Lib Dems consider drug law reform at conference

.
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.

Sinn Fein initiates reform in Ireland

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.

Media Review: Prof Ian Gilmore calls for decriminalisation and regulation to be considered

Transform issued a press release last Monday about Sir Ian Gilmore's comments in his final Newsletter as president of the Royal Society of Physicians:

"I feel like finishing my presidency on a controversial note. I personally back the chairman of the UK Bar Council, Nicholas Green QC, when he calls for drug laws to be reconsidered with a view to decriminalising illicit drugs use. This could drastically reduce crime and improve health. Drugs should still be regulated, and the argument for decriminalising them is clearly made by Stephen Rolles in the latest edition of the BMJ."

The press release led to a huge amount of media coverage and debate in print and broadcast media over the following days, with Transform at the heart of much of it; having broken the story and with the BMJ piece on Transform's 'Blueprint for Regulation' specifically cited. Amongst the coverage detailed below, especially in the following days, were some very significant developments. 

Print coverage on the day included:

• Cocaine should be legal, says top doctor - front page coverage in the Telegraph (mentions BMJ piece and quotes Transform's Danny Kushlick), story also ran on Fox news website
• Legalise heroin and cocaine to cut crime and improve health, top doctor says in the Daily Mail (included quote from Danny and an online poll that asked 'should we legalise drugs in a bid to cut crime and improve health'  currently running at 56% in favour, 44% against. Also well worth looking at some of the 284 comments the story attracted - the most up-voted being supportive, the most down-voted against)
• There was also coverage in the Guardian (quoting both Danny and Steve), as well a coverage in the Times, Independent, the Herald Scotland, the Mirror, and many other regional papers.

during the following days:

• The Guardian ran an excellent leader editorial that cited Transform and the BMJ piece 'The War on Drugs: bring out the peace pipe', effectively joining the Observer in its critique of drug war and call for consideration of both decriminalisation and regulation:

"Politicians could prepare public opinion for change by a public assessment of what Britain's war on drugs has achieved. It should ask whether better results could have come by a less damaging route. A policy that results, via the Afghanistan poppy harvest, in financial support for the Taliban, boosts international organised crime and is the underlying problem for more than half of the UK prison population will require some defending.

Decriminalisation would not be an answer in itself. Legalisation is no quick fix. But prohibition's defenders need to show how, against its dire results, their policy can still be justified."

• Arguably more significantly was the interest of the tabloids: Gilmore had a very welcome opportunity to speak to a wider audience when given space for an editorial piece in the Sun, titled 'treat addicts like patients, not cirminals' (when it first appeared online, missing the point entirely, it was daftly titled 'treat junkies like patients, not criminals' - we are not sure which ran in the print version)
• At the weekend the Sunday People - hardly famed for its progressive position on drug policy - went further, dedicating a two page spread to the drug law reform debate, quoting Transform, listing famous supporters of reform, and detailing Portugal's experience with decriminalisation. Better still, they joined the Observer and Guardian in taking a clear editorial position in favour of reform,  their 'Voice of the People' leader column titled 'Time for a new look at drug laws':  

"When the Misuse of Drugs Act was passed in 1971 our politicians, lawyers and medical experts still dreamed of creating a drug-free society.

If we locked up all dealers and users the market would dry up... wouldn’t it?

Forty years on it is clear that the war on drugs was a naive policy that failed miserably and injured more people than it protected.

The huge profits of the international drugs trade fund terrorism, drive crime, and wreck lives across the globe.

But jailing users does nothing to break the cycle of those who commit crime to fuel their habit.

Now, at last, the Government is ­looking at the bigger picture and considering radical plans to decriminalise hard drug use. As we reveal today, 12,000 addicts could be moved out of jails and into hospitals to be treated as patients and not criminals.

Top doctors believe it is the only way to cut crime, improve health and save public money. But it will be a hard pill to swallow for the thousands of victims of druggie muggers and burglars who steal to fund their habit.

It’s a bold move. But if Ministers are finally having a “mature debate” on drug strategy they then need to discuss the “L” word. Legalisation. Criminalising some drugs while ­allowing a free market in others, such as alcohol and nicotine, makes no sense.

Our leaders need to think the ­unthinkable and consider bringing the entire drug industry, from production to use, out of the shadows and under ­legitimate controls.

Could we allow adults to buy limited supplies of drugs from licensed and regulated outlets and tax them as ­highly as possible without creating a black market?

Legalisation may spark an initial ­increase in the number of adults who use drugs, albeit in safer and healthier circumstances. But should adults be ­allowed to make that choice – when many already choose to wreck their lives, quite legally, with alcohol?

Tough questions – but the Government must seize the moment and ask them."

OK, so not exactly how Transform might argue it but we have to welcome the fact that this -mostly reasonable- editorial appeared in a national paper new to the reform position and, like the Sun coverage, is reaching much wider audience than the same Guardian and Observer readers, most of whom are already sympathetic to the drug law reform position. The positive tabloid coverage in particular is a sure sign that this debate is moving into the mainstream and moving in a positive direction.

Broadcast media 

On the Tuesday the story broke, Steve did 17 broadcast interviews and Danny did 10, in addition to the various interviews Gilmore himself gave, and a further 7 picked up by our colleagues over at Release. Highlights of Transform's coverage included appearances on

• BBC Breakfast TV (live interview)
• SKY breakfast news (pre-recorded interview for news segment)
• BBC Radio 4's Today program (quotes and Today audio clip on BBC coverage)
• 5 Live breakfast (pre-record for new segment), and 5 live morning debate (with David Raynes)
• BBC News Channel (debate with Neil McKeggany)
• SKY lunchtime news
• Talk Sport radio
• BBC Radio Wales (debate with Ian Oliver)
• BBC World Service (international broadcast)
• BBC News International TV (international broadcast - debate with David Raynes again)

The following day there was an additional appearance on CNN International, a 'Connect the World' half hour special on drug policy and law reform, with Steve debating former DEA agent Bob Stutman.

