Lib Dems consider drug law reform at conference

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protecting individuals and communities from drug harms

Conference notes:

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

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

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

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

Conference further notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conference believes:

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

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

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

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

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

Conference calls for:

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

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

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

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

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

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

High Society: Wellcome Collection exhibition of drugs in history

A new, free exhibition (curated by Transform trustee and author Mike Jay) is opening tomorrow at the Wellcome Collection in London and will be running until February the 27th 2011. The exhibition will explore the role of mind-altering drugs in our history.

With the illicit drug trade estimated by the UN at $320 billion (£200bn) a year and new drugs constantly appearing on the streets and the internet, it can seem as if we are in the grip of an unprecedented level of addiction. Yet the use of psychoactive drugs is nothing new, and indeed our most familiar ones - alcohol, coffee, tobacco - have all been illegal in the past.

From ancient Egyptian poppy tinctures to Victorian cocaine eye drops, Native American peyote rites to the salons of the French Romantics, mind-altering drugs have a rich history. 'High Society' will explore the paths by which these drugs were first discovered - from apothecaries' workshops to state-of-the-art laboratories - and how they came to be simultaneously fetishised and demonised in today’s culture

A number of complimentary side events and discussions are also be organised. You can find out more here:

Transform's Danny Kushlick will lead a tour in February. Further details will be advertised nearer the time via our e-newsletter

An article on the exhibition in today's Independent can be read here

Reconsidering addiction: a film about Bruce Alexander's remarkable 'rat park' experiment

.

Seven minute trailer for an upcoming documentary by Jennifer DiCresce on Bruce Alexander's Rat Park experiment:

 

The Following discussion on Rat Park by Mike Jay (reviewing Alexander'sbook the 'Globalisation of Addiction') was originally posted on this blog in January 2009:

Bruce Alexander is best known - though deserves to be much better known - for the 'Rat Park' experiments he conducted in 1981. As an addiction psychologist, much of the data with which he worked was drawn from laboratory trials with rats and monkeys: the 'addictiveness' of drugs such as opiates and cocaine was established by observing how frequently caged animals would push levers to obtain doses. But Alexander's observations of addicts at the clinic where he worked in Vancouver suggested powerfully to him that the root cause of addiction was not so much the pharmacology of these particular drugs as the environmental stressors with which his addicts were trying to cope.

To test his hunch he designed Rat Park, an alternative laboratory environment constructed around the need of the subjects rather than the experimenters. A colony of rats, who are naturally gregarious, were allowed to roam together in a large vivarium enriched with wheels, balls and other playthings, on a deep bed of aromatic cedar shavings and with plenty of space for breeding and private interactions. Pleasant woodland vistas were even painted on the surrounding walls. In this situation, the rats' responses to drugs such as opiates were transformed. They no longer showed interest in pressing levers for rewards of morphine: even if forcibly addicted, they would suffer withdrawals rather than maintaining their dependence. Even a sugar solution could not tempt them to the morphine water (though they would choose this if naloxone was added to block the opiate effects). It seemed that the standard experiments were measuring not the addictiveness of opiates but the cruelty of the stresses inflicted on lab rats caged in solitary confinement, shaved, catheterised and with probes inserted into their median forebrain bundles.

Yet despite (or perhaps because of) their radical implications for the data that underpin addiction psychology, the Rat Park experiments attracted little attention. Alexander's paper was rejected by major journals including Science and Nature, and eventually published only in the respectable but minor Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior. Although the experiments have subsequently been replicated and extended, they still inform the science of addiction only at its margins. The Globalisation of Addiction is Alexander's attempt to draw out their full implications for our understanding of addiction, and to chart a course towards forms of treatment that can transform their findings into practice.

His analysis begins with a radical reconception of addiction itself. Throughout the 20th century, as the science and treatment of addiction have developed into vast academic and professional industries, its underlying nature has stubbornly refused to coalesce into any sort of consensus. Is it a physiological condition marked by metabolic responses such as tolerance and withdrawal, a condition produced simply by exposure to 'addictive' drugs? Or is it a psychological affliction, the product of an 'addictive personality' - or, alternatively, a moral weakness, a failure of willpower and abrogation of social responsibilities? And how do these clinical views of addiction relate to the ever-expanding meanings of the term in the wider culture?

For Alexander, all these seemingly disparate accounts are united by their focus on the individual addict; but even a cursory historical and cultural survey reveals that the incidence of addiction is essentially a social phenomenon. Many historical and indigenous cultures have lacked even the concept of addiction - but many of these same cultures, once their traditional structures have been disrupted by conquest or colonisation, have been destroyed by it. All across the Americas, the Pacific and Australia, hundreds of 'demoralised' cultures have descended into vicious spirals of addiction, usually to alcohol, in many tragic cases wiping themselves out entirely. The root causes of addiction, then, must run deeper than any individual pathology: they must be sought in a larger story of cultural malaise and 'poverty of the spirit' that forces individuals, often en masse, into desperate and dysfunctional coping strategies.

Once addiction is recognised as a consequence of broader social currents, it becomes clear that the problem is far more widespread than the professional focus on drugs allows. Uncontrolled and chaotic appetites are extensively diagnosed across our culture not merely for illicit drugs, alcohol and nicotine but for other substances (food), other consumer activities (shopping, gambling), and other sources of emotional support such as romantic love. 'Addictive' is a slogan of enticement used to sell online gaming, exercise programmes and women's magazines. Even successful and high-functioning individuals can often be accurately described as addicted to money, power or status. Throughout the 20th century, these extensions of the concept of addiction were typically marginalised on the grounds that, unlike illicit drugs, these were mainstream activities that generated dysfunctional behaviour only in a minority of subjects. But alcohol has always been both mainstream and addictive, and it is increasingly clear that illicit drugs are used widely without necessarily generating addiction. Any attempt to get to the root of the problem must recognise that addiction is rampant not merely among a subculture of problem drug users but across society at large.

