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.

Transform event 'Time to Count the Health Costs of the War on Drugs'

Professor Averil Mansfield, Chair of the British Medical Association, speaking at the Count the Costs health event

Transform, as the leading coordinator of the Count the Costs initiative, held a lunch-time meeting last month for some world-leading health professionals and NGOs. The event included presentations from Professor Averil Mansfield, Chair of the British Medical Association Board of Science; Anton Olfield-Kerr, Head of Policy of the International HIV/AIDS Alliance; and Martin Drewry, Executive Director of Health Poverty Action.

Attendees at the event came from a wide range of organisations, including The Faculty of Public Health, The Royal College of Nursing, Addaction, Médecins du Monde, the National Aids Trust, the People's Health Movement and Save the Children.

The lunch time session started with a presentation from Professor Mansfield, who freely admitted to being strongly influenced by the launch of Transform’s flagship publication, 'After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation'. At that time [2009] she was President of the BMA and it was not until she became Chairman of the BMAs Board of Science that she was able to take the lead on this issue. The result was a publication, produced by the BMA, entitled ‘Drugs of dependence: The role of medical professionals’, which looked at alternative approaches to drug policy and highlighted the need to deal with drugs as a health issue.

Professor Mansfield’s presentation was followed by talks from representatives from Health Poverty Action and the International HIV/AIDS Alliance, who stressed, among other things, the importance of more NGOs engaging with the drugs issue, in an effort to generate pressure from civil society in the lead up to the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on Drugs in 2016.

The event was an informal, off-the-record discussion and we were delighted by the number of newcomers to the debate who attended. We have received very encouraging feedback and hope it will lead to a number of new supporters and joint initiatives going forward, as we build up the campaign in advance of UNGASS 2016. The event was also mentioned by Tom Chivers, who wrote a great article on drug policy in The Daily Telegraph the following day.
You can also read the health briefing that we developed for the campaign here.

The dinner was the second in a series of outreach events that we are planning over the coming year in an effort to mainstream support for our Count the Costs campaign. We are delighted that the campaign now has over 100 supporters, a full list of which can be found here.

The UK Government bans khat, ignores advice of its own experts

The UK government has today announced it will go against the recommendations of its own drugs experts (again) and ban khat, a plant mostly used by the UK’s Somali and Yemeni communities, that produces a mild stimulant effect when chewed.

Earlier this year, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the body responsible for providing the government with expert advice on drugs, produced a detailed review of the evidence (PDF) on the social and health harms of khat and offered recommendations on responses to the drug in the UK.

Although acknowledging gaps in the research data available, the ACMD found little evidence to support causal link between khat use and most of the adverse medical effects around which concerns had been raised (although noting a risk of liver toxicity in heavy users), and could also find only weak evidence that use of the drug was a cause of some the societal problems that it has been blamed for by some observers. Along with a series of prgamatic recommendations on educating and supporting affected communities, and treating those whose use becomes problematic, their conclusion on khats legal status was clear:

“The ACMD considers that the evidence of harms associated with the use of khat is insufficient to justify control and it would be inappropriate and disproportionate to classify khat under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.”

The Home Secreatary who ordered today's ban, Teresa May, has argued that the UK has become a transshipment point for khat because other countries have prohibited it. The ACMD, however, note that:

"it is likely that some khat is re-exported to countries where it is banned" (p.82)

but..

"Fears of the UK becoming a hub for importation of khat appear not borne out by  the VAT figures provided by the HMRC regarding the volume of khat imported  into the UK since 2005 or by any evidence suggesting the UK is a landing point for the onward transportation of significant quantities of khat"(p.10)

The ACMD also point out that khat needs to be consumed within 36-48hours of harvesting or it loses its effects - another reason why the UK trafficking hub proposition lacks credibility. there simply isnt time for it to be transited through multiple destinations - it needs to go direct to consumer markets to be a viable product. 

