The world's most draconian drug policies

The last few weeks have been marked by several positive developments in drug policy around the world.

• The Uruguayan Parliament passed a groundbreaking bill that, subject to Senate approval later this year, will make Uruguay the first country in the world to legally regulate the production and sale of cannabis under government monopoly. 
• In the United States, Attorney General Eric Holder announced changes in the Justice Department’s sentencing policy so that certain low-level, non-violent drug offenders; "will no longer be charged with offences that impose draconian mandatory minimum sentences."
• The US Federal Government also indicated it will allow individual states to proceed with marijuana legalization, as long as they ensure production and supply are well regulated, including restricting access to minors, and preventing excess production being sold into states that have not legalized.

These important advancements come at a time when the heavy-handed tactics of the war on drugs are being increasingly questioned. Nevertheless, for many governments the punitive war on drugs approach continues to be used to justify a wide range of distressing and unacceptable acts that directly breach their international human rights obligations. From the use of the death penalty for drug offences, to compulsory drug detention centres, arbitrary arrests and extrajudicial killings, the state of drug policies is, in many countries, draconian to say the least. 

Below is a selection of the most oppressive practices around the world. They highlight the urgent need for a global shift away from criminal justice-led drug policies towards those centred around health that support rather than punish. They also underline that this shift needs to happen not just for marijuana, but for all drugs.

1. China

Official numbers regarding death sentences and executions performed in China are a state secret, and so not readily available. Nevertheless, it is widely believed that China performs more executions than the rest of the world put together. 

Moreover, the conviction rate is nearly 100%, so if someone is accused of a crime that is punishable by the death penalty, they are almost certain to receive that sentence. According to Amnesty International, defendants often face trials where the court has already decided a verdict and possibly a sentence, a practice that could explain why many people are sentenced to death after trials lasting less than an hour.

Although in 2011 China removed 13 mostly economic crimes from the list for which the death penalty can be handed down, but drug offences such as trafficking remain on the list.

The “treatment” of suspected drug users in China also presents a grim picture. In theory, the country's Anti-Drug Law of June 2008 ended the programme of sentencing alleged drug users to Re-Education Through Labour. In reality though, it effectively expanded the previous 6-12 months sentence to a minimum of 2 and sometimes 3 years in drug detention centres instead. The law also allows for a period of up to four years of unspecified “community based rehabilitation”, in practice allowing for up to 7 years of incarceration. The detainees are routinely beaten, forced  to work up to 18 hours a day without pay and denied medical or drug dependency treatment. Detention takes place without trial and the Anti-Drug Law gives the police rather than medical professionals the power to determine the “addiction” and need for detention without any legal process or even evidence of current drug use. A 2009 UNAIDS report estimates that at any given time approximately 500,000 people are undergoing drug detention in China.

2. Iran

The 2011 Amendments to the Anti-Narcotic Law of the Islamic Republic of Iran introduces; “the death penalty for trafficking or possessing more than 30 grams of specified synthetic, non-medical psychotropic drugs, and for recruiting or hiring people to commit any of the crimes under the law, or organising, running, financially supporting, or investing in such activities, in cases where the crime is punishable with life imprisonment”.

In 2011 80% of the 676 executions performed in Iran were of drug offenders. Only 9% of people executed for drug charges were fully identified. The soaring number of arrests for drug trafficking in recent years is in part due to international assistance to halt the flow of drugs from Afghanistan, but also because the drug laws are used to sentence political opponents of the regime. Public executions also seem to be on the rise with a four-fold increase between 2010 and 2011. 

  

Drug traffickers usually come from the most disadvantaged sectors of society, members of ethnic minorities and foreign nationals, mostly Afghans trying to escape poverty by working as drug mules. A lack of transparency makes getting hard numbers on those facing execution impossible to obtain, but comments by Iranian officials suggest  there may be 4,000 Afghans alone on death row for drug trafficking. According to Amnesty International; "Most - if not all - of those condemned to death for drugs offences have faced grossly unfair trials", or have never even seen the inside of a court at all. 

Although Iran, having a serious national drug problem, with more than 2 million users, has made some progress in decriminalising and providing some forms of treatment for drug users, the number of people on death row for drug trafficking offences remains staggering.

3. Viet Nam

Like in China, Vietnamese death penalty statistics are also considered a state secret. Yet reports state that in 2011 69 people were sentenced to death, 27 of them for drug smuggling. Just five executions have been officially reported.

Viet Nam also has a wide and expanding network of compulsory drug detention centres that in practice have nothing to do with treatment and constitute forced labour camps. Refusal to work, violating rules or not meeting quotas results in punishment that often amounts to torture.  

