control and support President Santos in raising the debate on legalisation and regulation. Remaining silent on the issue at national and international levels is no longer an option for Ireland or for any other UN member state, for whom the status quo means support for the killing of Mr Santos’s country.

Danny Kushlick is the head of external affairs at the Transform Drug Policy Foundation. For more information, you can visit Transform’s website, blog, subscribe to their Facebook page or follow them on Twitter.

Former president of Brazil calls on NGOs to back the Count the Costs initiative at UK event

2011-11-24T12:50:00.001Z

This blog originally appeared on the Count the Costs website.

Last Friday 18 November, Transform Drug Policy Foundation, in partnership witha group of major UK drug policy organisations, held a private dinner and discussion for a select group of 30 key NGOs from the development, security, human rights and environment sectors at the Commonwealth Club in London. The high-level event featured presentations by the former president of Brazil and chair of the Global Commission on Drug Policy Henrique Fernando Cardoso (available to view below), the former president of Switzerland Ruth Dreifuss (also of the Global Commission) and Eduardo Medina Mora, Mexican Ambassador to the UK and Mexico's former attorney general.

Former president of Brazil calls on NGOs to support Count the Costs from Transform on Vimeo.

The event, Time to Count the Costs of the War on Drugs,formed part of our wider Count theCosts initiative and focused on highlighting the devastating impactof the war on drugs on international development and security, human rights,and the environment. Briefings outlining the costs to these first two sectorscan be downloaded from the Count the Costs website (developmentand security here; humanrights here), and the environment briefing will be available in the nextfew days.

We were delighted by the high-level representatives whoattended our event and the overwhelmingly positive and supportive tone of theevening. While many of the attendees wish at present to remain anonymous, wecan confirm that senior representatives from organisations such as Health Poverty Action, Avaaz, Christian Aid, the Institute for Development Studies and Penal Reform International all came to hear about the costs of the war on drugs to their respective fields.

In addition, following his attendance at the event, JonathanGlennie of the Overseas Development Institute wrote an excellentpiece in The Guardian mentioning Count the Costs and calling on the development community to engagewith the drugs debate.

As a result of this event, and the Count the Costs initiative more generally, we're increasingly confident that mainstream, non-drug policy NGOs will become more and more involved in the drugs issue and help advocate for reform. Indeed, Count the Costs is demonstrating to a range of organisations the extent to which their work is being undermined by current drug policy – and why they need to take a stand on it.

To see the current list of organisations that endorse the Count the Costs initiative, see the supporters page. And, if you haven’t already, please sign up to the Count theCosts statement.

Drug Policy for the 21st Century: Film and Debate

2011-11-17T09:59:00.001Z

On behalf of Transform Drug Policy Foundation Scotland, we're pleased to announce an upcoming event taking place in Glasgow, on 8 December.

'Drug Policy for the 21st Century' will feature the UK premiere of the award-winning Canadian documentary 'Raw Opium: Pain, Pleasure, Profits', as well as a presentation of the recommendations made in June this year by the Global Commission on Drug Policy. This will then feed into an open discussion guided by the following panel:

Jolene Crawford, founder of Transform Drug Policy Foundation Scotland
David Graham Scott, Glasgow-based filmmaker and public speaker on addiction issues
David Liddell, director of the Scottish Drugs Forum
Mike McCarron, board member of Transform Drug Policy Foundation Scotland with three decades' experience working on criminal justice, health and social issues

The event is being hosted by TDPF Scotland, in association with the Scottish Drugs Forum, Addiction Debates and the Royal Society of Arts.

Registration for the event costs £20. To book a place, please email info@tdpfscotland.org.uk, or telephone Mike McCarron on 07833 595 845.

Further details, including a full programme of the afternoon's proceedings, can be found in this PDF.

Sex, Drugs and a Rocky War: A Panel Discussion on Gender and Drugs

2011-11-15T10:09:00.009Z

This panel discussion will take place on Thursday 17 November at the Centre for Culture, Media and Creative Industries (CMCI), Room 7C, Chesham Building, King's College London, Stand Campus, WC2R 2LS.

Panel presenters and topics will include:

Emily Crick - MPhil Candidate at Swansea University - "A Brief History of International Drug Laws and the Absence of Gender"
Jane Slater - Operations and Fundraising Manager, Transform Drug Policy Foundation - "Gender: Counting the Costs of the Drug War"
Francesca Tronco Garcia - former member of the United Nations Office for the High Commissioner of Human Rights in Mexico - "Obscurity and Impunity: An Overview of the Gendered Effects of the Militarization Under the Mexican War on Drugs"

For more information, please read the flyer below.

Parliamentary Motion calls for Impact Assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act

2011-11-11T12:46:00.001Z

The following Early Day Motion has been tabled in the UK parliament

"That this House notes the serious harm caused by drugs; recognises the need for evidence-based policy making with a clear focus on prevention and harm-reduction; and calls on the Government to establish an independent panel tasked with carrying out an impact assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, reviewing the approach adopted by other countries, and making recommendations for reform."

It has so far been supported by

Tom Brake	09/11/2011	Carshalton & Wallington	Liberal Democrat	Proposed
Peter Bottomley	09/11/2011	Worthing West	Conservative	Seconded
Bob Ainsworth	09/11/2011	Coventry North East	Labour	Seconded
Caroline Lucas	09/11/2011	Brighton, Pavilion	Green	Seconded
Julian Huppert	09/11/2011	Cambridge	Liberal Democrat	Seconded
Paul Flynn	09/11/2011	Newport West	Labour	Seconded
John McDonnell	09/11/2011	Hayes & Harlington	Labour	Signed
Andrew George	10/11/2011	St Ives	Liberal Democrat	Signed
Jonathan Edwards	10/11/2011	Carmarthen East	Plaid Cymru	Signed

You can follow the list of signatories of this EDM here, and find out more about EDMs here.

Transform urges UK supporters to contact your local MP and encourage them to support this EDM (see comments below - this can really help, not least because there are many EDMs and MPs are not always aware of them all). You can also be clear that it is a call for an evidence based policy - not any given policy position, or party position.

Transform has been campaigning for an Impact Assessment for a number of years (see here for more information). You can find out more about Impact Assessments by reading this briefing produced by Transform and the International Drug Policy Consortium.

Thousands caned, whipped, lashed or flogged each year for drug and alcohol offences, says new report

2011-11-08T22:42:00.000Z

We are pleased to copy the media release from Harm Reduction International (below) announcing their important new report published today, on the widespread illegal use of judicial corporal punishment for drug offences.

Governments cannot ‘brutalise their way out of a drug problem’, says international group

Thousands of drug users and alcohol consumers – and people found in possession of small amounts of drugs and alcohol – are subjected to judicially-sanctioned caning, flogging, lashing or whipping each year, says a new report.*

In the landmark study, the non-governmental organisation Harm Reduction International** finds that over forty states apply some type of judicial corporal punishment for drug and alcohol offences. The vast majority of these sentences are handed down in countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Iran and Saudi Arabia. According to the report, such state-sanctioned violence is in clear violation of international law. The report will be launched today in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

The use of caning, flogging, lashing and whipping is in direct violation of international law that prohibits the use of corporal punishment. UN human rights monitors have expressed their concern number of times about the legislation in various countries that allow law enforcement to inflict these types of cruel, inhumane and degrading punishments. Judicial corporal punishment is practiced in countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Libya, Brunei, Darussalam, Maldives, Indonesia (Aceh) and Nigeria (northern states) and many more.

'The use of caning, whipping, lashing and flogging as a sentence for drug or alcohol offences is a clear violation of international human rights law, amounting to cruel inhumane degrading treatment or punishment,‘ said Rick Lines, Executive Director of Harm Reduction International.

'Effective drug policies are those that respect human rights, international standards and scientific evidence of effectiveness,’ said Lines ‘Corporal punishment for drug and alcohol offences fails all three of these tests. It amounts to little more that a government trying to brutalise its way out of a drug problem.'

Said Eka Iakobishvili, Human Rights Analyst for Harm Reduction International and author of the report, ‘There is a need for much more analysis on the impact of practices such as flogging and caning on the lives of the people who are subjected to them. These sentences leave lifelong marks not only people’s physical bodies, but on their psychology as well, that is impossible to cure.’

Inflicting Harm: Judicial corporal punishment for Drug and Alcohol Offences in Selected Countries

To view the full report please click here (PDF, 2 MB)

Further information:

Eka Iakobishvili, Human Rights Analyst and author of the report

Mobile: +44 (0) 79 2561 0407

Email: eka@ihra.net

* ‘Inflicting Harm: Judicial corporal punishment for Drug and Alcohol Offences in Selected Countries’ by Eka Iakobishvili. Published by Harm Reduction International, 2011.

** Harm Reduction International is a leading non-governmental organisation working to promote and expand support for harm reduction worldwide. We work to reduce the negative health, social and human rights impacts of drug use and drug policy – such as the increased vulnerability to HIV and hepatitis infection among people who inject drugs – by promoting evidence-based public health policies and practices, and human rights based approaches to drug policy.

Stop the Violence: Cannabis prohibition, organized crime, and gangs

2011-10-28T00:04:00.003+01:00

Stop the Violence BC (British Colombia, Canada) is a new coalition of academics, past and present members of law enforcement, and the general public, concerned about the links between cannabis prohibition in BC and the growth of organized crime and related violence in the province.

Check out the new website here

New animated short video explaining the issues and introduing the new organisation:

From the website:

What is Stop the Violence BC’s objective?

Stop the Violence is an educational campaign seeking to improve community safety by broadening the public’s understanding of the link between cannabis prohibition and gang violence. Guided by the best available scientific evidence, Stop the Violence BC is calling for cannabis to be governed by a strict regulatory framework aimed at limiting use while also starving organized crime of the profits they currently reap as a result of prohibition.

Why are you calling for the regulation of cannabis?

Using regulatory tools proven effective at reducing tobacco use will undercut the huge profits cannabis driving violent organized crime in BC. Not only that, cannabis regulation may also improve community health by making cannabis harder for young people to access, lessening cannabis grow-op associated property damage, and freeing up law enforcement resources to focus on criminal activity where law enforcement can reduce harm.

This initiative is being launched with a new report that 'outlines the links between cannabis prohibition in BC and the growth of organized crime and related violence in the province. The report also defines the public health concept “regulation” and seeks to set the stage for a much needed public conversation and action on the part of BC politicians'.

Click image to read:

New feature documentary: 'Cocaine Unwrapped'

2011-10-27T12:12:00.001+01:00

Transform is pleased to support the upcoming release of new feature documentary 'Cocaine Unwrapped' directed by Rachel Seifert. Below is the film trailer, and a description of the film - followed by details of the upcoming preview screenings in Liverpool (Nov 1st)and London (Nov 10th), and the public premiere on Nov 29th. We have also included a video of a recent episode of Cinepolitics in which Steve Rolles from Transform discusses the film.

Trailer:

Film description from the film makers Dartmouth films;

"This film is the story of cocaine – from production to consumption, as it journeys from the USA to the countries of Latin America. Between scenes we hear from the Western consumers who are unaware of the reality of the trade which their consumption supports. Major Neill Franklin was a police officer for 33 years on the streets of Baltimore. As he drives around the now devastated, boarded up and frequently deserted streets of his community he explains how the decline of industry pushed many heads of households into illegal drug dealing. Incredibly, as he describes how a drugs deal is done on the streets, we see one played out in front of our eyes. Streets where once it was fun to live are not now safe – even in the daytime. Drawing on his experience as a law enforcement officer, Franklin is certain that the USA’s drug policies need to change.

In Columbia 140,000 members of the police are fighting the war on drugs – one of them, Lieutenant Jose Castro takes us on an operation to manually eradicate a coca plantation which, as the country’s vice president explains, is a key part of the war against drugs, which in his country is tied up with paramilitary and criminal gangs. But for Maria, a small farmer in the Tumaco region, the indiscriminate aerial spraying kills not just her coca but her chocolate, banana and yucca plants. As local community leaders explain, the programme causes ill health, economic stagnation and massive displacement of the population. Cesar Gavira, president of Columbia from 1990-94, believes that the social damage caused by the war against
drugs is “terrible….it destroys the lives of people who are not criminals and who are just trying to survive.”

Bolivia is taking a different approach. As president Evo Morales explains, coca leaf in its natural state is not cocaine – it is just a leaf. But for twenty years, until 2005, with the support of the USA the Bolivian government waged a war against coca growers, causing death and destruction. This all changed when Morales was elected president and allowed farmers to grow limited amounts of coca, as we hear from Lucio, a local farmer. At the meeting of the Chapare Coca Growers Union the local co-ordinator Tomas Rejas urges his members to support the government policy of reducing overall production, switching to other crops. And at the Windsor tea factory we see how coca tea is made for the consumer market – but a market which Bolivia cannot exploit because the UN Vienna Convention limits its export. Bolivia not, however, a cocaine free country, as we see when we join the Bolivian anti-drug police as they discover – and destroy – a cocaine factory in the jungle.

As Bolivia abandoned the war against drugs, Mexico stepped it up. We arrive in Cuidad Juarez as the police discover the body of yet another victim of the internecine battle between the drugs gangs. A local journalist, Luis, explains how the level of violence has escalated in recent years, showing the rows of graves already dug to bury the victims. We hear of violence and intimidation from both former gang members and lawyers. As Sanho Tree, of the Institute for Policy Studies explains, the government intervention destabilised the illegal trade, sparking the escalating war in which, as opposition senator Carlos Navarette claims, has led to the corruption of the police and state. Attorney General Medina Mora is convinced that the government is doing the right thing to create peace and security but points out that there would be no problem is there was no demand.

In Ecuador another South American president is taking a different tack than in the past. Rafael Correa, whose father spent three years in an American prison for drugs trafficking, has pardoned and released over 2000 women drugs mules. People like Theresa, who points out that it is not enough just to be let out of prison – there need to projects to help people earn a legal living. Visiting the women in prison we learn how many became mules out of necessity – widowed, with children but without education, this was the only route out of poverty.

Finally we return to the streets of Mexico and Baltimore. In Mexico we see children as young as 10 who have been drawn into a cycle of street living, drug taking and begging. People like Dr Huber Brocca are running a shelter to help get them off drugs but his hope is that the war on drug is replaced by a war on poverty. And in Baltimore we meet prisoner Erik Thompson, a street dealer imprisoned for 25 years – more than some murderers, more than some paedophiles. As Neill Franklin concludes – incarceration is not solving the problem, it is destroying communities. Gil Kerlikowske – President Obama’s drugs “czar” says that in future there will be a more balanced strategy, combining treatment and prevention as well as enforcement. But as the concluding contributions from many of the film’s contributors say: this is a problem of the West – we are the consumers who create the demand."

Cocaine Unwrapped – Preview Screenings

1st November screening at Picturehouse at Fact Liverpool at 6pm.
Tickets available here

10th November screening at Stratford East Picturehouse in London at 8:30pm.
Tickets avaialable here

Cocaine Unwrapped – Public Premiere
29th November screening at Curzon Soho in London (tickets for this not on sale yet)

More information:

Cocaine Unwrapped website
Facebook page
Twitter

Cinepolitics discussion of the Film:

Majority in US support cannabis legalisation for the first time

2011-10-19T11:33:00.003+01:00

An interesting development this week in the US, as support for legalisation of cannabis/marijuana finally achieved a majority - with the latest Gallup national polling showing 50% in favour and 46% opposed. This landmark follows years of growing support for the move despite increasing efforts to undermine the reform campaign by various state and federal agencies - and little support from members of congress or the senate.

It is impossible to tease out precisely what has led to this progressive shift in public opinion. Presumably it has been a combination of factors including:

A growing realisation that the more hyperbolic reefer madness propaganda of the past was just that.
A demographic shift, as current and former users progressively become a larger part of the electorate, and also move into positions of influence.
Growing disquiet over the human and financial costs of mass arrests for cannabis possession offences, particularly at a time of economic crisis.
The success of the California ballot initiative last year in planting in the public's mind the idea that legalisation is probably inevitable, and could mean controlling, regulating and taxing the industry - not a free-for-all
The success of decriminalisation models for cannabis possession in a number of US states, and other more far-reaching reforms in Europe (e.g. Dutch coffee shops and Spanish cannabis club models).
The growing US medical cannabis industry demonstrating that a regulated market model can exist without creating significant problems.
Increasingly effective and sophisticated campaigning from the reform movement that has pushed the reform arguments into the mainstream public discourse

What is more, these results have even been achieved with a simple 'do you support legalisation: yes/no?' question. When the question is framed as 'legalisation and taxation', or 'legalisation with restricted sales to minors' - support rises even higher. This points to the importance of being clear about the regulatory models being advocated - rather than just pointing to 'legalisation' - which is a process not an actual policy model, and is frequently misunderstood to mean abandoning all controls.

In any case, US politicians will no longer have the excuse of following (or pandering to) public opinion - rather than showing principled leadership. Support for legalisation could now be an electoral strength rather than a liability, depending on which constituency a politician is targeting - as the breakdown of support below reveals:

Interestingly, in the UK after years of a similar pattern of growing support, we have seen something of a retreat from approaching 50% support, to nearer a third - although it depends how you ask the question. This probably results from more potent indoor grown cannabis (or in the media - 'skunk') becoming increasingly prevalent in the market, and the perception (correct or not) of its increased risk influencing views on whether cannabis more broadly should be legally regulated or not (regulation obviously allows controls on strength potency to be put in place, whilst prohibtion has arguably fuelled the 'skunkification' of the UK market). The more fevered Skunk related 'reefer madness' media coverage that accompanied the cannabis reclassification saga did not help.

None the less, where the US leads on drugs, the UK follows. If public opinion converts into actual reform - whether at state or federal level - it will be hugely significant for drug policy reform internationally, with a number of Latin American countries already indicating they would have to follow suit.

The hope is that if and when it does happen in the US, they do it properly. There is a concern amongst many European reformers that a US model might be overly commercialised; and that an inadequately regulated cannabis market could lead to some of the same problems with marketing and promotions that we have seen with the alcohol and tobacco industry in the last century, only now beginning to be addressed. In short, if the US move towards cannabis legalisation, that would be great, but if they do it badly, it could end up holding back reform elsewhere.

Finally, here's a great rant* about this recent development from Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC news.

*I'd take issue with the description of cannabis as 'harmless'

ACMD repeats call for decriminalisation of drug possession

2011-10-14T12:54:00.000+01:00

In its submission to the drug strategy consultation last year, the ACMD effectively called for the decriminalisation of drug possession for personal use of all drugs. The term 'decriminalisation' is rather ill-defined, and often misunderstood as either legalisation, or removal/complete repeal of a law. Given this, the ACMD understandably avoided the term - opting instead for diversion, which perhaps more usefully describes what they were suggesting (even if they were also unambiguous about not being 'processed through the criminal justice system'). The wording they used was as follows:

"The ACMD believe that there is an opportunity to be more creative in dealing with those who have committed an offence by possession of drugs. For people found to be in possession of drugs (any) for personal use (and involved in no other criminal offences), they should not be processed through the criminal justice system but instead be diverted into drug education/awareness courses (as can happen now with speeding motor car offenders) or possibly other, more creative civil punishments (e.g. loss of driving licence or passport). If, however, there were other trigger offences (e.g. theft, burglary etc) then the usual test and treatment procedures would occur. Such approaches may be more effective in reducing repeat offending and reducing costs to the criminal justice system.

There should be “drugs awareness” courses to which those found in possession can be referred as a diversion – this would be the equivalent of the apparently successful “speed awareness” courses to which drivers can be referred as a diversion. These could also be available to those being conditionally cautioned where there is evidence of drug use. "

For some reason this didn't attract the attention of the media - somewhat oddly given recent history on arguably less contentious issues such as minor changes in penalties for cannabis possession. The inclusion here of the '(any)' making this a much more significant call in practical terms. Presumably no journalists actually read the whole document (consultations are famously tedious), and with organisations like Transform choosing to let the ACMD manage it as they saw fit, and no press releases emerging, it has remained largely under the radar. The only public sighting was in the recent LibDem drug policy reform motion - but even the considerable media this attracted didn't seem to draw attention to the ACMD call.

The ACMD has now repeated the call in its submission to the Sentencing Council consultation on drug offences. The specific issue of non-criminal sanctions for possession offences was (somewhat absurdly given developments around the world), outside of the remit of the consultation. The ACMD has chosen to include the call (using almost identical text to that included in the strategy consultation submission) in part of their response to the open ended final question: 'Are there any further comments that you wish to make?':

"The ACMD also believe that there is an opportunity to be more creative in dealing with those who have committed an offence by possession of drugs. For people found to be in possession of drugs (any) for personal use (and involved in no other criminal offences), they should not be processed through the criminal justice system but instead be diverted into drug education / awareness courses (as can happen now with speeding motor car offenders) with concomitant assessment for treatment needs (if the person consents), or possibly other, more creative civil punishments (e.g. loss of driving licence or passport). If, however, there were other trigger offences (e.g. theft, burglary etc) then the usual test and treatment procedures would occur. Such approaches may be more effective in reducing repeat offending and reducing costs to the criminal justice system. There should be “drugs awareness” courses to which those found in possession can be referred as a diversion – this would be the equivalent of the apparently successful “speed awareness” courses to which drivers can be referred as a diversion. These could also be available to those being conditionally cautioned where there is evidence of drug use."

