New feature documentary: 'Cocaine Unwrapped'

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

Trailer:





Film description from the film makers Dartmouth films;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cocaine Unwrapped – Preview Screenings

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

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

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


More information:

• Cocaine Unwrapped website
• Facebook page
• Twitter

Cinepolitics discussion of the Film:

Majority in US support cannabis legalisation for the first time

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ACMD repeats call for decriminalisation of drug possession

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNDP Commission on HIV and the law looks at decriminalisation

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

The objectives of the Commission are to:

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

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

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

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

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

on an anti-discrimination resolution at the Leaders on Discrimination 

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

22 July 2010 (image thanks thebody.com).

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

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

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

 Congressman Jim McDermott (Right) among the participants 

Dialogue moderator, BBC World's Nisha Pillai

 Participant Deon Hayward from US based Women with a Vision

Congresswoman (and HIV and the Law Commissioner) Barnara Lee

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

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



From the Commission website:

Global Commission on HIV and the Law

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

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

Lib Dems can lead the way on drug policy

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

César Gaviria
former President of Colombia
June 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

César Gaviria
Ex-Presidente de Colombia
Junio de 2011

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

Comunicado de Prensa: Difusión Irrestricta

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aquí el texto completo de este llamado:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


FIN


Contacto:

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

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

Notas para los Editores

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the introduction;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Four thematic sections address:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lib Dems consider drug law reform at conference

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protecting individuals and communities from drug harms

Conference notes:

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

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

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

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

Conference further notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conference believes:

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

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

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

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

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

Conference calls for:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

NAACP PASSES HISTORIC RESOLUTION CALLING FOR END TO WAR ON DRUGS

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

Contact: Ben Wrobel

(917) 846-0658
bwrobel@naacpnet.org

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



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

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


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

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



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


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why it is sometimes better to broadcast than engage

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

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

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

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

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

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