In addition there was plenty of blog action around the issue, all attracting many comments (mostly positive) - notably including:

• Fergus Walsh's BBC Blog 'Would decriminalising drugs work?'
• Mark Easton's BBC blog, writing about the 'British System'
• Tom Chivers' Telegraph blog Another top doctor has backed a rethink of drug policy. Maybe it's time to listen
• CNNs Connect the World blog 'should we decriminlize drugs?
• Tory peer Lord Norton calling for Royal Commission on the drug laws 'decriminalising drug use' on Lords of the Blog (a very interesting Lordly debate ensuing)

There was also a steady stream of op-eds, including efforts from:

• Antonia Senior (call for legalisation/regulation in the New Statesman and the Times - unfortunately now behind a paywall),
• Libby Purves, also in the Times (supportive of decrim)
• Paul Thomas in the New Zealand Herald 'drug decriminalisation makes sense'
• James Bell in the Guardian 'why not tax my drug addicts'

And even some satire from the Daily Mash legalise drugs, says some crazy president of the Royal College of Physicians.

Critical voices were, of course, also in evidence but curiously muted - the sense being that the media were struggling to find many. If there were pro drug war op-eds in any of the nationals we must have missed them. There were some quotes in the news coverage, however; In a widely quoted comment by Keith Vaz MP he stated that the legalisation of drugs "would simply create the mistaken impression that these substances are not harmful, when in fact this is far from the truth". This rather facile misconception about what a public health approach to drug regulation would entail is exactly the same one that he carried through the mostly awful 2010 Home Affairs Select Committee report on cocaine.

The Home Office response was even more inadequate, and missed the point to a such a staggering degree as to not deserve or warrant any further scrutiny:

'Drugs such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis are extremely harmful and can cause misery to communities across the country. The government does not believe that decriminalisation is the right approach. Our priorities are clear; we want to reduce drug use, crack down on drug related crime and disorder and help addicts come off drugs for good.'

 In a Mirror news piece (nominally about a separate 'legal highs' story that this blog will return too at a later date) we also learn that:

Leading doctors argue prohibition of heroin and cocaine has failed and they should be decriminalised and allowed for use under licence and tomorrow the Government will launch a major review of Britain's drugs laws. Home Office Minister James Brokenshire will rule out new legalisation but call for a more "mature debate" on how to control drugs.

You can only laugh (somewhat bitterly) at the Minister's concept of what constitutes a 'mature debate', one in which entire policy arenas he does not approve of are closed down before the debate has even begun. This despite the genuinely mature debate - one in which all options are on the table - that is happening in the real world (note links above for example), and being encouraged by the President of the Royal College of Physicians (not to mention the President of Mexico), and indeed Broke nshires own Prime Minister (albeit a while back). For the record decriminalisation of personal use, certainly non-prosecution of users, was also in the Lib Dem manifesto. They have been strangely and disappointingly silent during all this.

There was a predictably critical blog post from Kathy Gyngel from the Center for Policy Studies, but it is a lacklustre and scatter gun affair by her standards (see the comments for some critique of the factual analysis). 

Overall - this has been a hugely positive few days for the UK debate. Its always hard to gauge how much impact events like this have; maybe it was just a silly season story on a slow news day.  But it feels like part of a much more significant shift in the debate that has taken place over the last couple of years and appears to be accelerating- one in which the law reform arguments are being increasingly well understood for the principled pragmatic position they represent. Even Drugscope, usually very cautious in the debate, this week made a welcome call (in the Times) for decriminalisation to be considered (repeating a call they made back in 2001 but have been very quiet about since).

Small steps as ever, but the direction of travel is the right one. 

"Consider Drug Regulation" says ex-president of Royal College of Physicians

The following press release was issued by Transform at 00:00 Tues 16th of August 2010
This post will be updated with media coverage (see below)



"Consider Drug Regulation" says ex-president of Royal College of Physicians

In his final Bulletin, the outgoing President of the Royal College of Physicians, Professor Sir Ian Gilmore wrote:

"I feel like finishing my presidency on a controversial note. I personally back the chairman of the UK Bar Council, Nicholas Green QC, when he calls for drug laws to be reconsidered with a view to decriminalising illicit drugs use. This could drastically reduce crime and improve health. Drugs should still be regulated, and the argument for decriminalising them is clearly made by Stephen Rolles in the latest edition of the BMJ."

His comments come in the wake of a flurry of calls for reform from health professionals, in the lead up to the publication of the Vienna Declaration, an international manifesto for reform, which calls for drugs to be decriminalised in order to promote individual and public health.


Danny Kushlick, Head of External Affairs at Transform Drug Policy Foundation said:

"Sir Ian's statement is yet another nail in the coffin of the war on drugs. The Hippocratic Oath says 'First do no harm'. Physicians are duty bound to speak out if the outcomes show that prohibition causes more harm than it reduces. Sir Ian is justly fulfilling his role by calling for consideration of the evidence for legal control and regulation."

Kushlick concluded:

"With a Prime Minster and Deputy Prime Minister both longstanding supporters of alternatives to the war on drugs, at the very least the Government must initiate an impact assessment comparing prohibition with decriminalisation and strict legal regulation."

ENDS


Contact:
Danny Kushlick, Head of External Affairs, 07970 174747


Notes for Editors:

• David Cameron calls for debate  legalisation:

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

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

• Vienna Declaration

• IDPC Impact Assessment briefing

• Stephen Rolles writing in the British Medical Journal, 14/7/10

• BMJ editor endorse Transform's call for legal regulation

• Bar chairman backs calls to reconsider drug laws, Independent 20/7/10:

• President Calderon of Mexico calls for debate on legalisation:

• Ex-President of Mexico, Vincente Fox calls for legalisation
  
  
• Archbishop calls for debate on legalisation
  
  
•  Other high profile supporters of drug law reform

Georgia becomes the first country to sign the Vienna Declaration

The First Lady of Georgia announced at a breakfast event at the AIDS 2010 conference today that Goergia would sign the Vienna Declaration, the first country to do so. It is the official declaration of the XVIII International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2010).

