UNODC and the NGO forum: "yet again sir, you do not answer my question"

Below is a short Youtube film made my the Hungarian Civil liberties Union (who also provide a commentary on their blog here), one of the numerous NGOs attending the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna last week. The encounter between UNODC director Antonio Maria Costa and Frederick Polak from the Netherlands, representing ENCOD, was one of the more depressing episodes of the weeks deliberations, following on immediately from the '1000 lunatics' comments described last week (more video incoming).




We should probably not get too distracted by the rudeness and poor conduct of one individual even if he is the executive director of the UNODC (not for long one suspects, if he continues to insult and condescend to members of civil society who do not share his viewpoint).

More importantly, there were some relatively positive developments to take away from last weeks event, both in terms of resolutions that were past (more details on the momentous human rights resolution to follow), and in terms of NGO engagement which, despite the inappropriate and ill tempered outbursts from Costa, was unprecedented in its scope and impact.

I will blog a more detailed reflection on the week in the next few days, including links to the various relevant NGO and official documentation and reports.

Dutch parliament to debate reform of UN drug conventions

As covered on the blog back in December a group of Dutch policy makers, including former and serving mayors, police chiefs, and ministers (including one former PM) have drafted and signed a resolution calling for the Dutch Government to resolve the contradictions in the Netherlands cannabis policy by discussing the restrictions that the UN conventions put on legal regulation of cannabis production and supply. An official translation of the resolution provided by the TNI website is copied below (unfortunately the more detailed discussion document is still only available in Dutch).

The resolution will be debated in the Dutch Parliament next week (details of this debate will be posted here). So whilst Dutch policy makers continue to openly and rationally explore more just and effective responses to the reality of drug use in society their UK colleagues continue to tie themselves in knots over whether or not to increase penalties for cannabis possession from two years in prison to five.




-------------------


The Hague, October 31, 2007 A group of representatives from politics, public administration, the criminal justice system and police and drug policy experts gathered on October 31, 2007, in The Hague, to express the urgent need to end the negative consequences of the current policy of leniency regarding the sale of cannabis.

Participants confirmed that many countries worldwide experienced similar negative effects related to their own cannabis policy. This means that there is a shared responsibility to look for adaptations in the current system of international conventions that are an obstacle to further developments in national Dutch cannabis policies.

Participants argued that the Netherlands, in cooperation with other nations, should aim to revise the current framework of international law in order to achieve a more credible and effective alternative that is not just based on repression for the existing cannabis policy at the national level. The signatories of this resolution,

I. concluded that the current cannabis policy:

A. is based on an outdated international law framework created in the 1960s which is not appropriate to tackle contemporary problems resulting in a stagnation of the development of just and effective policies;

B. is being implemented by a policy of tolerance (“gedogen”) on the basis of a justified lenient interpretation of the current international law framework and that this policy of tolerance is a practical solution but at the same time temporary response which on the long term will discredit the credibility of public authorities;

C. is inconsistent and difficult to explain to citizens because use and sale of small quantities are not prosecuted in practice while production and large scale distribution are still prosecuted; is also inconsistent with policies regarding substances with a similar health risk such as alcohol and tobacco;

D. is ineffective in several aspects: despite positive facets such as the separation of markets between soft and hard drugs and the limited involvement of criminals in the retail market, other policy options such as legal possibilities to control the quality of cannabis (THC content and pollution) and other measures to reduce health risks are lacking in the current system, which is still facilitating significant illicit gains at the level of production and wholesale and is encouraging in-house cannabis growing;

E. is causing considerable and unbalanced administrative and judicial burdens and continuous criticism of some countries and UN drug control agencies.

II. concluded furthermore that:

A. attempts by the Dutch parliament and local authorities to address the inconsistencies in the current tolerance policy – such as proposing to tolerate production of cannabis for the supply of coffee shops – have been rejected by subsequent national governments on account of incompatibility with international agreements;

B. there is a need for an international debate to explore the possibilities for an international framework that allows more room for manoeuvre by national governments to execute a consistent policy;

C. more and more countries feel the need to reformulate their policies to achieve better protection of public health and combat organized crime;
D. cannabis is grown and commercialised worldwide and is used by over 170 million people, consequently the production and distribution is a common problem for the international community;

E. the 10-year review of the 1998 United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on drugs and the Ministerial meeting in 2009 devoted to this evaluation, offer an excellent possibility to put the issue on the international agenda.

III. urge the Dutch government to:

A. start an international debate with other likeminded countries in order to work out a credible and effective alternative for the current policy on cannabis;

B. promote actively with those likeminded countries the formulation of proposals that can be presented in the context of the upcoming UNGASS evaluation;

C. provide for human and financial resources to implement these efforts;

The Hague, 31 October 2007

signed by

• Mr. A.A.M. van Agt, former Prime minister 1977-1982
• Dr. E. Borst-Eilers, ex-minister of Health, Welfare and Sport
• Drs. A. Apostolou, former member of Parliament
• Kathalijne Buitenweg, MEP GroenLinks
• Mr. R. Dufour, president Stichting Drugsbeleid
• Drs. G.B.M. Leers, mayor of Maastricht
• Dr. R.L. Vreeman, mayor of Tilburg
• Mr. Th. C. de Graaf, mayor of Nijmegen
• J.A.H. Lonink, mayor of Terneuzen
• Dr. J.P. Rehwinkel, mayor of Naarden
• W.J.M. Velings MOI, chief of police, region Limburg Zuid
• F.J. Heeres MPSM, chief of police, region Midden- en West Brabant
• Mr. A.D.J. Keizer, former policy official of the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport
• Mr. drs. V. Everhardt, drugs and alcohol prevention expert
• Dr. M. Jelsma, Drugs & Democracy Programme, Transnational Institute