In 2000 there were 56 centres across the country, a number that increased to 123 in 2011. It is estimated that over 390,000 people passed through those centres between 2000 and 2010.    

Along with this increase came an expansion of the length of detention, from a minimum of three months to one year as of 2000, to four years of supposed drug treatment according to the provisions of a law passed by the National Assembly in 2009. The detention centres stem from a tradition of “re-education through labor” camps for drug users and sex workers established after 1975, and formed part of the governmental campaign to eradicate “social evils” including drug use that gained momentum in the mid-1990s. 

In detention “treatment” involves working six days a week processing cashews, sewing garments, manufacturing garments and other items and working in construction. Both unpaid work, and work for a fraction of the Vietnamese minimal wage is common. What is more, the centres often deduct food, lodging and “managerial fees” from the pay, and upon release people sometimes find themselves indebted to the centres. The law also states that children aged 12-18 who are addicted to drugs can be detained in the centres for up to two years and are also required to work. Legal regulations require that all drug addicts must report their dependency to the local authorities or their workplace, and register for obligatory “detoxification”. Families are also required to report their relatives for drug addiction to the authorities. The vast majority of detainees are heroin users.    

4. Cambodia and Laos

Compulsory drug detention centres are also prevalent in neighbouring Cambodia and Laos. The Government of the Lao People’s Republic declared that it aims to make the country “drug free” by 2015. Achieving this goal includes village militias detaining drug users, and family members being encouraged to report each others drug use.

In both countries these centres have very little to do with treatment, and are often used as dumping grounds for individuals deemed as “undesirable”. People locked up include drug users (casual, past or in genuine need of treatment), the homeless, beggars, street children, sex workers and people with mental disabilities or illness. In both countries the majority of detained users use amphetamine type stimulants, with some addicted to heroin. The vast majority are sent to the centres by the authorities, with large numbers detained at the request of their families, who are often required to pay for “treatment”. 

In 2011 in Laos Human Rights Watch reports mention at least eight drug detention centres throughout the country, with the biggest one - Somsanga located in the capital Vientiane.

According to data from 2010 Cambodia has 11 centres, and in 2008 about 25% of detainees were under 18. Abuse in detention reported by former detainees included beatings, torture, being shocked with electrical batons, rapes, whipping with twisted electrical wire, being coerced into giving blood, and forced labour, often directly benefiting the centre staff.

5. Thailand

This video gives a powerful account of the  struggle of Thai drug user activists and  the 2003  war on drugs launched by Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, that entailed almost 3000 extra judicial killings. In 2007 an official investigation found that over 50% of the victims had no connection to drugs whatsoever.

Since 2003, thousands of people in Thailand have been forced into drug “treatment” detention centres run by security forces, where human rights abuses are rife.

6. Saudi Arabia

As the International Harm Reduction Association's Death Penalty for Drug Offences report states, in the first six months of 2012 there were at least 45 executions in Saudi Arabia, at least 16 of them for drug offences including a minimum of 3 for cannabis. It is known that foreigners, a lot of them from Pakistan, are disproportionately sentenced to death.

7. Singapore and Malaysia

Executions for drug offences still take place in Singapore and Malaysia, although these countries have lately seen a push to reconsider the mandatory death sentence for drug trafficking. Nevertheless, 2 people were executed for drug offences in Singapore in 2011 and in Malaysia in the same year 83 people (including 22 foreigners) were given a death sentence for drug offences although no executions were carried out.

8. Russia

There are an estimated 1.8 million injecting drug users in Russia - one of the highest levels in the world. About a decade ago 100,000 people in Russia were HIV positive, by 2012 that number had jumped to over 1 million. Russia is at the epicentre of the fastest growing HIV epidemic in the world - yet the response of its authorities includes restricting precisely the kind of harm reduction measures that have been proven to work all over the globe including needle exchange programs, and opposition to the use of methadone and buprenorphine as well as attacks on NGOs providing crucial assistance to drug users, such as the Andrey Rylkov Foundation.

The end of cannabis prohibition - beyond the tipping point

The first system of state government regulated production and supply of cannabis for non-medical use came one step closer this week, with the publication by the Washington State Liquor Control Board of its latest draft rules for the production and supply of marijuana. (See below for highlights)

These proposed new rules appear to meet the requirements laid down by US Attorney General Eric Holder in his recent announcement that the Federal Government will allow individual states to proceed with marijuana legalization, as long  they ensure production and supply are well regulated, including restricting access to minors, and preventing excess production being sold into states that have not legalized.