The other key argument made by May has been concerns about a link between the khat trade and terrorism, specifically the Al Shabaab group in Somalia. On this question the ACMD are equally clear:

"in regard to international crime, it is known the Al Shabaab militia,which control parts of southern Somalia, tax sales of khat as all retail transactions of any product are taxed. However, in countries beyond the UK where khat has been prohibited it enters the illegal market through smuggling and illicit sale, and so becomes criminal activity by definition. To clarify, the ACMD has not been provided with any evidence of Al Shabaab or any other terrorist groups‘ involvement in khat export/sale, despite repeated requests for this information from a number of national and international official sources, including various Government bodies."(p.55)

Dr Axel Klein, one of the key experts on khat who gave evidence informing the ACMD report, told Transform that:

"There's no reason to support the ban except that other countries have done so. There is an alleged terror link but this looks ridiculous given that Al Shabaab in Somalia have been banning khat themselves. The trade has provided hundreds of UK Somalis with a livelihood, and their countrymen with a peaceful and agreeable past time.

For Islamic campaigners this has long been a thorn in the flesh of the community. Mafrishes are public spaces, where discussion ranges widely and freely, as friends gather to relax and enjoy. At a time of rising hostility and nationalism making the assimilation for even second or third Generation British Somalis more difficult, such spaces come at a premium. In Somali neighbourhoods like Tower Hamlets and Lambeth these mafrishes were the strongest organised opposition to the grip held by Islamic organisations over the community. A Conservative Home Secretary with backbench support has just handed radical Islam their first political success in the UK."

It is worth noting that the ACMD argues that the general absence of crime problems and criminal profits associated with khat are specifically due to the fact that it remains legal, stating that:

"There is no evidence of khat consumption being directly linked with serious or organised criminal behavior in the UK or to support the theory that khat is funding or fuelling crime. This is unsurprising given khat is not an illegal drug, is not a high value substance and therefore attracts very little profit from the UK market" (p.3)

and

"The ACMD has not fully explored the positive or negative  affects of criminalisation of khat. However, it can be assumed that if the price of khat increases, for example due to criminalisation, there is the  potential for exploitation by organised criminal gangs already involved  in the illegal drug trade and this would arguably increase funds available to such networks and groups if khat use went underground" (p.55)

and again:

"Evidence presented to the ACMD by practitioners and researchers  found no link between gang crime and khat use; although concerns were raised that if khat were criminalised this profile could change" (p.55)

The report notes that in countries where khat has been banned evidence suggests demand remains, prices rise on the newly illegal market and criminal opportunities are created. This analysis in fact closely echoes that of the ACMD's 2005 khat report:

“The khat industry is a legitimate business. There is no indication of  organised criminals or terrorists being involved in the UK trade, perhaps because of its legality. However, since the USA made khat illegal there is some evidence of organised criminals becoming involved in its shipment to the USA.”

It is clear therefore that the Home Secretary is not only responding to a problem her expert advisors say does not exist, but is also set to create the very problem she is claiming to be responding to - exactly as her advisors have explained will happen. 

The Government long ago divested itself of any authority with regard to the control of drugs, and has again failed to act on the advice of its appointed experts. By making khat illegal today it has added yet another drug to the already extensive product lines of organised criminals and unregulated dealers. It has at the same time criminalised a very specific minority community - the negative effects of which the ACMD has also warned of:

"To respond to these multilayered complex problems [faced by immigrant populations] by criminalising an already disadvantaged group in society deserves serious and  careful consideration, especially in light of the limitations of the findings of the research before the ACMD. A didactic approach is supported by the National Federation of Somali Associations in the Netherlands  which prefers education and information about the potential risks  related to the use of Khat, as well as a coordinated national approach  to address the social and economic problems members of the Somali Community are confronted with" (p.79)

and

"In the context of those communities where khat is used, consideration of the potential negative impact criminalisation may have should be  carefully balanced against the need for support to focus on the concerns raised by communities." (p.83)

The Home Office has given itself only one option – prohibition, and as Mazlow put it: "If the only tool in your tool box is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." The possibility of more effective regulation of the market has been dismissed

Prohibition is not going to be the solution to any problems with khat - real or imagined. As has happened with other drugs, it will exacerbate any existing problems as well as creating new ones associated with the inevitable illegal trade it will generate. We can make drugs lawful through legal regulation, or gift them to criminals through prohibition. The UK Government must urgently explore legal regulation, to keep criminals out of the trade and enable effective control of the market.