Dutch Government urged to open international debate about UN drug conventions

The Transnational Institute in the Netherlands, one of the worlds leading centers of drug policy scholarship, has today co-signed a letter and resolution sent to the Dutch Prime Minister and relevant parliamentary commissions, stressing the need for an active Dutch involvement in the UN's 10 year drug strategy review process and specifically to use the window of opportunity offered by the 10 year strategic review to open the discussion about the UN conventions that are an obstacle to further developments in Dutch cannabis policy - specifically the issue of legal production. The resolution has received massive media coverage in the Netherlands today in part because it has been signed by Van Agt (a former Dutch prime minister), a number of ex-ministers, five mayors and several police chiefs.

The letter presents the resolution that resulted from the October 31 invitational conference on Dutch cannabis policy in The Hague, chaired by Maastricht Mayor Leers.

The resolution calls for moves towards legal regulation of cannabis production which, anomalously, remains illegal despite the tolerance for and licensing of cannabis sales in 'coffee shops', the so called 'back door problem'. There has been a Parliamentary majority for such a move for a number of years but the Government has been reluctant to take the step as it would be in clear violation of the UN drug treaties, which the the existing policy of tolerance for small scale supply and use arguably is not.

Unfortunately an english translation of the resolution will not be available for a few days (It will be posted here when it becomes available - in the mean time a rather garbled babel fish translation is in comments). Dutch speakers can read the resolution and accompanying documentation here.

Powdered alcohol for kids

*updated 16.02. see below* .

After a almost a week of booze hogging the blog we will hopefully be returning to good old fashioned illegal drug news soon. In the mean time......

The latest shocker comes from the Netherlands where some students have, according to Reuters, produced a powder, named Booz2go, which when water is added creates a fizzy lime flavoured beverage that is 3% alcohol. A bit implausible perhaps but not entirely beyond the realms of science. Worryingly the inventors are very specifically "aiming for the youth market. They are really more into it because you can compare it with Bacardi-mixed drinks".

So its a powdered alcopops for the nippers.

The inventors, who cooked up the new product for an end of year school project (on which course I have to wonder?) note that "Because the alcohol is not in liquid form, we can sell it to people below 16," and that as a non liquid it is also not liable to tax (in the Netherlands anyway, I have no idea how the law would view it in the UK or elsewhere).

So actually its a powdered alcopop that tastes like a lime Bacardi breezer, that you can sell to under 16's and don't have to pay tax.

bad enough in the more conventional liquid form

It is perhaps no surprise that the news story ends with the news that 'A number of companies are interested'. And why not; for the alcohol industry this is their DREAM PRODUCT. No tax, no pesky age restrictions, and no need for the pretence that 'alcopops are not produced to target underage drinkers, honest'. Maybe it can be snorted too. That could open up a whole new market....

UPDATE:

Having consulted some of my science boffin friends it would appear that this story is another example of bad reporting of a some non-news. This story from August 2005 bears an uncanny resemblence to the Reuters 'news' item; the Dutch student's product would apear to be neither an 'innovation' nor their 'invention'. A German product called 'subyou' apparently actually made it to the market, briefly (the website is now defunct)

Subyou sales website

the product

according to the original 2005 coverage on the dw-world German website:

“They look harmless enough, the inconspicuous packets often next to the cashier at gas stations, convenience stores, beverage stores and bars. But according to consumer protection officials, that’s what makes them all the more dangerous, since the powder inside contains alcohol, and a lot of it — about 4.8 percent by volume. That is the equivalent of one to one-and-a-half glasses of liquor.

“The product is called subyou, manufactured by a company in North Rhine-Westphalia, and is marketed squarely at teenagers with slogans like “taste for not much dough” and “gets a good buzz going.” Add the powder to cold water, and consumers have an alcoholic drink containing either vodka or rum. “These are just as dangerous as the alcopops that came in the bottles,” Birgit Rehlender, nutrition expert at consumer affairs organization Stiftung Warentest told Der Spiegel weekly.

“While authorities were able to curtail the consumption of alcopops with a special tax on the drinks last August — which put them out of the reach of many teenage budgets — these new alcopops in powder form cost between 1.65 and 2.40 euros ($2.06 and $3.00) per package. Subyou is able to get around the tax because its product comes in powder form. The powder was first sold over the Internet, and word spread quickly among teenage circles that those under 18 could order off the Internet without fear of being asked for proof of age. However, according to Andrea Schauff, a nutritional expert at Hesse’s consumer protection organization, in many stores the powder is being sold to under-age kids even though a warning is printed on the packets: “Alcohol can be addictive — no sales to minors.”

There is also some details about possible health issues:

“Besides the high alcohol content, youth advocates also worry about the powder’s other ingredients, including high levels of preservatives, sorbic acid, and dyes that have not been approved by health experts. ”

One person noted in a forum I have been discussing this issue on: "Most compounds that would easily release ethanol aren't particularly nice, e.g. diethylpyrocarbonate or diethylcarbonate".

I honestly thought this story was just some agency fluff, a daft 'and finally' story. If, as appears, it actually has some substance then the relevant authorities would need to have this nasty stuff regulated pretty quickly (as appears to have happened in germany) to prevent underage access, and if it is a dodgy as it appears to be, keep it off the market altogether. It seems highly unlikely this will ever trouble us in the UK but, strewth, as if there wasn't enough problems with regular booze.....