Transform welcomes the broad thrust of Washington State's regulations which, are in line with what we have been calling for, including in our book After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation, and in our forthcoming publication How to Regulate Cannabis: A Practical Guide.

We also find the detail fascinating, shaped as it is by a combination of the requirements of the wording of the ballot initiative that voters passed; existing federal and state regulatory frameworks and laws they must accommodate and comply with, for example on packaging, advertising, intoxicants etc; the Federal Government's specific requirements; and last but not least, the rapidly changing US political and cultural landscape too.

Included in that changing landscape is the fact that cannabis legalisation ballot initiatives significantly increase the number of young voters who make it to the ballot box, something that favours Democratic candidates (by and large).  As a result, with over half of all Americans now supporting marijuana law reform, and 83% saying the war on drugs has been lost, for Democrats at least, cannabis law reform is no longer a third rail issue - it is a vote winner, whether Obama can say so publicly or not. How do the Republicans respond to this? Calling for the Federal Government to stamp all over states rights is not acceptable for most of them, and with even former Presidential Candidate John McCain saying "Maybe we should legalize" marijuana, surely the game is up.

Internationally, these changes combined with a general reduction in international influence means that the US can no longer effectively dictate a global prohibitionist approach to cannabis, as underlined by Uruguay's bold moves. With legislators in many other regions expressing support for Uruguay, or interest in legalizing cannabis in their own cities or countries, it is clear we are not at a tipping point on ending cannabis prohibition. We have passed it.

September 4, 2013

LCB Rulemaking Objective

• Creating a tightly controlled and regulated marijuana market;
• Including strict controls to prevent diversion, illegal sales, and sales to minors; and
• Providing reasonable access to products to mitigate the illicit market.

LCB Role and Responsibility

• Ensuring public safety is the top priority;
• Creating a three-tier regulatory system for marijuana;
• Creating licenses for producers, processors, and retailers;
• Enforcing laws and rules pertaining to licensees; and
• Collecting and distributing taxes.

Timeline

• December 6, 2012 Effective date of new law
• September 4, 2013 File Supplemental CR 102 with revised proposed rules
• October 9, 2013 Public hearing(s) on proposed rules (time and location TBD)
• October 16, 2013 Board adopts or rejects proposed rules (CR 103)
• November 16, 2013 Rules become effective
• November 18, 2013 Begin accepting applications for all three licenses (30-day window)
• December 1, 2013 Deadline for rules to be complete (as mandated by law)
• December 18, 2013 30-day window closes for producer, processor and retailer license applications

Proposed Rules Highlights

License Requirements


30-day Window

• The LCB will open registration for all license types for a 30-calendar-day window (November 18, 2013)
• LCB may extend the time or reopen application window at its discretion

State Residency Requirement

•  I-502 requires a three month state residency requirement (all license structure types)

Background Checks

• Personal criminal history completed by applicant. Risk of license forfeiture if incomplete or incorrect.
• Fingerprinting of all potential licensees 
• Background checks of license applicants and financiers

Point System

• The LCB will apply a disqualifying point system similar to liquor
• All applicants must disclose all arrests and/or convictions
• Non-disclosure of arrests regardless of conviction will result in point accumulation

License Limits

• Licensed entity or principals limited to three producer licenses 
• Licensed entity or principals limited to three processor licenses
• Licensed entity or principals limited to three retail licenses. 
• Multiple-location licensees not allowed to hold more than 33 percent of the allowed licenses in any county or city. 

Production Limits

• The maximum amount of space for marijuana production is limited to two million square feet.
• Applicants must designate on their operating plan the size category of the production premises and the actual square footage in their premises that will be designated as plant canopy.

 There are three categories:

• Tier 1: Less than 2,000 square feet;
• Tier 2: 2,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet;
• Tier 3: 10,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet.

The LCB may reduce a licensee’s or applicants’ square footage designated to plant canopy for the
following reasons:

• If the total amount of square feet for production of all licensees exceeds the two million square feet maximum, the LCB will reduce the allowed square footage by the same percentage.
• If 50 percent production space used for plant canopy in the licensee’s operating plan is not met in the first year of operation, the board may reduce the tier of licensure.
• If the total amount of square feet of marijuana production exceeds two million square feet, the LCB may reduce all licensees’ production by the same percentage or reduce licensee production by one or more tiers by the same percentage.

Maximum Allowable Amount on Licensed Location

Producer license

• Outdoor or greenhouse: 125 percent of its year’s harvest
• Indoor: six months of its annual harvest

Processor license

• Six months of their average useable marijuana (plant material); and
• Six months average of their total production (finished product).