Alexander's search for the drivers behind the modern explosion in addiction leads him to consider the parallel spread of free market societies. Along with their obvious economic benefits, free markets also bring a widespread increase in what he terms cultural 'dislocation'. What were once elaborately reciprocated cultural transactions are reduced to simple commercial exchanges, and 'the competitive marketplace becomes the matrix of human existence'. Social fabrics are loosened as economic winners and losers polarise into their respective ghettoes, and traditional networks of trust are replaced by often brutal demarcations between neighbourhoods and social classes. It is our now endemic culture of competitive, zero-sum individualism that has, in the phrase of Alexander's title, globalised addiction over the last 50 years.

It is, he acknowledges, too simplistic to blame capitalism itself: the fundamental problem, dislocation, can equally be generated by feudalism , communism or any other political system. Nevertheless, a consumer society systemically erodes the sovereign remedy against addiction which, following Erik Erikson, Alexander terms 'psychosocial integration'. This has long been recognised as a necessity for social functioning: even Charles Darwin, whose theory is typically used to support competitive free market ideology, insisted that generating 'social and moral qualities' was a crucial factor in human evolutionary success. Psychosocial integration eliminates the hyperfocused pursuit of individual gratification that manifests as addictive behaviour, and balances individual autonomy with social belonging. Dislocation, though its effects are concentrated among the poor and socially excluded, has pervasive effects on society as a whole, which is why levels of happiness and wellbeing stubbornly refuse to rise in proportion with purchasing power. The greatest modern triumph over drug addiction, in China during Mao's Great Leap Forward from 1949-1955, took place against a background of material poverty but intense social cooperation in rebuilding a shattered society.

This analysis has helped Alexander to understand the successes and failures of treatment programmes in his professional world in Vancouver, where alcoholism and violence remain an intractable problem among many native Canadian Indians. Dislocation, rather than poverty, is their ultimate cause: communities resettled on unfamiliar land can be subsidised to the point where a 4x4 sits in every drive and a satellite dish on every roof, but still manifest higher levels of addiction than those which are allowed to remain in their homelands and follow their traditional subsistence strategies. In the arresting motto adopted by British Columbia's successful aboriginal community projects, 'Culture is Treatment'.

Once addiction is reconceived as a symptom of the dislocation embedded in modern cultures, the practical measures required to manage it become vast in scope. Treatment of addicts needs to become more holistic, and interwoven into a far wider spectrum of social programmes. Education and treatment need to lose their narrow focus on illicit drugs and alcohol, and to encompass addiction in all its forms. Although the prohibition of drugs is a major contributor to social dislocation, legalisation is far from a panacea: the majority of addictions, after all, are to legally available products. (The greatest benefit of legalisation, perhaps, would be to allow communities to determine their own drug policies, thereby providing a crucial lever for increasing psychosocial integration.) Faith-based treatments, whether Christian or more broadly spiritual, have an important role to play: St. Augustine's Confessions remains a powerful template for the addiction recovery narrative, and membership of faith groups can provide an effective antidote to dislocation. Political activism, both global and local, is a tool of social empowerment that can benefit addicts and addiction professionals alike.

All these strategies are eminently sensible, but remain hard to patch into the treatment of addiction as currently constituted. We may accept Alexander's persuasive case that drug addiction, properly understood, is a scapegoat for broader social dysfunction, but it is by no means obvious how to respond effectively. Like it or not, treatment remains focused on individuals, for whom his analysis holds limited explanatory power. Alexander does not deny the existence of personal tendencies to addiction, which may include genetics and neurochemistry, but maintains that they are often marginal factors and poor predictors of individual risk: overall, interventions are more effective at the social level than the personal. But these underlying causes are far easier to identify than to address. Our societies are profoundly structured around the need for individual autonomy; and personal freedom must, on some levels, always include the freedom to become addicted.

The Globalisation of Addiction is a considerable work, highly ambitious in its scope, impressive in its multidisciplinary scholarship, clear in its structure and generous in its references. It is both its strength and its weakness that it integrates addiction so convincingly into broader issues of social and political reform. Like Rat Park, it offers a fundamental critique of the 20th century view of addiction, but also demonstrates how dominant are the processes and structures that drive it.

Published with permission from Mike Jay. Mike is a writer and historian (See Mikejay.net ) and a trustee of Transform Drug Policy Foundation.

Originally published on www.nthposition.com
Article copyright 2009 Mike Jay

The Globalisation of Addiction is available on Amazon with a readable excerpt.

New poll shows 70% support for legal regulation of cannabis

 
The following press release was issued today by the campaigning group Liberal Democrats for Drug Policy Reform. The blog will explore its fascinating findings in more detail at a later stage. For more information on drug policy and public opinion see Transform's (soon to updated) 2004 briefing Attitudes to Drug Policy and Drug Laws: A review of the international evidence. 
Note: Transform has provided a quote, but has not been involved in the poll, and has no affiliation with the LDDPR 

New poll shows 70% support for legal regulation of cannabis

Three other drugs: Magic Mushrooms, Amphetamines, and Mephedrone show a majority in favour of legalisation and regulation, whilst 3 in 10 people would prefer the state regulate rather than prohibit heroin supply. These poll results demonstrate that the public is ready for a mature, open discussion of alternative approaches to drug policy and that there is no need for politicians to fear a backlash should they express doubts about the wisdom of our current approach.

