UN expert calls for a fundamental shift in global drug control policy

Media Advisory

At a press conference in New York on Tuesday 26 October, at the 65th session of the United Nations General Assembly, one of the UN’s key human rights experts will call for a fundamental rethink of international drug policy.

Anand Grover, from India, is the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health, whose mandate is derived from the UN Human Rights Council. Mr Grover’s annual thematic report, to be presented on October 25/26, sets out the range of human rights abuses that have resulted from international drug control efforts, and calls on Governments to:

• Ensure that all harm-reduction measures (as itemized by UNAIDS) and drug-dependence treatment services, particularly opioid substitution therapy, are available to people who use drugs, in particular those among incarcerated populations.

• Decriminalize or de-penalize possession and use of drugs.

• Repeal or substantially reform laws and policies inhibiting the delivery of essential health services to drug users, and review law enforcement initiatives around drug control to ensure compliance with human rights obligations.

• Amend laws, regulations and policies to increase access to controlled essential medicines

• To the UN drug control agencies, Mr Grover recommends the creation of an alternative drug regulatory framework based on a model such as the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

The report is the clearest statement to date from within the UN system about the harms that drug policies have caused and the need for a fundamental shift in drug policy.

The report has been welcomed by the European Union in the EU statement on crime and drugs to the UN General Assembly.

Press conference details:

Tuesday, 26 October at 1:15pm at the Dag Hammarskjöld Auditorium, New York, (close to the UN library in the Secretariat Building - entrance on 42nd Street and 1st Avenue). There will be a press release issued.

Mr Grover WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE for press comment prior to the press conference.

For press enquiries please contact:

Fiona Lander, MBBS(Hons)/LLB(Hons)
Research Assistant to Anand Grover, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health

+91 9930 925496 fionalander at gmail.com

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health

UN Doc No A/65/255

Available in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Spanish and Russian

Summary

The current international system of drug control has focused on creating a drug free world, almost exclusively through use of law enforcement policies and criminal sanctions. Mounting evidence, however, suggests this approach has failed, primarily because it does not acknowledge the realities of drug use and dependence. While drugs may have a pernicious effect on individual lives and society, this excessively punitive regime has not achieved its stated public health goals, and has resulted in countless human rights violations.

People who use drugs may be deterred from accessing services owing to the threat of criminal punishment, or may be denied access to health care altogether. Criminalization and excessive law enforcement practices also undermine health promotion initiatives, perpetuate stigma and increase health risks to which entire populations - not only those who use drugs - may be exposed. Certain countries incarcerate people who use drugs, impose compulsory treatment upon them, or both. The current international drug control regime also unnecessarily limits access to essential medications, which violates the enjoyment of the right to health.

The primary goal of the international drug control regime, as set forth in the preamble of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961), is the “health and welfare of mankind”, but the current approach to controlling drug use and possession works against that aim. Widespread implementation of interventions that reduce harms associated with drug use — harm-reduction initiatives — and of decriminalization of certain laws governing drug control would improve the health and welfare of people who use drugs and the general population demonstrably. Moreover, the United Nations entities and Member States should adopt a right to health approach to drug control, encourage system-wide coherence and communication, incorporate the use of indicators and guidelines, and consider developing a new legal framework concerning certain illicit drugs, in order to ensure that the rights of people who use drugs are respected, protected and fulfilled.

Recommendations

Member States should:

• Ensure that all harm-reduction measures (as itemized by UNAIDS) and drug-dependence treatment services, particularly opioid substitution therapy, are available to people who use drugs, in particular those among incarcerated populations.

• Decriminalize or de-penalize possession and use of drugs.

• Repeal or substantially reform laws and policies inhibiting the delivery of essential health services to drug users, and review law enforcement initiatives around drug control to ensure compliance with human rights obligations.

• Amend laws, regulations and policies to increase access to controlled essential medicines.

The United Nations drug control bodies should:

• Integrate human rights into the response to drug control in laws, policies and programmes.

• Encourage greater communication and dialogue between United Nations entities with an interest in the impact of drug use and markets, and drug control policies and programmes.

• Consider creation of a permanent mechanism, such as an independent commission, through which international human rights actors can contribute to the creation of international drug policy, and monitor national implementation, with the need to protect the health and human rights of drug users and the communities they live in as its primary objective.

• Formulate guidelines that provide direction to relevant actors on taking a human rights-based approach to drug control, and devise and promulgate rights-based indicators concerning drug control and the right to health.