Retailer license

• Four months of their average inventory
• Licensed Location: 1000 foot Measurement

Distance will be measured along the most direct route over or across established public walks, streets,
or other public passageway between the proposed building/business location to the perimeter of the
grounds of: an elementary or secondary school, playground, recreation center or facility, child care
center, public park, public transit center, library or arcade where admission is not restricted to those
age 21 and older.

Costs and Fees

• $250 application fee
• $1,000 annual renewal fee
• Additional fees for background check and filing for local business license

Taxes

• License applicants must submit a signed attestation that they are current on taxes owed to the Washington State Department of Revenue

Insurance

• Licensees are required to carry commercial liability insurance.

Public Safety

Producer Structures

• Rules allow producer operations in secure: indoor and outdoor grows as well as greenhouses

Traceability

• LCB will employ a robust and comprehensive traceability system (software) that will trace product from seed/clone to sale.
• LCB enforcement can match records to actual product on hand 

Background Checks

• Personal criminal history form
• Fingerprinting of all potential licensees
• Background checks of licensees and financiers

Point System

• LCB will apply a disqualifying point system similar to liquor (exceptions for possession)

Violation Guidelines / Standard Administrative Procedures Act Guidelines

•  $1,000 criminal penalty for sales to a minor
• Sets strict tiered system of violation record over a three year period

Group 1 public safety:

• First violation: 10 day suspension or $2,500
• Second violation: 30 day suspension
• Third violation: license cancellation

Local Authority Objections

• Substantial weight will be given to a local authority during the renewal process based upon chronic illegal activity associated with the licensee’s operation of the premises.

Child Resistant Packaging

•  Specific requirements for marijuana and marijuana-infused products in solid and liquid forms

Security and Safeguards

• Alarm and surveillance video camera requirements (including minimum pixels and lockbox 
• encasement)
• Strict transportation and record keeping requirements (no third party transport of product)
• Hours of operation limited to 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m.

Advertising Restrictions

• Law restricts advertising within 1,000 feet of schools, public parks, transit centers, arcades, and other areas where children are present.
• May not contain statements or illustrations that are false or misleading, promotes overconsumption, represents that it has curative or therapeutic effects, depicts a child or may be appealing to children
• All advertising must contain two statements: a: “This product has intoxicating effects and may be habit 
• forming.” And, b) “Marijuana can impair concentration, coordination, and judgment. Do not operate a vehicle or machinery under the influence of this drug.” 

Limits on Retail Stores

• Total number or retail outlets limited to 334 statewide
• LCB to provide advance notice to local authority
• Per I-502, LCB to determine number of retail outlets per county
• BOTEC Analysis Corporation provided initial county consumption levels
• Retail stores allocation proportionate to population and consumption

Behind the Counter Storage

• No open containers or handling of product
• Sniff jars with sealed, screened-top lids allowed

Strict Packaging and Label Requirements

• Limited servings and concentration per package
• Lot number
• Warning label
• Net weight
• Concentration of THC 
• Usage warnings (specific warning for ingestible foods/liquids about effect delays)

Upon request

• Third party lab that tested lot and results
• All pesticides, herbicides, fungicides found in product

Defined Serving Size

• Defined serving sizes on marijuana-infused product label
• 10 mg of THC per serving
• 100 mg of THC per product
• A single unit of marijuana-infused extract for inhalation cannot exceed one gram

Transaction Limits on Concentrates (extracts)

• A single transaction is limited to seven grams of marijuana-infused extract for inhalation

Lab Tested and Approved (monograph)

• All lots will be tested by independent accredited labs
• Established and uniform testing standards
• Quality assurance testing

Store Signage and Product Warnings

• No minors allowed in stores
• Required product and usage signs within stores

For more information regarding Initiative 502, please visit the Liquor Control Board website at www.liq.wa.gov.
###

History is made as Uruguay MPs vote for legally regulated cannabis

The Uruguayan Parliament yesterday voted to pass a Bill that will legalise and regulate the production, sale, use and personal cultivation of cannabis for non medical use by adults. The Bill will now pass to the Senate for a vote (and possible amends) in October before returning to the Congress before final approval from the Board of Deputies. Although these are potential stumbling blocks, the Congress vote was 'the big one' and it looks highly likely that the Bill will now pass into law later in the year.

At this point Uruguay will be the first national government in the world to have voted through a new law to legalise and regulate cannabis - or indeed any drug prohibited by the UN drug conventions. To this extent the change differs from the groundbreaking developments in Washington and Colorado, where the legalisation measures were passed by popular vote (via ballot initiatives), with both local State and Federal governments firmly opposed. By contrast, Uruguayan public opinion is not yet behind the legalisation move, with Uruguayan politicians tackling drugs by showing something alien to most governments around the world: leadership.