Whether anyone notices this time or if there is a fuss as a result, remains to be seen (it has been reported in the Times and NI stablemate Fox news and is popping up on twitter). It is, on the face of it, a very reasonable proposition, argued with reference to efficacy as you would hope from the Council, and making a useful parallel with the manner in which driving offences are dealt. The call has presumably been informed by growing evidence of such diversion schemes in various Latin American and European countries, most prominently Portugal.

A tweet from the Guardian's Alan Travis notes that the Home Office has stated in response that "We have no intention of liberalising our drug laws"- the standard line they use when any such reforms are mooted (failing to engage with the argument or evidence in any way). This may now prove to be inadequate, given that the call has come from the body of experts appointed by the Home Office under the auspices of the Misuse of Drugs Act, and operating within the Home Office. A ministerial response may be necessary - although neither ACMD statements were directed to a minister specifically.

However this now develops it is a welcome move from the sometimes timid ACMD, and inspiring to see they have not been cowed by the political heat that followed the David Nutt debacle.

UNDP Commission on HIV and the law looks at decriminalisation

2011-10-07T18:32:00.000+01:00

The Global Commission on HIV and the Law, convened by the United Nations recently concluded the last of 7 regional dialogues, the high income countries' dialogue held in Oakland, California.

The objectives of the Commission are to:

Analyse existing evidence and generate new evidence on rights and law in the context of HIV, and develop rights-based and evidence-informed recommendations
Increase awareness amongst key constituencies on issues of rights and law in the context of HIV, and engage with civil society and strengthen their ability to campaign, advocate and lobby

Part of the focus of the commission's work has been to look at criminalisation of certain lifestyles and activities - including drug use, sex work, and men who have sex with men - and consider the potential impacts of such legal and policy environments in shaping the HIV epidemic and responses to it. It is notable that the idea of decriminalisation of personal drug use (as well as sex work and MSM) is not taboo and is widely supported within the historically pragmatic HIV policy arena. At UN level a number of agencies have made clear statements supporting decriminalisation in this context, including UNAIDS, and the General Secretary Ban Ki Moon;

“I urge all countries to remove punitive laws, policies and practices that hamper the AIDS response… Successful AIDS responses do not punish people; they protect them… We must ensure that AIDS responses are based on evidence, not ideology, and reach those most in need and most affected.”

Michel Sidibé, UNAIDS Executive Director, Joao Gulao, Gill Greer,

Tim Barnett and Festus Mogae (Former President of Botswana) agreeing

on an anti-discrimination resolution at the Leaders on Discrimination

session the 18th International AIDS Conference in Vienna, Austria on

22 July 2010 (image thanks thebody.com).

Transform's senior policy analyst Steve Rolles was invited to join the expert advisory group for the High Income country dialogue, reviewing the background papers on the drugs issue and abstracts from civil society groups for the high income countries region in the run up to the Oakland dialogue.

Perhaps suprisingly, given the key role of policy and law in shaping risk taking behaviours amongst people who inject drugs (most obviously needle sharing), there were disappointingly few submissions from drug policy or harm reduction organisations. Steve was invited subsequently to attend the dialogue, joining - in the drug section of the dialogue - a drug policy activist from Portugal, representatives of the Drug Policy Alliance, a harm reduction service provider from North Carolina, and a fomer special adviser from the White House ONDCP. The session video will be available online at some point (we will update this post and tweet when that happens).

Civil society groups were joined by Government representatives for the two day dialogue. Two US members of congress were present as were two of the 15 commissioners.

Congressman Jim McDermott (Right) among the participants

Dialogue moderator, BBC World's Nisha Pillai

Participant Deon Hayward from US based Women with a Vision

Congresswoman (and HIV and the Law Commissioner) Barnara Lee

Transform had the strong sense that the Commission report - expected early next year - will be based soundly on the voluminous evidence it has gathered from around the world on effective responses to HIV - making clear and unambiguous recommendations free from ideology and historic political taboos that have dogged many of these issues. It should be a strong advocacy tool for drug policy in the future - and a yardstick against which governments' drug policy responses in the context of people who inject drugs and HIV can be measured.

Whilst it will not be venturing into issues of regulated drug markets, it is likely to make a clear call for decriminlisation of drug users - and be very supportive of proven harm reduction interventions including needle and syringe programs, opiate substitution therapy (and hopefully heroin prescribing as an option), harm reduction provision in prisons and supervised injecting facilities.

From the Commission website:

Global Commission on HIV and the Law

Many of the successes in mitigating the causes and consequences of HIV have taken root where laws have been used to protect the human rights of the marginalized and disempowered. For example, in some countries anti-discrimination laws have helped people living with HIV keep their jobs and their homes and look after their families. Laws to protect confidentiality have contributed to increasing confidence in heath systems, encouraging people to learn their HIV status and to access HIV prevention and treatment. Legal guarantees of property and inheritance rights for women and girls have helped to mitigate the social and economic burdens of AIDS. Still in many places across the globe, the legal environment is presenting significant challenges for sustaining and scaling up effective HIV responses. In many countries, laws and policies continue to prevent access to life-saving HIV treatment. Every day people living with HIV and people most at risk, including sex workers, drug users, prisoners, men who have sex with men, and transgender people, suffer stigma, discrimination and violence. Laws and practices that discriminate against women or fail to protect their rights, including the right to be free from violence, make women particularly vulnerable to HIV.

The Global Commission on HIV and the Law will interrogate the relationship between legal responses, human rights and HIV. The Commission shall also focus on some of the most challenging legal and human rights issues in the context of HIV, including criminalisation of HIV transmission, behaviours and practices such as drug use, sex work, same-sex sexual relations, and issues of prisoners, migrants, children's rights, violence against women and access to treatment. The Global Commission on HIV and the Law will develop actionable, evidence-informed and human rights-based recommendations for effective HIV responses that protect and promote the human rights of people living with and most vulnerable to HIV.

Lib Dems can lead the way on drug policy

2011-09-16T14:45:00.000+01:00

Update 19 Sept 2011 - The Lib Dem Motion "Protecting Individuals and Communities from Drug Harms" was passed by conference, and is therefore now Lib Dem Party policy. Watch the full conference debate you tube here .

(This Blog originally appeared on politics.co.uk)

The Lib Dems have long held the most reasonable, evidence based drug policy of the three biggest UK parties, and if passed, their latest drugs motion would build on that history in grand style. At its heart is a call for a rather dull sounding “Impact Assessment” of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MDA) by an independent panel, to compare all the costs and benefits of the current approach to drugs with alternatives, such as Portuguese style decriminalisation of possession, and models of legal regulation including for cannabis, and Swiss-style heroin prescription. This is an eminently sensible approach that would allow future drug policy to be based on evidence of what works, rather than political rhetoric or tabloid fever.

But make no mistake – it would be truly groundbreaking. Firstly, none of the many previous reviews of drug policy have done this kind of comprehensive comparison. (In the US, the Drug Czar’s Office is actually banned from doing research that might show benefits from legal regulation.) Secondly, it would also be far harder to ignore because it would have been Government initiated, originate from Lib Dem Party Policy, and be of huge public interest, like the recent Banking Review.

Yet an Impact Assessment of this kind is not radical - it is the gold-standard approach for assessing public policy the world over. In fact, if the Misuse of Drugs Act were introduced today it would be required to have one carried out on it in advance of enactment, and after 3-5 years to see if it is actually doing what it was intended to.

This has been a requirement for all Acts of Parliament since 2005 for the very good reason that laws often have unintended consequences, and it makes sense to assess whether they outweigh the benefits. And if there is one thing everyone agrees about in drug policy it is that the MDA (and similar legislation in other countries) was not intended to create a huge criminal market; undermine international development and security; increase health harms including HIV/AIDS; promote stigma and discrimination; lead to deforestation and pollution, and undermine human rights all over the globe (see countthecosts.org for details). Yet even the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, which oversees the system of global prohibition, acknowledges it has created all these ‘unintended consequences’.

Would such an Impact Assessment be possible? Despite what the current and last Government have said, yes it would be – which is why the European Commission is starting one looking at different approaches to controlling new synthetic drugs - so-called ‘legal highs’. What if there are gaps in the research base? Then one of the key things an IA can do is identify them and provide guidance in prioritising which gaps should be filled first, and which are not crucial to forming an overall conclusion. That is why an Impact Assessment approach is endorsed by a range of NGOs and academics from various sectors affected by drug policy, and politicians from all parties, including the Conservative Peer and Professor of Government Lord Norton, who was the prime mover in making Impact Assessments obligatory for all new Acts. Impact Assessments may not make for great sound bites or lurid tabloid headlines, but they do result in better policy, and at a time of severe cuts, there is a pressing need to ensure all public spending is as effective as possible.

This motion is also timely. Globally, the tide has turned, and ever more prominent statesmen and women are calling for an end to the failed war on drugs and its replacement with models of legal regulation based on science, public health and human rights principles. Those voices now include the former Secretary-General of the UN Kofi Annan, seven former Presidents including of the US, Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Honduras and Switzerland, and the current Prime Minister of Greece, not to mention senior doctors, police, academics and religious leaders. In response, the Tory and Labour frontbenches continue shouting; “Drugs are bad for you, ban them” whilst refusing to explore different approaches – even when shown to work in other countries. That is not principled leadership, and looks increasingly irresponsible.

The Lib Dem motion is only part of a much broader, growing global campaign for a full review of the War on Drugs, and all the alternatives. The War on Drugs: Count the Costs project (www.countthecosts.org) was launched this year to mark the 50th Anniversary of the UN Convention that underpins the current approach. It is bringing together groups and individuals from every sector affected by drugs, and every region. We might have a range of views on what we should do about drugs, but we share a commitment to make the world a safer, healthier place. As a result we also share one simple aim – let’s count the costs of the war on drugs and explore the alternatives, so we can base drug policy on evidence of what works. And an Impact Assessment of the UK Misuse of Drugs Act would be an excellent place to start.

Former Colombian president writes foreword for new Spanish translation of 'After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation'

2011-09-13T10:27:00.000+01:00

With the ever increasing importance of Latin America to both the debate around drug policy, and the politics of ending the failed drug war, Transform is pleased to announce the Spanish translation (PDF) of our book 'After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation'. We are also delighted to announce it has a new foreword by César Gaviria, former president of Colombia, and member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy.

Transform's Head of External Affairs, Danny Kushlick, is currently in Mexico, at the III Conferencia Latinoamericana y I Conferencia Mexicana sobre Políticas de Drogas, promoting the translation of the book, along with the new Spanish Count the Costs website and briefings.

Below is former President Gaviria's foreword in English, followed by the Spanish:

We are on the brink of a substantial shift in international drug policy that will transform the entire globe. After decades waiting in the wings, alternatives to prohibition are now firmly on the negotiating table for discussion. The media’s overwhelmingly positive response to the report from the Global Commission on Drug Policy, (on which I am proud to have sat as a member), has shown that there is a big appetite for change.

This Spanish translation of ‘After the war on Drugs – Blueprint for Regulation’ is so relevant now because of the overwhelmingly catastrophic impacts of the war on drugs in Latin America, but also because there now exists here an appetite for progressive reform. In the last year the presidents of both Colombia and Mexico have called for an evidence based discussion of alternatives, including legal regulation.

When it happens, the shift to legal regulation will result in major benefits for states significantly involved in production, transit and consumption of currently illegal drugs. However, the positive repercussions will ripple out far wider and ultimately will bring benefits for all of us – increasing security, promoting development, bolstering democracy and upholding human rights. All of which are close to my heart, from my time as Secretary General of the Organisation of American States, of which these policy principles form the four pillars.

However, it is not all plain sailing. The US has led other UN member states to object to Bolivia’s request to amend the UN Single Convention to allow indigenous coca chewing, because they claim it would jeopardise the ‘integrity’ of the 1961 UN Single Convention on drugs. ‘Integrity’ implies that the overarching system of drug control is “unimpaired, sound, essential and complete”. Every report on drugs from the last ten years shows this to be very far from the truth. None has gone anywhere near giving the current regime a clean bill of health, and in fact most have questioned both its underlying principles and its outcomes, including those from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime itself.

It would be more apt to describe the current system as ‘corrupt’, in its original sense, meaning rotten and broken. From its conception the UN drug control system has been split in two. In 1961 the Single Convention on Drugs formulated a strict system of regulation on the production, supply and use of drugs for medical use, whilst at the same time constructing an absolute global ban for non-medical production, supply and use.

These control regimes produced two very different markets – one regulated by governments and subject to international trade agreements, the other run by organised criminals, insurgents, paramilitaries and corrupt officials, completely beyond the control of governments or supranational agencies. It is this latter market that afflicts states as far apart as Afghanistan – where the rule of law is significantly undermined by their involvement in opium production, Colombia – whose governance is compromised by the catalysing influence of cocaine in supporting the activities of insurgents, paramilitaries and parapoliticians, Guinea Bissau – where the fragile state collapsed into a narcostate when it became part of the new cocaine transit route, and Mexico – where turf war violence has led to tens of thousands of the most horribly violent deaths in the last few years.

And yet, at the same time, legal cocaine is produced for the medical market, without undermining regional or global security, and opium is grown all over the world for both pain control and for the treatment of addiction, without undermining development in fragile states or contributing to crime and criminality. The only conclusion we can draw from these contrasting examples is that it is the control regime that determines the efficacy of the outcomes. The opium poppies swaying in the breeze in fields in India, Tasmania and the UK will travel a vastly different route than those grown in the fields of Southern Afghanistan.

As this ‘Blueprint’ demonstrates in some detail, drug regulation is anything but a step into the unknown. The parallel, legally regulated drug market has a long history and a robust evidence base that shows both its strengths and its weaknesses. One lesson we must learn from our experience is that governments must intervene with more vigour in the alcohol and tobacco markets. Multi-national companies that hold profitability as the highest priority are unlikely to hold their customers’ health in the highest regard. No one with a serious interest in the needs of the disadvantaged and vulnerable would countenance the free sale of heroin from unlicensed vendors, (as is currently the case for tobacco).

‘After the War on Drugs – Blueprint for Regulation’ describes three basic options for government regulation – prescription, pharmacy dispensing and licensed sale. Given that the UN estimates that there are up to 250 million users of illegal drugs, it is perverse in the extreme to leave the trade that supplies them, in the hands of organised criminals and unregulated dealers.

The world needs, and deserves, a control regime that is not corrupt, that has genuine integrity – that is sound, complete and whole – that is democratic, and delivers security, development and health within a human rights framework. I am realistic. I believe it could take another ten years to turn this ‘Blueprint’ into reality. It is a tragedy that in the next decade many thousands more will die using dirty drugs or trying to stop, or fighting over the spoils of, the illegal trade. At the same time we will collectively waste another trillion dollars on the global war on drugs.

But positive steps in the right direction are already underway and public support for reform increases inexorably. Decriminalisation of drug users is gaining ground in several Latin American countries and experiments with the legal regulation of cannabis are almost certain to start in several places within a few years time.

I commend readers of this book to pass it on to politicians who have the power to implement its conclusions. It will prove an invaluable resource for those seeking an exit strategy from the drug war and a solid foundation for peace and security in Latin America and beyond.

César Gaviria
former President of Colombia
June 2011

Nos encontramos al borde de un significativo cambio en cuanto a políticas internacionales sobre drogas, un cambio que transformará todo el planeta. Tras décadas de esperar su turno por salir a escena, las alternativas a la prohibición se encuentran ahora firmemente colocadas en la mesa de negociaciones para ser discutidas. La respuesta abrumadoramente positiva de los medios de comunicación al informe de la Comisión Global sobre Políticas de Drogas (a la cual me enorgullezco de pertenecer), ha mostrado que existe una enorme sed de cambio.

Esta traducción al español de “Después de la Guerra contra las Drogas – Una Propuesta para la Regulación” es tan relevante ahora debido a los abrumadoramente catastróficos impactos de la guerra contra las drogas en América Latina, pero también porque ahora existe aquí gran entusiasmo por una reforma progresista. Durante el último año, los presidentes tanto de Colombia como de México han formulado llamados por una discusión basada en evidencias sobre estrategias alternativas, incluyendo la regulación legal.

Cuando ocurra el cambio hacia la regulación legal, éste resultará en importantes beneficios para los países que se encuentran involucrados de manera significativa en la producción, tránsito y consumo de drogas actualmente ilegales. Las repercusiones positivas, sin embargo, se expandirán mucho más allá de estos países y, en última instancia, nos beneficiarán a todos – incrementando la seguridad, promoviendo el desarrollo, reafirmando la democracia y ratificando los derechos humanos. Todos estos valores los llevo muy dentro de mí, desde la época en que fui Secretario General de la Organización de Estados Americanos, cuyos cuatro pilares coinciden con estos principios de política.

Éste no será, sin embargo, un recorrido sin tropiezos. Los EE.UU. han llevado a otros Estados miembros de la ONU a objetar la solicitud de Bolivia de enmendar la Convención Única sobre Estupefacientes de las Naciones Unidas para permitir que poblaciones indígenas mastiquen hoja de coca, afirmando que ello amenazaría la “integridad” de la Convención Única de 1961. “Integridad” implica que el sistema global para el control de drogas es “intacto, sólido, esencial y completo”. Cada informe sobre drogas de los últimos diez años muestra que ello está muy lejos de ser cierto. Ninguno de estos informes ha llegado al punto de afirmar que el régimen actual está libre de problemas y, de hecho, la mayoría de estos reportes, incluyendo aquellos elaborados por la propia Oficina de las Naciones Unidas sobre las Drogas y el Delito, cuestionan tanto los principios subyacentes como los resultados de este régimen.

Sería más apropiado describir el sistema actual como “corrupto” en el sentido original del término, que significa podrido y dañado. Desde su concepción, el sistema para el control de drogas de la ONU ha estado escindido en dos. En 1961, la Convención Única sobre Estupefacientes formuló un estricto sistema de regulación sobre la producción, suministro y consumo de drogas para uso médico, mientras al mismo tiempo construía una prohibición global absoluta para la producción, suministro y consumo de drogas no médicas.

Estos regímenes de control produjeron dos tipos de mercados muy diferentes – uno regulado por los gobiernos y sujeto a acuerdos comerciales internacionales; y el otro manejado por organizaciones criminales, insurgentes, paramilitares y funcionarios corruptos, ubicado completamente fuera del control de los gobiernos y las agencias supranacionales. Es éste último mercado el que está afligiendo a países tan distantes como Afganistán – donde el Estado de Derecho ha sido significativamente socavado debido a su participación en la producción de opio; Colombia – cuya gobernabilidad está comprometida por la influencia catalizadora de la cocaína en apoyo de las actividades de subversivos, paramilitares y parapolíticos; Guinea Bissau – donde el frágil Estado colapsó para convertirse en un narco-Estado al volverse parte de la nueva ruta para el tránsito de cocaína; y México – donde la violencia de la lucha interna por el control de territorios ha producido decenas de miles de los asesinatos más espantosamente violentos perpetrados en los últimos años.

Y sin embargo, al mismo tiempo, se produce cocaína legal para el mercado médico sin socavar la seguridad regional o global, y se cultiva amapola en todo el planeta tanto para controlar el dolor como para tratar adicciones sin socavar el desarrollo en Estados frágiles ni contribuir a la delincuencia y la criminalidad. La única conclusión que podemos extraer de estos ejemplos contradictorios es que lo que determina la eficacia de los resultados es el régimen de control. El viento que hace balancear los cultivos de amapolas opiáceas en la India, Tasmania y el Reino Unido, les lleva por una ruta diametralmente distinta a la trazada para los cultivos de la misma planta en el sur de Afganistán.

Tal como la presente “Propuesta para la Regulación” demuestra en detalle, la regulación de las drogas no es en absoluto un paso hacia lo desconocido. El mercado paralelo de drogas, legalmente regulado, tiene una larga historia y una sólida base de evidencias que muestra tanto sus fortalezas como sus debilidades. Una lección que debemos recoger de nuestra experiencia es que los gobiernos deben intervenir con más vigor en los mercados de alcohol y tabaco. Es improbable que compañías multinacionales cuya máxima prioridad es la ganancia, tengan mucho respeto por la salud de sus clientes. Ninguna persona seriamente interesada en las necesidades de las personas desfavorecidas y vulnerables toleraría la venta libre de heroína por parte de vendedores sin licencia (tal como ocurre actualmente con el tabaco).

“Después de la Guerra contra las Drogas – Una Propuesta para la Regulación” describe tres opciones básicas para regulación por parte del gobierno – prescripción, venta a través de farmacias y venta con licencia. Dado que la ONU calcula que existen cerca de 250 millones de consumidores de drogas ilegales, resulta extremadamente perverso dejar el comercio que les proporciona estas sustancias en manos de criminales organizados y traficantes exentos de regulación.

El mundo requiere y merece un régimen de control que no sea corrupto, que tenga una genuina integridad – que sea sensato, completo y cabal – que sea democrático, y que ofrezca seguridad, desarrollo y salud en un marco de derechos humanos. Soy realista. Creo que podría tomar otros diez años convertir esta “Propuesta” en realidad. Resulta trágico que en la próxima década muchos miles de personas más deban morir consumiendo drogas sucias o tratando de dejarlas, o disputando el botín del tráfico ilegal. Al mismo tiempo, colectivamente desperdiciaremos otro billón de dólares en la guerra global contra las drogas.

Sin embargo, ya se están dando pasos positivos en la dirección correcta, y el apoyo del público hacia la reforma crece inexorablemente. La descriminalización de los consumidores de drogas está conquistando terreno en varios países de América Latina, y es casi seguro que dentro de pocos años empiecen experimentos con la regulación legal de cannabis en varios lugares.