• Consider creation of an alternative drug regulatory framework in the long term, based on a model such as the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

67 US law professors back California's prop 19 tax and regulate cannabis measure

The following statement and list of signatories is copied from the Yeson19.com website :

To the Voters of California:

As law professors at many law schools who focus on various areas of legal scholarship, we write this open letter to encourage a wholesale rethinking of marijuana policy in this country, and to endorse the Tax and Control Cannabis 2010 initiative—Proposition 19—that will be voted on in November in California.

For decades, our country has pursued a wasteful and ineffective policy of marijuana prohibition. As with alcohol prohibition, this approach has failed to control marijuana, and left its trade in the hands of an unregulated and increasingly violent black market. At the same time, marijuana prohibition has clogged California’s courts alone with tens of thousands of non-violent marijuana offenders each year. Yet marijuana remains as available as ever, with teens reporting that it is easier for them to buy than alcohol across the country.

Proposition 19 would remove criminal penalties for private use and cultivation of small amounts of marijuana by adults and allow California localities to adopt—if they choose—measures to regulate commerce in marijuana. Passage of Proposition 19 would be an important next step toward adopting an approach more grounded in reason, for California and beyond.

Our communities would be better served if the criminal justice resources we currently spend to investigate, arrest, and prosecute people for marijuana offenses each year were redirected toward addressing unsolved violent crimes. In short, the present policy is causing more harm than good, and is eroding respect for the law.

Moreover, we are deeply troubled by the consistent and dramatic reports of disproportionate enforcement of marijuana laws against young people of color. Marijuana laws were forged in racism, and have been demonstrated to be inconsistently and unfairly applied since their inception. These are independent reasons for their repeal.

Especially in the current economic climate, we must evaluate the efficacy of expensive government programs and make responsible decisions about the use of state resources. We find the present policies toward marijuana to be bankrupt, and urge their rethinking.

This country has an example of a path from prohibition. Alcohol is subject to a regulatory framework that is far safer in every respect than the days of Al Capone. Just like the State of New York did when it rolled back Prohibition 10 years before the nation as a whole, California should show leadership and restore respect for the law by enacting the Tax and Control Cannabis 2010 initiative this November.

Click here to sign and endorse!

Sincerely,

Jonathan H. Adler
Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Cleveland, Ohio

Ty Alper
University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, Berkeley, CA

Hadar Aviram
University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA

W. David Ball
Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Randy Barnett
Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC

Tom W. Bell
Chapman Law School, Orange, CA

Steve Berenson
Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, CA

Eric Berger
University of Nebraska, College of Law, Lincoln, NE

Douglas A. Berman
Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

David E. Bernstein
George Mason University School of Law, Arlington, VA

Ash Bhagwat
University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA

Richard Boldt
University of Maryland School of Law, Baltimore, MD

Sande Buhai
Loyola University School of Law, Los Angeles, CA

Paul Butler
George Washington University Law School, Washington, DC

Erwin Chemerinsky
University of California, Irvine, CA

Gabriel J. Chin
University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, Tucson, AZ

Marjorie Cohn
Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, CA

Mary Culbert
Loyola University School of Law, Los Angeles, CA

Angela J. Davis
Washington College of Law, American University, Washington, DC

Alan M. Dershowitz
Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA

Steven Duke
Yale Law School, New Haven, CT

Elizabeth Price Foley
Florida International University College of Law, Miami, FL

David Friedman
Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Mary Ellen Gale
Whittier Law School, Costa Mesa, CA

Pratheepan Gulasekaram
Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Bill Ong Hing
University of San Francisco School of Law, San Francisco, CA

Paige Kaneb
Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Madeline June Kass
Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, CA

Alice Kaswan
University of San Francisco School of Law, San Francisco, CA

Alex Kreit
Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, CA

Ellen Kreitzberg
Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

David Levine
University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA

Jerry Lopez
UCLA School of Law, Los Angeles, CA

Elizabeth Loftus
University of California, Irvine, CA

Erik Luna
Washington and Lee University School of Law, Lexington, VA

Michael Madow
Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn, NY

Leigh Maddox
University of Maryland, School of Law, Baltimore, MD

Charles Marvin
Georgia State University College of Law, Atlanta, GA

Lawrence C. Marshall
Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA

David N. Mayer
Capital University Law School, Columbus, OH

Tracy L. McGaugh
Touro Law Center, Central Islip, NY

Andrew P. Morriss
University of Alabama, School of Law, Tuscaloosa, AL

Michelle Oberman
Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Tamara R. Piety
University of Tulsa College of Law, Tulsa, OK

Ascanio Piomelli
University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA

David G. Post
Beasley School of Law, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA

Jenny Roberts
Washington College of Law, American University, Washington, DC

Cesare Romano
Loyola University School of Law, Los Angeles, CA

Margaret Russell
Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Barry C. Scheck
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, New York, NY

Steven Semeraro
Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, CA

Steven Shatz
University of San Francisco School of Law, San Francisco, CA

Jonathan Simon
University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, Berkeley, CA

Eric S. Sirulnik
George Washington University Law School, Washington, DC

David Sloss
Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Abbe Smith
Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC

Ilya Somin
George Mason University School of Law, Arlington, VA

Clyde Spillenger
UCLA School of Law, Los Angeles, CA

Edward Steinman
Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Mark Strasser
Capital University Law School, Columbus, OH

Robert N. Strassfeld
Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Cleveland, Ohio

Nadine Strossen
New York Law School, New York, NY

Gerald F. Uelmen
Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Alexander Volokh
Emory Law School, Atlanta, GA

Keith Wingate
University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA

Eric Wright
Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Richard W. Wright
Illinois Institute of Technology
Kent College of Law, Chicago, IL

*All affiliations are listed for identification purposes only.

Transform's submission to the Drugs Strategy Consultation

The summary and conclusions are copied below, the full document (in Pdf format) is available here. 

Transform has a number of serious concerns about the consultation process and the contents of the consultation paper itself. These concerns are explored first with reference to the consultation document where relevant, and the Governments consultation code of practice. We then highlight and discuss key areas of policy that are absent from the consultation. 

On the specific questions in the consultation document not covered in this response Transform wishes to endorse the detailed submissions made by Release ( www.release.org ) and UKHRA / NNEF. (www.ukhra.org ) 

Summary: 

The consultation does not adhere to the first three criterion of the Government’s consultation code of practice regarding when to consult, duration of the consultation, or clarity and scope of impact.

There is no Impact Assessment for proposed policy changes, or research data / analysis presented in support of any proposals.

Key areas of the public policy debate are entirely absent from the consultation, specifically:

• Harm reduction – a key pillar of UK drug policy receives no mention 
  
• Sentencing / decriminalisation – the growing body of evidence, high level backing and active public debate are ignored
  
•  Supply side enforcement – its efficacy is unquestioned (despite the absence of evidence) and its impacts unexplored
  
• The classification system / ACMD – none of the high profile public debates and controversies on this important issue are addressed
  
• International drug policy – there is no mention of or engagement with the international dimension of UK drug policy
  
• Evaluative framework – there is no engagement with how policy should be evaluated – regards targets, KPIs and or how they should be prioritised
  
• Tobacco – there are many mentions of alcohol, but none of the drug associated with the greatest number of addictions and chronic deaths in the UK

 

Discussion / Conclusions 

There are some positive things in this consultation. We are pleased to see the call for ‘a more holistic approach with drugs issues being assessed and tackled alongside other issues such as alcohol abuse, child protection, mental health, employment and housing’.

Transform have long argued that levels of problematic drug use primarily reflect a complex interplay social, economic and cultural variables. In addition to those above we would certainly include social deprivation, inequality and broader measures of personal and social wellbeing. The corollary of this, of course, is that the impact of drug policy as traditionally conceived (prevention, treatment, and enforcement) should not be overestimated and may be marginal, in many cases irrelevant, relative to the underlying social determinants of drug using behaviours.

This analysis – that problematic use is essentially a barometer of a social wellbeing (or lack of) - has obvious implications for longer term prevention and harm reduction strategies. It suggests that success is likely to flow more from investment in social capital and addressing multiple deprivation and inequality issues, particularly as they affect young people, rather than from pouring ever more money into more conventional interventions that are poorly supported by evidence. 

Whilst conventional drug policy may only be able to achieve, at best, fairly marginal impacts on prevalence of problematic use, the overarching prohibitionist legal framework can, however, have a dramatic impact on levels of harm associated with drug use. This can be both by increasing health risks associated with use, and through the wider social harms created or exacerbated by the illegal drug market. 

This goes to the heart of the drug policy and law reform position that Transform represents; a pragmatic position that accepts both the reality of demand for drugs as it currently exists, and that this demand will be met by illegal supply routes if no legally regulated supply option exists. Drug markets can be controlled and regulated by governments or by gangsters; there is no third option that involves a drug free society. 