Uruguay's House of Representatives historic vote for change

Summarised details of the Bill are as follows (with thanks to Hannah Hetzer):

• The State will assume control and regulation of all activities relating to import, export, planting, growing, production, storage, commerce and distribution of cannabis and its derivatives. 
• Any plant from which psychoactive drugs can be derived will remain prohibited with the following exceptions:
• For scientific research or medical use. These must be authorised by the Ministry of Public Health and will be under its direct control.
• Cannabis. This must be authorised by the Institute of Regulation and Control of Cannabis (IRCCA) and will be under its direct control.
• Psychoactive cannabis (THC equal or higher to 1% of its volume) will be under the direct control of the IRCCA. Non-psychoactive cannabis (hemp) will be under the direct control of the Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries.
• Domestic cultivation of cannabis for personal consumption will be permitted up to six plants and its product should not exceed 480 grams. 
• Social clubs for cannabis growers (similar to those in Spain) will be controlled by the IRCCA. They may have a maximum of 100 members and may plant a maximum of 99 plants. 
• Cannabis commerce licenses will be given to pharmacies authorised by the Ministry of Public Health. The authorised pharmacies will require users to present either a medical prescription or they must be included in the registry of users. 
• All unauthorised cultivation must be destroyed with an intervention by a judge. All unauthorised production, importation, exportation, transit, distribution, and sale will be penalised with 20 months to 10 years imprisonment. 
• Purchase for personal consumption will be understood to be up to 40 grams of cannabis per month. 
• The IRCCA will have a register of users, home growers and membership clubs. The registry will be free and will solely be used to ensure traceability and control of cultivation and use. The information will considered confidential data, conforming to the associated norms in article 18 of Law N° 18.331, of August 11, 2008. 
• The National Integrated Health System (SNIS) must implement policies pertaining to the promotion of health, the prevention of problematic use of cannabis, and provide adequate advice, guidance and treatment for problematic cannabis users.
• In cities with more than 10,000 inhabitants, mechanisms will be installed for Information, Advice, Diagnosis, Referral, Attention, Rehabilitation, Treatment and Integration of those affected by problematic drug use. These will be managed by the Junta Nacional de Drogas, which can sign agreements with departmental and municipal governments and NGOs. 
• The National System of Public Education (SNEP) must have education policies for the promotion of health and the prevention of problematic cannabis use from the perspective of the  Development of Abilities for Life (Habilidades para la Vida) and in the framework of risk management and harm reduction policies. These education policies must be included in the curricula in Primary, Secondary and Professional Technical Education, with the aim of preventing the harms produced by drug consumption, including cannabis. In the “Prevention of Problematic Drug Use” included in the curricula, special spaces will be given to driving education and traffic accidents caused by the consumption of drugs. 
• All forms of publicity, indirect publicity, promotion or sponsorship of psychoactive cannabis products will be prohibited including in all types of media: written press, radio, television, cinema, magazines, posters, pamphlets, emails, etc. 
• The Junta Nacional de Drogas must realise education, outreach and awareness campaigns on the risks, effects, and potential harms of the use of drugs. 
• The measures put forward in article 3º of Law Nº 18.256, of March 6, 2008 on protection of public spaces will be applied.
• Those under age 18 will not be permitted to access psychoactive cannabis for recreational use. Violation of this will be penalized according to Decree-Law N° 14.294, in the drafting given in Law N° 17.016. 
• Driving of any vehicles when the THC level is above the amount to be established will not be permitted. The Junta Nacional de Drogas will provide the necessary training, advice and supplies to officials especially designated to this, from the Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of Transport and Public Works, Ministry of Departmental Governments, Ministry of Municipal Governments, and Ministry of National Maritime, with the aim of realizing the aforementioned control. These tests will be via blood tests or other clinical or paraclinical tests, via the SNIS (National Integrated Health System) providers. Drivers that violate this limit will be penalised by the sanctions established in article 46 of Law 18.191 of November 14, 2007.
• In addition to regulating cannabis, the IRCCA will be in charge of promoting actions relating to risk and harm reduction associated with the problematic use of cannabis, according to the policies defined by the Junta Nacional de Drogas and in coordination with national and departmental authorities, as well as monitoring compliance. The IRCCA will coordinate and be linked to the Executive Power through the Ministry of Public Health. 
• The Junta Nacional de Drogas will be in charge of setting national policies regarding cannabis with the advice of the IRCCA. 
• The IRCCA will include a member from each of the following: the National Drug Board; the Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries; the Ministry of Social Development; and the Ministry of Public Health. The National Advisory Board of the IRCCA will include representatives from the following: Ministry of Public Health, Ministry of Education and Culture, Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of Economy and Finances, Ministry of Industry, Energy and Mining, the University of the Republic, the membership clubs, the home growers associations, and the licensees. 
•  Within the Presidency of the Republic, a Special Unit for Evaluation and Monitoring of this law will be created, comprised of staff specialised in policy evaluation and monitoring. It will be independent and will submit annual reports, which must be considered by the organisms and bodies responsible for the execution of this law.