A quienes lean este libro, les encomiendo que lo hagan llegar a los políticos que tienen la autoridad para implementar sus conclusiones. Este libro resultará ser un recurso invalorable para quienes busquen una estrategia para escapar de la guerra contra las drogas, y una base sólida para lograr la paz y la seguridad en América Latina y en otras latitudes.

César Gaviria
Ex-Presidente de Colombia
Junio de 2011

La campaña Guerra Contra las Drogas: Calcula los Costos será lanzada en América Latina

2011-09-12T11:45:00.003+01:00

Comunicado de Prensa: Difusión Irrestricta

Today the War on Drugs: Count the Costs Campaign (La campaña Guerra Contra las Drogas: Calcula los Costos) will be launched in Latin America, alongside the newly translated Count the Costs website and briefings - now available.

Danny Kushlick of Transform Drug Policy Foundation (UK) will outline the many costs of the war on drugs, and the aims of the campaign, followed by a screening of the film Cocaine Unwrapped at the III Conferencia Latinoamericana y I Conferencia Mexicana sobre Políticas de Drogas in Mexico City.

50 Años de la Guerra Contra las Drogas: Calcula los Costos

La campaña Guerra Contra las Drogas: Calcula los Costos será lanzada en América Latina:

Lugar: Cinematógrafo del Chopo, Doctor Atl, 37 Colonia Santa María La Ribera, Mexico City
Fecha y hora: Lunes 12 de setiembre, a las 6 pm

Danny Kushlick, de la Fundación Transform Drug Policy (Reino Unido), presentará un resumen sobre los numerosos costos de la guerra contra las drogas y las metas de la campaña, seguido de la proyección de la película “Cocaine Unwrapped” [Cocaína Desenvuelta] http://agadem.co.uk/cocaine-unwrapped

La campaña “La Guerra Contra las Drogas: Calcula los Costos” reunirá a actores involucrados de todo el mundo, incluyendo a OSC, gestores de políticas y otros, cuyo trabajo es impactado negativamente por el tratamiento legal a las drogas. Juntos harán un llamado a los gobiernos y agencias internacionales para evaluar intensamente las consecuencias colaterales de la Guerra contra las drogas y explorar alternativas basadas en evidencias.

Aquí el texto completo de este llamado:

La Guerra contra las Drogas: Calcula los Costos y Explora las Alternativas

Durante 50 años, el mundo ha librado la “guerra contra las drogas” sin lograr prevenir la tendencia en el largo plazo al incremento del suministro y consumo de drogas. Más allá de este fracaso, la Oficina de las Naciones Unidas contra la Droga y el Delito también ha identificado muchas y graves “consecuencias negativas no intencionales” de la guerra contra las drogas. Estos costos no son resultado del consumo de drogas en sí, sino de la elección de un enfoque punitivo impulsado por la aplicación de la ley que, por su naturaleza, coloca el control del negocio de las drogas en manos del crimen organizado, y que criminaliza a muchos usuarios de estas sustancias. En el proceso, este enfoque:

Socava el desarrollo y la seguridad internacionales, y alimenta el conflicto
Amenaza la salud pública, difunde enfermedades y causa la muerte
Socava los derechos humanos
Promueve el estigma y la discriminación
Genera delincuencia y enriquece a los criminales
Causa deforestación y contaminación
Desperdicia miles de millones en acciones inefectivas para la aplicación de la ley

La “guerra contra las drogas” en una opción de políticas. Existen otras opciones que deben, como mínimo, ser debatidas y exploradas, valiéndose de las mejores evidencias y análisis que se puedan reunir. Todos compartimos las mismas metas – lograr un mundo más seguro, más saludable y más justo. Por ello, los abajo suscritos hacemos un llamado a los líderes del mundo y las agencias de las NN.UU. para cuantificar las consecuencias negativas no intencionales del enfoque actual hacia las drogas, y evaluar los costos y beneficios potenciales de enfoques alternativos.

Danny Kushlick, hablando en nombre de la campaña Calcula los Costos, dijo: “Tras cincuenta años de guerra contra las drogas, con billones de dólares gastados, las drogas ilegales constituyen una de las mercancías más importantes en el planeta. Incluso la Oficina de las NN.UU. para las Drogas y el Delito, que supervisa en sistema global para el control de drogas, admite que los esfuerzos para aplicación de la ley sobre drogas han alimentado la creación de un vasto mercado criminal con desastrosas consecuencias negativas no intencionales. Ninguna región ha sido más afectada que América Latina.

Sin embargo, ningún gobierno o entidad de las NN.UU. ha calculado jamás adecuadamente los costos, o explorado de manera significativa las alternativas a la guerra contra las drogas. Después de medio siglo, este paso se ha hecho esperar demasiado tiempo. Sólo considerando las evidencias de lo que ha funcionado, y lo que no resultó bien, podremos desarrollar un sistema global para el control de drogas que sea ‘adecuado para este propósito’.”

La campaña Calcula los Costos, permite apreciar numerosos comentarios expresados por líderes del mundo, quienes se refieren a la necesidad de evaluar los costos y beneficios de varios regímenes políticos:

“Hay algunas contradicciones estructurales fundamentales en esta Guerra contra las Drogas… Nosotros en Colombia hemos sido exitosos, pero este éxito está dañando a toda América Central, México, el Caribe, África, y eventualmente regresará a nosotros. Por lo tanto, ¿estamos asumiendo la política correcta en el largo plazo? No tengo objeción a discutir ninguna de las alternativas, pero si vamos a discutirlas, hagámoslo con todas y cada una de ellas, ¿cuál es el costo?, ¿cuál es el beneficio de cada alternativa?”. Presidente Juan Manuel Santos de Colombia, The Washington Post, diciembre de 2010.

La lista de adherentes a la campaña incluye a las siguientes instituciones: International Drug Policy Consortium; Harm Reduction International; Eurasian Harm Reduction Network; Drug Policy Alliance (EE.UU.); Espolea (México); Release (Reino Unido); Fundación Transform Drug Policy (Reino Unido); Sindicato de Libertades Civiles de Hungría; CuPIHD (México); Instituto Transnacional (Países Bajos); International Centre for Science in Drug Policy (Canada); New Zealand Drug Policy Foundation; la Oficina en Washington para Asuntos Latinoamericanos; APDES (Portugal); PIE (Bolivia) y muchas más.

Para ver la lista completa de adherentes, consultar: http://countthecosts.org/es/simpatizantes

FIN

Contacto:

Danny Kushlick, Jefe de Asuntos Externos, Fundación Transform Drug Policy

+44 (0)7970 174747; danny at tdpf.org.uk

Notas para los Editores

1. III Conferencia Latinoamericana y I Conferencia Mexicana sobre Políticas de Drogas se llevará a cabo los días 13 y 14 de septiembre en la Ciudad de México http://www.drogasmexico.org/index.php?nota=4106

2. Los consecuencias colaterales de la Guerra Contra las Drogas fueron presentadas por el entonces Director Ejecutivo de la Oficina de Naciones Unidas contra las Drogas y el Delito, Antonio María Costa, en: “Making drug control 'fit for purpose': Building on the UNGASS decade” [“Adecuando el control de drogas según los objetivos: Consolidando la década de UNGASS”] ONUDD, 2008, p. 10:

“La primera consecuencia no deseada es un enorme mercado negro delictivo que en la actualidad prospera trasladando sustancias prohibidas de los productores a los consumidores… La segunda consecuencia no deseada es lo que se podría llamar el desplazamiento de las políticas. La expansión del mercado negro delictivo requería, obviamente, una respuesta acorde de los servicios encargados de hacer cumplir la ley, así como una mayor cantidad de recursos. La consecuencia fue que la salud pública se desplazó a un segundo plano, y se la atendió más con promesas y retórica, pero menos en la práctica... La tercera consecuencia no deseada es el desplazamiento geográfico. A menudo se le denomina efecto globo, porque al apretar (con controles más severos) en un lugar, se produce una hinchazón (es decir, un aumento) en otro… La cuarta consecuencia no deseada es lo que se podría denominar el desplazamiento de sustancias. Si se fiscaliza el consumo de una droga, reduciendo ya sea la oferta o la demanda, los proveedores y usuarios adoptan otra droga con efectos psicoactivos similares… La quinta consecuencia no deseada es la forma en que consideramos y tratamos a los consumidores de drogas ilícitas. Al parecer, se ha creado un sistema en el cual los que caen en las redes de la adicción se encuentran marginados y excluidos de la sociedad, marcados por un estigma moral y a menudo incapaces de encontrar tratamiento aun cuando estén motivados para someterse a él”.http://countthecosts.org/

New Count the Costs briefing - The War on Drugs: Undermining Human Rights

2011-09-08T11:24:00.000+01:00

The Count the Costs initiative is a global NGO project calling on Governments and the UN to meaningfully count the many costs of the War on Drugs, and explore alternative approaches that might reduce them.

These costs are divided into seven headings - Development and Security, Public Health, Human Rights, Stigma and Discrimination, Crime, Environment and Economics. Briefings for each area are being produced throughout this year, as well as a growing archive of related reports, videos, images and articles. The Development and Security briefing is already available, as is a summary briefing looking at all seven costs.

Today sees the publication of the next Count the Costs briefing - The War on Drugs: Undermining Human Rights - produced by several project supporters, including Transform, EHRN, Harm Reduction International, and Release.

The 18 page briefing (available in pdf and in print in both English and Spanish) covers the wide range of human rights impacted by the war on drugs, including:

Drug use and criminalisation
The right to a fair trial and due process standards
Torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
The death penalty and extrajudicial killings
Over-incarceration and arbitrary detention
The right to health
The right to social security and an adequate standard of living
Rights of the child
Cultural and indigenous rights

From the introduction;

"In every region of the world the war on drugs is severely undermining human rights. It has led to a litany of abuse, neglect and political scapegoating through the erosion of civil liberties and fair trial standards; the denial of economic and social rights; the demonising of individuals and groups; and the imposition of abusive and inhuman punishments.

Too often these human rights violations are considered in isolation – a drug user beaten by police to extract information; a drug courier executed by firing squad; a family killed at a military checkpoint; an HIV worker imprisoned for distributing harm reduction information; a family displaced by aerial fumigation of their crops; a drug user detained for years of forced labour and beatings on the recommendation of a police officer; a cancer sufferer denied pain-killing medicine. But they are not isolated. They are all a direct consequence of the war on drugs.

Like the war on terror, the war on drugs is framed as a response to an exceptional, existential threat to our health, our security, and indeed the very fabric of society. The “Addiction to narcotic drugs” is portrayed as an “evil” the international community has a moral duty to “combat” because it is a “danger of incalculable gravity” that warrants a series of (otherwise publicly unacceptable) extraordinary measures. This is not an exaggeration of the political rhetoric. These words are enshrined in international law, including the 1961, 1971 and 1988 UN drug conventions.This crusading language has created a political climate in which drug war policy and enforcement are not required to meet human rights norms.

In fact, despite being one of the three pillars of the UN’s work (along with development and security), these international agreements lack any obligation to ensure compliance with human rights. In over one hundred articles, human rights appear specifically only once (in relation to crop eradication)(4) – a staggering omission in treaties negotiated and adopted post-World War II, in the era of the modern human rights movement. This omission is now reflected in national law and policy worldwide. Through production, transit, sales and use, the responses to every stage in the supply chain of illicit drugs are characterised by extensive human rights violations, committed in the name of supply and demand reduction.

In order to meaningfully count these human rights costs, it is necessary to not only see the connections between law and policy, and the effects on the ground, but also to make comparisons with what happens under alternative approaches, including the decriminalisation of the possession of drugs, and models of legal regulation. For example, most of the abuses resulting from a punitive, enforcement-led approach to illegal drugs do not occur in relation to the production, sale and use of tobacco, alcohol and prescription medicines.

Ultimately, just as UN member states refer to “shared responsibility” for drug control, so too must they bear shared responsibility for human rights abuses perpetrated in its name. That is what Count the Costs is about – taking responsibility and openly evaluating all policy impacts, and all other options."

'After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation' re-published in Italian

2011-08-23T09:38:00.000+01:00

We are pleased to announce that Transform's groundbreaking 2009 book 'After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation' has recently been re-published in Italian. Translated, redesigned and published in Italy by publishers Ediesse - it is available to buy in hard copy online here (12 euros). The book has a new preface by Sandro Del Fattore and Giuseppe Bortone, and foreword by Franco Corleone and Grazia Zuffa*. We are particularly grateful to Grazia whose hard work made this new edition possible.

Transform made the copyright material freely available to the publishers under its existing creative commons licence as they were willing to translate, redesign and publish the book, and crucially make it available as a free pdf as of April 2012.

As full Spanish translation of Blueprint will also be published soon. Translations of the executive summary are already available (as pdfs) in Portuguese (also in print), Spanish (also in print), Italian and Russian.

The original English version remains available in print or as a free pdf download.

*The new Foreword and Introduction are the responsibility of the Italian publishers and authors, not Transform.

Important new book: 'Children of the Drug War' (free pdf download)

2011-08-09T21:08:00.002+01:00

'Children of the Drug War' is a unique collection of original essays that investigates the impacts of the war on drugs on children, young people and their families. With contributions from around the world, providing different perspectives and utilizing a wide range of styles and approaches including ethnographic studies, personal accounts and interviews, the book asks fundamental questions of national and international drug control systems:

What have been the costs to children and young people of the war on drugs?
Is the protection of children from drugs a solid justification for current policies?
What kinds of public fears and preconceptions exist in relation to drugs and the drug trade?
How can children and young people be placed at the forefront of drug policies?

Four thematic sections address:

Production and trade
Race, class and law enforcement
Families and drug policy
Drug use and dependence

The book is published by the International Debate Education Association (iDebate Press). It is available for purchase in hard copy from amazon.com, amazon.co.uk and other outlets.

The book has a dedicated webpage here which includes a downloadable pdf of the full book, and pdfs of each of its four sections. It can also be read online.

Steve Rolles, Transform's senior policy analyst, has written a chapter for the book titled 'After the War on Drugs: How Legal Regulation of Production and Trade Would Better Protect Children'.

The book also forms part of the new Count the Costs initiative - the introductory chapter, by the book's editor Damon Barrett, titled 'Counting the Costs of the Children’s Drug War'.

Please help publicise this brilliant new resource by linking the site, publicising it on your social networks, and drawing attention of key policy makers, professionals and media to the book.

Lib Dems consider drug law reform at conference

2011-08-05T09:38:00.003+01:00

.
We're excited to see that a promising development in the UK debate is being widely reported today; the Lib Dems are to debate a motion at this years annual conference that takes a wide ranging look at drug law reform - specifically considering both decriminalisation of personal drug possession, and regulated cannabis markets. In many respects this isn't new territory for the Lib Dems - who have a long history of more rational thinking on the drugs issue than the other two main UK parties. They have had a call for legalisation and regulation of cannabis (albeit with some caveats) as official policy since 2002, and something resembling the decrim call (minus specifics) was actually in their 2010 election manifesto:

"Ensure that financial resources, and police and court time, are not wasted
on the unnecessary prosecution and imprisonment of drug users and addicts; the
focus instead should be on getting addicts the treatment they need. Police
should concentrate their efforts on organised drug pushers and gangs."

Party leader Nick Clegg, has also gone on the record in the past in favour of progressive drug law reform including legalisation and regulation (as indeed has David Cameron). The significant development then is not the emergence of the proposals themselves, but the fact that they have been accepted for debate at conference. The Lib Dem campaigners responsible for the motion (The Lib Dems for Drug Policy Reform group) have been pushing such motions for years without much luck. It could be that the Lib Dems are keen to put some distance between themselves ad the Tories with some progressive liberal ideas, but nonetheless, it's a clear sign of the changing climate that this motion is now on the table, and will be fascinating to see how the debate develops if it is adopted by one of the coalition government partners.

It's worth reading the conference motion (below) in full - which hasn't been included in any of the media coverage thus far (although the Independent has a supportive leader). Its almost alarmingly measured and reasonable. Event the Daily Mail reports it fairly straight, paying lip service to the usual antis, and not editorialising on it. It's almost as if they couldn't be bothered to get outraged about it...

The motion also highlights the important observation - thus far seemingly unnoticed by the media - that the ACMD, in effect backed the decrim concept (albeit calling it the more politically palatable 'diversion', rather than the more loaded term 'decriminalisation') in its submission to the drug strategy consultation last year.

We're delighted to see that the motion begins with a call for an Impact Assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act. A position that Transform has been advocating for many years.

Protecting individuals and communities from drug harms

Conference notes:

1) That drugs are powerful substances which can have serious consequences for the individual user and society in general; and that it is therefore right and proper that the state should intervene to regulate and control the use of such substances as it does the consumption of legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco and both prescription and over the counter medicines.

2) That the misuse of drugs can blight the lives of individuals and families and the purchase of illegal drugs can help to fuel organised crime.

3) The need for evidence-based policy making on drugs with a clear focus on prevention and harm-reduction.

4) There is increasing evidence that the UK’s drugs policy is not only ineffective and not cost effective but actually harmful, impacting particularly severely on the poor and marginalised.

Conference further notes:

A. The positive evidence from new approaches elsewhere including Portuguese reforms that have been successful in reducing problematic drug use through decriminalising possession for personal use of all drugs and investing in treatment programmes.

B. That those countries and states that have decriminalised possession of some or all drugs have not seen increased use of those drugs relative to their neighbours.

C. That heroin maintenance clinics in Switzerland and The Netherlands have delivered great health benefits for addicts while delivering considerable reductions in drug-related crime and prevalence of heroin use.

D. The contribution of the ACMD to the 2010 Drug Strategy consultation which states that “people found to be in possession of drugs (any) for personal use (and involved in no other criminal offences) should not be processed through the criminal justice system but instead be diverted into drug education/awareness courses or possibly other, more creative civil punishment”.

E. The report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy whose members include former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, former heads of state of Colombia, Mexico, Brazil and Switzerland, the current Prime Minister of Greece, a former US Secretary of State and many other eminent world figures, which encouraged governments to consider the legal regulation of drugs in order to, “undermine the power of organised crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens”.

F. That the United Kingdom remains bound by various international conventions and that any re-negotiation or new agreements will require international co-ordination.

Conference believes:

i) That individuals, especially young people, can be damaged both by the imposition of criminal records and by a drug habit, and that the priority for those addicted to all substances must be health care, education and rehabilitation not punishment.

ii) Governments should reject policies if they are demonstrated to be ineffective in achieving their stated goals and should seek to learn from policies which have been successful.

iii) At a time when Home Office and Ministry of Justice spending is facing considerable contraction, thereis a powerful case for examining whether an evidence-based policy would produce savings allowing the quality of service provided by these departments to be maintained or to improve.

iv) That one of the key barriers to developing better drugs policy has been the previous Labour government’s persistent refusal to take on board scientific advice, and the absence of an overall evaluative framework of the UK’s drugs strategy.

v) That the Department of Health should take on a greater responsibility for dealing with drugs.

Conference calls for:

a) The Government to immediately establish an independent panel tasked with carrying out an Impact Assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, to properly evaluate, economically and scientifically, the present legal framework for dealing with drugs in the United Kingdom.

b) The Panel should also consider reform of the law, based on the Portuguese model, such that i) possession of any controlled drug for personal use would not be a criminal offence;

ii) possession would be prohibited but should cause police officers to issue citations for individuals to appear before panels tasked with determining appropriate education, health or social interventions.

c) The panel should also consider as an alternative, potential frameworks for a strictly controlled and regulated cannabis market and the potential impacts of such regulation on organised crime, and the health and safety of the public, especially children.

d) The reinvestment of any resources released into effective education, treatment and rehabilitation programmes.

e) The widespread provision of the highest quality evidence-based medical, psychological and social services for those affected by drugs problems. These services should include widespread availability of heroin maintenance clinics for the most problematic and vulnerable heroin users.

US National Association for the Advancement of Colored People calls for end to war on drugs

2011-08-04T12:31:00.005+01:00

The National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People, (the oldest and largest civil rights organisation in the US) has joined the list of prominent organisations and individuals calling for a major paradigm shift away from the failed and punitive "war on drugs" and toward a health-based approach, with a resolution passed last week at the organization's national conference in Los Angeles (see the full press release below).

Neill Franklin, an African American former narcotics cop from Baltimore and executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, who presented on the need to end the "war on drugs" at the NAACP conference, said about the resolution:

"The NAACP has been on the forefront of the struggle for civil rights and social justice in this country for over a century. The fact that these leaders are joining others like the National Black Police Association in calling for an end to the 'war on drugs' should be a wake up call to those politicians - including and especially President Obama - who still have not come to terms with the devastation that the 'drug war' causes in our society and especially in communities of color."

This is a video of Neill's address to the conference:

Given that the discriminatory application of the drug laws applies throughout the world, Transform looks forward to black and ethnic minority groups in the UK and beyond calling for reform.

A televised broadcast of President Obama repeating his opposition to what he called "decriminalisation" can be seen here. In it he says: “Just to make sure that I’m actually answering your question, am I willing to pursue a decriminalization strategy as an approach? No.”