We argue that legally regulating drug production, supply and use (as detailed in ‘After the War on Drugs; Blueprint for Regulation’) would deliver better outcomes than the anarchic criminal free for all and underground drug culture we currently have. The pragmatic mindset also requires that whilst we acknowledge  most people do not use illegal drugs, we must also acknowledge that most of those who do, do so relatively responsibly. Their use is not associated with significant personal or social harms, and as such should not be deemed problematic. Of people (globally) who report using illegal drugs in the last year The UNODC only describes 5% as problematic users. It is important to be mindful of the 95% of non-problematic users who do not need treatment – let alone criminal sanction.

Whilst there is a welcome and growing acknowledgement that treatment, prevention and education should be are tailored to individual and local needs - prohibition remains a blunt, inflexible and indiscriminate legislative tool, an absolutist position that criminalises all users regardless of their impact on themselves or those around them, similarly forcing all supply in the hands of criminal profiteers.

The reform position has its roots in the critique of the failings of this approach – both on its own terms, and regards the secondary unintended harms of the illegal trade it fuels. As has been alluded to in this response, the prohibitionist paradigm cannot stand scrutiny, which is at least part of the reason why scrutiny has been so studiously avoided for so long. Indeed the ‘war on drugs’ has required a monumental propaganda effort to sustain it – just as many other wars have.

We only need cast our minds back to the farcical drug strategy consultation of 2007. It was supported by a consultation document described by the ACMD thus:

"it is unfortunate that the consultation paper’s ‘key facts and evidence’ section appears to focus on trying to convince the reader of success and progress; rather than providing an objective review and presentation of the current evidence. The ACMD found the consultation paper self-congratulatory and generally disappointing.’

‘It is of concern that the evidence presented, and the interpretation given, are not based on rigorous scrutiny.'

Of the same document the Government’s own Statistics Commission similarly accused the Home Office of spinning the data to make it look more favourable and failing to ‘provide a balanced presentation of the relevant statistical and other evidence’. 

 

Meanwhile a rigorous and critical ‘value for money’ study (referred to on page 10) that informed the Home Office’s internal review was not made publicly available – only emerging this year following an absurdly protracted 3-year FOI battle with Transform. 

Many the problems with that ill fated consultation (regards process, content and transparency) have unfortunately now been repeated, although this time around we do not even have crudely spun evidence to criticise – there is simply none.
 

This is why the core of our call in this response is to return to the evidence; to have, if you will forgive the oft-misused political clichés, a ‘mature and rational debate’ about ‘what works’.

But this time with all options on the table.
 

This requires open, honest and ongoing evaluation, and as a starting point; independently overseen Impact Assessments of all policies and legislation, new and old (including the MDA 1971). 

In terms of the general mindset, this will entail a move from misplaced moralising and outdated (but entrenched) drug war ideologies to pragmatic public health and social policy norms. If the Government follow the evidence it can only lead to better policies and the better outcomes we all seek. We are confident that if this happens it will only lead in one direction – and it will not be towards criminalisation and prohibition. 

Sadly this consultation falls short on almost every front – it is tokenistic, politicised, and entirely inadequate for the reasons outlined. It is more than a missed opportunity; it is entirely unacceptable as a basis for developing a new drug strategy. We therefore recommend that it be reviewed by the Cabinet Office (and will be requesting this from the Cabinet Minister) with a view to being re-launched. The new consultation process should address the identified shortcomings by adhering to the Government code of practice, including evidential support and Impact Assessments for all proposals, and covering all aspects of UK drug policy of concern to stakeholders.

Leading International Scientific Body Supports Call for Legalisation and Regulation to Reduce Cannabis-Related Harms

 
October 7, 2010 [Vancouver, Canada] – The International Centre for Science in Drug Policy (ICSDP) today released a new research report that demonstrates the clear failure of U.S. marijuana prohibition and supports calls for evidence-based models to legalize and regulate the use of cannabis. The British Medical Journal, one of the world’s most influential medical journals, published a supportive commentary to coincide with the report’s release today.

The new report, entitled "Tools for debate: U.S. federal government data on cannabis prohibition", uses 20 years of data collected by surveillance systems funded by the U.S. government to highlight the failure of cannabis prohibition in America. The report has deep relevance for California as the state prepares to vote on the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis proposition and, potentially, legalize cannabis.

“Data, collected and paid for by the U.S. government, clearly shows that prohibition has not reduced cannabis consumption or supply. Since prohibition is not working, we need new approaches to better address the harms of cannabis use,” says Dr. Evan Wood, founder of the ICSDP. “Scientific evidence clearly shows that regulatory tools have the potential to effectively reduce rates of cannabis-related harm.”