Check out this brilliant animated  short film from Regulación Responsable explaining how the new system will work (sadly in Spanish only - but an English version is coming soon)

Transform are delighted that Uruguay has taken this sensible and serious approach to legally regulating cannabis, and we're pleased to have played a part in assisting the country's government in formulating  the regulation framework. Our Latin American Programme Manager, Lisa Sanchez, and our Senior Policy Analyst, Steve Rolles, were invited to advise on the policy last year as one of a series of expert delegations. Hosted by the Junta Nacional de Drgas, Steve and Lisa briefed and discussed relevant issues with law makers, medical authorities, various MP groupings and committees, the full Uruguayan cabinet and prime minister, President Mujica, local civil society groups, and the media.

Coverage of Transform's Uruguay visit in La Republica (Sept 2012)

It was welcome to see how most of Transform's suggestions have been taken on board, and whilst we don't agree with everything in the Bill (we recommended against the registration scheme for example) it is important to stress how Uruguay approached the challenge of developing it in a thorough, methodical and responsible evidence-based fashion, taking guidance from a range of local and international expertise, and involving a range of stakeholders in an open and transparent process. As well as demonstrating leadership on the international stage, they have provided a useful template for how cannabis regulation policy can and should be developed. 
 

Steve and Lisa from Transform - at the Uruguayan Parliament in October last year, having given evidence to the Home Affairs committee on drugs October 2012

This commitment to 'getting it right' was again reflected this April when the Uruguayan Government hosted  a week long event involving a 3 day seminar and discussion on the proposals with 40 local and international experts, followed by a series of public hearings with the experts and politicians across the country. Steve was invited back to Uruguay to participate. 

Expert seminar in Punta De L'este, Uruguay April "013

Congratulations and thanks are due to the many individuals and groups who have been involved in this historic victory, including the heroic Julio Calzada and his team at the Junta Nacional de Drogas, the brilliant work of Regulación Responsable,  The Transnational Institute Drugs and Democracy initiative, The Drug Policy Alliance, WOLA, and many, many others. Special thanks are due for the leadership and wisdom of Uruguayan President, José Mujica , and Prime Minister, Diego Canepa.

Some further reading:

• Details of the how the debate and vote unfolded from someone present, and additional useful background political analysis from Geoff Ramsey's blog the PanAmericanPost
• The Transnational Institute have an excellent web resource on drug policy reform in the region, including dedicated page on Uruguay
• As the INCB inevitably unleash their rather pathetic and misplaced hounds on Uruguay, some useful perspective on the international treaty issues is provided in this Transform guest blog (Nov 2012) by Damon Barrett: Marijuana legalisation: Sometimes Violations of International Law Are Cause for Celebration
• Guardian Comment is Free piece (Sept 2012) from Steve Rolles and Lisa Sanchez on Uruguay 'The relaxation of cannabis laws shows the failure of the war on drugs'
• Transform's upcoming guide to Cannabis regulation. Help us make the change!
   

 

Help make legal cannabis a reality

One day currently illegal drugs will be legalised, taxed and regulated - starting with cannabis.

Can you imagine what that would look like?

We can.

At Transform Drug Policy Foundation we’ve have spent nearly two decades researching and refining our vision of how to do it safely.

Today we are fundraising for our new publication, 'How to Regulate Cannabis: A Practical Guide'.

It will show policy makers how a regulated cannabis market can take control away from organised criminals and put it back in the hands of the government. The models we are proposing will make better use of taxpayers' money and safeguard young people, communities and public health.

For more detail about the book see our dedicated Justgiving page for this project.

We have already raised half the money for the book, and we’re now seeking £5,000 more to match it and finish the job. The book is due to be launched in October, so we’ve given ourselves a month to raise the match-funding.

In 2009 our book 'After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation' (which has been downloaded over 500,000 times) described how a legally regulated drug market could work.

“Blueprint is the most evidence-based, balanced discussion of drug control policy that I have seen. It should be compulsory reading for all policy makers”

-- Professor R Morgan, Former HM Chief Inspector of Probation

'Blueprint' showed people that the unthinkable was thinkable. 'How to Regulate Cannabis’ will show how legalising cannabis is doable.