"The criminalisation of illicit drug users is fuelling the HIV epidemic and has resulted in  overwhelmingly negative health and social consequences. A full policy reorientation is needed."

This is a significant step forward for this important initiative and is likely to herald a series of national endorsements, at the very least challenging other states to sign or explain why they are oppposed to evidence based drug policy. In stark contrast Canada has been the first country to specifically reject an invitation to sign the declaration - attracting vocal criticism and protest at the Vienna AIDS conference.

In related news a special edition of the Lancet on HIV and drugs was launched at AIDS 2010 yesterday, its cover stating that "We want to see aggressive, state sponsored hostility to drug users replaced by enlightened, scientifically driven attitudes and more eqitable societal responses". The Lancet includes and endorses the Vienna declaration. A video of the impressive conference session (below) at which the special edition was presented is available below (details here). It is particularly worth viewing the presentations that bookend the session, by the Lancet editor Richard Horton, and Prof Chris Beyrer (Johns Hopkins - Baltimore) - both making unambiguous calls for the decriminalisation of drug users. 

The Vienna Declaration: Experts highlight negative impact of drug war on HIV, call for decriminalisation

The criminalisation of illicit drug users is fuelling the HIV epidemic and has resulted in
overwhelmingly negative health and social consequences. A full policy reorientation is needed.

The Vienna Declaration is a statement seeking to improve community health and safety by calling for the incorporation of scientific evidence into illicit drug policies. We are inviting scientists, health practitioners and the public to endorse this document in order to bring these issues to the attention of governments and international agencies, and to illustrate that drug policy reform is a matter of urgent international significance. We also welcome organizational endorsements.

This is the official declaration of the XVIII International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2010) to be held in Vienna, Austria from July 18th to 23rd. The declaration was drafted by a team of international experts and initiated by several of the world’s leading HIV and drug policy scientific bodies: the International AIDS Society, the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy (ICSDP), and the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS

The Declaration is now gathering signatures before its official launch at the XVIII International AIDS Conference, Vienna 2010. There will be a media launch event at the conference on July 20th (see here for details and press release) and a discussion event around the Declaration featuring Evan Wood from the ICSDP and other invited guests, in the Global Village Human Rights, Harm Reducation and Drug Policy Networking Zone on Wednesday July 21st at 2.15-3.15pm. The Drug Policy Networking Zone is co-organised by Transform and the International Drug Policy Consortium.

The full text of the declaration is copied below

To visit the Vienna Declaration website and register your support click here. The site contains background information, press information and comments from some of the Declaration's supporters, inclusing Michel Kazachkine is the Executive Director of The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria.

Transform is pleased to have had a role in the production of the Declaration as a member of the writing committee, providing editorial input and feedback on early drafts.

THE VIENNA DECLARATION

The criminalisation of illicit drug users is fuelling the HIV epidemic and has resulted in
overwhelmingly negative health and social consequences. A full policy reorientation is needed.

In response to the health and social harms of illegal drugs, a large international drug prohibition regime has been developed under the umbrella of the United Nations.¹ Decades of research provide a comprehensive assessment of the impacts of the global “War on Drugs” and, as thousands of individuals gather in Vienna at the XVIII International AIDS Conference, the international scientific community calls for an acknowledgement of the limits and harms of drug prohibition, and for drug policy reform to remove barriers to effective HIV prevention, treatment and care.

The evidence that law enforcement has failed to prevent the availability of illegal drugs, in communities where there is demand, is now unambiguous.^{2, 3}Over the last several decades, national and international drug surveillance systems have demonstrated a general pattern of falling drug prices and increasing drug purity—despite massive investments in drug law enforcement.^3,4

Furthermore, there is no evidence that increasing the ferocity of law enforcement meaningfully reduces the prevalence of drug use.⁵ The data also clearly demonstrate that the number of countries in which people inject illegal drugs is growing, with women and children becoming increasingly affected.⁶ Outside of sub-Saharan Africa, injection drug use accounts for approximately one in three new cases of HIV.^{7, 8} In some areas where HIV is spreading most rapidly, such as Eastern Europe and Central Asia, HIV prevalence can be as high as 70% among people who inject drugs, and in some areas more than 80% of all HIV cases are among this group.⁸

In the context of overwhelming evidence that drug law enforcement has failed to achieve its stated objectives, it is important that its harmful consequences be acknowledged and addressed. These consequences include but are not limited to:

• HIV epidemics fuelled by the criminalisation of people who use illicit drugs and by prohibitions on the provision of sterile needles and opioid substitution treatment.^{9, 10}
• HIV outbreaks among incarcerated and institutionalised drug users as a result of punitive laws and policies and a lack of HIV prevention services in these settings.^11-13
• The undermining of public health systems when law enforcement drives drug users away from prevention and care services and into environments where the risk of infectious disease transmission (e.g., HIV, hepatitis C & B, and tuberculosis) and other harms is increased.^14-16
• A crisis in criminal justice systems as a result of record incarceration rates in a number of nations.^{17, 18} This has negatively affected the social functioning of entire communities. While racial disparities in incarceration rates for drug offences are evident in countries all over the world, the impact has been particularly severe in the US, where approximately one in nine African-American males in the age group 20 to 34 is incarcerated on any given day, primarily as a result of drug law enforcement.¹⁹
• Stigma towards people who use illicit drugs, which reinforces the political popularity of criminalising drug users and undermines HIV prevention and other health promotion efforts.^{20, 21}
• Severe human rights violations, including torture, forced labour, inhuman and degrading treatment, and execution of drug offenders in a number of countries.^{22, 23}
• A massive illicit market worth an estimated annual value of US$320 billion.⁴ These profits remain entirely outside the control of government. They fuel crime, violence and corruption in countless urban communities and have destabilised entire countries, such as Colombia, Mexico and Afghanistan.⁴
• Billions of tax dollars wasted on a “War on Drugs” approach to drug control that does not achieve its stated objectives and, instead, directly or indirectly contributes to the above harms.²⁴