Rather than just ask whether each drug should be “legalised”, the poll gave brief descriptions of three regulatory options and asked the public to pick which they thought most tolerable for each of a series of drugs. The options were:

• Light regulation (drugs sold like tobacco and alcohol are now)
• Strict government control and regulation (an example of how government could heavily regulate a legal market in an attempt to minimise harm)
• and Prohibition (the current status of illegal drugs).

support for legalisation/regulation combines support for the first two options

Headline results include:

• 70% support for cannabis legalisation/regulation, with 1 in 3 of those polled feeling that it should be sold in a similar way to alcohol and tobacco.
• More people supporting legalisation/regulation than prohibition for 3 other drugs: Magic Mushrooms (52% to 34%), Amphetamines (49% to 40%), and the recently banned “legal high” Mephedrone (41% to 39%).
• 39% support for the legal regulation of ecstasy sales, 36% support for regulation of cocaine, and 30% of respondents supported the legal regulation of heroin.
• For alcohol and tobacco over 1 in 4 respondents supported strict government control and regulation and 8% expressed a desire for tobacco to be prohibited.

Poll result summary graph 

Ewan Hoyle, founder of campaigning group Liberal Democrats for Drug Policy Reform says:

“The “Do you think x drug should be legalised?” question asked in polls up until now has failed to elicit any useful information. It may be interpreted by many poll participants as a question on their moral tolerance of drug use, or may conjure up thoughts of an unregulated free-market that they rightly judge to be dangerous. This poll shows that, when asked to choose between some of the actual regulatory options available, the public regards the strict controls and regulations that are being proposed by the reform movement as a sensible solution to our drugs problem.”

“The percentage favouring the legal regulation of Class A drugs is far higher than in previous polls and I would expect this percentage to rise still further as the debate progresses and the causes of the astronomical social and financial costs of problem drug use under the current system are explained. Prohibition of cocaine and heroin is causing, not preventing, massive harms to communities in the UK, and to all the countries in the world that this illegal trade touches.”

Steve Rolles of the Transform Drug Policy Foundation said:

"It is important that people understand that ‘legalisation’ is a process not a policy endpoint – and is one that can lead to strict government regulation of markets. It does not imply an unregulated commercial free for all that many may imagine if no other options are outlined. If anything an unregulated free for all is what we have under prohibition.

The important lesson for politicians is that they don’t need to be afraid of public opinion on this issue if it is presented in the more practical terms of market regulation"

Notes for editors:

• How the poll looked to participants
  
• From July 7 to July 9, 2010, Vision Critical conducted an online survey among 2,000 randomly selected British adults who are Springboard UK panelists. The results have been statistically weighted according to the most current age, gender, social class, region and newspaper readership data to ensure samples representative of the entire adult population of Great Britain.
  
• Complete data breakdown in google doc spreadsheet format: here, here and here

Contacts for comment:

Ewan Hoyle - Founder of Liberal Democrats for Drug Policy Reform

Mark Thompson
Prominent Lib Dem blogger and leading member of LDDPR

Steve Rolles
Transform Drug Policy Foundation 01179415810

A giant leap backwards as Ban Ki Moon appoints career Russian diplomat as new head of UNODC

 
 It has been confirmed today that UN Sectretary General Ban Ki Moon has appointed the Russian diplomat Yuri V. Fedotov as the new Executive Director of the UN Office of Drugs and Crime. the implications of this move are discussed below. (update 09.07.10 official confirmation here)

Who is Yuri V. Fedotov? 

Yuri V. Fedotov

Like previous appointments to the Exec Director of the UNODC we know relatively little about Fedotov. He is currently Russia's ambassador to the United Kingdom, and his Wikipedia page (usual wikipedia caveats apply) states that:


'Fedotov graduated from the Moscow State Institute of International Relations in 1971' and 'has held many foreign service positions to the UN and at Russian embassies in Algeria and India. In 2002 he was appointed the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and held this post until 2005.'

Whilst the UNODC appointment is nominally independent of National Government (even though nominations are made by National Governments) Fedotov is a 40-year career Russian diplomat – so we should probably not be under any illusions about his independence or loyalties.

Why should we be concerned?

Quite aside from Fedotov’s personal qualities, as the TransNational Institute (TNI) noted earlier in the week the appointment puts Russia in a ‘far more influential position to influence the international war on drugs. And that is a very bad message....Russian drug policy is one of, if not the most horrible in the world’

This is a point that needs to be stressed: Russia has a quite appalling track record on drug policy – particularly around injecting drug use. A Lancet piece published just this week (Russian injected drug use soars in face of political inertia) provides a useful summary overview of some of the key problems. It makes grim reading:

“According to WHO and UNAIDS, Russia has one of the world's most serious injection drug-use epidemics, which in turn is fuelling an explosion in HIV/AIDS incidence. Research by HIV/AIDS monitors in Russia estimate that there are up to 2 million injecting drug users in Russia, 60—70% of whom have HIV-related illnesses. Up to two-thirds of new HIV cases in Russia are linked with injected drug use, and according to UNAIDS there are an estimated 1 million people with HIV in Russia. HIV prevalence in Russia has doubled since 2001.