Please donate today, and ask your friends to do the same.

You can also like us on Facebook and tweet the following to show your support for the project:

Help make legal #cannabis a reality: Transform is crowdfunding its vital new guide 'How to Regulate Cannabis' http://bit.ly/17iRQoQ pls RT

Many thanks for helping us get drugs under control.

12 heads of state who support drug policy reform

The commitment of heads of state is crucial in pushing for drug policy reform since they have the power to challenge the current prohibitionist framework at its political roots.

Sadly, when in office many key players like Barack Obama and David Cameron seem afflicted by post-election amnesia when it comes to rethinking the War on Drugs. Indeed, historically, the issue has been taboo and thus it was that was only former presidents were willing to speak out.

Nevertheless, in the absence of much significant engagement on the side of Western consumer countries, Latin and Central American presidents have taken the lead in challenging the prohibitionist status quo. And what is increasingly encouraging is that more and more incumbent political leaders are now daring to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy. Below is a selection of some of the more prominent past and present heads of state who are not afraid to champion reform, divided up into 'Incumbents' and 'Formers'.

Incumbents

José Mujica, ‘the world’s poorest president' who famously donates 90% of his salary to charity caused quite a stir back in October 2012 when he declared that Uruguay will be legalising the production and supply of cannabis under monopoly state control. When asked about his motives he replied that "The traditional approach hasn’t worked [...] Someone has to be the first”. 

Since then, he has announced that the plan has been delayed due to lower than hoped public support in ongoing polling. Nevertheless he remains committed to the reform and the Bill continues to make its way through the Uruguayan parliament.

He hopes to go ahead with this groundbreaking policy when the population understands the intent of the measure, underlining that "The majority has to be in the street and the people have to understand that with shootings and putting people in prison we are giving a gift to drug traffickers."

Juan Manuel Santos. Colombia’s president is an increasingly vocal proponent of reform, who, since coming to power, has drawn significant attention to the suffering of Latin American producer countries, the unintended consequences of current interenational drug control. He is now a major advocate calling for a rethink of the failed War on Drugs. 

In contrast to his Uruguayan counterpart, he rules out any possibility of unilateral action on the issue on Colombia’s side, instead calling on the international community to address the obvious failure of the War on Drugs and stressing that responsibility has to be shared among producing, transit and consuming countries. In his calls for a debate he is much bolder than other politicians, bringing up both the legalisation of cannabis and perhaps even cocaine as a subject for international discussion. 

Laura Chinchilla, president of Costa Rica, joined the group of incumbent presidents calling for a rethink of the prevailing prohibitionist approach stating that drug legalization in Central America merits a 'serious' debate in order to reduce the crime and violence spreading through the region, even if it runs up against U.S. opposition; once more drawing on the fact that Central Americans “have the right to discuss it” because “we are paying a very high price”. 

Otto Pérez Molina of Guatemala is another Central American president leading the debate on a need for a global shift in drug policy and challenging the U.S to move in the same direction.

"I believe that as he is entering his second term, [Obama] is going to be more open to this debate. In the end, this is the direction we all have to move in. There is going to be a change away from the paradigm of prohibitionism and the war against drugs, to a process that will take us towards regulation. I would expect a more flexible and open position from President Obama in his second term." 

Molina’s engagement with the issue is a welcome development, though his role as an advocate of reform may be overshadowed by the serious (though unconfirmed) allegations of human rights abuses that he faces.


Evo Morales, the Bolivian president, now serving his second term, hasn't endorsed wider drug policy reform, but has instead focused on the legalisation of the practice of traditional coca leaf chewing in Bolivia. In his campaign he dared to withdraw the country from the 1961 UN Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and despite objections from several countries later managed to re-accede to the convention with a special dispensation recognising the practice as legal in Bolivia, effectively renegotiating the UN conventions to allow for more progressive reforms. 

Morales has also been highly critical of the broader 'war on drugs' paradigm - which he views as failed and counterproductive. See, for example, this speech at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs earlier this year.

Formers

Ruth Dreifuss. Former president of Switzerland, member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy (which supported an experiment with legal market regulation of cannabis and other drugs), and pioneer of innovative harm reduction strategies. She introduced heroin-assisted treatment whilst she was Minister of Home Affairs for Switzerland and she frequently speaks out for decriminalisation and a public health approach to drug policy.

Dreifuss was also a special guest at an event held by the global Count the Costs initiative, of which Transform is a leading supporter. 