UPDATE: We're delighted to learn that Stephen Williams, Lib Dem  MP for Bristol West, has spoken out against today's ban and has indicated that the Liberal Democrats will be opposing the move. He says:

"As a Liberal Democrat I have always supported a science-led approach to drugs and as such I cannot support the move to ban khat.  

"The Government’s own experts reviewed khat and concluded that it should not be criminalised. I do not advocate the use of khat, which has been known to have negative side effects, but criminalising its users is a waste of time and money for the government and our police. 

"I will now work with my Lib Dem colleagues to oppose this move and hope to meet with the Home Secretary to personally put the case that this is a poorly thought policy which will harm, rather than help, many of my constituents in Bristol, especially Somalis."

No more war on drugs with Transform designer mugs

Ever thought of making a regular donation to Transform, but were put off by the lack of a merchandising incentive?  Well, we've put that right.

You can now show your support for drug policy reform with one of our new ‘No More Drug War’ mugs. These beautiful artworks are made from fine English bone china, and have been individually produced and expertly decorated by the People’s Republic of Stokes Croft, here in Bristol.

Below are examples of some of the beautiful, original designs available.  

So, what's the cost of this wonderful new addition to my home, I hear you ask.  It's free! 


To get your hands on one these limited edition, hand crafted mugs, all you need to do is visit our donations page, sign up to a £5 (or more) monthly donation with Transform and then email info@tdpf.org.uk requesting your free mug.

You'd be an absolute mug to pass up on this...

Ban Ki-moon calls for "all options" to be considered in drug policy debate

It was welcome to note that during a special event held to mark the Unite Nations International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking on June 26th, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon declared:

“Next year, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs will conduct a high-level review. This will be followed, in 2016, by the UN General Assembly Special Session on the issue. I urge Member States to use these opportunities to conduct a wide-ranging and open debate that considers all options.”

His call for a “wide-ranging and open debate that considers all options” is certainly a welcome development, one that strikes the same note as the Count the Costs campaign statement:

“The 'war on drugs' is a policy choice. There are other options that, at the very least, should be debated and explored using the best possible evidence and analysis. We all share the same goals – a safer, healthier and more just world. 

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

The Secretary General's remarks echo the positive sentiments he and other high level UN officials have previously expressed regarding the need for a re-think of current policy, and an openess to explore alternative approaches.

In recent years the push for more pragmatic debate around alternative paths for drug control at the UN level have primarily come from Latin American leaders. During the 67th session of the UN General Assembly in September 2012 the presidents of Mexico, Colombia and Guatemala challenged the current policy framework in the face of its obvious failures and mounting costs. 

Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos urged a reassessment stating that "It is our duty to determine - on an objective scientific basis - if we are doing the best we can or if there are better options to combat this scourge", while Mexican President Felipe Calderon explicitly called on the United Nations to lead a global debate over a less "prohibitionist" approach to drugs.

In recent years increasing numbers of incumbent and former heads of state from all various parts of the world are starting to speak out in favour of reform, and the high-level debate regarding alternatives to the current prohibitionist approach gained further prominence after the recent publication of the groundbreaking report by the Organization of American States.

Let’s hope that this rhetorical shift at the highest level of global policy making will translate into meaningful debate and positive outcomes in the run up to the UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs in 2016, which is set to "review the current policies and strategies to confront the global drug problem".

It is clear that more and more government and UN leaders, now including the UN Secretary General himself, accept the need for change and are taking the first tentative steps to begin the process of reform at the highest level. 