The Russian authorities have come in for fierce international criticism over their policy towards the treatment of drug addiction, which relies almost exclusively on the promotion of abstinence. Opiate-substitution therapy, such as providing methadone, or buprenorphine, which is standard practice in much of the rest of the world, is banned by law, and promotion of its use is punishable by a jail sentence. Some Russian doctors who have advocated methadone use for drug users in harm-reduction programmes say they have subsequently faced harassment.”

This has not merely remained a domestic issue. Russia has aggressively promoted these policies in the UN arena, including within the UNODC, INCB and CND. As TNI point out:

“Despite the country’s abysmal record on HIV prevention and injecting drug use, Russia believes it should teach the rest of the word lessons on drug policy. At the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), Russia has consistently attempted to block any political progress on harm reduction for HIV prevention relating to injecting drug use. At the 2010 CND session the Russian delegation refused to acknowledge previous resolutions adopted by consensus at the Human Rights Council and ECOSOC and a decision of the UNAIDS PCB on the issue.

At the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), the recently deceased Russian delegate Tatyana Dmitrieva has parroted the misstatements of fact made by the Russian government, and ―despite a requirement for independence― joined Russian government officials in public denouncements of methadone notwithstanding the obligation under international law to ensure adequate supply of licit controlled substances for treatment purposes.

Needle and syringe exchange programmes in Russia are implemented solely by NGOs through international aid. Last year the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria had to continue emergency funding to harm reduction programmes when Russia reneged on a previous agreement to continue funding once the Global Fund grant had expired. The Russian government has actually cut funding over the past few years to needle and syringe programs”

Update 15.07.10 : please view this new video produced by the BMJ - which graphically illustrates some of the problems here. See also this collection of articles in the newly published BMJ special edition to coincide with the up coming AIDS 2010 conference in Vienna.

 


TNI have also highlighted the concerns around Russia’s backward thinking on supply side controls and human rights:

“With regard to production and trafficking, Russia has recently been pressing hard for NATO intervention in Afghanistan against suspected drug traffickers, and for the forced aerial eradication of opium poppy. Both are disastrous policies intended to divert attention from Russia’s drug problems at home. They are utterly at odds with the UN’s commitment to a ‘balanced approach’ to supply and demand reduction as well as being contrary to human rights standards.

Human rights must be at the centre of drug control policies. Russia’s domestic human rights record is well known. Internationally, it has consistently sought to block human rights language in resolutions at the CND. In 2010 the Russian Delegation declared that fighting AIDS “is not linked to human rights”, contradicting the 2001 and 2006 General Assembly political declarations and the World Summit Outcome, not to mention decades of experience in fighting the pandemic. At the Human Rights Council, Russia has recently both attempted to block references to most at risk populations in a resolution on human rights and HIV/AIDS, and has led the charge in undermining human rights norms through the concept of “traditional values”, stigmatising men who have sex with men, drug users, sex workers, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities and seeks to undermine their basic rights.”

For more discussion on the human rights issues raise by this apointment take a look at the comment piece by Damon Barrett (from IHRA) that ran on the Gurdian's CiF blogs last week (New UN drugs tsar must be a leader on human rights),  and also Damon on Australia's ABC The World Today radio show.

So why – given Russia’s shocking record on harm reduction - has a Russian diplomat been appointed to a job with the lead UN role on harm reduction?

It seems hard to fathom why Ban Ki Moon would have made this appointment. It seems about as sensible as putting a North Korean diplomat in charge of press freedom.

Unfortunately the appointment process is almost entirely opaque so we can only speculate. Since rumours of Fedotov’s potential appointment (over other front runners including nominations from Canada and Brazil) began to circulate a few weeks back significant efforts have been made by various groups across the world to highlight the obvious concerns (backed by Harm Reducation and HIV/AIDS NGO activity, and a nascent grass roots social media campaign - see this HCLU video for example). These have clearly either been ignored or outgunned by other pressures. Russia have never been a major funder of the UNODC either (but then nor have Italy who have dominated the ED role for decades) – so there is no suggestion that they have bought their way into the role.

Such appointments are evidently made following endless behind the scenes diplomatic horse trading of one sort or another. One suspects that with Russia being such a big player in global politics and the UN, they were ‘due’ a big posting or two, and the UNODC just drew the short straw. Maybe other unrelated pressures were brought to bear.  Ban Ki Moon may have had reservations (other big hitters within the UN certainly will have done) but been able to do very little about it.

How is this likely to play out?

At this stage of course it’s simply impossible to know. However, it seems unlikely that Fedotov could seriously promote a hard line Russian approach within the UNODC, at least not publicly. Not only would this run counter to the direction of travel in the agency over the last few years (and the views of most UNODC staff), but it would be a direct challenge to the many member states active within the UN who have adopted pragmatic harm reduction positions. Just as seriously would be the impossible situation that such a move would create for UNODC relations with UNAIDS, the WHO and the many other UN agencies that directly and vocally support harm reduction. Expect to hear a lot more about all this from this month’s huge international AIDS conference in Vienna (a key action of which is the Vienna Declaration).

So trying to find some positives here, there may be a possibility that the appointment will actually expose Russia to greater scrutiny and thus ultimately help drag them out of the dark ages. But a moderately progressed Russian drug policy would still seem hopelessly backwards to much of the rest of the world.

Despite some of the issues around the previous Executive Director Antonio Costa, he has (albeit interspersed with often bizarrely rude outbursts and ill judged rants) made some significant statements on issues including the priority of public health, the importance of harm reduction, the unacceptability of the death penalty for drug offences, the futility of eradication, the centrality of human rights to drug policy, and the negative consequences of supply side enforcement (click for a Transform blog retrospective).