Unfortunately, evidence of the failure of drug prohibition to achieve its stated goals, as well as the severe negative consequences of these policies, is often denied by those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo.²⁵This has created confusion among the public and has cost countless lives. Governments and international organisations have ethical and legal obligations to respond to this crisis and must seek to enact alternative evidence-based strategies that can effectively reduce the harms of drugs without creating harms of their own. We, the undersigned, call on governments and international organisations, including the United Nations, to:

• Undertake a transparent review of the effectiveness of current drug policies.
• Implement and evaluate a science-based public health approach to address the individual and community harms stemming from illicit drug use.
• Decriminalise drug users, scale up evidence-based drug dependence treatment options and abolish ineffective compulsory drug treatment centres that violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.²⁶
• Unequivocally endorse and scale up funding for the implementation of the comprehensive package of HIV interventions spelled out in the WHO, UNODC and UNAIDS Target Setting Guide.²⁷
• Meaningfully involve members of the affected community in developing, monitoring and implementing services and policies that affect their lives.

We further call upon the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, to urgently implement measures to ensure that the United Nations system—including the International Narcotics Control Board—speaks with one voice to support the decriminalisation of drug users and the implementation of evidence-based approaches to drug control.²⁸

Basing drug policies on scientific evidence will not eliminate drug use or the problems stemming from drug injecting. However, reorienting drug policies towards evidence-based approaches that respect, protect and fulfil human rights has the potential to reduce harms deriving from current policies and would allow for the redirection of the vast financial resources towards where they are needed most: implementing and evaluating evidence-based prevention, regulatory, treatment and harm reduction interventions.

REFERENCES
1. William B McAllister. Drug diplomacy in the twentieth century: an international history. Routledge, New York, 2000.
2. Reuter P. Ten years after the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS): assessing drug problems, policies and reform proposals. Addiction 2009;104:510-7.
3. United States Office of National Drug Control Policy. The Price and Purity of Illicit Drugs: 1981 through the Second Quarter of 2003. Executive Office of the President; Washington, DC, 2004.
4. World Drug Report 2005. Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime; 2005.
5. Degenhardt L, Chiu W-T, Sampson N, et al. Toward a global view of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, and cocaine use: Findings from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. PLOS Medicine 2008;5:1053-67.
6. Mathers BM, Degenhardt L, Phillips B, et al. Global epidemiology of injecting drug use and HIV among people who inject drugs: A systematic review. Lancet 2008;372:1733-45.
7. Wolfe D, Malinowska-Sempruch K. Illicit drug policies and the global HIV epidemic: Effects of UN and national government approaches. New York: Open Society Institute; 2004.
8. 2008 Report on the global AIDS epidemic. The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS; Geneva, 2008.
9. Lurie P, Drucker E. An opportunity lost: HIV infections associated with lack of a national needle-exchange programme in the USA. Lancet 1997;349:604.
10. Rhodes T, Lowndes C, Judd A, et al. Explosive spread and high prevalence of HIV infection among injecting drug users in Togliatti City, Russia. AIDS 2002;16:F25.
11. Taylor A, Goldberg D, Emslie J, et al. Outbreak of HIV infection in a Scottish prison. British Medical Journal 1995;310:289.
12. Sarang A, Rhodes T, Platt L, et al. Drug injecting and syringe use in the HIV risk environment of Russian penitentiary institutions: qualitative study. Addiction 2006;101:1787.
13. Jurgens R, Ball A, Verster A. Interventions to reduce HIV transmission related to injecting drug use in prison. Lancet Infectious Disease 2009;9:57-66.
14. Davis C, Burris S, Metzger D, Becher J, Lynch K. Effects of an intensive street-level police intervention on syringe exchange program utilization: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. American Journal of Public Health 2005;95:233.
15. Bluthenthal RN, Kral AH, Lorvick J, Watters JK. Impact of law enforcement on syringe exchange programs: A look at Oakland and San Francisco. Medical Anthropology 1997;18:61.
16. Rhodes T, Mikhailova L, Sarang A, et al. Situational factors influencing drug injecting, risk reduction and syringe exchange in Togliatti City, Russian Federation: a qualitative study of micro risk environment. Social Science & Medicine 2003;57:39.
17. Fellner J, Vinck P. Targeting blacks: Drug law enforcement and race in the United States. New York: Human Rights Watch; 2008.
18. Drucker E. Population impact under New York's Rockefeller drug laws: An analysis of life years lost. Journal of Urban Health 2002;79:434-44.
19. Warren J, Gelb A, Horowitz J, Riordan J. One in 100: Behind bars in America 2008. The Pew Center on the States Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts 2008.
20. Rhodes T, Singer M, Bourgois P, Friedman SR, Strathdee SA. The social structural production of HIV risk among injecting drug users. Social Science & Medicine 2005;61:1026.
21. Ahern J, Stuber J, Galea S. Stigma, discrimination and the health of illicit drug users. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2007;88:188.
22. Elliott R, Csete J, Palepu A, Kerr T. Reason and rights in global drug control policy. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2005;172:655-6.
23. Edwards G, Babor T, Darke S, et al. Drug trafficking: time to abolish the death penalty. Addiction 2009;104:3.
24. The National Centre on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (2001). Shoveling up: The impact of substance abuse on State budgets.

25. Wood E, Montaner JS, Kerr T. Illicit drug addiction, infectious disease spread, and the need for an evidence-based response. Lancet Infectious Diseases 2008;8:142-3.

26. Klag S, O'Callaghan F, Creed P. The use of legal coercion in the treatment of substance abusers: An overview and critical analysis of thirty years of research. Substance Use & Misuse 2005;40:1777.
27. WHO, UNODC, UNAIDS 2009. Technical Guide for countries to set targets for universal access to HIV prevention, treatment and care for injection drug users.
28. Wood E, Kerr T. Could a United Nations organisation lead to a worsening of drug-related harms? Drug and Alcohol Review 2010;29:99-100.