Support. Don't punish - protesters around the world call for decriminalisation

Today, 26th June, is the UN’s International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking, a day for governments to “celebrate” the war on drugs – which some of them do by executing drug offenders. “Support. Don't Punish”, a global advocacy campaign calling for an end to the criminalisation of people who use drugs (and supported by Transform), is seeking to reclaim the day, through a series of protests in 26 major cities around the world. The protests are intended to raise awareness of the need for more humane and effective policies that prioritise the health and welfare of people who use drugs, and their families and communities.

Highlighting the need for such a policy shift, the UNODC today also released its annual World Drug Report (PDF), along with its new, somewhat optimistically – and clunkily – titled campaign, “Make health your ‘new high’ in life, not drugs” (don’t take that pill; have a salad instead!). 

As this year’s report makes clear in its preface, not much progress has been made in the past 12 months:

“We have to admit that, globally, the demand for drugs has not been substantially reduced and that some challenges exist in the implementation of the drug control system, in the violence generated by trafficking in illicit drugs, in the fast evolving nature of new psychoactive substances, and in those national legislative measures which may result in a violation of human rights” 

But according to the UNODC, violence, human rights abuses and a failure to meet its stated aims aren’t sufficient to warrant a meaningful change to the current approach to drugs. As they state: “The real issue is not to amend the [UN drug] Conventions, but to implement them according to their underlying spirit.” So basically, keep pressing on with more of the same, despite more than 50 years of failure.

To read more about the extent of this failure, and what could be done about it, download the Alternative World Drug Report, produced last year by the Count the Costs initiative (now supported by over 100 NGOs) to tell the other side of the drugs story to the one told by the UNODC.

The two initiatives launched today present us with a stark choice – support, or punish. They are totally incompatible, despite UNODC’s protestations to the contrary.

Silence is not an option. Transform urges those currently trying to straddle a non-existent fence in the debate, to oppose punishment and support humane, just and effective drug policies.

RIP Iain Banks – world-renowned author and Transform patron

We are sad to announce the death of one of Transform’s most well known supporters – the writer Iain Banks. Here is the Telegraph's comprehensive obituary.

Iain was one of the early adopters of Transform in the 90’s, and gladly gave his name to support our work. I contacted him after reading The Wasp Factory (always my favourite Banks straight fiction). He never hid his fascination with drug culture, indeed, much of his his sci fi writing was set in an interstellar anarcho-communist utopia called 'The Culture'.

  Iain Banks 1954-2013

When he became a patron he gave us this message of support:

"I think Transform is a necessary voice of sanity in the debate about drugs. Supporting Transform will help end the drug war and promote a society at peace with itself."

Iain also supported the work of our sister organisation, TDPF Scotland from the outset.

"I think it's long past time that Scotland faced the truth about drugs and the extra level of damage their illegality and prohibition imposes on individuals and society. The sort of rational debate and fact-based response to drug use that Transform has been championing throughout the UK for years needs to be brought to focus on Scotland, to reflect both the legislative realities brought about by the Scottish Parliament and the particularly Scottish mix of health, social, deprivation and addiction problems that people here face. I look forward to offering continuing support to a laudable and much-needed cause."

Aside from brief email correspondence with him over the years I only met Iain once at a reading he gave in Bristol. He was very approachable and had no airs and graces. Iain always had strong political views and an anger I can relate to. He famously tore up his passport over the invasion of Iraq and mailed the tatters to Tony Blair - "I was so angry about the illegality and immorality of the war. And this was me - a comfortably off, white Caucasian atheist from a vaguely Protestant background. If I thought it was a disgusting, what would Muslims think about how their co-religionists were being treated?"

I emailed him in April when he announced his terminal illness, and his reply included the following:

“Ah well. Hoped I'd live to see the world come to its senses re drugs, but I guess it's not to be. Still, don't regret the small part I've played trying to turn things around. One day...”

Happily for all of us who enjoyed Iain’s presence, his writing and his politics, his legacy will live on, and when the drug war ends, Iain’s call for peace will be remembered.

RIP Iain.

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."