Even if no more progress is made (and there is certainly a long way to go) it is hard to see how these positive steps – all on the record - can be undone, or somehow be renounced by the new ED on behalf of the UNODC.

More likely is that the Russian influence will be subtle but corrosive. Progress made – much of it through the heroic efforts of the NGO community (IHRA’s HR2 program and the IDPC for example) – could now stall, important ongoing developments will be kicked into the long grass, and discussions on future developments that might have taken place, will now not happen. This would have serious consequences for the development of harm reduction in some of the places where it most urgently needed (not least Russia), but also impact on emerging developments such as embedding of human rights monitoring and assessment into all UNODC programs.

If the situation on key issues such as human rights and harm reduction does begin to seriously deteriorate then the UNODC could come under intense strain. Key UNODC funders (not least the UK) could come under pressure to withdraw or suspend funding. More seriously, the tensions (between hard line and  more progressive harm reduction states) that were evident at the 2008 Commission on Narcotic Drugs during the drafting of the Political declaration (specifically around the inclusion of the words 'harm reduction') could become more acute. These simmering tensions could easily erupt into a full blown crisis, with the reform states coalescing around a breakaway reform agenda that could threaten the whole UN drug control infrastructure. At the very least such a crisis could render the UNODC, INCB, CND and the conventions they stand behind increasingly redundant and irrelevant – with the unquestionably useful elements of the system suffering along with the outdated and counterproductive.

Perhaps such a crisis is what is needed in the longer term, with a more rational flexible international drug control infrastructure, one fit for the challenges of the new century, emerging from the ashes of the tired broken old one we have now.

Perhaps. But for now this seems like a huge backward step for both the UN drug control agencies and indeed the UN as a whole.

Drug use: Personal rights and freedoms

There are many reasons to support government regulation of currently illegal drugs, amongst these are the arguments focusing on the personal rights and freedoms of drug users. Whilst Transform naturally supports the decriminalisation of consenting adult use (our position on these issues detailed in various publications - including 'Tools for the debate' and our 'drug use and civil rights' briefing)  the personal rights arguments are not an area we have historically put significant campaigning resources behind, primarily because other lines of argument - concerning impacts on public health and criminal justice indicators for example - have greater public and political traction.

In the US, by contrast, the personal liberty arguments seem to have far greater traction and are more actively promoted by drug law reformers such as the DPA. See their recent campaigning video for example:



This video provoked considerable US media debate, with support from some unlikely corners including Fox news commentator John Stossel:



Stossel went on to produce an unprecedented 45 minute critique of the drug war for the channel - including a clear call for legalisation/regulation.

The video even provoked Fox News' high profile commentator Bill O'Reilly into one of his characteristic Fox News hit pieces, ultimately landing DPA director Ethan Nadlemann on the O'Reilly Factor (he does pretty well).

Steve Rolles from Transform recently wrote a chapter ('Principles for rational drug policy making') for the forthcoming Routledge publication 'The Politics of Narcotic Drugs' which includes a short section discussing the issues around the personal rights and freedoms of drug users - and edited version of which is copied below:

The rights of the drug user have long been debated, with John Stuart Mill’s principles often cited: that consenting adults should be free to engage in whatever behaviour they wish as long as it does not harm others, and that acting to prevent the individual from harming themselves is not legitimate.

In drug policy debates this is often portrayed as a libertarian position, but viewed more broadly this principle applies to the law with regard to almost all consenting adult risk taking behaviours from freedom over what we eat, what medicines we take, how we consume legal drugs, through to our sexual habits, dangerous sports or other high risk activities, and self harm up to and including suicide - decriminalized in the UK in 1961. So drug laws that criminalize personal use are at odds with the law as it applies to comparable personal choices regarding sovereignty over ones body and freedoms regarding individual risk taking decisions.

There is an important legal distinction to be made between Mala Prohibitum crimes (‘wrong because prohibited’), which only constitute a criminal offence by virtue of statute, and Mala in se crimes where conduct is ‘wrong in itself’. Mala in se crimes include theft, rape and murder around which there is both historical and cross cultural consensus that they violate societies standards – that they are ‘against nature’. Such acts are considered criminal in all states and through-out history and (with few exceptions) there is little debate these are an absolute moral wrong and unacceptable regardless of written law. Mala prohibitum crimes by contrast (including adultery, homosexuality, blasphemy, flag burning, or defying proscriptions on certain foods) lack cross-cultural consensus, vary between states and through legal history, and have been the focus of debate and legal controversy, often witnessing reforms in both directions (even if the trend in the last century has been towards repeal)

Adult consenting drug use clearly comes within the Mala prohibitum sphere, demonstrated by the differences in legal status of drugs (e.g. alcohol and cannabis), the changing legal status of certain drugs (e.g. US alcohol laws), the contrasting drug laws in different states (e.g. cannabis laws in the Netherlands and its neighbours), and the ongoing debate over the criminality of adult consenting use. It is important to note calls to remove the criminality from adult consenting drug use in no way implies support for or justification of Mala in se crimes, such as violence, committed under the influence of drugs, legal or otherwise.