NAACP PASSES HISTORIC RESOLUTION CALLING FOR END TO WAR ON DRUGS

President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous: Major step towards equity, justice, effective law enforcement

Contact: Ben Wrobel 
(917) 846-0658
bwrobel@naacpnet.org

(Los Angeles, CA) – Today the NAACP passed a historic resolution calling for an end to the war on drugs. The resolution was voted on by a majority of delegates at the 102nd NAACP Annual Convention in Los Angeles, CA. The overall message of the resolution is captured by its title: A Call to End the War on Drugs, Allocate Funding to Investigate Substance Abuse Treatment, Education, and Opportunities in Communities of Color for A Better Tomorrow.   

“Today the NAACP has taken a major step towards equity, justice and effective law enforcement,” stated Benjamin Todd Jealous, President and CEO of the NAACP. “These flawed drug policies that have been mostly enforced in African American communities must be stopped and replaced with evidenced-based practices that address the root causes of drug use and abuse in America.”

The resolution outlines the facts about the failed drug war, highlighting that the U.S. spends over $40 billion annually on the war on drugs, locking up low-level drug offenders – mostly from communities of color. African Americans are in fact 13 times more likely to go to jail for the same drug-related offense than their white counterparts. 

“Studies show that all racial groups abuse drugs at similar rates, but the numbers also show that African Americans, Hispanics and other people of color are stopped, searched, arrested, charged, convicted, and sent to prison for drug-related charges at a much higher rate,” stated Alice Huffman, President of the California State Conference of the NAACP. “This dual system of drug law enforcement that serves to keep African-Americans and other minorities under lock and key and in prison must be exposed and eradicated.

”Instead of sending drug offenders to prison, the resolution calls for the creation and expansion of rehabilitation and treatment programs, methadone clinics, and other treatment protocols that have been proven effective.  

“We know that the war on drugs has been a complete failure because in the forty years that we’ve been waging this war, drug use and abuse has not gone down,” stated Robert Rooks, Director of the NAACP Criminal Justice Program. “The only thing we’ve accomplished is becoming the world’s largest incarcerator, sending people with mental health and addiction issues to prison, and creating a system of racial disparities that rivals Jim Crow policies of the 1960s.” 

Once ratified by the board of directors in October, the resolution will encourage the more than 1200 active NAACP units across the country to organize campaigns to advocate for the end of the war on drugs.   

Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization. Its members throughout the United States and the world are the premier advocates for civil rights in their communities, conducting voter mobilization and monitoring equal opportunity in the public and private sectors.

More reform debate in The Times: 'legalisation, market regulation...inevitable'

2011-07-29T12:10:00.012+01:00

Following on from yesterday's leader editorial in The Times, comes a half-page opinion piece by Anushka Asthana titled 'A drugs revolution must start with cannabis', the subheading reading: 'The classification system is deeply flawed. But it's the whole punitive approach that needs a overhaul' (unfortunately as with yesterday's leader the full text is behind a paywall, so you will need to buy a subscription or hardcopy (p.37) to read it in full).

The piece opens with a broad critique of the classification system before making a more substantive call for reform, suggesting: 'We should reject the punitive approach and focus on reducing harm' . It then explores the legalisation debate with the sort of nuance so often absent from the traditionally polarised media debate:

'... authoritative voices are increasingly starting to argue what was once unthinkable: That prohibition isnt working.'

'Some dismiss legalisers as wanting a free-for-all, in which you can order coke or pills at your local pub alongside a glass of wine. But that isn't what most reformers have in mind. Sensibly, they want regulation that takes large parts of the drugs market away from organised crime and in which addicts are treated rather than punished'

It was particularly welcome to see Count the Costs initiative (launched by Transform) having an impact:

'Small reductions in drug use in Britain are overshadowed by the price being paid overseas as a result of of the global war on drugs. Count the Costs, a serious alliance of NGOs, charities and others, has produced a report outlining the costs of worldwide prohibition. It argues that drugs policy is fuelling conflict and violence by placing a hugely lucrative market (worth $320 billion a year) in the hands of criminals'

Asthana then goes on to cite the Global Commission on Drugs report, as well as calls for a debate on more far-reaching reform (including legalisation/regulation) from the president of Colombia, and similar comments from Cameron and Clegg (in their pre-government incarnations). The piece concludes:

'Some form of legalisation - in which users are not criminalised but the market is regulated - is inevitable for some substances. So we might as well start thinking about how to do it now.'

We have of course seen comment like this before in the many times before mainstream media (the Times was commenting on drug law reform back in the '60s) - but it is significant that it is now increasingly spreading from more likely arenas (in The Independent and Guardian, for example), into outlets more traditionally conservative on drug law reform, including The Times, Telegraph and even various tabloids. Alongside yesterday's leader it would appear The Times is making a clear editorial shift towards a pro-reform position - which, given its political clout, is a significant landmark for the reform movement.

Whilst the end of prohibition remains elusive in the short term, the taboo on talking about alternatives to prohibition has clearly been lifted, even if it is the media and NGO sector taking the lead in this debate, rather than our cowardly elected leaders.

'Drug Policy Doesn’t Work' – Says Leader in The Times

2011-07-28T15:02:00.000+01:00

In its leader today The Times calls for a ‘radical rethink’ of drug policy. Under the title ‘Drug Policy Doesn’t Work', the leader concludes:

“This is a complex issue. If there were an obvious answer it would have been found by now. One thing, though, is clear — a radical rethink is needed. Drug abuse ruins so many lives and a policy based on prohibition, although comprehensible in its own terms, is not succeeding in reducing either usage or harm. There are some examples, in Switzerland, for example, of heroin being offered in a controlled and prescribed way for addicts. There are a number of intermediate points between prohibition and legalisation, and it is time to start exploring them.”

The paper will include a follow up column on the issue tomorrow.

The Times is to be congratulated for making such a clear call. The leader shows now that the issue of the need to explore alternatives is very much in the political mainstream. The paper's economics editor, Anatole Kaletsky called for legalisation in his column, back in August 2007.

Unfortunately the online paper requires a subscription, but if you want to see the whole thing, it’s here.

Why it is sometimes better to broadcast than engage

2011-07-20T10:49:00.004+01:00

In its recent submission (pdf) to the Sentencing Advisory Council (SAC) Consultation on Sentencing for Drug Offences, Transform endorsed Release’s submission (pdf) and made a call for the entire Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to be reviewed, using the Impact Assessment framework.

We are well aware that this call falls outside of the SAC’s remit, so you might wonder why we bothered submitting at all. There are two basic reasons for taking this approach:

1. We are keenly aware that organisations like Release have far greater expertise and experience in the law. And we are supportive of their submission.

2. Sometimes it is more important to repeat a campaign position – such as, the need to evaluate the outcomes of the Act – than to engage with the detail of a consultation.

We find it hard to understand how the Ministry of Justice can contemplate tinkering with the detail of an Act whose operation is so blatantly counterproductive and discriminatory. It is the same approach that we took with regard to an earlier consultation with the Sentencing Advisory Panel (which the SAC replaced).

Now that the European Commission has decided to conduct an Impact Assessment of so-called ‘legal highs’, we hope that our call will begin to have more…impact.

A personal story of why the Global Commission's report matters

2011-06-09T11:36:00.001+01:00

The founders of TDPF Scotland, Jolene Crawford and Katrina Thornton, on why the new the Global Commission on Drug Policy report is personally important for them, and why Scotland should take a lead on drug policy on the global stage.

Just over three years ago we lost a brother / cousin in a drug-related death. We know only too well the pain of losing someone in such a futile manner. We understand the need to apportion blame and the desire to prevent any other family going through a similar nightmare.

But however initially tempting it was to call for all drugs to be banned, we decided to educate ourselves about legal and illegal drugs and the real issues that pertain to these substances. What we discovered surprised us greatly and resulted in the founding of TDPF Scotland (Transform Drug Policy Foundation Scotland) – a campaign for the control and regulation of all illegal and legal drugs. As busy women juggling careers and children, taking on this challenge was not easy. It’s painful for the family each time we speak out. But when we discovered that current drug policy has no factual basis, and the individuals who create these policies often acknowledge in private that drug prohibition is a disaster (though few will put their heads above the parapet) we felt we had no choice but to speak out.

Most importantly, we found that the government does indeed have the power to make changes to drug policy that would have a transformative effect on the lives of individuals, families and society as a whole.

For this reason, it was extremely heartening to read the findings of the Global Commission on Drug Policy and see the high profile individuals who back its calls. Basically the report represents a watershed moment that puts legal regulation of drugs onto the mainstream political agenda worldwide.

With a majority SNP government in power north of the border, and the question of an independent Scotland a viable proposition, Scotland is in a strong position to take a lead on this issue on the global stage. The referendum question will present an opportunity to have a debate about exactly what kind of future we want for our country.

How we are going to adequately deal with Scotland's significant drug and alcohol abuse issues must play a major role in this discussion. The Portuguese success with decriminalization provides strong evidence of policy which can be effective under current global drug laws, whilst at the same time acting as a step towards full regulation and control.

In Scotland we have already gathered some high profile supporters including our patron Iain Banks, the former High Court Judge Lord McCluskey, Richard Holloway, Consultant Addictions Psychiatrist Fraser Shaw, retired Strathclyde Police Inspector Jim Duffy, as well as former users, drugs workers and other bereaved families. We now call on Scottish and UK party political leaders to call a ceasefire in their political point scoring and, taking inspiration from those individuals who have backed the Global Commission on Drug Policy, unite to explore peaceful and effective alternatives to the war on drugs.

It took losing a loved one to force us to look at the evidence. We believe that our politicians have a moral obligation to do so too.

www.tdpfscotland.org.uk

Transform is developing a new project with and for family members like Jolene and Katrina who have been affected by bereavement, criminalisation of a loved one, or any other negative side effect of the war on drugs. If you are interested in knowing more, or participating, please contact info@tdpf.org.uk

(This article originally appeared on the newsnetscotland.com website on 8 June.)

Leaders Call for Major Paradigm Shift in Global Drug Policy: Official Global Commission press release

2011-06-02T00:01:00.005+01:00

Former Presidents of Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Switzerland, Prime Minister of Greece, Kofi Annan, Richard Branson, George Shultz, Paul Volcker and Other Leaders Call for Major Paradigm Shift in Global Drug Policy

Commission of World Leaders Urges End to Failed Drug War, Fundamental Reforms of Global Drug Prohibition Regime. Today the Global Commission on Drug Policy will release a groundbreaking report at a press conference and tele-conference at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City. The report condemns the drug war as a failure and recommends major reforms of the global drug prohibition regime.

The Commission is the most distinguished group of high-level leaders to ever call for such far-reaching changes – including not just alternatives to incarceration and greater emphasis on public health approaches to drug use but also decriminalization and experiments in legal regulation.

full report English
full report Spanish

The Executive Director of the global advocacy organization AVAAZ, with its nine million members worldwide, will present a public petition in support of the Global Commission’s recommendations that will be given to the United Nations Secretary General.

“Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and 40 years after President Nixon launched the US government’s global war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed,”. “Let’s start by treating drug addiction as a health issue, reducing drug demand through proven educational initiatives and legally regulating rather than criminalizing cannabis.” said former president of Brazil Fernando Henrique Cardoso

The Commission’s recommendations are summarized in the Executive Summary below this release. They include:

End the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others.
Encourage experimentation by governments with models of legal regulation of drugs (especially cannabis) to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens.
Ensure that a variety of treatment modalities are available – including not just methadone and buprenorphine treatment but also the heroin-assisted treatment programs that have proven successful in many European countries and Canada.
Apply human rights and harm reduction principles and policies both to people who use drugs as well as those involved in the lower ends of illegal drug markets such as farmers, couriers and petty sellers.

“Overwhelming evidence from Europe, Canada and Australia now demonstrates the human and social benefits both of treating drug addiction as a health rather than criminal justice problem and of reducing reliance on prohibitionist policies,” . “These policies need to be adopted worldwide, with requisite changes to the international drug control conventions.” said former Swiss president Ruth Dreifuss

“We can no longer ignore the extent to which drug-related violence, crime and corruption in Latin America are the results of failed drug war policies,” “Now is the time to break the taboo on discussion of all drug policy options, including alternatives to drug prohibition.” said former Colombian president César Gaviria.

"The war on drugs has failed to cut drug usage, but has filled our jails, cost millions in tax payer dollars, fuelled organized crime and caused thousands of deaths. We need a new approach, one that takes the power out of the hands of organized crime and treats people with addiction problems like patients, not criminals,” “The good news is new approaches focused on regulation and decriminalization have worked. We need our leaders, including business people, looking at alternative, fact based approaches. We need more humane and effective ways to reduce the harm caused by drugs. The one thing we cannot afford to do is to go on pretending the “war on drugs” is working." said Richard Branson, founder of the Virgin Group and cofounder of The Elders, United Kingdom.

Commission Members (Those appearing at June 2 press conference are italicized and those who are also speaking are underlined):

Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations, Ghana

Louise Arbour, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, president of the International Crisis Group, Canada

Richard Branson , entrepreneur, advocate for social causes, founder of the Virgin Group, cofounder of The Elders, United Kingdom

Fernando Henrique Cardoso , former President of Brazil (chair)

Marion Caspers-Merk, former State Secretary at the German Federal Ministry of Health

Maria Cattaui, Petroplus Holdings Board member, former Secretary-General of the International Chamber of Commerce, Switzerland

Ruth Dreifuss, former President of Switzerland and Minister of Home Affairs

Carlos Fuentes, writer and public intellectual, Mexico

César Gaviria, former President of Colombia

Asma Jahangir, human rights activist, former UN Special Rapporteur on Arbitrary, Extrajudicial and Summary Executions, Pakistan

Michel Kazatchkine, executive director of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria , France

Mario Vargas Llosa, writer and public intellectual, Peru

George Papandreou, Prime Minister of Greece

George P. Shultz, former Secretary of State, United States (honorary chair)

Javier Solana, former European Union High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy , Spain

Thorvald Stoltenberg, former Minister of Foreign Affairs and UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Norway

Paul Volcker, former Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve and of the Economic Recovery Board

John Whitehead, banker and civil servant, chair of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, United States

Ernesto Zedillo, former President of Mexico

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world. Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and 40 years after President Nixon launched the US government’s war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed.

Vast expenditures on criminalization and repressive measures directed at producers, traffickers and consumers of illegal drugs have clearly failed to effectively curtail supply or consumption. Apparent victories in eliminating one source or trafficking organization are negated almost instantly by the emergence of other sources and traffickers. Repressive efforts directed at consumers impede public health measures to reduce HIV/AIDS, overdose fatalities and other harmful consequences of drug use. Government expenditures on futile supply reduction strategies and incarceration displace more cost-effective and evidence-based investments in demand and harm reduction.

Our principles and recommendations can be summarized as follows:

End the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others. Challenge rather than reinforce common misconceptions about drug markets, drug use and drug dependence.

Encourage experimentation by governments with models of legal regulation of drugs to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens. This recommendation applies especially to cannabis, but we also encourage other experiments in decriminalization and legal regulation that can accomplish these objectives and provide models for others.

Offer health and treatment services to those in need. Ensure that a variety of treatment modalities are available, including not just methadone and buprenorphine treatment but also the heroin-assisted treatment programs that have proven successful in many European countries and Canada. Implement syringe access and other harm reduction measures that have proven effective in reducing transmission of HIV and other blood-borne infections as well as fatal overdoses. Respect the human rights of people who use drugs. Abolish abusive practices carried out in the name of treatment – such as forced detention, forced labor, and physical or psychological abuse – that contravene human rights standards and norms or that remove the right to self-determination.

Apply much the same principles and policies stated above to people involved in the lower ends of illegal drug markets, such as farmers, couriers and petty sellers. Many are themselves victims of violence and intimidation or are drug dependent. Arresting and incarcerating tens of millions of these people in recent decades has filled prisons and destroyed lives and families without reducing the availability of illicit drugs or the power of criminal organizations. There appears to be almost no limit to the number of people willing to engage in such activities to better their lives, provide for their families, or otherwise escape poverty. Drug control resources are better directed elsewhere.

Invest in activities that can both prevent young people from taking drugs in the first place and also prevent those who do use drugs from developing more serious problems. Eschew simplistic ‘just say no’ messages and ‘zero tolerance’ policies in favor of educational efforts grounded in credible information and prevention programs that focus on social skills and peer influences. The most successful prevention efforts may be those targeted at specific at-risk groups.

Focus repressive actions on violent criminal organizations, but do so in ways that undermine their power and reach while prioritizing the reduction of violence and intimidation. Law enforcement efforts should focus not on reducing drug markets per se but rather on reducing their harms to individuals, communities and national security.

Begin the transformation of the global drug prohibition regime. Replace drug policies and strategies driven by ideology and political convenience with fiscally responsible policies and strategies grounded in science, health, security and human rights – and adopt appropriate criteria for their evaluation. Review the scheduling of drugs that has resulted in obvious anomalies like the flawed categorization of cannabis, coca leaf and MDMA. Ensure that the international conventions are interpreted and/or revised to accommodate robust experimentation with harm reduction, decriminalization and legal regulatory policies.

Break the taboo on debate and reform. The time for action is now.

Press Release: War on Drugs - Obama and Cameron can leave a legacy of peace

2011-06-01T15:03:00.012+01:00

News release. No Embargo. Date: 31 May 2011

Tel: 0117 325 0295 or 07970 174747
Web: www.tdpf.org.uk

War on Drugs - Obama and Cameron can leave a legacy of peace

On Thursday 2 June the Global Commission on Drug Policy, a panel of world leaders and politicians, will host a press conference at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York to launch a report that describes the drug war as a failure, and calls for a paradigm shift in global drug policy, including the decriminalisation and legal regulation of drugs.

Transform Drug Policy Foundation welcomes the report, because fifty years of global prohibition have resulted in massive levels of crime, destabilised entire nation states, created huge health harms, criminalised 250 million users, and wasted trillions of dollars.

Danny Kushlick, Head of External Affairs said: “This report is a watershed moment that puts legal regulation of drugs onto the mainstream political agenda worldwide.

“Globally we spend $100 billion a year on the war on drugs, so if we carry on as we are, over the next decade we will waste a trillion dollars increasing insecurity, damaging development and promoting crime and ill-health in some of the most disadvantaged places on earth.

“We call on UK party political leaders to call a ceasefire in their political point scoring, and instead unite to explore peaceful and effective alternatives to the war on drugs.

“The UK Government is also in the perfect position to bring the US to the table to negotiate an end to the war on drugs and a Marshall Plan to consolidate the peace. In 2002 David Cameron called for the UN to debate legal regulation, and in 2004 President Obama described the war on drugs as an “utter failure”. Cameron and Obama now have the greatest opportunity ever to use the ‘essential relationship’ to find a peaceful solution to the longest conflict of modern times. Ending the war on drugs and bringing peace to some of the most violent places in the world would be a truly great legacy.”

ENDS

Contact:

Danny Kushlick, Head of External Affairs (+44) 07970 174747

Steve Rolles, Senior Policy Analyst (+44) 07980 213943

Notes for Editors:

1. For full details of the Global Commission on Drugs report and press conference see http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2011/05/former-presidents-of-brazil-colombia.html

2. Transform Drug Policy Foundation is an NGO with special consultative status at the United Nations www.tdpf.org.uk

3. Count the Costs is a global campaign supported by 30 NGOs exposing the costs of the war on drugs: www.countthecosts.org

4. David Cameron

Parliamentary debate, December 5th 2002, when David Cameron told the House of Commons, "I ask the [Labour] Government not to return to retribution and war on drugs. That has been tried, and we all know that it does not work."

As a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into drug misuse in 2002, Cameron voted in favour of recommendation 24:

"24. We recommend that the Government initiates a discussion within the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways—including the possibility of legalisation and regulation—to tackle the global drugs dilemma (paragraph 267)."

Source: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/318/31814.htm

"Politicians attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator by posturing with tough policies and calling for crackdown after crackdown. Drugs policy has been failing for decades."

Source: 'Tory contender calls for more liberal drug laws' Marie Woolf, The Independent 07.09.05

5. President Barack Obama

"The war on drugs has been an utter failure":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOobQ3TPhHU

6. Supporters of Reform

For a list of political leaders, professional and faith leaders, and celebrities backing an end to the war on drugs see: http://tdpf.org.uk/MediaNews_Reform_supporters.htm

Former Presidents of Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Switzerland, Prime Minister of Greece, Kofi Annan, George Shultz and Paul Volcker Call for Paradigm Shift in Global Drug Policy

2011-05-27T15:44:00.004+01:00

Media Advisory

Date: 27 May 2011
For Immediate Release: May 27, 2011
Contact: Tony Newman (646)335-5384

Former Presidents of Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Switzerland, Prime Minister of Greece, Kofi Annan, George Shultz and Paul Volcker Call for Paradigm Shift in Global Drug Policy

Commission of World Leaders Urges New Approaches to Failed Drug War, Move from Criminal Justice toward Public Health Approach

Live Press Conference and Teleconference on Thursday, June 2 in New York City

The Global Commission on Drug Policy will host a live press conference and teleconference on Thursday, June 2 at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City to launch a new report that describes the drug war as a failure and calls for a paradigm shift in global drug policy.

The Commission is the most distinguished group of high-level leaders who have ever called for such far-reaching changes in the way society deals with illicit drugs – such as decriminalization and urging countries to experiment with legal regulation. The Executive Director of the global advocacy organization AVAAZ, with its nine million members worldwide, will present a public petition in support of the Global Commission’s recommendations that will be given to the United Nations Secretary General.