UNODC censors its own website making the case for cannabis decriminalisation

note: for an update on this story see here  (the censored section has returned in dramatically edited form)

The page on the UN Office on Drugs and Crime site that we flagged up on the blog earlier this week, has now been censored to remove the section featuring a rare outbreak of pragmatism making the case for cannabis decriminalisation.

This seems rather pathetic. The page in question has sat unmolested since September 2006, over 3 years, only to be stripped of the decrim-arguments now, the day after we blog about it. Why, its almost as if......

Anyway, as people should all know by now the internet never forgets, and you can read the page as it was using the ever useful Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

• Page before
• Page now (note missing section 4)

I hope that the fact they have rather childishly censored this page on their own site will help teach the UNODC another lesson: Internet users do not like being treated like idiots and tend to respond rather badly.

So to all our internet friends: Please link this and the previous blog as much as possible, blog about it elsewhere, and use twitter, facebook and all your other internet toys to get the original page (and its censorship) as much publicity as possible.

By all means contact a few journo friends as well, see if you can get it in the news. They should be interested as it makes considerably more interesting news than (or at least an interesting counterpoint to) the latest tedious INCB report, obsessed as ever with attacking countries who, wait for it, dare contemplate decriminalising drug possession.

UN Office on Drugs and Crime makes the case for cannabis decriminalisation

UPDATE:  25.02.10 - Dissapointingly The UNODC YouthNet page discussed below has apparently now been updated with the section on cannabis decriminalisation removed - read more in this follow-up blog

 
It was interesting to stumble over this page titled 'Cannabis - a few issues' on the UN Office and Drug and Crime website, nestling within the on 'Youth and Drugs' pages of the the UNODC 'Youthnet' micro-site, making a clear and convincing case for decriminalisation of cannabis possession.

The page open with this introduction:

Cannabis (including marijuana, hash, hash oil) continues to be a controversial drug in many countries as people try to figure out the place that the drug has in their society. In the Western world, marijuana smoking by young people has become a very common activity - in some countries even more common than tobacco smoking. The UN's international conventions require countries to treat cannabis and other drug offences as criminal offences. However, these conventions leave the door open for countries to establish alternative measures as a substitute for criminal prosecution. Consequently, much of the debate about cannabis is around the legal status of the drug.

These questions are not simple. For that reason through the month of November, the Global Youth Network is going to review what is known about cannabis use and young people in a four- part series dealing with:
(i) the level of use worldwide;
(ii) why some young people use cannabis/why some have problems;
(iii) the harms associated with cannabis use; and
(iv) the effect of cannabis laws.

What follows is a refreshingly sensible and balanced review of the issues highlighted. Most interestingly is the final section on the cannabis laws, copied in full below,  making a strong case for cannabis decriminalisation:

Cannabis Series - Part 4
The effect of cannabis laws 

A number of countries are debating their marijuana laws, in most cases, trying to decide whether the penalties for possessing small amounts of cannabis should be reduced. Some advocate legalization of cannabis, that is, making it available through controlled, legal sources, as are tobacco and alcohol. However, most policymakers see that option as a huge social experiment, with outcomes that are difficult to predict. Others advocate that possessing personal amounts of cannabis should no longer be viewed as a criminal offence and penalties should be reduced. This is because, even though marijuana is not a harmless drug, an increasing number of health officials, researchers and politicians in these countries view the penalty to be out of proportion to the potential harm of using cannabis. The following are some of the arguments being made for reducing the penalties so that possession of small amounts of cannabis is no longer a criminal offence:

A criminal record is a serious matter
A criminal record labels a person caught with possessing small amounts of cannabis as a criminal and severely limits their ability to find employment, professional certification and to travel to other countries. Criminalizing a behaviour has a number of effects: it may make it more attractive to some youth, and it may result in the further marginalization of some youth, making it more difficult to help them.

Reducing the severity of the penalty doesn't seem to lead to increased use
Cannabis use (particularly heavy use in combination with other substances) poses risks, so it is important that any change not result in increased use. Based on the experiences of those countries or states that have reduced their penalties, various reviews agree that there is no indication that this will happen. For example, the 11 US states that decriminalized marijuana possession in the 1970s did not see increases in use beyond that experienced by other states; neither did the Australian states that have introduced a civil offence model over the past decade.

Laws don't seem to matter one way or another to young people
Over the past 10 years in most Western countries, the use of cannabis by young people has increased and attitudes have generally grown more tolerant toward the drug, with no difference between countries that had stiff or reduced penalties. For example in the Netherlands, where cannabis use is not a criminal offence, usage rates are lower than in the US, which has some of the toughest cannabis laws in the Western world. Young people who do not use cannabis generally say that their decision is based on health concerns or that they are just not interested. They aren't as likely to mention the laws as being a factor in their decision. In fact, research with teenage students suggests that the criminalization of cannabis and the stigmatization of cannabis use as a dangerous and forbidden activity makes it even more attractive to some.

Resources could be better placed elsewhere
Cannabis offences can take one or two officers off the street for up to several hours + their time for court appearances + tying up other court resources. These $$ could have more impact put into apprehending producers and traffickers, or directed at prevention, education and treatment. Although the law is an important means of controlling behaviour, accurate and balanced information and education should be seen as the primary means to enable young people to make informed choices about their drug use. For example, laws cannot distinguish between levels of use, whereas educators can help young people by providing clearer messages (for example, all drug use contains some risk - heavy use can result in serious problems for young people, while light, infrequent cannabis use poses fewer risks).

A case example
In Canada police are often reluctant to apply the penalties for possessing small amounts of cannabis, not only because of the work involved, but also because they do not want to saddle a young person with a criminal record. When a young person is found in possession of small amounts of cannabis in Canada, the typical police response is some combination of taking the drug, detaining the person in the police car or station, giving them a warning and letting them go. As a result, young people feel that the police do not take the laws very seriously; some also feel that they are applied unevenly depending on a person's ethnicity, the clothing they are wearing, etc.