Despite dramatically increased law enforcement funding, the U.S. government’s data demonstrates that cannabis prohibition has not resulted in a decrease in cannabis availability or accessibility. According to the US Office of National Drug Control Policy, federal anti-drug expenditures in the U.S. increased 600% from $1.5 billion in 1981 to over $18 billion in 2002. However, during this period, the potency of cannabis increased by 145% and the price of cannabis decreased by a dramatic 58%.

According to U.S. government funded reports, in the face of increasing enforcement expenditures over the last 30 years, cannabis has remained almost “universally available” to young Americans. Cannabis use among U.S. grade 12 students increased from 27% in 1990 to 32% in 2008 and approximately 80-90% of grade 12 students say the drug is “very easy” or “fairly easy” to obtain.

“From a public health and scientific perspective, the evidence demonstrates that cannabis prohibition has not achieved its intended objectives,” states Dr. Carl Hart, a co-author on the report and Associate Professor of Psychology at Columbia University. “The fact that cannabis prohibition has also enriched organized crime groups and fueled violence in the community creates an urgency to implement evidence-based alternatives that may be more effective at controlling cannabis supply and access.”

In addition to describing the failure of cannabis prohibition, the report notes that legalization combined with the implementation of strict regulatory tools could be more effective at controlling cannabis use and reducing cannabis-related harms. Research demonstrates that similar regulatory tools have been successful in controlling the harms of tobacco and alcohol when strictly enforced.

The report also discusses the regulatory tools available to governments, including conditional licensing systems; age restrictions; product taxation; retailer operating and location limitations; marketing prohibitions; and packaging guidelines.

While the report urges an evidence-based approach to cannabis regulation and notes the comparative successes several European countries have had in decriminalizing cannabis use, it also notes the limitations of models in place in Netherlands and Portugal. People who use marijuana in these two European countries do not face prosecution, but the production and distribution of cannabis remains illegal and largely controlled by organized crime.

“Legalization and strict regulation are more likely to be effective at eliminating the role of organized crime in marijuana production and distribution, because the profit motive is effectively removed,” said Dr. Wood.

In his commentary published in today’s British Medical Journal (bmj.com), Dr. Robin Room notes that regulatory tools developed at the end of alcohol prohibition in the 1930s can also be used today to successfully control cannabis.

“The evidence from Tools for Debate is not only that the prohibition system is not achieving its aims, but that more efforts in the same direction only worsen the results,” says Dr. Room, Professor of Social Research at the University of Melbourne. “The challenge for researchers and policy analysts is to now flesh out the details of effective regulatory regimes.”  

Dr. Wood is one of the six international illicit drug policy experts who authored the report, which has been endorsed by over 65MDs and PhDs in 30 countries who are members of the ICSDP Scientific Network.

The full report is available online at www.icsdp.org.

A related ICSDP report released in April 2010 demonstrates that the illegality of cannabis clearly enriches organized crime and drives violence, as street gangs and cartels compete for drug market profits. In Mexico, an estimated 28,000 people have died since the start of the drug war in 2006. U.S. government reports have previously estimated that approximately 60% of Mexican drug cartel revenue comes from the cannabis trade.

The full 26-page report, “Effect of Drug Law Enforcement on Drug-Related Violence: Evidence from a Scientific Review,” is available online here.

-----

International Centre for Science in Drug Policy

ICSDP is an international network of scientists, academics, and health practitioners who have come together in an effort to ensure illicit drug policies are informed with the best available scientific evidence.  The ICSDP aims to be a primary source for rigorous scientific evidence on illicit drug policy in order to benefit policymakers, law enforcement, and affected communities. To this end, the ICSDP conducts original scientific research in the form of systematic reviews, evidence-based drug policy guidelines, and research collaborations with leading scientists and institutions across diverse continents and disciplines.

Note: Transform's 'After the War on Drugs, Blueprint for Regulation' is cited in the report and Transform provided peer feedback on a draft of the text.

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

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

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

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

Print coverage on the day included:

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

during the following days:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Broadcast media 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


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

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

Kushlick concluded:

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

ENDS


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


Notes for Editors:

• David Cameron calls for debate  legalisation:

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

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

• Vienna Declaration

• IDPC Impact Assessment briefing

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

• BMJ editor endorse Transform's call for legal regulation

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

• President Calderon of Mexico calls for debate on legalisation:

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

On domestic and international fronts, reform calls gather mainstream support

There have been two very positive developments for drug law reform in the last few days: On Sunday, The Observer newspaper ran a series of pro reform news and comment features alongside arguably the most unambiguous call for a debate on alternatives to the drug war, including regulation, yet to emerge from a UK broadsheet. Meanwhile, the previous week witnessed the debate making a significant step forward in Mexico when President Calderon joined calls for a debate on legalisation as a response to the country's growing crisis, followed by a clear call for legalisation and regulation by his presidential predecessor Vincente Fox - both statements receiving massive international media coverage.