César Gaviria. The former president of Colombia, and a former Secretary General of Organization of American States, recently reiterated his support for drug policy reform, writing a joint letter with Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Ricardo Lagos and Ernesto Zedilla on the new, groundbreaking report by the OAS that recommends exploring alternatives to the war on drugs:

“The OAS and countries across Latin America are positively contributing to the breaking of the taboo that blocked for so long the debate on more humane and efficient drug policy. It is time that governments around the world are allowed to responsibly experiment with regulation models that are tailored to their realities and local needs."

Gaviria, a longstanding proponent of fundamental change in global drug policy also wrote the foreword to the Spanish edition of Transform’s 'Blueprint for Regulation': 

“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."

George Papandreou who served as Greece’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and later became Prime Minister, is another member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy who was a serving head of state at the time of publication and as such was therefore possibly the first head of state to publicly back legalisation/regulation. He has long advocated the need for a rethink of the current global drug policy framework.

Speaking at a High-level Conference on Drugs entitled "Towards an effective drug policy: Scientific documentation, everyday action and political choices", which was organized during the Greek presidency of the EU in 2003, Papandreou said:

"I do not hide that I personally have from time to time supported the need to see the addict as someone in need of treatment rather than a criminal, the need to make full use of the conclusions of a number of bold pilot projects, regarding the supervised administration of substitute narcotics in an organised way, including by the State itself."

Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former president of Brazil, and Chair of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, has been one of the most prominent former leaders calling for radical changes in drug policy:

“There is still a long way to go. The trend towards decriminalisation for possession helps to empower a public health paradigm. It breaks the silence about the drug problem. It enables people to think in terms of approaching drug abuse in a way that is not first and foremost a matter for the criminal justice system. Reducing the harm caused by drugs goes hand in hand with reducing consumption."

In a joint letter written with Cesar Gaviria and Ernesto Zedillo he reasserts their support for the legal regulation of the drug market:

“The full enforcement power of the state and the social and cultural pressure of society should be aimed at a relentless fight against organized crime -- rather than persecuting people in need of treatment.

Our second core recommendation -- which is more complex but just as important for ensuring peace and public safety -- is to encourage experimentation with different models of legal regulation of drugs, such as marijuana, in similar ways to what is already done with tobacco and alcohol.

Research has consistently demonstrated that marijuana is a less harmful drug than tobacco or alcohol. Regulation is not the same as legalization. This is a critical point. Regulation is a necessary step to create the conditions for a society to establish all kinds of restrictions and limitations on the production, trade, advertising and consumption of a given substance to deglamorize, discourage and control its use."

Jorge Sampaio. The former Portuguese president was at the beginning of his second term when his country became one of the pioneering EU countries introducing a decriminalisation policy in July 2001.

The pioneering law was introduced in response to Portugal’s growing drug abuse problem, and meant drug possession/use was no longer treated as a criminal justice issue. Instead, it would now be dealt with as a purely administrative violation. This legal refrom, alongside a more fundamental realignment of policy from punitive enforcement towards public health interventions. , resulted in a decline in problematic drug use, drug-related mortality rates and drug-related disease transmission. Twelve years after the law was enacted there is widespread political consensus in Portugal in favour of decriminalisation.

Ernesto Zedillo, the former Mexican president, and another member of the Global Commission, has also been a co-author of previously mentioned letters calling for alternatives to prohibition to be explored. Zedillo is also the Director of the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. In one of the Center’s publications entitled ‘Rethinking the War on Drugs through the US - Mexico Prism‘ he writes that:

"Of course, we must believe that the architects and subsequent followers of the ‘war on drugs‘ strategy though that they were acting on behalf of the public interest, but that is hardly a reason not to examine the basis for and the results of their policies. In this process, we should not ignore the possibility that their idea of public interests might have been distorted by a sense of short-term political urgency."

Aleksander Kwasniewski, former president of Poland who joined the Global Commission last year seems to be a good illustration of the short-termism that Zedillo wrote about. In 2000, as president, Kwasniewski signed the bill introducing a prison sentence of up to 3 years for the possession of any amount of illicit drugs, no matter how small. Not surprisingly, the result was a drastic increase in numbers of arrests, more than half of them under the age of 24. 

Such an approach hardly merits a place on the list of top reformers, however what is interesting is that he publicly admitted that introducing those policies was a serious mistake. In an op-ed published in the New York times in May last year he declared:

"It is my hope that political and community leaders in other countries, especially in Eastern Europe, will learn from Poland’s experience in criminalizing drug possession, a move that clearly fell short of its goals. Such a policy failure should not be repeated anywhere else in the world."

"East European leaders should press for a halt to incarcerating people for possessing small amounts of drugs for personal use and should start treating drug addiction as a public health issue."