One of the options being considered is to give the person a ticket, like a traffic ticket. Even though this would seem like a softer approach, it would in fact represent a greater penalty than many young people currently experience. And if the police "widen the net" (that is, become more active in apprehending youth) as apparently occurred in Australia when penalties were reduced, it would actually mean that young people would be more likely to be penalized.

Another possible outcome is that parents are more likely to be involved when their child is fined than if they are just "slapped on the wrist" and let go, providing an opportunity for parent/child discussion on the issue.

Also, creating a reduced penalty option reduces the deviance attached to the behaviour, which does lead to a climate more open to actual health promotion messages (e.g., that using around driving and sexual situations, or using to the point of intoxication, or using in combination with other substances or medications, or while involved in physical or cognitive activity can be harmful).

This section, that could have been written by any number of drug law reform NGOs that leading figures in the UNODC have been happy to make disparaging comments about in the past, has, it would seem, been sitting unbothered on the UNODC site for some years (the Youth and Drugs pages don't appear to have been updated since 2007).

There are clearly a range of views on this issue within the UN drug agencies, but the arguments put forward above are strikingly at odds with those traditionally expounded by the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), for example, that has been vocally opposed to any moves towards increased tolerance, decriminlaisation, or decreased penalties suggesting that such moves would increase use and undermine international drug control (famously attacking the UK s decision to reclassify cannabis in 2001).

The current Director of the UNODC, whilst sticking to his rather unpleasant mantra that countries 'get the drug problems they deserve' and generally lambasting what he sees as the 'liberalisation' of drug policy, has actually been open to, even supportive of, reducing cannabis penalties, for example suggesting  that administrative penalties, such as fines and treatment referrals would be appropriate for personal possession offenses (slipped into this otherwise ridiculous 2007 op-ed/rant). The UNODC's 2009 World Drugs Report also begrudgingly acknowledges that the decriminlisation of personal possession (of all drugs) in Portugal in 2001 helps "keep drugs out of the hands of those who would avoid them under a system of full prohibition, while encouraging treatment, rather than incarceration, for users" noting further that "It also appears that a number of drug-related problems have decreased". 

It is notable then, that at the same time as UK politicians are making a song and dance about 'sending out the right message' by is increasing cannabis possession penalties (upping prison sentences from 2 to 5 years),  a real, active and public debate around cannabis decriminalisation is opening up, even within the most conservative bastions of the UN. More importantly this debate is being driven not by politics, but primarily by the reality of the policy's increasingly widespread adoption and the growing evidence that it has not unleashed the pandora's box of addiction, crime and depravity anticipated by some of its more vocal opponents.

And, ironically enough, I found the UNODC Youthnet drug site in the links page of one such opponent's website.

Czech Govt Allows 5 Cannabis Plants For Personal Use From 2010

From the Wall Street Journal today we learn that the Czech Republic is to join the growing list of countries decriminalising adult personal possession and use of small quantities of cannabis, and in the Czech case various other plant based drugs:

The interim Czech government, led by chief statistician-turned-Prime Minister Jan Fischer, Monday took another step towards making casual marijuana smoking a worry-free affair.

Fischer’s cabinet defined what constitutes “small amounts” of cannabis for personal use, clarifying the country’s new penal code that from next year decriminalizes cultivation and possession of the plant by individuals.

As of Jan. 1 ordinary Czechs can grow up to five marijuana plants or have several marijuana cigarettes in their pockets without fear of criminal prosecution. Previously what constituted a small amount was not specified and the police and courts loosely interpreted the penal code case by case, often resulting in incarceration of home growers.

• Full story from the WSJ
  
  
• See story on the decision from Czech news agency CTK.

Transform debates Nixon Drug Tsar on BBC World Service

I had a great opportunity today to discuss global drug policy on the BBC World Service (broadcast internationally) with Dr Robert Dupont, the first director of the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the second US Drug Tsar from 1973 to 1977 under former presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. It was a refreshing change to have a decent amount of time to talk through some of the issues around drug policy reform in a little more detail - the segment on the Newshour show was 25 minutes, presented by Mary Ann Sieghart

You can listen to the discussion online here (for the next 7 days), beginning around the 26 minute point.

I had a brief chat with Robert afterwards (he was phoning from the US). He congratulated me on doing a 'great job' (on the show) and was very interested in beginning a dialogue, giving me his email. I've promised to send him a copy of the new Transform publication 'After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation'; it'll be interesting to hear what he thinks.

Argentine Supreme Court to decriminalise drug possession today

So, in the same month that the UK Government is making political capital from attaching long prison sentences to several new drugs few people have even heard of, in a seemingly parallel universe not populated by drug warriors, other countries are queuing up to decriminalise personal possession of all drugs. Last week Mexico joined the growing list and today the Argentine Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling decriminalising drug possession for personal use.

The Court’s decision was based on a case brought by a 19 year-old who was arrested in the street for possession of two grams of cannabis. He was convicted and sentenced to a month and a half in prison, but challenged the constitutionality of the drug law based on Article 19 of the Argentine Constitution:

The private actions of men which in no way offend public order or morality, nor injure a third party, are only reserved to God and are exempted from the authority of judges. No inhabitant of the Nation shall be obliged to perform what the law does not demand nor deprived of what it does not prohibit.

Today, the Supreme Court ruled that personal drug consumption is covered by that privacy clause stipulated in Article 19 of the Constitution since it doesn’t affect third parties. Questions still remain, though, on the extent of the ruling. However, the government of President Cristina Fernández has fully endorsed the Court’s decision and has vowed to promptly submit a bill to Congress that would define the details of the decriminalization policies.

According to some reports, Brazil and Ecuador are considering similar steps.