Arguing for a specific legal right to take drugs (see Newcombe 2007 for example), however, seems unnecessary. The argument is better made with reference to existing legal rights and freedoms. Specifically, the criminalization of adult consenting drug use in many cases violates a number of existing human rights. These include the right to privacy (particularly activities undertaken in private or at home), the right to health (specifically control over personal health), the right to freedom of belief and practice (ritual/traditional/religious use of certain drugs such as peyote, ayuhuasca, and cannabis), and the right to freedom of expression (including free access to information). It is important, however, to stress that any such rights and personal freedoms are not unconditional. Liberty (the National Council for Civil Liberties) explored this when it supported a motion:

‘This AGM upholds the right of access of every adult to the lawful supply of psychoactive substances for personal consumption save where expressly constrained by or under the law for the purpose of protecting minors, countering crime, treating addiction, or some other legitimate public purpose and calls on the government to reform the laws accordingly’

(Liberty AGM 25.6.00)

This motion summarizes a number of qualifying principles for which societal intervention is justified, over and above the rights of the drug user, as outlined in a briefing by Roger Warren Evans (1999) (that informed the Liberty AGM motion). Evan’s identifies five key qualifying principles:  

1. The maturation of the young: the freedom itself adheres to the mature adult (subject to agreement on age of consent). There is a widespread consensus that the deployment of state resources is fully justified, both by way of positive education and supply constraints, to inhibit the consumption of psychoactive substances by the young. 
2. Contract enforcement: Where an individual has actually agreed not to make use of a psychoactive substance, or any such substances, state intervention is ordinarily justified to enforce that contractual commitment. In some sectors of employment, such constraints are demonstrably expedient: public vehicle drivers of airplanes, trains, coaches, taxis, and other such safety critical positions all accept such constraints, and it is in the public interest that they should be held to their promises. The litmus test is the competence of individuals to perform required tasks, and contractual constraints should not go beyond that;
3. Criminal law enforcement: The accommodation of psychoactive substances has long been a feature of criminal justice. For example, it is settled law that intoxication cannot be used as a defense, where other breaches of the law are alleged. It must also be evident that the administration of psychoactive substances without consent is and should remain a serious trespass to the person. Finally, difficult judgments have to be made where the consumption of psychoactive substances coincides with the presence of any underlying mental condition. These examples, properly understood, all affirm the principle of individual freedom, and reflect its proper reconciliation with other legitimate societal interests.
4. Constraint upon social interaction: There are examples of circumstances where drug consumption may properly be constrained by law, eg where the consumption is in public or otherwise obtrusive to others, or where (even if in private) the consumption forms part of a wider pattern of collective behavior with adverse consequences. It is for each society, in each age, to define the principles of intervention where others, who may be considered ‘at risk’, are involved. The principle is difficult to apply, and several applications have been contentious Nevertheless, although particular examples may be controversial, the principle of legitimate state intervention is not refuted.
5. Public health: There are clearly circumstances where overriding considerations of public health justify state intervention and the abridgement of individual rights – the concept of public health based regulation under which some activities and/or products may remain prohibited and subject to legal sanction. These are well developed and widely understood in the context of the thousands of legal drugs (and other dangerous products, services and activities). It is right that society should at all times ensure that risks to consumers of substantial harm should be avoided.

 Evans goes on to argue that:

'These five propositions are simply stressing that the right-to-consume adheres to adults only, and may be overridden in the pursuit of other legitimate societal interests, where drug consumption is shown to put others at risk of harm. These constraints leave unabridged the freedom of individual adult consumption, whatever the features of the psychoactive substance, in the absence of any demonstrable harm to others. We should take up a very simple position that the adult voluntary use of any psychoactive substance is a matter of unbridgeable personal freedom. As with all legal principles, there are exceptions. But it is for those who assert the exceptions to demonstrate the case for such action. The burden of proof should lie, not with those who uphold individual freedom, but upon the shoulders of those who contend for its qualification.’ 

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.

IHRA launches 'The Death Penalty for Drug Offences: Global Overview 2010' report

 
The International Harm Reduction Association released a study on the death penalty for drug offences today on the opening day of the 19th session of the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, taking place in Vienna. The report, titled ‘The Death Penalty for Drug Offences: Global Overview 2010’ (2.4meg pdf), finds that hundreds of people are executed for drug offences each year around the world, a figure that very likely exceeds one thousand when taking into account those countries that keep their death penalty statistics secret.

The report is the first detailed country by country overview of the death penalty for drugs, monitoring both national legislation and state practice of enforcement. Of the states worldwide that retain the death penalty, 32 jurisdictions maintain laws that prescribe the death penalty for drug offences. The study also found that in some states, drug offenders make up a significant portion – if not the outright majority – of those sentenced to death and/or executed each year.

 

New report on 'Adulterants, Bulking agents and other Contaminants found in illicit drugs'

An important new report by Claire Cole, Lisa Jones, Jim McVeigh, Andrew Kicman, Qutub Syed & Mark A. Bellis was published yesterday by the Center for Public Health at John Moores University. Titled 'A Guide to the Adulterants, Bulking agents and other Contaminants found in illicit drugs'  (pdf) the report answers the question 'What else are people eating, snorting and injecting when they take illegal drugs?', and offers a detailed review of the available evidence on drug contaminants, making a series of pragmatic recommendations on how related harms can be minimised.

Whilst demonstrating that most adulterants are benign, it also highlights that others present a range of serious risks, including death. The seriousness of these risks has most recently been demonstrated by the anthrax contaminated heroin issue, and there is a useful section on the frequently ignored issue bacterial contaminants. The summary table of drugs and adulterants is copied below in three parts (click image to see full size).

Transform has covered a number of these issues in the past including the appearance of lead as a bulking agent in cannabis.