• The Observer.

The first piece in the news section united these recent developments. Titled 'War on drugs: why the US and Latin America could be ready to end a fruitless 40-year struggle', with the subheading: 

'Mexico's president Felipe Caldéron is the latest Latin leader to call for a debate on drugs legalisation. And in the US, liberals and right-wing libertarians are pressing for an end to prohibition. Forty years after President Nixon launched the 'war on drugs' there is a growing momentum to abandon the fight' 

The coverage then describes some of the developments in the Americas, from the Mexican president's recent comments through to the growing cannabis law reform activity in California and elsewhere in the US.

A second piece in the Observer is a drug law reform op-ed (also using the Mexican presidential comments as its launch pad) titled 'Drugs: the problem is more than just the substances, it's the prohibition itself' by Maria Lucia Karam, a retired Brazilian judge and board member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). Using examples from Brazil she argues that:

'Prohibition consigns the drug market to criminalised actors not subject to oversight of any kind. Legalisation would mean regulation and regulation is the best way to control the dangers of drug use, while cutting the cartels off at the knees'.

and that:

'Latin America is advancing the debate, but even in the US there are efforts to undo the damage of prohibition, the most prominent being California's effort to legalise marijuana
.
Hopefully, the thousands of Mexicans, Brazilians and people from other parts of the world who have been killed in the insane "war on drugs" will not have died in vain. Their deaths are already showing that it is time to put an end to all the pain and harms caused by drug prohibition; it is time to legalise and regulate the production, the supply and the consumption of all drugs.'

Finally, and most significantly, the sentiments in the two features are endorsed in a powerful leader editorial  titled 'A unique chance to rethink drugs policy' aimed squarely at the UK's coalition government, its subtitle clearly stating that 'Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg are perfectly placed to launch a national debate on whether we should try legalisation'. It begins with a withering critique of the drug war: 

'If the purpose of drug policy is to make toxic substances available to anyone who wants them in a flourishing market economy controlled by murderous criminal gangs, the current arrangements are working well.

If, however, the goal is to reduce the amount of drugs being consumed and limit the harm associated with addiction, it is surely time to tear up the current policy. It has failed.

This is not a partial failure. For as long as courts and jails have been the tools for controlling drugs, their use has increased. Police are powerless to control the flow. One recent estimate calculated that around 1% of the total supply to the UK is intercepted.

Attempts to crack down have little impact, except perhaps in siphoning vulnerable young people into jails where they can mature into hardened villains. When a more heavyweight player is taken out, a gap opens up in the supply chain which is promptly filled by violent competition between or within gangs. Business as usual resumes.


The same story is told around the world, the only difference being in the scale of violence. Writing in today's Observer, retired judge Maria Lucia Karam describes the grim consequences of a failed war on drugs in the cities of Brazil: thousands of young people murdered every year by rival dealers and police.


Few nations are untouched by what is, after all, a multibillion pound global industry. Importing countries, such as Britain, must cope with the social effects of addiction and end up squandering the state's resources on a Sisyphean policing task.


But that suffering is mild compared to the destructive forces unleashed on exporting countries. Mexico, from where cartels supply a range of drugs to lucrative US markets, has paid an extraordinary price for the illicit appetites of its rich neighbour. The border region has become a militarised zone with violence at the level of a guerrilla insurgency.

The editorial shows an unusual level of insight for a media discourse more often preoccupied with populist parochial concerns:

'Prohibition entails a double dishonesty. First, there is the pretence that the supply and demand can be managed by force. But anyone who has experienced addiction knows that banning a substance restricts neither access nor desire. Usually, it makes matters worse, bringing otherwise law-abiding people into contact with professional criminals. Most addicts, meanwhile, say their problems start with the need to annihilate feelings of despair or memories of trauma. Prosecuting them for those problems solves nothing.