The case has been under consideration by the high court for almost a year. The Argentine federal government has been reviewing its drug laws with an eye toward abandoning repressive policies toward users and is waiting for this case to be decided to move forward with new legislative proposals.

Supreme Court Justice Carlos Fayt told the Buenos Aires Herald that the court had reached a unanimous position on decriminalization, but declined to provide further details.

A positive Supreme Court decision on decriminalization would ratify a number of lower court decisions in recent years that have found that the use and possession of drugs without causing harm to others should not be a criminal offense.

see previous Transform blog coverage:

• Drug decriminlisation in Argentina? (April 08)
  

• Argentine president calls for decriminalisation of drug use (Aug 08)
  

related coverage:

• Mexico decriminalises personal drug possession

• Former Latin American presidents call for a paradigm shift

• Honduran president calls for legalisation of drugs

• Mexico's opposition calls for legalisation of drugs

further reading:

Drug policy reform in practice - useful new briefing from TNI on decriminlisation and other forms of reform in Europe and the America's

thanks to Stop the Drug War and Cato@Liberty

Mexico decriminalises personal drug possession

On Thursday Mexico finally enacted legislation to decriminalize personal possession of small quantities of all drugs (plans reported/discussed in more detail here back in May).

The legislation will operate in a somewhat similar fashion to the Portugese approach with arrested individuals having to agree to a drug treatment program to address admitted addiction or enter a prevention program designed for recreational users. penalties for those who refuse to attend one of these kinds of programs under the Mexican scheme have yet to be clarified.

The Mexican legislation defines threshold quantities of drugs under which which a designation of personal use can be made. These include 5 g of cannabis, or half 0.5g of cocaine, 50mg of heroin, LSD 0.015mg, and MDA/MDMA/methamphetamine all at 40mg (or 200mg for pills). Problems with such thresholds to make a distinction between possession for personal use and intent to supply offences have recently been discussed in a the context of UK legislation ( see appendix of this Transform briefing).

The response from the US has so far been somewhat muted, in stark contrast to the uproar that greeted similar proposals from the previous President Vincent Fox in 2006 , which were abandoned under extreme pressure from the Bush administration.

In many respects the legislation represents a formalisation of what was widespread tolerant policing practice - so may not have a huge impact on the ground.

Mexico joins a growing list of countries around the world that have either made similar moves or have them in the pipeline (see further reading below). Such moves - it is important to note - only address personal possession and use and do not involve decriminalisation or legalisation/regulation of drug production and supply which remains in the control of criminal enterprises. The UN treaties, whilst theoretically allowing moves towards decriminalising (or at least depenalising) personal use, specifically outlaw exploring options for legal regulation of production/supply. That said - there is an increasingly active debate in Latin America around such moves (see below).

For more details see this Associated Press report 20.08.09

Further reading

• Drug policy reform in practice - useful new briefing from TNI on decriminlisation and other forms of reform in Europe and the America's

• Former Latin American presidents call for a paradigm shift

• Argentine president calls for decriminalisation of drug use

• Honduran president calls for legalisation of drugs

• Mexico's opposition calls for legalisation of drugs
  

Mexico to decriminalise possession of drugs

Both Houses in Mexico's legislature have now approved a bill decriminalising possession of small amounts of all drugs for personal use. Both the Senate and Congress have supported the bill, meaning that President Calderon, just needs to rubber stamp the policy before it becomes law, expected to happen in the next few days (see Reuters report:'Mexico passes bill on small-scale drugs possession'). The legislation nominally applies to possession of under 2 grams of cannabis, 500 milligrams of cocaine half a gram), 40 milligrams of meth, and 50 milligrams of heroin (approx one dose) - although how strictly these limits will be enforced remains to be seen.

The legislation will operate in a somewhat similar fashion to the Portugese approach with arrested individuals having to agree to a drug treatment program to address admitted addiction or enter a prevention program designed for recreational users. Those who refuse to attend one of these kinds of programs would be subject to a fine. A number of countries around the world have decriminalised possession of drugs, most prominently Portugal, where, according to the recent Cato Institute report

'...drug-related pathologies—such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage—have decreased dramatically. Drug policy experts attribute those positive trends to the enhanced ability of the Portuguese government to offer treatment programs to its citizens—enhancements made possible, for numerous reasons, by decriminalization.'

(see also Drugs in Portugal: did decriminlisation work? in Time Magazine last month)

Similar policies have already been implemented or mooted in much of Latin America (most recently in Argentina), with the recent Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy calling for a:

A new paradigm to address the drug problem [that] must be less centered on repressive measures and more regardful of national societies and cultures. Effective policies must be based on scientific knowledge and not on ideological biases. This effort must involve not only governments but all sectors of society….’

President Calderon

Interestingly the bill is almost identical to one proposed by former President Vincent Fox in 2006, who was then persuaded to make a u-turn after heavy pressure from the United States. It is not expected the US will object this time around - Barack Obama visited Mexico last month and has presumably been aware of the recent developments, chosing not to comment so far (on the personal use/possession issue) but specifically praising Mexico's anti-drug efforts, and promising logistical and military support.

Obama's position, and the similar comments made by Hilary Clinton highlight the problem with the Mexico move. Whilst moves toward a less punitive system for drug users is welcomed, it will do nothing to stem the violence in Mexico that has caused 2,000 deaths this year alone, which is due entirely to the overarching legal framework of global prohibition and the country's key position as transit route for illicit drugs to the US - the world biggest illicit drug consumer.

Decriminalisation of personal use will not reduce the negative impacts of the illicit drugs trade (and some have argued it could make things worse on the illicit production/supply front). Marginalised populations in producer countries will still be threatened by military eradication and control efforts, and, along with transit countries, will still be victims of the entrenched corruption, violence, and conflict that comes with the vast illicit trade controlled by violent criminal profiteers.

A Mexican organisation, the Collective for an Integrated Drug Policy argues that, 'The law against small time trafficking (narcomenudeo) represents certain advances but also important risks for drug policy in Mexico.'