What: Press Conference and Teleconference to release Global Commission report.
When: Thursday, June 2 at 11 am, EST
Where: The Waldorf Astoria Hotel, 301 Park Avenue, New York (Beekman Suite)

By Phone:

USA: 1-800-311-9404 (Password: Global Commission)
From Outside the USA: 1-334-323-7224 (Password: Global Commission)

Commission Members (Those italicized will be at the press conference. Those speaking are italicized and underlined):

Kofi Annan,former Secretary General of the United Nations, Ghana

Louise Arbour, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, president of the International Crisis Group, Canada

Richard Branson, entrepreneur, advocate for social causes, founder of the Virgin Group, cofounder of The Elders, United Kingdom

Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former President of Brazil (chair)

Marion Caspers-Merk, former State Secretary at the German Federal Ministry of Health

Maria Cattaui, Petroplus Holdings Board member, former Secretary-General of the International Chamber of Commerce, Switzerland

Ruth Dreifuss, former President of Switzerland and Minister of Home Affairs

Carlos Fuentes, writer and public intellectual, Mexico

César Gaviria, former President of Colombia

Asma Jahangir, human rights activist, former UN Special Rapporteur on Arbitrary, Extrajudicial and Summary Executions, Pakistan

Michel Kazatchkine, executive director of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria , France

Mario Vargas Llosa, writer and public intellectual, Peru

George Papandreou, Prime Minister of Greece

George P. Shultz, former Secretary of State , United States (honorary chair)

Javier Solana, former European Union High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy , Spain

Thorvald Stoltenberg, former Minister of Foreign Affairs and UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Norway

Paul Volcker, former Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve and of the Economic Recovery Board

John Whitehead, banker and civil servant, chair of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, United States

Ernesto Zedillo, former President of Mexico

An EMBARGOED copy of the report and press release will be made available starting on May 30. Contact Tony Newman (646-335-5384 or tnewman@drugpolicy.org) to request these materials.

The report and press release are EMBARGOED until 12:01 am GMT on June 2.

To learn more about the Commission, visit: www.globalcommissionondrugs.org

AVAAZ seeks 1 million supporters for petition to end the war on drugs

2011-05-25T12:52:00.002+01:00

The ever impressive online actvitist organisation AVAAZ are challenging the war on drugs and calling for a new approach based on 'decriminalisation, regulation, public health and education' in their latest mobilisation. AVAAZ describe themselves as follows:

'Avaaz—meaning "voice" in several European, Middle Eastern and Asian languages—launched in 2007 with a simple democratic mission: organize citizens of all nations to close the gap between the world we have and the world most people everywhere want.

Avaaz empowers millions of people from all walks of life to take action on pressing global, regional and national issues, from corruption and poverty to conflict and climate change. Our model of internet organising allows thousands of individual efforts, however small, to be rapidly combined into a powerful collective force. '

The latest campaign petition statement - which you can sign here - is as follows:

To Ban Ki Moon and all heads of State

"We call on you to end the war on drugs and the prohibition regime, and move towards a system based on decriminalisation, regulation, public health and education. This 50 year old policy has failed, fuels violent organised crime, devastates lives and is costing billions. It is time for a humane and effective approach."

The preamble text notes that the campaign is timed to coincide with the launch of the Global Commission on Drugs report (produced by 'heads of state and foreign policy chiefs of the UN, EU, Brazil, Mexico' ), set to make similar recommendations next month.

The campaign is seeking to get 1 million supporters - something that AVAAZ, with more than 8 million subscribers is more than capable of achieving (all were emailed today - and as we write the total is already over 100k with many more signing every second).

Petitions can often be ineffectual, but something of this scale, at this key juncture in the debate can have a real impact so we urge all our readers and supporters to help promote this initiative around their contacts and networks in any way you can.

Security experts discuss ending the war on drugs

2011-05-17T12:31:00.003+01:00

There can be no question that global security is fundamentally compromised by the world’s commitment to the war on drugs. Could this fact be instrumental in bringing an end to the global prohibition?

As has been demonstrated by the recently launched Count the Costs campaign, the war on drugs detrimentally impacts on numerous policy areas – Crime, Development, Security, Health, Expenditure, Stigma and Discrimination, Human Rights and the Environment. Some of these policy paths have been well-trodden by reformers; others have witnessed almost no footfall. Whilst all of them have the potential to engage policy makers, the question we have been asking is, which of them has the potential for the most engagement and concern? We have come to the conclusion that demonstrating the negative impacts of the war on drugs on security, and bringing security and intelligence agencies into the debate, has substantial untapped potential tomove the debate forward. When current and former military and intelligence personnel critique the war on drugs or indeed, explicitly call for reform to the status quo, formerly uninterested policy makers are likely to pay attention.

Up until relatively recently it had been received wisdom that drugs, crime and insecurity were inextricably linked. As the reform agenda gains traction, it is increasingly understood that the drugs/crime nexus is created, not by primarily by drug use/misuse, but in substantially part by the the prohibtionist policy environment; the war on drugs itself.

In 2008 even the head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime conceeded in a discussion paper that prohibition had created a series unintended negative consequences, including 'vast' criminal market. However, there is relatively little engagement in the public debate with the fact that, along with the vast criminal market there are whole regions of the world whose national security is fundamentally compromised by the war on drugs.

There have been lone voices – for example David Passage (former director of Andean Affairs at the US State Dept), Eliza Manningham Buller (former Director General of MI5), and there is some literature. Notable amongst them is Chasing Dragons. But now the security issue is emerging, blinking into the sunlight. In October 2010, (entirely by coincidence) NOREF, the Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) both ran workshops exploring the connection between drug trafficking and security.

Papers from NOREF are available here, here and here.

Transform took part in the IISS project, which consisted of two workshops and will culminate in an IISS Adelphi publication. The first workshop involved an exploration of the security issues for key geographical regions involved in production and trafficking. As a contribution to the discussion, Transform (and PhD student Emily Crick) produced a paper exploring drugs and security using the International Relations theory of Securitisation. This theory helps demonstrate that there are in fact two drug wars being fought – one ostensibly fighting against ‘drugs’ and ‘drug abuse’ because of their ‘threat’ to mankind; the other, fighting against organised crime (whose power is based on the opportunities created by the primary securitisation) because of the ‘threat’ they present to nation states (see previous blog on securitisation)

Workshop 1, 5 October 2010: Participants and agenda

A wide ranging discussion explored the scope of the drugs and security connection, including contributions from Dr. Mohammed Zafar Khan, Former Deputy Minister, Afghan Ministry of Counter Narcotics, Sanho Tree from the Institute for Policy Studies, the Colombian Ambassador to the UK, and others. The discussion effectively took place on two levels with some engaging wholeheartedly with the question of the impact of prohibition upon security and others remaining in their comfort zone by effectively giving country reports of security impacts.

The second workshop was intended to provide participants with the opportunity both to critique the status quo and to engage in some blue skies thinking around the impact of ending the overwhelmingly security oriented approach. To help facilitate dialogue Emily Crick presented a critique of the securitised approach and Danny Kushlick of Transform demonstrated the various policy options that are made available under a de-securitised regime of legal regulation and control. (The Transform/Crick papers on securitisation and de-securitisation are being disseminated to intelligence agencies, security/strategic think tanks and the military both in the UK and beyond)

Workshop 2, 19 April 2011: Participants and agenda.

It attracted participants from a wide range of countries, organisations and agencies, including representatives from the UK (Serious and Organised Crime Agency, FCO), Russia, China, and Mexico. Many participants found the blue skies element challenging (as you would expect from officials who spend their lives working within the prevailing paradigm of prohibition).

Despite being invited the Americans were notably absent from the workshops – a glaring gap, given the US’s deep and abiding commitment to maintaining the status quo.

There are many potentially fruitful policy veins that remain untapped. For example the development world has been reluctant to involve itself in the reform agenda. But members of the security field appear only too willing to get stuck in and are to be congratulated for doing so.

There are those who have expressed concern that engaging in the security agenda has significant risks, not least of which is that it could further solidify the security-oriented regime and discourse. We are not naïve enough to forget that some significant security and intelligence fiefdoms are predicated on and resourced by the commitment to a global war on drugs. Indeed for some it is their very lifeblood. However, our experience thus far is that some in the security and intelligence world are willing to play their part in exposing the tragic irony of the overwhelmingly negative impact of the war on drugs on national, international and human security.

New Journal on Human Rights and Drug Policy available in full online

2011-05-16T11:08:00.000+01:00

ISSN 2046-4843 (print)

ISSN 2046-4851 (online)

The first edition of the new International Journal on Human Rights and Drug Policy is now available online in full. Produced by the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy the journal critically engages with many of the frequently neglected human rights issues raised by drug policy and law enforcement. It is also open access, so available to all. Highly recommended.

CONTENTS

Editorial
R. Lines, ‘Deliver us from evil’? – The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 50 years on

Original Articles

P. Gallahue, Targeted Killing of Drug Lords: Traffickers as Members of Armed Opposition Groups and/or Direct Participants’ in Hostilities

Y. McDermott, Yong Vui Kong v. Public Prosecutor and the Mandatory Death Penalty for Drug Offences in Singapore: A Dead End for Constitutional Challenge?

Interview

Litigating against the Death Penalty for Drug Offences: An interview with Saul Lehrfreund & Parvais Jabbar

Commentaries

D. Barrett & P. Veerman, Children who use Drugs: The Need for More Clarity on State Obligations in International Law

A. Crocket, The Function and Relevance of the Commission in Narcotic Drugs in the pursuit of Humane Drug Policy (or the ramblings of a bewildered diplomat)

Case Summary

S. Ka Hon Chu, Canadian Court of Appeal Upholds Supervised Injection Site’s Right to Operate

Download full volume with cover

Public Meeting: War on Drugs - or Time for Peace?

2011-05-04T10:39:00.026+01:00

On Friday 13th May, Professor David Nutt and Danny Kushlick will take part in a discussion on drug policy at Cotham School, Bristol. Join us from 6.30pm.

Click on the image below to view details:

Press Release: Russian policy of breaching international agreements continues, as UN Secretary General arrives in Moscow

2011-04-21T16:30:00.000+01:00

Transform's colleagues in the harm reduction field have asked us to circulate this press release on their behalf.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

More then forty major civil society organizations working in the field of HIV and drugs in Russia and internationally, have sent an open letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations calling to advocate for human rights oriented and scientifically based drug treatment and HIV prevention in Russia. Ban Ki-Moon is arriving to Moscow on April 21, 2011 and has scheduled several meetings with high level Russian officials, including the President Dmitry Medvedev.

Currently, the number of new cases of HIV in the country continues to grow and has long passed a critical point. According to the UN documents Russia remains among a few countries worldwide where HIV epidemics are on the rise. This epidemic is driven by sharing contaminated injection equipment for drug use. At the same time the government denies its drug dependent citizens access to life-saving evidence-based prevention and treatment interventions such as opioid substitution treatment with methadone or buprenorphine and needle and syringe HIV prevention programs, recommended by the UN.

“Neglecting the rights of people who use drugs, especially at the concentrated stage of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, will inevitably lead to serious health and social consequences for the society as a whole”, the letter says. It goes on by pointing out that the Russian government has “failed to ensure universal access to HIV prevention and treatment when millions of people who inject drugs are deprived of medical and social services support because the Government’s rejects the UN-recommended comprehensive package which includes substitution treatment and needle and syringe programs”.

Currently the use substitution treatment is legally banned in Russia which many experts believe is contrary to the letter and spirit of the UN Drug Conventions. Needle and syringe programs are considered by the Government as a threat to the national anti-drug strategy. Public debates on these issues are officially stifled and since recently, officially subjected to a legal ban.

The letter emphasises that efforts of civil society and international organizations are counterbalanced by the Government’s ideology-driven position of “zero tolerance” toward drug use. Numerous violations of human rights stemming from Russia's repressive and ineffective policy toward people using drugs have been documented and submitted to the UN Human Rights bodies”.

The civil society organizations called upon the UN Secretary General to urge the Russian Government to officially recognize the UN-recommended interventions as essential in combating HIV among drug users. According to the UN official documents, needle and syringe programs and substitution treatment are among the nine core interventions to prevent HIV among injecting drug users. Methadone and buprenorphine are included on the WHO Model Essential Medicines List.

It is noteworthy that during his visit to

Cambodia

at the end of 2010, the UN Secretary General met with patients of a methadone clinic and some of them received methadone from his hands and hands of his wife.

For contacts – Andrey Rylkov Foundation for Health and Social Justice:

In Moscow –

Ivan Varentsov (English, Russian)

Tel: +79166425682, ivan@harmreduction.org

In San-Francisco –

Anya Sarang (English, Russian)

Tel: +1-415-810 1117

The problem with Drug Tsars

2011-04-15T16:29:00.003+01:00

I met the US Drug Tsar Gil Kerlikowske recently. It was at a reception at the US Ambassador's residence in Vienna during the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs. This is an annual event, and a welcome opportunity for the NGOs attending the CND in an official capacity (Transform has ECOSOC special consultative status) to meet various US figures and ONDCP staff.

I asked how the potential tensions between state, federal and international law might play out if one of the US State ballot initiatives to legalise and regulate cannabis/marijuana was passed by voters. Kerlikowske's answer was to list a number of arguments against legalisation - all familiar to those who followed the debate around Prop 19 in California last year.

The Drugs Tsar, Gil Kerlikowske at the US Amassador's reception in Vienna,

with Anita Krug and Aram Barra from YouthRise/Espolea*

I responded by saying that I understood the arguments for and against, but was specifically interested in what would happen in terms of the conflicts between state, federal and international law, given the the likelyhood that one of the various proposed state ballot initiatives would pass in 2012 (the California initiative is set to rerun, as well as initiatives in Colorado, and other states). This time Kerlikowske pointed out that 56% of voters in California had been sufficiently concerned about Marijuana abuse and drug driving to oppose the 2011 prop 19 initiative.

So I essentially repeated the question; quite aside from the debate and public opinion, what is the Federal response or sequence of events, should such an intiative actually succeed? - noting that this was a reasonable question given how close the Californian vote had been and the likelyhood, probable certainty that one of the other initiatives would succeed in the near future. This time Kerlikowske responded that he didn't 'deal in hypotheticals' - a response familiar to Prop 19 debate watchers.

So, pointing out that those in policy making naturally had to deal with hypotheticals as a matter of routine, I asked a slightly rephrasesd question; had the ONDCP done any scenario planning to explore this particular hypothetical, given its likely imminent move to non-hypothetical status. Kerlikowske replied that he 'couldn't comment'.

This was one of those unenlightening conversations that NGOs have with politically appointed civil servants on an almost daily basis - so largely unexpected. But a curious fact about the ONDCP director's role, that puts these sorts of conversations into some perspective, is that his position on legalisation is specifically mandated:

According to Title VII Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998: H11225:

Responsibilities. –The Director– [...]
(12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that–
is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and
has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;

Whatever Kerlikowske's views, and whatever evidence he is presented with (as he is not allowed to let the ONDCP gather any) he is duty bound to proffer a blanket opposition to any form of move to legally regulated markets, for any reason. There is something fundamentally obnoxious and anti-science about this wording, contained as it is in an Act of Congress, especially given the fact that Kerlikowske's statements on legalisation are often superficially factual (as indeed is the risible DEA guide 'Speaking Out Against Legalisation'). How balanced can we expect this analysis to be if all research on non-drug war options is forbidden and all comments subject to Congressional diktat?

More concerning were recent comments from Kerlikowske in an interview with Foriegn Policy in which legalisation cropped up again;

Foriegn Policy: You've made your views on legalization very clear in the past. How do you respond to the growing number of former Latin American leaders -- former Mexican President Vicente Fox, most recently -- who have come out in favor of legalization or at least a radical overhaul of the current policy?

Gil Kerlikowske: Isn't if funny how people who no longer have responsibility for anyone's safety or security suddenly see the light? I think it's not a lot different from what we've heard in recent years in the United States, which is: We've had a war on drugs for 40 years and we don't see success. If we have a kid in high school, they can still get drugs or there's drugs on the street corner. So legalization must be an answer.

What we in government fail to do is to show that there really are quite successful, cost-effective programs we can use, so we don't have to go from the "war on drugs has failed" to "let's legalize."

By the way, I've never seen any of the legalization arguments that say, here's how it will work and here's how we'll regulate it. Heaven knows, we're not very successful with alcohol. We don't collect much in tax money to cover the costs. We certainly can't keep it out of the hands of teenagers or people who get behind the wheel. Why in heavens name do we think that if we legalize marijuana, we'd have a system where we could collect enough tax revenue to cover the increased health-care costs? I haven't seen that grand plan.

The first comment from Kerlikowske here is, I would suggest, an entirely misplaced and innappropriate ad hominem aimed at Fox and other former public servants who differ with Kerlikowske's (legally imposed) prohibitionist perspective. More importantly, from Transform's perspective, is the comment about never having seen 'any of the legalization arguments that say, here's how it will work and here's how we'll regulate it.' As Transform's widely distributed and cited 2009 publication 'After the War on Drugs; Blueprint for Regulation' addresses precisely this question in some detail (50,000 words, 215 pages), I found this statement a little surprising.

What's more Transform's efforts on this front have been built on previous work including ‘A Public Health Approach to Drug Control’ (2005) by the British Colombia Health Officers Council, and Effective Drug Control: Toward A New Legal Framework' (2005) by the King County Bar Association. The latter is based in Seattle, and produced the document whilst Kerlikowske was Seattle police chief.

We have sent Kerlikowske a letter drawing attention to this work, and a copy of Blueprint, which he is presumably allowed to read - even he must do so in his own time and never mention it in public.

*photo: Steve Rolles

IHRA Counts the Costs of the War on Drugs

2011-04-04T17:07:00.006+01:00

A key cost of the war on drugs is the the lack of access to to harm reduction (including needle exchange and opiate substitution treatment) and treatment, and the still high prevalence of HIV/AIDS amongst injecting drug users, that results where such access remains inadequate. Drug war politics continue to prioritise punitive enforcement over proven public health interventions, even when these have been clearly and unequivocally advocated in widely adopted declarations by UN health agencies. Worse still, it is invariably the the most vulnerable groups in society who carry the greatest burden of these costs - in terms of their health and wellbeing, freedoms and human rights.

Transform is pleased to support this year's IHRA conference declaration (sign here , download the pdf here) copied below, that highlights many of these issues and calls upon Governments to meet their commitments to address them. We encourage all interested parties to do the same.

IHRA is a partner organisation in the new Count the Costs project, launched this March at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna. They are part of the grouping of organisations helping to gather and present more resources over the coming year, highlighting the health and human rights costs of the continued political commitment to a global war on users, suppliers and producers and the communities in which they live.

The Official Declaration of the 2011 International Harm Reduction Conference
Of the 33.3 million people living with HIV globally, an estimated three million are people who inject drugs.¹^{2 3}They account for 30% of HIV infections outside of sub-Saharan Africa, and up to 80% of infections in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

The 2001 UNGASS Declaration of Commitment and the 2006 Political Declaration on HIV/AIDS established time-bound targets to be met and reported on by countries worldwide. The commitments aimed to address the needs of people who inject drugs, their families and the communities in which they live through an “urgent, coordinated and sustained response.” ^{4 5} These commitments remain unfulfilled. People who inject drugs are increasing as a percentage of global HIV infections with devastating consequences for individuals and communities.

The mobilisation of an “intensified, much more urgent and comprehensive response”⁵ to HIV for people who inject drugs requires strong global leadership, concrete national policies and adequate funds to implement and scale up evidence-based services. The targets and commitments set in the 2006 Political Declaration must be met to address the needs of, and to fulfill the human rights of people who inject drugs living with and at risk of HIV. World leaders gathering at the June 2011 UN General Assembly High Level Meeting on HIV/AIDS must ensure that these commitments are met as a matter of urgency.
At the 2011 United Nations High Level Meeting on HIV/AIDS, we, the undersigned, call for:
Acknowledgement that people who use drugs, as a key population group affected by HIV and AIDS, have not reached universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support;
Renewed commitment and action toward the goal of universal access to comprehensive HIV prevention, treatment, care and support for people who inject drugs through the financing, implementation and scale-up of evidence-based harm reduction interventions; and
Commitment to removing legal and policy barriers to achieving the aims above, particularly a reorientation of punitive drug policies toward evidence- and human rights-based approaches.
It is time for action on HIV-related harm reduction. It is time for accountability for the rights of people who inject drugs.

A number of commitments made in the 2006 Political Declaration to address the international response to HIV remain unmet for people who inject drugs. Among them:

Commitment: “Ensure that a wide range of prevention programmes...including sterile injecting equipment and harm-reduction efforts related to drug use...is available in all countries, particularly the most affected countries” [paragraph 22]

Of the 158 countries and territories with reported injecting drug use globally, almost half lack essential harm reduction services.⁶ In most countries where needle and syringe programmes and opioid substitution therapy are available, coverage is still poor, reaching far below the numbers needed to have an impact on the epidemic.^{7 8} The situation for people held in places of detention is dire. Thirty-nine countries currently provide opioid substitution therapy in prisons, while only ten provide needle and syringe exchange, often reaching small numbers in few institutions.⁹

Action required: Evidence-based programmes targeting people who inject drugs need to be implemented and scaled up urgently across all settings in order to effectively prevent the further spread of HIV.

Commitment: “Reduce the global HIV/AIDS resource gap” [paragraph 39]
Less than 10% of the estimated need for harm reduction funding globally is presently being met. Current expenditure works out to less than three US cents per day per person injecting drugs.¹⁰^{11 12}
Approximately US$160 million was spent on HIV-related harm reduction in low and middle income countries in 2007, falling far short of the US$2.13 billion that UNAIDS estimates was needed in 2009, and the $3.2 billion in 2010.
Action required: National and international resources for HIV-related harm reduction must be scaled up as a matter of urgency.