The second pretence of prohibition is that drugs can be addressed within single national jurisdictions. Plainly, they cannot. The UK hosts a retail market for products that are cultivated and processed around the world. Around 90% of the heroin on British streets starts out as poppies in Afghanistan. So revenue from UK drug use funds corrupt officials, warlords and the Taliban, undermining Nato's military operation. Rarely is the connection made in public.'

before ending with a direct appeal to the UKs new leaders:

'By its very nature as a coalition, encompassing a broad spectrum of political views, the new government is well placed to inaugurate a free-thinking national debate on an issue that has been constrained by policy blinkers.


Neither David Cameron nor Nick Clegg seems much in awe of political taboos. Both men, in fact, seem to take pleasure in breaking them. But their ability to do so with impunity lasts for as long as there is goodwill towards their project.


This is a moment in which a political leader could steer the drugs debate out of its current dead-end track and towards something more meaningful and more likely to deliver what the public ultimately wants: safer, healthier, happier communities.


It is far from certain that decriminalisation, regulation or legalisation would work. But they should be examined as options, for it is absolutely certain that prohibition has failed'.

The position is a useful and pragmatic one, acknowledging the failure of the current policy and inviting an evidence based debate on alternatives, much as the IDPC  call for Impact Assessments of drug policy supported by Transform, has done over the past year.  David Cameron, it is worth repeating, made a not dissimilar call in 2001 when on the Home Affairs Select Committee he supported the recommendation 'that the Government initiates a discussion within the [UN] Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways—including the possibility of legalisation and regulation—to tackle the global drugs dilemma'. Meanwhile the Liberal Democrats have long been far more pragmatic and forward looking on drug policy. So as the Observer editorial notes 'The unthinkable is creeping into the realm of the plausible', continuing;

 'American society is slowly coming to terms with the fact that drugs are part of its everyday reality and that control might be more effective if use was allowed within the law, not forced outside it. That debate must be opened in Britain and the recent change of government provides a rare opportunity.'

We should perhaps not hold our breaths, but the mere fact that such a discourse is taking place in the mainstream media, with language and analysis now routinely being deployed that would have been seen as extreme and radical only a few years ago, shows how far we have moved.

• Mexico

The statement by president Calderon is particularly significant. Whilst he has distanced himself from actually supporting legalisation and regulation (unlike his predecessor), the fact he called for a debate is still critically important - he simply would not have done this were it not a real option."It is a fundamental debate," he said, adding that  "You have to analyse carefully the pros and cons and key arguments on both sides."  (This is, of course, precisely what an Impact Assessment approach would deliver). Bear in mind that this statement comes from a Mexican president receiving 100s of millions in US military and financial assistance to fight the cartels (albeit alongside the drug-money-funded river of illegal small arms flowing South across the.border that are fuelling it).Tragically it has taken  the catastrophic failure of his flagship policy to spur him to this latest concession, all visualized in horrific detail in this excellent blog post by Diego Valle

Sources: Homicide data from INEGI, population data from CONAPO.
2009 estimate based on execution rates

Even Calderon's qualifying comments that followed the initial statement days later are revealing. He stated that "If they [drugs] are not legalised in the world, or at least the United States, it's absurd because the price of drugs is not determined by Mexicans, it's determined by consumers in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago or Texas,".

This is a long way from saying that legalisation and regulation  is absurd in principle. Rather he is qualifying the call by saying, rightly, it would be problematic to move unilaterally given the centrality of the US market to Mexico's illicit trade. This very clearly leaves the option open regards bilateral reform with the US - something no longer a complete fantasy given the movement towards cannabis law reform in much of the US, particularly California, which holds a referendum on legalisation and regulation of non-medical cannabis this November.

It is also worth bearing in mind that despite contradictory noises from the new New US administration (progressive on public health in some respects, but still hawkish on supply side enforcement) Obama is on the record saying that 'the War on Drugs has been an utter failure'. 


The endorsement of legalisation and regulation by Calderon's predecessor Vincente Fox has only added further weight to the calls for a debate. He says (as reported by Reuters):

"Legalization does not mean that drugs are good ... but we have to see (legalization of the production, sale and distribution of drugs) as a strategy to weaken and break the economic system that allows cartels to earn huge profits,"

"Radical prohibition strategies have never worked."

 Vincente Fox

Read the whole thing - in Spanish - on his blog. Again it is welcome to see prohibition rightly being positioned as the radical solution, and the term 'legalisation' being associated with regulation. Interestingly, these comments are not dissimilar to ones he made in 2001 whilst president, although like Calderon he caveated his analysis by highlighting the difficulties of a unilateral move.