They have highlighted what they see as the risks and negative consequences that will also occur as a result of the implemenation of the law:

'1. The law only marginally considers the problem of drug consumption and limits itself to legally defining it. On the other hand, it focuses on intensifying a military and police strategy that has proven to be a failure. With this, we confirm the lack of interest by the federal government for public health and human rights.


2. The law will criminalize a vast group of people who make a living off the small time dealing of drugs, but who in reality do not consciously form part of organized crime, but rather whose principal reason for dealing is that it is way out of unemployment. Imprisoning them will not diminish the supply of drugs on the street, nor will it improve public security; yet it will justify the war on drugs, since the government will be able to boast the number of people incarcerated with this policy.


3. The law implicates a policy that induces the commission of crimes on behalf of police forces by allowing them to buy drugs in order to identify small time dealers. This is clearly an authoritarian way to deal with the problem, where the message appears to be “when it comes to drugs, everything is allowed, including human rights violations”.


4. The amounts of drugs permitted in the initiative for personal consumption are ambiguous in terms of their actual legality, being that it is not specified how a consumer can obtain them without being considered a criminal due to the mere transaction. But most importantly, these amounts are not realistic in terms of the drug market (for example, the initiative allows a consumer to have .5 grams of coke, when coke is sold on the streets by the gram), the reason for which we can anticipate a significant increase in corruption and extortion of consumers by police forces.'

Only the ending of the global prohibition and its replacement with a just and humane system of legal regulation will enable Mexico to return to relative peace and stability.

Head of Global Fund to Fight Aids calls for decriminalisation of use

In an article in today's Observer Curb Aids and HIV by decriminalising drugs, say experts and in advance of his speech to the International Harm Reduction Conference in Bangkok, Michele Kazatchkine, Head of the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria states:

"I say drug use cannot be criminalised. I'm talking about criminalising trafficking but not users. From a scientific perspective, I cannot understand the repressive policy perspective."

and in a quote that echoes Transform's recent discussions about who governments are protecting with prohibition, Kazatchkine calls for a total rethink of drug policies:

"What I'm saying is that government's function is to protect their citizens."

Whilst endorsing Kazatchkine's call, Transform would ask that he question the benefit of criminalising traffickers, producers and suppliers? Three guesses as to where users get their drugs from? That's Mexico, Afghanistan, Colombia and West Africa. For too long harm reductionsists have failed to recognise the links between demand and supply when it comes to criminalisation. Is Kazatchkine unwittingly protecting the very people that he seeks to undermine? However, this is a good start.

But it's not the first time that this has happened. In March 2008 the Secretary general of the UN backed a report by Peter Piot of UNAIDS that said:

"I look to Asian Governments to amend outdated laws criminalizing the most vulnerable sections of society, and take all the measures needed to ensure they live in dignity,"

From the Observer coverage:

Curb Aids and HIV by decriminalising drugs, say experts

The use of illicit drugs must be decriminalised if efforts to halt the spread of Aids are to succeed, one of the world's leading independent authorities on the disease has warned.

In an unprecedented attack on global drugs policy, Michele Kazatchkine, head of the influential Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, has told the Observer that, without a radical overhaul of laws that lead to hundreds of thousands of drug users being imprisoned or denied access to safe treatment, the millions of pounds spent on fighting HIV and Aids will be wasted.

Kazatchkine will use his keynote speech at the 20th International Harm Reduction Association conference tomorrow in Bangkok to expose the failures of policies which treat addiction as a crime. He will accuse governments of using what he calls "repressive" measures that deny addicts human rights rather than putting public health needs first.

He will argue that governments should fully commit to the widespread provision of harm reduction strategies aimed at intravenous drug users, such as free needle exchanges and providing substitutes to illicit drugs, such as methadone.

"A repressive way of dealing with drug users is a way of facilitating the spread of the [HIV/Aids] epidemic," Kazatchkine said. "If you know you will be arrested, you will not go for treatment. I say drug use cannot be criminalised. I'm talking about criminalising trafficking but not users. From a scientific perspective, I cannot understand the repressive policy perspective."

He condemns policymakers who argue that, because drug users frequently turn to crime to fund their habit, it justifies making it a criminal justice issue. Harm reduction both helps the addict and wider society and reduces the need to commit crime, he said.

"The one population where [Aids] mortality has been untouched - and in fact has worsened - has been IV [intravenous] drug users. It's amazing, because what we call harm reduction, such as exchanging needles, has been scientifically proven as the most effective.

"This is why I will most probably start my speech in Bangkok by mentioning the contrast between major progress achieved in decreasing mortality from Aids in the poorest countries of the world versus the total lack of progress for what is the main route of transmission in most parts of the world outside Africa."

Kazatchkine suggested that politicians feared that the public would label them soft on drugs. A doctor and respected Aids expert with 20 years in the field, he has in his two years at the helm of the Global Fund overseen some of the most dramatic improvements in treatment and prevention of HIV globally.

Since it was established in 2001, the fund has received $21bn in contributions from the world's wealthiest nations and used it to play a significant part in reducing rates of new HIV infections. It has also contributed to the distribution of much needed life-preserving anti-retroviral drugs to millions of people already diagnosed.

Alex Stevens, a senior research fellow specialising in drugs and criminalisation at the University of Kent, said tomorrow's speech would highlight many of the troubling consequences of criminal justice approaches to drugs policy.

"In many countries, serious human rights infringements are committed in the name of fighting drugs," he said. "These include the use of the death penalty for drug offences, compulsory treatment regimes that include methods (such as physical beatings) that are akin to torture, and, for example in the USA, depriving convicted drug law offenders of the right to vote."

Stevens said that, while the UK was ahead of many other countries on harm reduction, its tendency to criminalise drug users could undermine its efforts.

What is needed, Kazatchkine will argue tomorrow, is a total rethink of drugs policies. "What I'm saying is that government's function is to protect their citizens. This is why harm reduction should be supported by all governments everywhere."