Commitment: “Eliminate gender inequalities, gender-based abuse and violence; increase the capacity of women and adolescent girls to protect themselves from the risk of HIV infection, principally through the provision of health care and services” [paragraph 30]
Women and girls who inject drugs are more vulnerable to drug-related harms, including HIV infection, than are men who inject drugs.¹³ In a number of regions globally, injecting drug use is often perceived to conflict with the “socially derived roles of women as mothers, partners and caretakers”, exposing them to greater stigma and human rights violations than men who inject drugs.^{13 14 15} Most women do not have access to services that meet their sexual and reproductive health needs and increase their capacity to protect themselves from HIV infection.¹⁶ Incarcerated women who inject drugs face elevated health risks, including HIV infection, than do non-incarcerated women, yet have little or no access to legal frameworks and services that address their particular needs.^{17 18 19}

Action required: Gender-specific services and policies that facilitate their implementation are urgently required to ensure that women who inject drugs can effectively protect themselves from HIV infection.

Commitment: “Address the rising rates of HIV infection among young people to ensure an HIV-free future generation through the implementation of comprehensive, evidence-based prevention strategies” [paragraph 26]
Young people are increasingly affected by HIV and other harms associated with drug injecting.^{20 21} While we know that early intervention is necessary across age groups, legal barriers often prevent their implementation.^{22 23} In accordance with recent recommendations by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, there remains a need to provide “specialised and youth friendly...harm reduction services for young people” and to “amend laws that criminalise children for possession or use of drugs” in countries where such policies continue to be enforced.²²

Action required: In order to effectively address drug injecting among young people, legal age restrictions for accessing sterile equipment and opioid substitution therapy must be lifted. Services integrating harm reduction, HIV testing and prevention, and sexual and reproductive health for young people must be made widely accessible.

Commitment: “Overcome legal, regulatory or other barriers that block access to effective HIV prevention, treatment, care and support” [paragraph 15]
There is clear evidence that criminalisation of people who use drugs and law enforcement have not only failed to reduce the prevalence of drug use, but have created harms that fuel the HIV epidemic.^{23 24 25 26} Many countries continue to prohibit the provision of sterile injecting equipment and opioid substitution therapy and criminalise drug possession and paraphernalia.²⁷^{28 29 30}
Such measures can drive people who inject drugs away from prevention and care services and increase the risk of HIV infection. People who inject drugs face further discrimination in terms of access to effective HIV treatment.

Action required: Ineffective and punitive drug policies, particularly criminalisation of drug possession, must be reformed to ensure the realisation of human rights, and to support the implementation of evidence-based interventions for people who inject drugs, as outlined in the Vienna Declaration.³¹
Commitment: “Eliminate all forms of discrimination against and ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by people living with HIV and members of vulnerable groups” [paragraph 29]
People who inject drugs, particularly women, continue to experience multiple layers of stigma and discrimination that effectively undermine HIV prevention, treatment and support efforts.³²^{33 34 35 36} Record incarceration figures due to drug law enforcement have led to overcrowding and poor conditions in prisons.^{37 38}
Severe human rights violations against people who use drugs, such as cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, arbitrary arrest and detention, and extortion and police violence have been documented widely in a number of countries.

Action required: Punitive and discriminatory measures must be discontinued, and adequate resources dedicated to promoting health and human rights-based responses to drug use and HIV.

References
¹ UNAIDS (2010) Global Report on the AIDS Epidemic. View report Geneva: The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS.
² Mathers B et al (2008). The global epidemiology of injecting drug use and HIV among people who inject drugs: A systematic review. Lancet, 372 (9651), 1733-1745.
³ Mathers B et al (2010). HIV prevention, treatment, and care services for people who inject drugs: A systematic review of global, regional, and national coverage. Lancet, 375, DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60232-2.
⁴ 2001 Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS, UN GA Special Session on HIV/AIDS, 25-27 June 2001, paragraph 7.
⁵ Political Declaration on HIV/AIDS UN GA Res 60/262, 2 June 2006, paragraph 14.
⁶ Cook C. (2010) The Global State of Harm Reduction: Key Issues for Broadening the Response. London: International Harm Reduction Association.
⁷ Mathers, B. Degenhardt, L. Ali, H. Wiessing, L. Hickman, M. Mattick, R. P. Myers, B. Ambekar, A. Strathdee, S. A. HIV prevention, treatment, and care services for people who inject drugs: a systematic review of global, regional, and national coverage. The Lancet. 2010 Mar. 20: 375(9719):1014-28.
⁸ WHO, UNODC, UNAIDS (2009) Technical Guide for Countries to Set Targets for Universal Access to HIV Prevention, Treatment and Care for Injecting Drug Users. Geneva: World Health Organisation.
⁹ Jurgens R. (2010) ‘Out of sight, out of mind: Harm reduction in prisons and other places of detention.’ In The Global State of Harm Reduction: Key Issues for Broadening the Response. London: International Harm Reduction Association.
¹⁰ Stimson G., Cook C., Bridge J., Rio-Navarro J., Lines R., Barrett D. (2010) Three Cents a Day Is Not Enough: Resourcing Harm Reduction on a Global Basis. London: International Harm Reduction Association.
¹¹ Stimson G., Cook C., Bridge J., Rio-Navarro J., Lines R., Barrett D. (2010) Three Centre a Day Is Not Enough: Resourcing Harm Reduction on a Global Basis. London: International Harm Reduction Association.
¹² UNAIDS (2007) Financial Resources Required to Achieve Universal Access to HIV Prevention, Treatment, Care and Support. UNAIDS Inter-agency Task Team on Young People. World Health Organisation: Geneva.
¹³ Roberts A., Mathers B. and Degenhardt L. (2010) Women who inject drugs: A review of their risks, experiences and needs. Secretariat of the Reference Group to the UN on HIV and Injecting Drug Use. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC), University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
¹⁴ Sherman, S.G., Women and drugs across the globe: A call to action. International Journal of Drug Policy, 2008. 19(2): p. 97‐98.
¹⁵ Olszewski, D., Giraudon, I., Hedrich, D., Montanari, L., Women's Voices: Experiences and perceptions of women who face drug‐related problems in Europe. 2009. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
¹⁶ Roberts A., Mathers B. and Degenhardt L. (2010) Women who inject drugs: A review of their risks, experiences and needs. Secretariat of the Reference Group to the UN on HIV and Injecting Drug Use. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC), University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
¹⁷ Ashdown J. and James M. (2010) Women in Detention. International Review of the Red Cross. Volume 92: 877.
¹⁸ Ashdown J. and James M. (2010) Women in Detention. International Review of the Red Cross. Volume 92: 877.
¹⁹ WHO, UNODC (2009) Women’s health in prison: correcting gender inequity in prison health. Download PDF. Copenhagen, Denmark.
²⁰ EHRN (2009) Young people and injecting drug use in selected countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Eds. Jean-Paul Grund and Simona Merkinaite. Eurasian Harm Reduction Network View PDF.
²¹ WHO (2006) Preventing HIV/AIDS in Young People: A systematic review of the evidence from developing countries. Eds. David A. Ross, Bruce Dick and Jane Ferguson. UNAIDS Inter-agency Task Team on Young People. World Health Organisation: Geneva.
²² Committee on the Rights of the Child (2011) Fifty-sixth session: Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention.
²³ Degenhardt L, Chiu W-T, Sampson N, et al. (2008) Toward a global view of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, and cocaine use: Findings from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. PLOS Medicine. 5:1053-67.
²⁴ Jurgens R, Ball A, Verster A. (2009) Interventions to reduce HIV transmission related to injecting drug use in prison. Lancet Infectious Disease. 9:57-66.
²⁵ The National Centre on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (2009). Shoveling up II: The impact of substance abuse on State budgets. New York: Columbia University.
²⁶ Reuter P. (2009) Ten years after the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS): assessing drug problems, policies and reform proposals. Addiction 2009;104:510-7.
²⁷ Reuter P. (2009) Ten years after the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS): assessing drug problems, policies and reform proposals. Addiction. 104:510-7.
²⁸ Lert F. and Kazatchkine M.D. (2007) Antiretroviral HIV treatment and care for injecting drug users: an evidence-based overview. International Journal of Drug Policy. 18:4.
²⁹ IHRD (2008). Harm Reduction Developments 2008: Countries with Injection Driven HIV Epidemics. New York: International Harm Reduction Development Program (IHRD) of the Open Society Institute.
³⁰ Wolfe D., Carrieri P. and Shepard D. (2010) Treatment and care for injecting drug users with HIV infection: a review of barriers and ways forward. Lancet. 376: 9738, 355-366.
³¹ The Vienna Declaration (2010) View declaration.
³² Ahern J, Stuber J, Galea S. (2007) Stigma, discrimination and the health of illicit drug users. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 88:188.
³³ Gallahue P. and Lines R. (2010) The Death Penalty for Drug Offences: Global Overview 2010. The International Harm Reduction Association. London: International Harm Reduction Association (IHRA).
³⁴ Open Society Foundations (2010) Human Rights and Drug Policy Briefings for the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs “Briefing 2: Human Rights and Drug Policy: Drugs, Criminal Laws and Policing Practices.” Download PDF. December 2010.
³⁵ Human Rights Watch (2010) Where Darkness Knows No Limits: Incarceration, Ill-treatment and Forced Labour as Drug Rehabilitation in China. Ed. Joseph Amon. New York: Human Rights Watch.
³⁶ IHRD (2009) Human Rights Abuses in the Name of Drug Treatment: Reports from the Field. New York: International Harm Reduction Development Program (IHRD) of the Open Society Institute.
³⁷ United Nations General Assembly. A/65/255 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. Paragraph 68.
³⁸ C. Hughes and A. Stevens (2007) The Effects of Decriminalization of Drug Use in Portugal. The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme. Briefing Paper 14.

Joint Statement Against the Death Penalty at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs

2011-03-24T21:10:00.004Z

The statement copied below - calling for an end to the illegal use of the death penalty for drug offences was read out by Eka Iakobishvili (Human Rights analyst for the International Harm Reduction Association) as an NGO representative (via the Vienna NGO committee on drugs) at yesterday's pleanry session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs.

Such a call should be relatively uncontroversial at a UN gathering - the General Assembly has called for a moratorium on all use of the death penalty, and the UNODC has recently (it should be noted - following concerted NGO pressure) made a clear statement opposing the use of the death penalty. In a 2010 paper by the previous Executive Director of the UNODC, Antonio Maria Costa, titled 'Drug control, crime prevention and criminal justice: a human rights perspective - Note by the Executive Director' (para 25/26) the UNODC position was laid out (bold emphasis added):

"The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights specifies that in countries which have not abolished the death penalty, the sentence of death may be imposed only for the “most serious crimes”. The concept of “most serious crimes” is limited to those where it can be shown that there was an intention to kill which resulted in the loss of life. The weight of opinion indicates that drug offences (such as possession and trafficking) and those of a purely economic nature do not meet this threshold. Moreover, States that have abolished the death penalty are prohibited to extradite any person to another country where he or she might face capital punishment."

"Despite such prohibitions, a considerable number of the 47 retentionist States that continue to use capital punishment have carried out executions for drug offences in recent years. In some of these countries, drug offenders constitute a significant proportion of total executions As an entity of the United Nations system, UNODC advocates the abolition of the death penalty and calls upon Member States to follow international standards concerning prohibition of the death penalty for offences of a drug-related or purely economic nature.

However, as IHRA have demonstrated with their groundbreaking death penalty publications, the illegal use of the death penalty for drug offences remains widespread, with an estimated 1000+ such executions taking place annually, some even resulting from arrests made under UNODC funded enforcement projects.

The plenary statement (endorsed by Transform) as read:

Date: 24 March 2011

Agenda Item No. 7: World Situation with Regard to Drug Trafficking

"Thank you, Mr Chairman. This statement is made on behalf of:

The International Harm Reduction Association
The International Network of People Who Use Drugs
Penal Reform International
Human Rights Watch
The International Drug Policy Consortium
The German Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty
The Open Society Foundations Drug Policy Programme
Reprieve
Transform Drug Policy Foundation
The Quaker Council for European Affairs
and 20 other non-governmental organisations

We are grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important agenda item.

We heard yesterday from UNODC of the seizures of illicit substances made in many parts of the world. While looking at the statistics on tonnes and kilos, we must also recognise the human face of such seizures.

We must consider the penalties that will be applied to those who are arrested and prosecuted. This is not to excuse criminality – but nor can we excuse the taking of human life for any crime.

The death penalty for drug offences is a violation of international law. This is clear. Yet 32 jurisdictions retain this excessive and cruel punishment. The International Harm Reduction Association has identified hundreds of executions annually for drug-related offences but believes that as many as one thousand people may be executed for drug offences each year when states that keep their death penalty statistics a secret are counted.

The justification for this is usually deterrence. This is a faulty argument that has been presented many times over, and for a range of crimes.

While nobody should be executed for any offence, the vast majority of those known to be sentenced to die for drugs are not kingpins or major traffickers. They are carriers. Very often involvement in this aspect of the drug trade is driven by poverty, drug dependence and a lack of options. To kill these people is cruel in the extreme.

Our call is brief. All States must cease the application of the death penalty for drug offences, and, indeed, for all offences, and immediately institute a moratorium to spare the lives of those on death row."

Press Release: Count the Costs project is launched at UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs

2011-03-22T12:00:00.002Z

Fifty Years of the War on Drugs: Time to Count the Costs and Explore the Alternatives

The War on Drugs - Count the Costs global campaign will be launched by NGOs from around the world at a side-event at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) in Vienna:

When: Wednesday 23 March, 13.15 – 14.45

Where: Mozart Room, Vienna International Conference Centre, Vienna

Speakers will outline the many costs of the war on drugs, and the aims of the campaign, to an audience of international policy makers, NGO representatives, and media. See the new project website here: www.countthecosts.org for more details

The War on Drugs: Count the Costs campaign will bring together interested parties from around the world, including NGOs, policy makers and others whose work is negatively impacted by international drug enforcement. Together they will call on governments and international agencies to meaningfully evaluate the unintended consequences of the war on drugs and explore evidence-based alternatives. The results of this campaign will be presented to the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in 2012. Here is the full text of the call:

The War on Drugs - Count the Costs and Explore the Alternatives

"The global 'war on drugs' has been fought for 50 years, without preventing the long-term trend of increasing drug supply and use. Beyond this failure, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime has also identified the many serious ‘unintended negative consequences’ of the drug war. These costs result not from drug use itself, but from choosing a punitive enforcement-led approach that, by its nature, places control of the trade in the hands of organised crime, and criminalises many users. In the process this:

1. Undermines international development and security, and fuels conflict

2. Threatens public health, spreads disease and causes death

3. Undermines human rights

4. Promotes stigma and discrimination

5. Creates crime and enriches criminals

6. Causes deforestation and pollution

7. Wastes billions on ineffective law enforcement

The 'war on drugs' is a policy choice. There are other options that, at the very least, should be debated and explored using the best possible evidence and analysis.

We all share the same goals – a safer, healthier and more just world.

Therefore, we the undersigned, call upon world leaders and UN agencies to quantify the unintended negative consequences of the current approach to drugs, and assess the potential costs and benefits of alternative approaches."

Martin Powell, Co-ordinator of the Count the Costs campaign said:

“In 1961 UN member states gathered to sign the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the legal cornerstone of the enforcement-led approach that has become known as the global war on drugs. Fifty years later, with literally trillions of dollars spent, illegal drugs are one of the largest commodity trades on earth. Even the UN Office on Drugs and Crime that oversees the global drug control system, concedes that drug enforcement efforts have fuelled the creation of a vast criminal market with disastrous negative unintended consequences.

Yet no government or UN body has ever quantified these negative costs, or meaningfully explored alternatives to the war on drugs. After half a century this is long overdue. Only by looking at the evidence of what has worked and what has not can we hope to move towards a global drug control system that is, as the UNODC has suggested ‘fit for purpose’.”

The Count the Costs call mirrors numerous comments made by world leaders, concerning the need to evaluate the costs and benefits of various policy regimes including President Santos of Colombia, Washington Post, Dec 2010:

“There are some fundamental structural contradictions in this war on drugs . . . We in Colombia have been successful, but our success is hurting the whole of Central America, Mexico, the Caribbean, Africa, and eventually it will backfire on us again. So are we pursuing the correct long-term policy? I don't object to discussing any alternatives but if we are going to discuss alternatives, let's discuss every alternative… what is the cost, what is the benefit of each alternative?”

The War on Drugs: Count the Costs campaign launch is backed by: International Drug Policy Consortium; International Harm Reduction Association; Eurasian Harm Reduction Network; Drug Policy Alliance (US); Espolea (Mexico); Release (UK); Transform Drug Policy Foundation (UK); Hungarian Civil Liberties Union; CuPIHD (Mexico); Transnational Institute (Netherlands); International Centre for Science in Drug Policy (Canada); New Zealand Drug Policy Foundation; Washington Office on Latin America.

ENDS

Contact:

Martin Powell, Count the Costs Project Coordinator
+44 (0)7875 679301
martin@tdpf.org.uk

Steve Rolles, Senior Policy Analyst, Transform Drug Policy Foundation
+44 (0)7980 213943
steve@tdpf.org.uk

Simona Merkinaite, Program Officer, Eurasian Harm Reduction Network(EHRN)
+370 68254401
simona@harm-reduction.org

Notes for Editors

War on Drugs - Count the Costs launch event:

Where: Mozart Room, Vienna International Conference Centre, Vienna
When: Wednesday 23 March, 13.15 – 14.45

Speakers:

Simona Merkinaite: Policy and Advocacy Program Officer, Eurasian Harm Reduction Network (Lithuania) - The health and human rights impacts of drug law enforcement in the Eurasian regions
Aram Barra: Drug Policy Programme Director, Espolea (Mexico) - Counting the costs of Mexico’s 'war on drugs'
Damon Barrett: Senior Human Rights Analyst, International Harm Reduction Association (UK) - Drugs and human rights: is drug law enforcement proportionate? The case for Impact Assessment

Chair: Martin Powell: Count the Costs Project Coordinator, Transform Drug Policy Foundation (UK)

For more information visit: www.countthecosts.org

The unintended consequences of the war on drugs were outlined by then Executive Director of UN Office on Drugs and Crime Antonio Maria Costa in "Making drug control 'fit for purpose': Building on the UNGASS decade" UNODC, 2008, p10:

“The first unintended consequence is a huge criminal black market that thrives in order to get prohibited substances from producers to consumers…

The second unintended consequence is what one might call policy displacement. The expanding criminal black market obviously demanded a commensurate law enforcement response, and more resources. The consequence was that public health was displaced into the background, more honoured in lip service and rhetoric, but less in actual practice…

The third unintended consequence is geographical displacement. It is often called the balloon effect because squeezing (by tighter controls) one place produces a swelling (namely, an increase) in another place…

The fourth unintended consequence is what one might call substance displacement. If the use of one drug was controlled, by reducing either supply or demand, suppliers and users moved on to another drug with similar psychoactive effects.

The fifth unintended consequence is the way we perceive and deal with the users of illicit drugs. A system appears to have been created in which those who fall into the web of addiction find themselves excluded and marginalized from the social mainstream, tainted with a moral stigma, and often unable to find treatment even when they may be motivated to want it.”

CFR report calls for Commission on alternatives, including legalisation

2011-03-16T21:00:00.000Z

A new report from the US based Council on Foreign Relations titled 'The Drug War in Mexico: Confronting a Shared Threat' makes a powerful critique of the ongoing enforcement-led US response, before calling for a more pragmatic approach built more around development and public health interventions. The report specifically calls for a Government inquiry into the potential costs and benefits drug legalisation, and for the Federal government to allow state level experimentation with the legalisation, taxation and regulation of cannabis/marijuana.

The analysis that leads to these recommendations is not new, but is clearly stated (for full text with references - see pdf) highlighting the need to look at the potential costs and benefits of current policy against those of policy alternatives (a DTO is a Drug Trafficking Organisation):

Rethinking U.S. Drug Policy

Mexico’s security crisis illustrates the limitations of current anti-drug strategies and offers an opportunity to shift the paradigm to a more sensible approach. Over the last four decades, the war on drugs has lacked clear, consistent, or achievable objectives; has had little effect on aggregate demand; and has imposed an enormous social and economic cost. A state-driven, supply-side, and penalty based approach has failed to curb market production, distribution, and consumption of drugs. The assumption that punishing suppliers and users can effectively combat a large market for illicit drugs has proven to be utterly false. Rather, prohibition bestows enormous profits on traffickers, criminalizes otherwise law-abiding users and addicts, and imposes enormous costs on society. Meanwhile, there has been no real effect on the availability of drugs or their consumption, and three quarters of U.S. citizens believe that the war on drugs has failed.