This is about more than the growing line of ex-presidents though - Cameron, Clegg, Obama, Calderon; all give a clear sense that the intellectual journey, accepting the failure of the drug war and need for reform, has been travelled - the concerns are political ones rather than practical or philosophical ones. As the environment becomes increasingly hostile to  profligate and counterproductive drug war expenditure, and the case for reform gains increasing mainstream traction perhaps the political climate will soon allow for real change to happen, and the Observer is right that we really do have a unique chance to rethink drug policy.


 It has also been welcome to see Transform's 'After the War on Drugs, Blueprint for Regulation' getting extensive and positive coverage in one of Mexico's leading newspapers El Universal; see here in original Spanish, and (not brilliant) Google translated English version.  Transform were also invited to contribute a comment piece on Blueprint to one of Mexico's most influential Policy Magaznes, Nexos, earlier this year.

Georgia becomes the first country to sign the Vienna Declaration

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

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

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

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

The Drug Policy Networking Zone at the AIDS 2010 conference in Vienna

  






  
IAS AIDS conference 2010 in Vienna:
Drug Policy Networking Zone in the Global Village

Transform Drug Policy Foundation and the International Drug Policy Consortium are co-orgainising and hosting the Drug Policy Networking Zone at the XVIII International AIDS Conference in Vienna, Austria, from 17 to 23 July 2010. You can download the networking zone flyer and event schedule here(pdf).

About XVIII International HIV/AIDS Conference (AIDS 2010)

The International AIDS Conference is the worlds premier gathering for those working in the field of HIV, policy makers, persons living with HIV and other individuals committed to ending the pandemic. There will be over 25,000 delegates at the main conference, and the Global Village is additionally open to the public.

It is now clear that stigma, discrimination and human rights violations, as well as punitive or misguided policies towards key populations most affected by HIV, are major obstacles to an effective response to HIV.

Given the 2010 deadline for universal access set by world leaders, AIDS 2010 will coincide with a major push for expanded access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support. With a global economic crisis threatening to undermine public investments, the conference will help keep HIV on the front burner, and will be a chance to demonstrate the importance of continued HIV investments to broader health and development goals. In this context, the protection of human rights is a fundamental prerequisite to an effective response to HIV.

This year's conference has a special focus on drug policy reform with the launch and pormotion of the Vienna Declaration being one its primary aims.

The Drug Policy Networking Zone

The Drug Policy Networking Zone, located in the Global Village, is a space for sharing ideas, experiences and expertise on drug policy reform. It is also a place to forge new links and develop strategic thinking. We’ve joined forces with the Harm Reduction and Human Rights Networking Zones to produce a ‘mega’ zone with a full schedule of talks, discussions, debates and multimedia running throughout the week. Click here to find out more about the full programme of events that will be taking place in the ‘mega’ zone.


Opening Reception

There is an opening reception of the Drug Policy, Harm Reduction and Human Rights networking zones on Sunday 18th July, 16:00-18:00. All welcome.

Press briefing

We will be holding a press briefing in the Drug Policy Networking Zone from 15:30-16:00 on Sunday 18th July.

Highlights from the Drug Policy Networking zone event shedule include:

• What can the drug policy reform movement learn from HIV/AIDS activism?

Tuesday 20 July, 16:00-16:45
Civil society actors within the HIV movement have a much stronger presence and a louder voice within drug policy debates than civil society within drug policy reform. This session aims to discuss and debate the essential features of AIDS activism that could inform drug policy activism.

• ”Beyond a declaration”, how can we continue to move towards drug policy reform?

Wednesday 21 July, 14:15-15:15
The Vienna Declaration is a global call for science-based drug policy and is the official declaration of AIDS 2010. The session will feature one of the declaration’s key authors, Evan Wood, from the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy, Steve Rolles from Transform and Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch from OSI.

• Drug policy and law reform: progress and challenges for the future

Wednesday 21 July, 12:00-13:00 and Thursday 22 July, 16:30-17:30
Policies that act as a barrier to drugs services can increase the health risk for injecting drug users putting them at greater exposure to blood-borne infections, including HIV. The panel will look at how lobbying, campaigning and legal challenges against such policies and interventions can lead to law reforms that ultimately provide greater protection to IDUs and enable them to access drug treatment and harm reduction services without fear of being punished.

Volunteering

We welcome volunteers to help us with the organisation and staffing of our zone in the Global Village.  Please contact Marie at mnougier@idpc.net if interested.




For those attending - we look forward to seeing you in Vienna! For those not attending the conference you can follow the weeks activities on the blog and twitter.

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

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

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

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

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

The full text of the declaration is copied below

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

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

THE VIENNA DECLARATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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