If there is one shortcoming in the report is its failure to state that these issues are unambiguously and entirely the fault of prohibition and the illicit production and supply infrastructure it has created. Instances of contaminants in licensed medical drugs (the counterfeit issue mentioned briefly on page 45), or alcohol and tobacco are very rare - and when they do occasionally occur, authorities are able to rapidly respond and immediately remove products  from the market, in ways obviously impossible with an unregulated criminal trade. The recommendations in the report - whilst obviously pragmatic and sensible - limit themselves to symptomatic responses within the existing legal and policy framework. They only consider how to reduce the harms created by prohibition rather than exploring the possibilities for legal regulated supply that would eliminate the problems outright.

This shortcoming is particularly notable regarding opiate injecting where advice is limited to making users aware of risks and educating about safe injecting. Given that legal opiate prescription models for injectors already exist, are legal, and are obviously not associated with any of the problems the report describes, its unclear why they do not feature in the recommendations, even as a discussion point.

None the less, the authors should be congratulated on an important (if long overdue) piece of scholarship. It remains for others in the drug field to consider and act on its implications regarding longer term reforms that might deal with the cause of the problem, rather than just the symptoms.

SNP, Plaid Cymru, UKIP, SDLP, UUP, Sinn Fein, DUP,and BNP manifestos on drug policy

In the final part of our review of election manifesto drug policy commitments we consider the offerings from  some of the other parties with smaller (or no) parliamentary representation.(see previous posts Labour, LibDems, Conservatives and Greens)

• The Scottish Nationalist Party

In the 2010 SNP manifesto the only drug policy mention is in the health chapter:

A healthier Scotland

We are also taking action to improve health, prevent ill-health and tackle health inequalities. We are acting to tackle obesity and promote physical activity. We are also acting to tackle the health impact of tobacco, with legislation to restrict cigarette displays and remove vending machines. and we are investing more than ever in rehabilitation so that drug addicts can kick the habit.

This is somewhat less than the proposals in 2005. It is not obvious why the manifesto profile of drug policy has changed:

From the 2005 SNP Manifesto:

Damaging Drugs

We want to reduce the damage that drugs do to the individual and to society as a whole. But words are not enough; real action is required. We will take firm action against drug dealers but we will also tackle the poverty and exclusion that contribute to the high levels of damaging drug use in some of our communities.

We will also do more to help those who want to come off drugs. Long waiting lists for places on rehabilitation programmes make it much more difficult to tackle the problems drugs cause in our communities. That is why we would give people trapped by the misery of drug addiction access to rehabilitation facilities within 3 months. We would also introduce a programme of financial assistance for community-based groups to provide aftersupport to reduce the risk of relapse, and practical help and support for the families of recovering addicts.

We also recognise the damage that alcohol misuse can do to the health and well-being of individuals,and society, and would offer more practical support to help tackle this problem.

• Plaid Cymru

Plaid also has relatively little on drug policy in their 2010 manifesto, only including these three unrelated commitments: 

"We also oppose the privatisation of back-to-work services and the compulsory drug testing of claimants."

"We call for a national community safety strategy for Wales, more drug rehabilitation places and programmes, drug and alcohol education in every school in Wales and better amenities for young people in their communities. We call for a minimum price per unit of alcohol, initially set at 50p, along with stricter controls on alcohol advertising and marketing."

"Plaid Cymru calls for an immediate Military Well-Being Act to promote and safeguard the physical and mental health and wellbeing of military personnel. This includes ongoing after-care, legal advice and counselling support for veterans and their families, as well as improved compensation, housing, healthcare and treatment for alcohol and drug abuse."

 In their 2005 manifesto, in the health section, a non-specific pledge:

We need to tackle the causes of ill-health. These include not only long-standing causes such as poverty and unhealthy working and housing conditions, but increasingly also the misuse of drugs, lack of exercise, and exploitative marketing to young  children.

and in the 'Crime' section, committments to:

• More drug rehabilitation places and programmes, partly funded from confiscated drugs money
• Drugs and alcohol education in every school in Wales
• Better amenities for young people in their communities to help counter the attractions of town centre binge drinking
• Legislation to hold pub and club owners responsible for policing and health costs rising from their customers’ behaviour
• Stricter controls on how drinks are advertised and marketed, including health warnings 

and one of the 'people's contract' pledges:

"We will press for greatly expanded provision of treatment, counselling, and rehabilitation for people suffering from drug addiction"

• UK Independence Party

UKIP's Nigel Farage vocally supported drug decriminalisation on BBC's Question Time recently, but the UKIP 2010 manifesto does not contain any reference to drug policy (although crime policies  include scrapping the CPS and Human Rights Act). The UKIP media spokesperson informed Transform via Twitter that having a Royal Commission on drug policy is official policy. 

• Social Democratic and Labour Party

The SDLP 2010 manifesto offers the following under the specific heading 'Action on Drugs', in the 'Safe, Shared Society' chapter:

The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is out of date. It is failing to provide our young people with adequate protection both from illegal drugs and ‘legal highs’.

It places a duty on the state to prove a drug is dangerous before it is banned, yet pharmaceutical companies have to prove drugs are safe before they can be sold.

The SDLP wants a new misuse of drugs bill which will:

• Allow Ministers to temporarily classify new drugs and drug groups until they are proven safe.
• Review the role of the advisory council on the misuse of drugs with a view to extending its powers and influence over education and health promotion.
• Devolve powers to Northern Ireland.
• Strengthen statutory support for drug prevention and rehabilitation schemes.

The call for devolved drug policy is repeated later in the manifesto.

• Ulster Unionists

At time of writing we were unable to find the 2010 Ulster Unionist manifesto. The 2005 manifesto contains no reference to drugs or drug policy (beyond a commitment to the ban on smoking in public places). Given the alliance with the Conservative party the assumption is that policy will be in line with Conservative commitments (this will be updated if not the case).

• Sinn Fein

At time of writing no manifesto was available for the 2010 Westminster elections. The Sinn Fein official drug policy document from 2004 is here  and a document on the 2009-2012 drug strategy is available here. Both are solidly harm reduction oriented. Other recent election manifestos are here. Note; Sinn Fein MPs do not attend the UK parliament

• Democratic Unionist Party

The DUP 2010 manifesto  has very little on drug policy:

 In the 'Armed Forces' chapter:

"All ex-service personnel should be given comprehensive advice about mental health conditions and information on where assistance can be accessed promptly.More effective prevention and early intervention measures must be introduced to tackle mental health conditions and drug and alcohol abuse." 

And in the crime and policing chapter:

"Other important priorities are domestic abuse, knife crime and alcohol and drug-related offences"

• British National Party 

At time of writing the British National Party manifesto did not appear to be online, so below are the drug policy commitments from the BNP 2005 manifesto (pdf)

 Criminals should be made to serve their full sentences, with time added for bad behaviour. The only way out of prison ‘early’ should be a maximum 20% reduction in return for a clear demonstration of the acquisition of genuinely useful skills, or full rehabilitation in the case of drug addicts, whereupon Parole Boards should have the power to release such model prisoners, tagged and under tight restrictions doing restorative work within the community.

Given the role of drugs and addiction involved in so much crime, the present pitiful provision of a mere 2,500 drug rehabilitation places nationwide is a false economy, as well as a national shame. We would oversee a one hundred-fold increase in this figure, to be in place within six months of coming to office. Thestaff and money for this vital social service and anti-crime measure will be provided from cuts made in various of the parasitic and useless public sector jobs identified later in this Manifesto.

While every effort will be made to help addicts to recover, individuals convicted of the importation and large-scale dealing of hard drugs will face the death penalty. British National Party General Election

Charity commission guidelines on strict neutrality in elections prevent us from saying what we think of the BNP. On drug policy specifically however, their positions on sentencing are not dissimilar to much mainstream tabloid punitive populism, and the call for more rehab also in line with most of the other parties, even if the 100 fold increase in provision (the Tories offered a mere 10-fold increase in 2005) gives the appearance of pure rhetorical invention rather than careful calculation.  The death penalty call takes the punitive populist line to its extreme; needless to say there is no evidence from countries that actually use the death penalty that it is an effective deterrent, and it is also unambiguously illegal under both EU and International Law (withdrawal from the EU is BNP policy, but not from the UN).

Security, development and human rights: Normative, legal and policy challenges for the international drug control system

.

Copied below are the abstract and conclusion from paper published last week in the International Journal of Drug Policy,  by Damon Barrett (Senior Human Right Analyst at IHRA), titled 'Security, development and human rights: Normative, legal and policy challenges for the international drug control system'.  In this important and groundbreaking commentary Barrett outlines a series of theoretical and practical challenges for the international drug control system, reconceptualizing it within a broader human rights law analysis.

A clear call for an Impact Assessment on international drug control policy is also made (in the conclusion see below). The full paper is available at the International Center on Human Rights and Drug Policy website (pdf)

Transform's Danny Kushlick (credited) was involved in developing the thinking behind the paper, and Transform's 'Blueprint for Regulation' is also cited along with our recent Impact Assessment briefing paper.

Abstract

This commentary addresses some of the challenges posed by the broader normative, legal and policy framework of the United Nations for the international drug control system. The ‘purposes and principles’ of the United Nations are presented and set against the threat based rhetoric of the drug control system and the negative consequences of that system. Some of the challenges posed by human rights law and norms to the international drug control system are also described, and the need for an impact assessment of the current system alongside alternative policy options is highlighted as a necessary consequence of these analyses.

Conclusion
International drug control, as currently formulated, may be conceptualised as an ‘international risk environment’ for the related damage to security, development and human rights that has been documented worldwide. The human rights risk is particularly clear. The first step in addressing this is to begin to shift the debate at the international level away from threat based rhetoric and towards meeting the aims of the UN. Based on modern debates concerning human security and human development, this demands consideration of more locally and culturally appropriate responses that place individuals and communities at the centre of drug policies. An impact assessment of the current approach is necessary, set against alternative policy options that may achieve better results in terms of security, development and human rights. That call is supported by international human rights law.

This assessment should have happened at the ten year review of international drug policy at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (March, 2009). Instead, the same policies, with some minor amendments to language, though hard fought by some of the more progressive governments, were prescribed for the next ten years. Indeed, it may be argued that advocating for a move towards policy based on the aims of the UN naively presumes genuine governmental support for those aims, when in fact other political agendas are more likely the drivers of current drug control efforts. This is likely the case for some governments. But this does not stall the discussion. Indeed, it is one more argument for reframing the debate so that the UN system, within which international drug control resides, is not one behind which these agendas may hide (Barrett & Nowak, 2009).

The Barrett and Nowak reference in the conclusion is for a book chapter titled 'The United Nations and Drug Policy: Towards a Human Rights Based Approach'  (Nov 2009) that explores some of the themes in the IJDP paper in more detail. Highly recommended, it is also available in full here on the International Center for Human Rights and Drug Policy website (pdf).  Barrett's co-author Manfred Nowak is the UNs Special Rapporteur on Torture.