One flaw of current U.S.-Mexico strategy is the false presumption that international trafficking of drugs, guns, and cash can be effectively addressed through interdiction, particularly along the nearly two-thousand-mile U.S.-Mexican border. After a three-decade effort to beef up security, the U.S.Mexico border is more heavily fortified than at any point since the U.S.-Mexico war of 1846–48. The United States has deployed more than twenty thousand border patrol agents and built hundreds of miles of fencing equipped with high-tech surveillance equipment, all at an annual cost of billions of dollars—with $3 billion per year spent on border control alone. While this massive security build-up at the border has achieved maximum attainable levels of operational control, the damage to Mexico’s drug cartels caused by border interdiction has been inconsequential. Meanwhile, there have been several unintended consequences of heightened interdiction at the border, including added hassles and delays that obstruct billions of dollars in legitimate commerce each year, the expansion and increased sophistication of cross-border smuggling operations, and greater U.S. vulnerability to attacks and even infiltration by traffickers. Further efforts to beef up the border through more patrolling and fencing will have diminishing returns, and will likely cause more economic harm than gains in security for the struggling communities of the border region.

Given the limits of U.S. drug policy, there is a need for more information and analysis to weigh the costs and benefits of current efforts against alternative policy options. For example, one recent study suggests that legalizing marijuana would cause as much as $1 to 2 billion in losses for Mexican drug traffickers, since competition from legally registered producers would drive them out of the business. Since these DTOs would continue to smuggle other profitable illicit drugs, the main benefit of marijuana legalization would be to allow U.S. border security and law enforcement to focus their resources on other problems. Of course, while support for this idea is growing, the potential hazards and limitations of drug legalization are substantial. Legalization would almost certainly cause drug traffickers to move into other illicit activities to maintain profitability, so U.S. and Mexican authorities would still need to develop better measures to combat kidnapping, robbery, extortion, and other forms of organized crime. Meanwhile, as with other controlled substances, like tobacco and alcohol, increased recreational drug use would likely result in widespread use and significant social harms in both countries, including traffic fatalities, fatal overdoses, addiction, and chronic health problems.

Any effort to legalize drugs would need to proceed with careful study, ample deliberation, and due caution. Yet, with or without legalization, authorities should work with greater urgency and focus to develop public health and law enforcement measures to prevent, treat, and reduce the harms associated with drug consumption. In the end, treating drug consumption and organized crime as separate problems will make it possible to address both more effectively. To make this possible—and before other countries or even some U.S. states venture further down the road toward drug legalization—the U.S. federal government should move quickly to examine the current approach and chart a course toward a more effective drug policy.

The author seems to make somewhat sweeping, non evidence-based assumptions about reform and increasing use (although it is ambiguous - is he merely warning or the dangers of increased use if the process is ill managed?) and fails to make a distinction between use and misuse, or prevalence and harm (See Blueprint for Regulation, p. 40)

It is, however, worth reading the whole 56 page report. The key drug law reform recommendations are:

Reevaluate U.S. Drug Policy

The U.S. Congress should commission an independent advisory group to examine the fiscal and social impacts of drug legalization as well as other alternative approaches to the war on drugs. The commission should be provided adequate funding---at least $2 million---to provide a comprehensive review of existing policies and develop realistic, clearly defined, and achievable policy recommendations for reducing the harms
caused by drug consumption and abuse.

Shift U.S. Counter-Drug Priorities to Focus on Major Sources of Illicit Income

To allow policy experimentation, the federal government should permit states to legalize the production, sale, taxation, and consumption of marijuana. While testing this policy shift, authorities should redirect scarce law enforcement resources to focus on the more damaging and socially unacceptable drugs (like heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine) from which Mexican DTOs derive more than 70 percent of their drug proceeds.

The first of these calls is in line with Transform's call for current drug policy and alternatives to be subject to meaningful scrutiny in the form of an Impact Assessment.

We would question the wisdom of directing resources towards more risky drugs proposed in the second (no more likely to succeed, and just as likely to lead to unintended negative consequences as any prohibition where demand is already established) but the call for an experiment in legalisation and regulation of cannabis is still an important one for an influential body such as the CFR to be endorsing.

How to skew polls and influence people

2011-03-09T15:46:00.012Z

Most people would assume that professional pollsters understand the importance of how their questions are worded. If you want to obtain valid results from your poll, you need to make sure that your questions represent both sides of an issue fairly, without any latent bias in their wording.

For example, if you want to know people’s views on taxation, you should recognise that there is likely to be a vast difference in responses between the following questions:

(1) Do you favour an increase in the level of tax you pay on your income?

(2) Do you favour greater investment in public services such as healthcare, education and policing?

Obviously the two questions are different sides of the same coin, but if you only ask the first, you’re likely to get an overwhelming ‘no’, and if you only ask the second, you’re likely to get an overwhelming ‘yes’. Predictably, therefore, how a question is phrased, or the context in which it is asked, affects the answer you will get to it (as ‘Yes, Prime Minister’ brilliantly satirises in the scene below).

Pollsters appear to understand this concept when it comes to most issues – but rarely with drug policy reform.

If you look at the findings of an Angus Reid public opinion poll conducted last year, then you may feel disheartened at the lack of public support for a more progressive UK drug policy. In that poll, participants were shown a list of banned substances, including cannabis, along with the question ‘Do you support or oppose the legalisation of each of the following drugs?’.

Unsurprisingly, when formulated bluntly like this, the question yielded only a 35% level of support for the 'legalisation' of cannabis; and support for the legalisation of other drugs (generally seen as riskier) was lower still, with approximately one in five respondents approving of such a move. (It should be noted, however, than even this seemingly low level of support is relatively encouraging, as several years ago some polls claimed that only one in ten were in favour of legalising the most risky drugs.)

Part of the problem relates to the visceral aversion, embedded in the public consciousness, to the word ‘legalisation’. This aversion is largely based on confusion about what the term means when used in the drugs debate. The confusion is not surprising; it stems from the fact that legalisation is merely a process (broadly of making something illegal, legal), rather than a policy end point. A straight ‘Legalisation: yes/no?’ question gives no indication of how the legal regulatory regime being advocated as the final outcome of the process might actually work.

In the absence of such policy context just saying ‘legalisation’ on its own can reasonably be taken to suggest the removal of all controls – moving to the sort of commercial free market that Transform and most drug law reform advocates are specifically not calling for.

The legalisation question without any policy or regulatory context can also be confused with a question about personal or moral approval of drugs or drug use (in effect, ‘Do you approve of/condone the use of “drug x”’), as opposed to the real question, which is about what one thinks is the best policy response to dealing with a particular drug or drugs in society. We may, for example, disapprove of unhealthy food or overeating without suggesting blanket prohibitions on pork scratchings, or criminal punishments for people who eat too many of them.

If we want to know whether people morally approve of certain drug-using behaviours then it would be fine to ask a question about that. If we want to know what form of legal regulation people think would be appropriate for certain drugs or drug-using behaviours then we need a better question than ‘Legalisation: yes/no?’.

As a starting point, instead of using only the word ‘legalisation’ in opinion polls on drug policy reform, it might be more appropriate and accurate to ask people whether they support or oppose ‘legal regulation of drug production supply and use’, or ‘legalisation and regulation’, which would be better, if still imperfect. What is really needed, however, is a more specific and detailed description of the policy options people are being asked to chose from.

This semantic minefield of drug policy terminology is made all the more perilous by misunderstandings of the word ‘decriminalisation’. Instead of conflating the meanings of ‘decriminalisation’ and ‘legalisation’, as so often happens in media debate, pollsters should be aware of and clearly clarify the distinction between the two terms. The term ‘decriminalisation’ is usually understood to refer to the removal of only criminal penalties for certain activities (most commonly possession and personal use of drugs), but not of other, non-criminal sanctions, such as fines. 'Legalisation', by contrast, refers to a transition from prohibited to legally regulated production, supply and availability, with decriminalisation of use implicit in this process.

Neither term, unfortunately, has a strict legal definition, so they are subject to frequent confusion, often being used interchangeably. The only solution to this misunderstanding is to refrain from using the words in isolation and, again, contextualise them with some clear and concise explanatory text, eg: ‘Decriminalisation – moving from criminal to civil/administrative sanctions such as fines, for personal possession and use’.

When you look at polls which are more aware of the nuances of drug policy language, the results are strikingly different and give reason to be considerably more optimistic about the prospects for reform.

A recent poll of 2,000 people, commissioned by the Liberal Democrats for Drug Policy Reform, asked participants to select the most tolerable of three regulatory options for a range of drugs, along with a clearer description of what each option actually entails. They were:

Light regulation (drugs sold like tobacco and alcohol are now)
Strict government control and regulation (an example of how government could heavily regulate a legal market in an attempt to minimise harm)
Prohibition (the current status of illegal drugs)

Now without claiming this formulation is methodologically bulletproof, it does demonstrate that when given a clearer overview of the features of each option, it seems that, contrary to the findings of the less comprehensive Angus Reid poll, respondents are increasingly receptive to the idea of moving from absolute prohibitions to some method of legally regulating drug markets and availability.

The results of the LDDPR poll were that 70% of participants favoured some form of legal regulation of cannabis, with one in three of those polled favouring a regulatory system similar to that for tobacco and alcohol.

It also emerged that, when compared to the results of the Angus Reid poll, a far greater number of people would like to see the legally regulated availability of ecstasy (39% vs. 19%), cocaine (36% vs. 16%) and heroin (30% vs. 18%).

Perhaps emphasising just how much of a difference good polling can make, the LDDPR survey also made the somewhat unexpected finding that Daily Mail and Daily Express readers constituted the demographic most in favour of the strict control and regulation of drugs. Total support for at least some system of legal regulation was 66% among these readers, and 67% among Conservative voters.

Clearly more work in this area is needed (perhaps with some independently agreed formulation for the questions), but Ewan Hoyle, the founder of LDDPR, has highlighted the importance of asking the right questions when trying to establish the public’s views on drug policy reform.

Interestingly, his conclusion – that ‘…when asked to choose between various regulatory options, the British people are comfortable with strict control and regulation as a solution to our drugs problem’ – also seems to apply to the American people, too.

An Economist-YouGov poll carried out last month asked respondents to agree or disagree with the statement ‘Marijuana should be legalised, taxed and regulated’. In every age group polled – even over-65s – more people favoured than opposed legalisation. Although it is hard to say definitively, it seems reasonable to suggest that this is due to the mention of the more public-friendly measures of taxation and regulation – measures which, although they go hand in hand with legalisation, are so often omitted in opinion polls on drug policy reform.

It certainly seems to be the case that this question, which spells out a little more clearly what is actually being advocated, delivers more positive results than the more traditional ‘Legalisation of marijuana: yes/no?’ – although even when this latter question is asked we can observe a long-term trend of growing support for change in the US:

The above graph, compiled by polling guru Nate Silver, amalgamates all the data he could find on the issue of the legalisation of cannabis/marijuana – including the results of several Gallup polls and the General Social Survey – and shows that there has been an upward trend in favour of such a move since 1990.

Consequently, while especially encouraging findings emerge from polls that provide a more comprehensive overview of what drug law reform might actually entail, even the findings of polls that do not give a sufficient account of the options for reform show a sustained, long-term increase in support for more progressive drug control measures.

The story with regard to cannabis was roughly similar in the UK until the mid-2000s, since when support has dropped from between 40-50% (up from 15% in the 1980s), to between 30-40% today. Speculating as to why this has happened is for another blog, although it probably reflects the shifts in the nature of the UK cannabis market towards stronger varieties and the associated health concerns raised, or arguably hyped, by the media and politicians during the interminable cannabis re-re-classification saga. It may also reflect the fall in use noted by the British Crime Survey over the same period.

Hopefully the growing support more broadly – in the UK and elsewhere – will reassure policymakers and politicians that the legal regulation of currently illegal drugs is not only practical but politically possible. Remember that the steady change in public opinion has happened despite, until very recently, near universal political and media hostility. If any major political forces got behind reform it seems likely that things would change much more quickly – it's a question of who wants to pick up the baton and claim the plaudits.

Upcoming event: 'A ceasefire in the war on drugs'

2011-03-03T13:31:00.000Z

Transform's senior policy analyst, Steve Rolles, will be amongst the speakers at the second event in the 'Ceasefire in the war on drugs?' debate series organised by the University of Bedfordshire, joining former chief constable Tom lloyd, and the UK's Colombian Ambassador Mauricio Rodriguez Munera. Titled 'How the world's view of the drugs 'war' is changing', the event is at Kings College London at 6pm on the 6th of April. The event is are free and open to all (but space is limited).

For more details, including speakers at both events, please see the flyer below (click to see full size).

Manufacturing the Drug Threat

2011-02-15T10:06:00.031Z

N.B. This blog comes with a policy nerd warning!

Those who have followed the drugs debate will be only too aware of the way that politicians play on the fears of their citizens in order to maintain the war on drugs, despite the fact that it is their citizens who bear the brunt of its counterproductive effect. The International Relations theory of securitisation describes, better than any framework I’ve seen, how the threat-based process works. Moving to a non-securitised approach is essential to ending the war on drugs.

Securitisation is described as “the move that takes politics beyond the established rules of the game and frames the issue either as a special kind of politics or as above politics” (Buzan et al. 1998: 23). By declaring something a security issue, the speaker entitles himself to enforce and legitimise unusual and extreme measures to fight this threat. Referenced from here.

Rita Taureck of the University of Birmingham describes securitisation:

“The main argument of securitisation theory is that security is a speech act, that alone by uttering ‘security’ something is being done. “It is by labelling something a security issue that it becomes one.”(Wæver 2004a,) A securitising actor, by stating that a particular referent object is threatened in its existence, claims a right to extraordinary measures to ensure the referent objects survival. The issue is then moved out of the sphere of normal politics into the realm of emergency politics, where it can be dealt with swiftly and without the normal (democratic) rules and regulations of policy making. For the content of security this means that it has no longer any given meaning but that it can be anything a securitising actor says it is. Security - understood in this way - is a social construction, with the meaning of security dependent on what is done with it.”

This table illustrates how the process of securitisation applies to drug policy:

In March 2009 Senator John McCain described President Calderon's struggle with the cartels as "an existential threat to the very fabric of the government of Mexico," a statement Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said she agreed with.

In April that year Hillary Clinton told a House committee that the government in Islamabad is ceding territory and "basically abdicating to the Taliban and the extremists" in signing a deal that limits the government's involvement in the war-torn Swat Valley. Adding: "I think we cannot underscore [enough] the seriousness of the existential threat posed to the state of Pakistan by the continuing advances," said Clinton, adding that the nuclear-armed nation could also pose a "mortal threat" to the United States and other countries.

The following is from former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and appeared in the International Information Program electronic journal "U.S. National Security Strategy: A New Era", issued in December 2002.

“Perhaps most fundamentally, 9/11 crystallized our vulnerability. It also threw into sharp relief the nature of the threats we face today. Today's threats come less from massing armies than from small, shadowy bands of terrorists -- less from strong states than from weak or failed states. And after 9/11, there is no longer any doubt that today America faces an existential threat to our security -- a threat as great as any we faced during the Civil War, the so-called "Good War," or the Cold War.”

The use of the phrase ‘existential threat’ is highly revealing if you are aware that its source is the Copenhagen School, and appears in ‘Security: a new framework for analysis’ Buzan et al 1998. In a significant theoretical departure from classical security studies, Buzan, Waever and De Wilde came up with a new framework they called ‘securitisation’.

So, an existential threat is constructed as a threat to the very existence of the referent object. It is an academic version of “We’re all going to die!” It is generally understood that a speech act is made by a political leader and that the intended audience is the public. In the war on drugs the audiences who need to buy into the speech act are in fact other governments.

In this Transform briefing on securitisation, International Security and the Global War on Drugs: the Tragic Irony of Drug Securitisation, we suggest that there have in fact been two securitisations connected with global drug policy:

Securitisation 1 Fifty years ago the international community, through the UN, (and under considerable pressure from the US), agreed that addiction to and abuse of “narcotic drugs” constituted a threat to mankind. Describing it as a “serious evil for the individual” and “fraught with social and economic danger to mankind” and “Conscious of their duty to prevent and combat this evil” they agreed to put in place “effective measures against abuse of narcotic drugs” stating that this would “require co-ordinated and universal action”. These words from the 1961 UN Single Convention formed the basis of what has come to be known as the War on Drugs.

The “universal action” was to treat coca, cannabis and opium based drugs, destined for non-medical use, as a threat to the very existence of civilization as we know it. It is this threat-based approach, (in contrast to our predominantly trade and public health-based approach to alcohol and tobacco) that gave rise first to a global regime of prohibition and, somewhat predictably, to a globally profitable market exploited by organized criminals.

Securitisation 2 Over a period of decades these criminal cartels became a significant economic global force and, in combination with non-state actors, are perceived as a threat to nation states, and indeed entire regions of the globe. The 1988 UN Convention on drugs reads:“Recognizing the links between illicit traffic and other related organized criminal activities which undermine the legitimate economies and threaten the stability, security and sovereignty of States”. The recognition of this secondary threat from organized crime, the global community, again under pressure from the US (and in denial that it was the primary prohibition that had created the opportunity for organized criminals in the first place), embarked upon an increasingly militarized drug war to neutralize the ‘threat’ to nation states.

The collective amnesia, that it was the initial prohibition that created the opportunity for organised criminals, means that many politicians deliberately or unconsciously conflate the two securitisations and contend that ‘drugs’ or ‘addiction’ are the threats, when in fact the far greater threats arise from the ‘unintended consequences’ of the ‘extraordinary measure’ – prohibition.

It could be worse however. We might have had a thrid securitisation. In March 2010, during an expanded session of the Russia-NATO Council in Brussels, Viktor Ivanov, the head of Russia’s Federal Drug Control Service (FSKN), presented Moscow’s seven-point plan on fighting drug production in Afghanistan and suggested creating a joint group with NATO to tackle Afghan poppy production.

Among other ideas, the plan included “an upgrade of the status of the Afghan drug production problem in the UN Security Council to the level of a threat to world peace and security."

The inherent nature of a securitisation is anti-democratic, in so far as it is “the move that takes politics beyond the established rules of the game and frames the issue either as a special kind of politics or as above politics”. That is why evidence is anathema and why the political rhetoric around drug policy is so irrational and populist in tone. Once an issue has been securitised, a system of propaganda must be maintained to hold it within that framework.

Which leads me to one last point. When a securitisation has been in place for as long as the one relating to the non-medical use of drugs, progressive reform in itself becomes a ‘threat’ – a ‘threat’ to a long standing mission and some very well resourced agencies, charged with fighting the drug war. Now we see that what is actually under threat is an inflexible world order. A world order, whose long standing international relations, and indeed, national domestic social policies are predicated on fighting a futile war on drugs, are fundamentally threatened by a reform process that undoes its foundations.

Since the recent economic meltdown, it has been suggested that the global financial institutions are “too big to fail”. In many ways this is the case with macro-securitisations, like those of terror and drugs. There is so much political and economic capital tied up in the securitisation of drugs, it is difficult for those in power to envisage its demise. Tragically, what is bringing criticism of the securitisation to the fore, are the events in Mexico, Colombia and West Africa (very few care about Afghanistan). The collateral damage of the 1961 convention is taking a very heavy toll and the threat based narrative is sounding tired and paranoid.

When the US objected to Bolivia’s recent attempt to end the ban on coca chewing, they cited their main reason as maintaining the “integrity” of the UN Conventions. It isn’t the integrity of the Conventions that they are interested in maintaining, it is the maintenance of a world order, so much of which is based upon two major securitisations.

It is time that those pursuing a threat-based approach engaged in genuine debate regarding the outcomes of the extraordinary measure of prohibition and explored whether legally regulating drugs could deliver the kind of security outcomes that meet the needs of ordinary citizens in Colombia, Afghanistan, Mexico and West Africa.

Acknowledgement

I am indebted to my colleague Emily Crick for introducing me to the concept of securitisation, its application to international drug policy, and for numerous conversations that were essential to the develpment of this analysis.

Further reading:

Robert Mackey says the only real existential threat to the US is the Russian nuclear arsenal.

Jan Freeman on whether US citizens will believe the threat propaganda.

Wikipedia entry on securitisation.

Barry Buzan video on security.

Manufacturing Consent – Herman and Chomsky

Obama says legalising drugs a "Legitimate Topic for Debate"

2011-01-27T22:35:00.003Z

.
The following press release has been issued by Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) . Whilst some way from a shift in policy it is at least a significant shift in tone, especially given the US Drug Tsar's insistence that 'legalization is not in the president's vocabulary nor is it in mine'.

Well, here he is talking about it, and certainly not laughing it off like the last time he was asked. He specifically says he doesnt support legalisation, but certainly seems to be edging towards some form of decriminalisation of use. Progress then, albeit small steps. And as LEAP make clear - its important for actions to match words.

Still, lets have that debate.......

here's the video:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 27, 2011
CONTACT: Tom Angell - (202) 557-4979 or media//at//leap//dot//cc

Obama Says Legalizing Marijuana and Other Drugs a "Legitimate Topic for Debate"

President Says We Need to Shift to Public Health Focus, But His Budgets Haven't Done That

WASHINGTON, DC -- Today, in response to a video question from a former deputy sheriff about whether it is time to discuss legalizing and regulating drugs in light of the failure of the "war on drugs," President Barack Obama said that it is "an entirely legitimate topic for debate" but that he is not in favor of legalization.

The President then went on to say that he sees drug abuse as a public health issue and that a shifting of resources is required, away from the traditional approach of incarcerating nonviolent drug offenders.

"The president talks a good game about shifting resources and having a balanced, public health-oriented approach, but it doesn't square with the budgets he's submitted to Congress," said Neill Franklin, a retired Baltimore narcotics cop and executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a group of cops, judges and prosecutors who support legalizing and regulating drugs. "The Obama administration has maintained the Bush-era two-to-one budget ratio in favor of prisons and prosecution over treatment and prevention. It doesn't add up. Still, it's historic that the president of the United States is finally saying that legalizing and regulating drugs is a topic worthy of discussion. But since the president remains opposed to legalization, it's clear that the people are going to have to lead the way. Police officers and innocent civilians are dying every single day in this drug war; it's not a back-burner issue."

The president's comments today, part of a forum organized by YouTube where people could submit and vote on questions, came in response to a question from MacKenzie Allen, a LEAP member and a retired deputy sheriff who did policing in Los Angeles, CA and King County (Seattle), WA. Allen's question got the most votes in the contest, garnering twice as many as the second most-popular question.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) represents police, prosecutors, judges, FBI/DEA agents and others who want to legalize and regulate drugs after fighting on the front lines of the "war on drugs" and learning firsthand that prohibition only serves to worsen addiction and violence. More info at http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com.

Exec summary of Transform's 'Blueprint for Regulation' now available in Russian

2011-01-19T19:32:00.001Z

We are pleased to announce the publication of a Russian translation of 'After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation' (24 page executive summary),Transform's groundbreaking 2009 publication that considers the detail of how a post-prohibition regulatory framework for drug markets can operate (click the image below to view the pdf). We are grateful to our Russian colleagues for providing the translation.

The Russian translation of the exec summary joins the existing translations in Portugese, Spanish and Italian (print copies also available). A German translation is due for pulication shortly. 2011 will also see the arrival of translations of the complete text of the book into German, Spanish and Italian.

IDPC calls on countries to abstain from objecting to Bolivian proposal to lift UN coca ban

2011-01-18T11:35:00.005Z

The following press release and advocacy note were issued by the International Drug Policy Consortium (of which Transform is a partner member) on Jan 13th

Update Sunday Jan 16: Diplomatic games to oppose lifting unjust ban on coca chewing

TNI detail latest developments as a number of countries withdraw objections, whilst the US continues its manoeuvring to push the objection through.

Update Tuesday Jan 18: The U.S. Moves to Block Bolivia’s Request to Eliminate U.N. Ban on Coca Leaf Chewing TNI cover latest developments as US prepare to lodge their objection

Correcting a historical error: IDPC calls on countries to abstain from submitting objections to the Bolivian proposal to remove the ban on the chewing of the coca leaf

Several governments led by the United States are mobilising to block a request by the Bolivian government to remove an international ban on the centuries-old practice of chewing coca leaves. The 18-month period to contest Bolivia’s requested amendment ends January 31, 2011.

In 2009, Bolivia’s first indigenous President, Evo Morales Ayma, sent a request to the United Nations to remove the unjustified ban on coca leaf chewing. This would amend the 1961 United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and bring it in line with the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Mr Morales sought to correct a historical error. He stated in his letter to the Secretary General: "Coca leaf chewing is one of the socio-cultural practices and rituals of the Andean indigenous peoples. It is closely linked to our history and cultural identity.” This ancestral practice "cannot and should not be prohibited.”

In the 1990s, a study conducted by the World Health Organisation concluded that chewing coca causes none of the harmful health or social consequences as cocaine use. The US blocked the publication of this evidence.

The US and a number of other governments including the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, the Russian Federation, Japan and Colombia are now planning to stop the right of Bolivians to express their own culture. They are planning to lodge formal objections to the amendment prior to the deadline on the January 31, 2011 which would result in the UN rejecting the Bolivian request.

Jeremy Corbyn, a UK Member of Parliament and the Secretary of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Bolivia, said,

“At a time when drug prohibition has enriched and emboldened criminal cartels to such an extent that they are attempting to violently annex the state in parts of Mexico and Guatemala, the US is expending considerable effort in blocking the Bolivian government’s legitimate and democratic right to protect and preserve a harmless indigenous practice. The international community needs to get its priorities right and resist this culturally ignorant attempt to dictate to indigenous people in Bolivia.”

The International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC) calls on countries not to oppose the amendment. Ann Fordham, the Coordinator of IDPC, stated,

Bolivia has made a reasonable and democratic request to the international community. The fact that predominantly Western countries are unwilling to allow even the slightest amendments to the drug control regime, even where they conflict with the cultural and indigenous rights, is a very worrying development.”

ends

IDPC Advocacy Note (available in pdf here)

In 2009, the Bolivian government requested that the United Nations amend the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs(1). The proposed amendment would remove the unjustified ban on coca leaf chewing while maintaining the strict global control system for coca cultivation and cocaine(2). The 18month period to contest Bolivia’s requested amendment ends January 31, 2011. Several countries, including the United States, Colombia, the Russian Federation, Japan, France, the UK, Germany, Italy, Sweden and Denmark, are considering submitting formal objections to the Secretary General. IDPC calls on these governments to think again. The continuation of the ban clearly conflicts with official multilateral government declarations, including the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples(3).

Protecting the indigenous and cultural right of Andean-Amazon peoples to chew coca does not undermine the international efforts to address the significant problems related to the illicit cocaine market. The amendment’s defeat would demonstrate that the international community continues to prioritise a punitive zero-tolerant approach to drug control over the rights of indigenous peoples. Objecting to the requested amendment would perpetuate an obvious violation of these liberties.

Furthermore, reasonable and technically sound amendments to the drug control Conventions should be
seen as a normal part of the modernisation process to make them fit for purpose in the 21st century.

Background

The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs(4) is the key United Nations agreement that enshrines the global drug control system. When it was drafted and agreed, one of the drugs that Western governments wanted to bring under tight international control was cocaine. However, a dilemma existed in the widespread and culturally embedded traditional practice of chewing coca leaves in several Latin American countries (Colombia's Indigenous territories, the Brazilian Amazon, Peru and Bolivia and the North of Argentina and Chile). Unlike cocaine use, chewing coca leaf causes no known health or social problems. Nevertheless, chewing coca was banned, with governments being given twenty-five years to eradicate the practice. That deadline expired in 1989(5). Since then, the International Narcotics Control Board has constantly pressured countries to enforce the ban.

The ban on coca chewing was passed in a time when scant attention was given to cultural and indigenous rights, and records of the debate around coca leaf at that time show that the international community did not consider the rights and interests of the communities that consumed coca leaves to perpetuate religious, social, cultural and medicinal traditions.

The findings of the UN 1950 Coca Leaf Enquiry Commission report formed the justification for the ban on
coca leaf chewing in the Single Convention(6). Analysts sharply criticised the report as arbitrary, imprecise, racist, and culturally insensitive. Fifty years on, the United Nations has commendably agreed much stronger protections for indigenous rights. These resolutions raise questions regarding some aspects of the drug control conventions.

There have been several efforts to rectify this error:

1) The 1988 Trafficking Convention stipulated that any measures “shall take due account of traditional licit uses,” but immediately neutralised its possible application by holding that it could not undermine obligations assumed in previous treaties.

2) The World Health Organisation and the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute initiated the Cocaine Project(7) in the early 1990s. This project concluded that traditional consumption of coca leaves has no negative health effects and fulfils positive therapeutic, sacred and social functions for indigenous Andean populations. However, U.S. diplomatic pressure blocked the study’s publication, revealing a determination to assure that ideology prevails over scientific evidence.

Widespread Support for Reform

Over the past fifty years, national and international law have firmly embedded indigenous peoples’ rights in a number of legal instruments and declarations. The 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples states that “indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions.”(8)

In April 2010, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, an advisory body to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), welcomed Bolivia’s amendment on the traditional use of the coca leaf. “The Forum recommends that Member States support this initiative.”(9) In May 2009, the Forum stated that it “recognizes the cultural and medical importance of coca in the Andean region and other indigenous regions of South America” and recommended “the amendment or abolishment of the sections of the Convention relating to the custom of chewing coca leaf that are inconsistent with indigenous people´s rights to maintain their traditional practices in health and culture enshrined in Articles 11, 24 and 31 of the Declaration”(10).

Representatives of Latin American indigenous peoples have successfully fought for and secured their place in modern politics and society, defending traditional practices including the consumption of the coca leaf. Correcting the historical error banning coca use in its natural form is an indispensable measure to respect the rights of indigenous peoples in Bolivia, Peru and Colombia. For example, the Bolivian UN amendment proposal arose from the recognition in the nation’s 2009 Constitution that the coca leaf is an integral part of Bolivia’s cultural heritage.(11) Peru has always maintained a legal coca market and the National Culture Institute declared coca chewing in 2005 as immaterial cultural patrimony(12). Colombia allows traditional use of coca in its indigenous reserves and Argentina also legally recognizes coca leaf use and protects the rights of its consumers(13). With the August 2009 Presidential Declaration of Quito(14), all South American nations expressed support for the Bolivian proposal, requesting that the international community respect the ancestral cultural practice of coca leaf chewing. Potential Outcomes

If no UN members submit objections by 31st January, the amendment would automatically enter into force. If some nations object, ECOSOC will have the following options:

(a) Approve the amendment, which would not apply to objecting nations;
(b) Reject the amendment in response to objections and the substantive arguments provided; or
(c) Convene a Conference of the Parties to discuss the matter

Conclusion and Recommendations

IDPC strongly urges the international community to abstain from submitting objections to the proposed
amendment to ensure that the discriminatory and scientifically unsubstantiated ban on natural coca leaf
consumption can finally be eliminated. IDPC also calls on ECOSOC Member States to support the
amendment’s approval, with the understanding that its stipulations will not apply to objecting nations.
Resolving this contradiction between the 1961 Single Convention, the 1988 Convention and the UN
Declarations on the rights of Indigenous Peoples is long overdue.

For further background information:

References:

1. Economic and Social Council (15 May 2009), Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, as amended by the Protocol amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 (New York, 8 August 1975) - Proposal of amendments by Bolivia to article 49, paragraphs 1 (c), E/2009/78 and 2 (e),
http://druglawreform.info/images/stories/documents/ECOSOC_Bolivia_Coca_EN.pdf

2. Cocaine is the concentrated alkaloid extracted from the coca plant. The process of extracting this alkaloid is difficult and lengthy, involving numerous chemicals and requiring significant quantities of coca leaves (upwards of 100 kilos). It is not economically viable to extract cocaine from sun-dried coca leaves, coca tea or coca flour available in the legal consuming markets in the Andes region. See Henman, A & Metaal, P. (2009) Coca Myths. TNI Drugs and Conflict Debate papers, June 2009, No. 17, http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/debate17_0.pdf.

3. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on 13 September 2007, http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html

4. 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, as amended by the 1972 Protocol,
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/convention_1961_en.pdf

5. The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs entered into force in 1964. The deadline for banning the
chewing of coca leaves was the 12th December 1989.

6. Economic and Social Council (May 1950), Report of the Commission of Enquiry on the Coca Leaf,
http://www.tni.org/archives/drugscoca-docs/enquiry1950.pdf

7. World Health Organization & United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute, Cocaine project, http://www.tni.org/archives/docs/200703081409275046.pdf

8. Article 31 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on 13 September 2007,- http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html

9. Economic and Social Council, Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Report on the 9th session (19-30 April 2010), E/2010/43-E/C.19/2010/15, http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/E_2010_43_EN.pdf

10. Economic and Social Council, Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Report on the 8th session (18-29 May 2009), E/2009/43 - E/C.19/2009/14, http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents /E_C_19_2009_14_en.pdf

11. Article 384 of the Bolivian Constitution: “The State protects the original and ancestral coca leaf as part of the cultural heritage, and a renewable natural resource of Bolivia’s biodiversity: in its natural state it is not a narcotic. Its valuation, production, trade and industrial uses will be defined by law”.
12. Resolution 1707/INC of December 6th 2005, Peruvian National Culture Institute,
http://www.inc.gob.pe/patrimonio_cultural.shtml?x=23

13. Criminal Law, N 23.737, 1989, Art. 15: “The possession and consumption of the coca leaf in its natural state, destined for the practice of "coqueo" or chewing, or its use as an infusion, will not be considered as possession or consumption of narcotics”. http://infoleg.mecon.gov.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/0-4999/138/norma.htm

14. Declaración Presidencial de Quito (10 August 2009), III Reunión Ordinaria del Consejo de Jefas y Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno de la Unión de Naciones Suramericanas (UNASUR), http://www.comunidadandina.org/unasur/10-809Dec_quito.htm

Sinn Fein initiates reform in Ireland

2011-01-05T12:46:00.005Z

Sinn Féin, Ireland’s fastest growing political party, has taken several steps to encourage a more effective, evidence-based approach to tackling the problems of drug addiction and drug-related crime.

In its most recent drug policy document, Sinn Féin demonstrates a welcome and pragmatic understanding of the factors influencing drug abuse, stating:

“Harmful drug use has a complex relationship with class, inequality and poverty. Unless poverty and inequality are tackled, the scourge of drugs will continue.”

The party’s reasoned stance on drug use continues with the call for a drug policy which is founded on facts rather than ideology:

“The administration of criminal justice as it interacts with drug-related crime should be reviewed, reformed and tailored to more effectively address and reduce systemic crime, economic compulsive crime and psychopharmacological crime. A broad societal debate considering every possible approach and all relevant evidence from other jurisdictions including those that have experimented with decriminalization and/or legalization is warranted to this end.

“New approaches must be informed by the most credible emerging evidence and international best practice.”

Sinn Féin has further indicated its willingness to embrace drug policy reform with the introduction of a bill to regulate the sale of ‘legal highs’. Presented to the Irish Parliament in April this year, the bill proposes the establishment of a Non-Medicinal Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority, whose main functions would be:

To formulate and publish rules for the issuing of licenses to those involved in the retail, distribution, import and production of non-medicinal psychoactive substances
To establish and maintain a publicly available register of those licensed to engage in the sale, importation, distribution and production of non-medicinal psychoactive substances
To conduct or otherwise instigate inspections of licensees’ premises, products and any property connected to the sale, distribution, importation and production of non-medicinal psychoactive substances

In the explanatory memorandum to the bill, the Sinn Féin spokesperson for Justice, Social Welfare and International Affairs, Aengus Ó Snodaigh, highlighted the futility of adopting a purely prohibitive stance on the trade of these substances via ‘head shops’:

“The current system of identifying and banning substances has proven ineffective in dealing with these dangerous substances. Through cynical labelling and the masking of active ingredients the head shops have managed to establish an increasingly lucrative industry to the detriment of public health and well-being.”

In contrast, Ó Snodaigh rightly claims that by taking a regulatory approach to the sale and distribution of legal highs, the new bill will help to “protect public health and reduce the risk of harm from such products and substances”.

Ó Snodaigh further highlighted his party’s commitment to establishing a more effective drug policy by putting a parliamentary question to the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Micheál Martin. After being made aware of the proposal by Transform, Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for his views on carrying out a transnational impact assessment of drug policy, a measure initially advocated in a briefing paper by the International Drug Policy Consortium.

Martin’s response to the question was typically evasive and dismissive, stating that he was “not aware” that the IDPC’s proposals for an impact assessment of drug policy had been raised in any relevant international forum.

As Transform is proposing, impact assessments of drug policy are a vital step in establishing a fairer and more successful solution to the challenges of problematic drug use and the illegal drug trade. Without such non-partisan evaluations of drug policy, drug war ideology, knee jerk responses to media panics and populist law and order posturing will continue to underpin governmental approaches to drugs. Bad policy can be the only result and the plight of the most vulnerable members of society will continue to worsen.

'Legalise and regulate drugs' says UK's former drugs and defence Minister

2010-12-16T00:01:00.010Z

Bob Ainsworth MP, former Home Office drugs minister and Secretary of State for Defence, will call for the legalisation and regulation of drugs during a Parliamentary debate he is leading in Westminster Hall, at 2.30pm, Thurs 16th December 2010.

Mr Ainsworth said;

“I have just been reading the Coalition Government’s new Drugs Strategy. It is described by the Home Secretary as fundamentally different to what has gone before; it is not. To the extent that it is different, it is potentially harmful because it retreats from the principle of harm reduction, which has been one of the main reasons for the reduction in acquisitive crime in recent years.

However, prohibition has failed to protect us. Leaving the drugs market in the hands of criminals causes huge and unnecessary harms to individuals, communities and entire countries, with the poor the hardest hit. We spend billions of pounds without preventing the wide availability of drugs. It is time to replace our failed war on drugs with a strict system of legal regulation, to make the world a safer, healthier place, especially for our children. We must take the trade away from organised criminals and hand it to the control of doctors and pharmacists.

As drugs minister in the Home Office I saw how prohibition fails to reduce the harm that drugs cause in the UK, fuelling burglaries, gifting the trade to gangsters and increasing HIV infections. My experience as Defence Secretary, with specific responsibilities in Afghanistan, showed to me that the war on drugs creates the very conditions that perpetuate the illegal trade, while undermining international development and security.

My departure from the front benches gives me the freedom to express my long held view that, whilst it was put in place with the best of intentions, the war on drugs has been nothing short of a disaster.

Politicians and the media need to engage in a genuine and grown up debate about alternatives to prohibition, so that we can build a consensus based on delivering the best outcomes for our children and communities. I call on those on all sides of the debate to support an independent, evidence-based review, exploring all policy options, including: further resourcing the war on drugs, decriminalising the possession of drugs, and legally regulating their production and supply.

One way to do this would be an Impact Assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act in line with the 2002 Home Affairs Select Committee finding – which included David Cameron – for the government to explore alternatives to prohibition, including legal regulation.

The re-legalisation of alcohol in the US after thirteen years of Prohibition was not surrender. It was a pragmatic move based on the government’s need to retake control of the illegal trade from violent gangsters. After 50 years of global drug prohibition it is time for governments throughout the world to repeat this shift with currently illegal drugs.”

Peter Lilley MP, former Conservative Party Deputy Leader said

“The current approach to drugs has been an expensive failure, and for the sake of everyone, and the young in particular, it is time for all politicians to stop using the issue as a political football. I have long advocated breaking the link between soft and hard drugs – by legalising cannabis while continuing to prohibit hard drugs. But I support Bob Ainsworth’s sensible call for a proper, evidence based review, comparing the pros and cons of the current prohibitionist approach with all the alternatives, including wider decriminalisation, and legal regulation.”

Tom Brake MP, Co-Chair, Liberal Democrat Backbench Committee on Home Affairs, Justice and Equalities said;

“Liberal Democrats have long called for a science-based approach to our drugs problem. So it is without hesitation that I support Bob Ainsworth’s appeal to end party political point-scoring, and explore sensitively all the options, through an Impact Assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act.”

Labour’s Paul Flynn MP said;

"This could be a turning point in the failing UK 'war on drugs.' Bob Ainsworth is the persuasive, respected voice of the many whose views have been silenced by the demands of ministerial office. Every open rational debate concludes that the UK's harsh drugs prohibition has delivered the worst outcomes in Europe - deaths, drug crime and billions of pounds wasted."

ENDS

Contact:

Neil Smith, Office of Bob Ainsworth MP SMITHN(at)parliament.uk
Martin Powell, TDPF head of campaigns martin(at)tdpf.org.uk
Steve Rolles, TDPF Senior Policy Analyst steve(at)tdpf.org.uk
Transform Office 0117 941 5810

Notes for Editors:

Bob Ainsworth MP has represented Coventry North since 1992 and has held a number of shadow and ministerial positions including:

Home Office - Parliamentary secretary, with responsibility for drugs (Jun 2001 - Jun 2003)
Deputy Chief Whip (June 2003 – June 2007)
Minister for the Armed Forces (June 2007 – May 2009)
Secretary of State for Defence (June 2009 – May 2010)
Shadow Secretary of State for Defence (May 2010 – October 2010)

Bob Ainsworth's Blog Biography and Guardian profile

For more information on calls for an Impact Assessment of our approach to drugs see: Transform / IDPC briefing: 'Time for an impact assessment of drug policy' .

David Cameron on drug law reform : Tory contender calls for more liberal drug laws(Independent 2005)

As a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into drug misuse in 2002 David Cameron voted in favour of recommendation 24: “We recommend that the Government initiates a discussion within the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways—including the possibility of legalisation and regulation—to tackle the global drugs dilemma (paragraph 267).”

The Liberal Democrat party policy recognises “The failure of prohibition”, supports decriminalisation of drugs, and calls for an audit comparing the current approach with the alternatives. Lib Dem drug policy paper. Lib Dem manifesto
There is a long history of those involved in developing or delivering drug policy supporting reform once out of office. See Transform's 'supporters of reform' archive which includes:

- Former drugs Minister Mo Mowlam: 'Fight terror: legalise the drugs trade' (Guardian 2002)

- Julian Critchley, former Director of the UK Anti-Drug Coordinating Unit: 'All the experts admit that we should legalise drugs' (Independent 2008)

The difference between decriminalisation and legalisation:

Decriminalisation is the removal of criminal sanctions for the production, supply or use of an illegal drug. Civil or administrative sanctions, such as a fine or requirement to enter treatment, may remain, even if criminal sanctions (resulting in prosecution and a criminal record) are removed. In popular usage, the term 'decriminalisation' usually refers to the removal of criminal sanctions for possession of drugs for personal use, while sanctions often remain for the production or supply of drugs.

Legalisation and regulation - ‘legalisation’ is a process - moving away from absolute prohibition - and does not specify what legal framework to regulate production, supply and use of drugs replaces it. ‘Legalisation and regulation’ is not the free for all some have envisaged, and is not a free market model as espoused by some libertarians. Instead it involves controls on producers, products, vendors and consumers. For example models of strict legal regulation see Transform's 2009 publication: “After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation”