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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why it is sometimes better to broadcast than engage

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

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

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

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

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

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

A personal story of why the Global Commission's report matters

The founders of TDPF Scotland, Jolene Crawford and Katrina Thornton, on why the new the Global Commission on Drug Policy report  is personally important for them, and why Scotland should take a lead on drug policy on the global stage.

Just over three years ago we lost a brother / cousin in a drug-related death. We know only too well the pain of losing someone in such a futile manner. We understand the need to apportion blame and the desire to prevent any other family going through a similar nightmare.


But however initially tempting it was to call for all drugs to be banned, we decided to educate ourselves about legal and illegal drugs and the real issues that pertain to these substances. What we discovered surprised us greatly and resulted in the founding of TDPF Scotland (Transform Drug Policy Foundation Scotland) – a campaign for the control and regulation of all illegal and legal drugs. As busy women juggling careers and children, taking on this challenge was not easy. It’s painful for the family each time we speak out. But when we discovered that current drug policy has no factual basis, and the individuals who create these policies often acknowledge in private that drug prohibition is a disaster (though few will put their heads above the parapet) we felt we had no choice but to speak out.


Most importantly, we found that the government does indeed have the power to make changes to drug policy that would have a transformative effect on the lives of individuals, families and society as a whole.


For this reason, it was extremely heartening to read the findings of the Global Commission on Drug Policy and see the high profile individuals who back its calls. Basically the report represents a watershed moment that puts legal regulation of drugs onto the mainstream political agenda worldwide.


With a majority SNP government in power north of the border, and the question of an independent Scotland a viable proposition, Scotland is in a strong position to take a lead on this issue on the global stage. The referendum question will present an opportunity to have a debate about exactly what kind of future we want for our country.


How we are going to adequately deal with Scotland's significant drug and alcohol abuse issues must play a major role in this discussion. The Portuguese success with decriminalization provides strong evidence of policy which can be effective under current global drug laws, whilst at the same time acting as a step towards full regulation and control.


In Scotland we have already gathered some high profile supporters including our patron Iain Banks, the former High Court Judge Lord McCluskey, Richard Holloway, Consultant Addictions Psychiatrist Fraser Shaw, retired Strathclyde Police Inspector Jim Duffy, as well as former users, drugs workers and other bereaved families. We now call on Scottish and UK party political leaders to call a ceasefire in their political point scoring and, taking inspiration from those individuals who have backed the Global Commission on Drug Policy, unite to explore peaceful and effective alternatives to the war on drugs.


It took losing a loved one to force us to look at the evidence. We believe that our politicians have a moral obligation to do so too.

www.tdpfscotland.org.uk

Transform is developing a new project with and for family members like Jolene and Katrina who have been affected by bereavement, criminalisation of a loved one, or any other negative side effect of the war on drugs. If you are interested in knowing more, or participating, please contact info@tdpf.org.uk

(This article originally appeared on the newsnetscotland.com website on 8 June.)

Leaders Call for Major Paradigm Shift in Global Drug Policy: Official Global Commission press release

Former Presidents of Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Switzerland, Prime Minister of Greece, Kofi Annan, Richard Branson, George Shultz, Paul Volcker and Other Leaders Call for Major Paradigm Shift in Global Drug Policy

Commission of World Leaders Urges End to Failed Drug War, Fundamental Reforms of Global Drug Prohibition Regime. Today the Global Commission on Drug Policy will release a groundbreaking report at a press conference and tele-conference at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City. The report condemns the drug war as a failure and recommends major reforms of the global drug prohibition regime.

The Commission is the most distinguished group of high-level leaders to ever call for such far-reaching changes – including not just alternatives to incarceration and greater emphasis on public health approaches to drug use but also decriminalization and experiments in legal regulation.

full report English
full report Spanish

The Executive Director of the global advocacy organization AVAAZ, with its nine million members worldwide, will present a public petition in support of the Global Commission’s recommendations that will be given to the United Nations Secretary General.

“Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and 40 years after President Nixon launched the US government’s global war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed,”. “Let’s start by treating drug addiction as a health issue, reducing drug demand through proven educational initiatives and legally regulating rather than criminalizing cannabis.” said former president of Brazil Fernando Henrique Cardoso

The Commission’s recommendations are summarized in the Executive Summary below this release. They include:

• End the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others.
• Encourage experimentation by governments with models of legal regulation of drugs (especially cannabis) to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens.
• Ensure that a variety of treatment modalities are available – including not just methadone and buprenorphine treatment but also the heroin-assisted treatment programs that have proven successful in many European countries and Canada.
• Apply human rights and harm reduction principles and policies both to people who use drugs as well as those involved in the lower ends of illegal drug markets such as farmers, couriers and petty sellers.

“Overwhelming evidence from Europe, Canada and Australia now demonstrates the human and social benefits both of treating drug addiction as a health rather than criminal justice problem and of reducing reliance on prohibitionist policies,” . “These policies need to be adopted worldwide, with requisite changes to the international drug control conventions.” said former Swiss president Ruth Dreifuss

“We can no longer ignore the extent to which drug-related violence, crime and corruption in Latin America are the results of failed drug war policies,” “Now is the time to break the taboo on discussion of all drug policy options, including alternatives to drug prohibition.” said former Colombian president César Gaviria.

"The war on drugs has failed to cut drug usage, but has filled our jails, cost millions in tax payer dollars, fuelled organized crime and caused thousands of deaths. We need a new approach, one that takes the power out of the hands of organized crime and treats people with addiction problems like patients, not criminals,” “The good news is new approaches focused on regulation and decriminalization have worked. We need our leaders, including business people, looking at alternative, fact based approaches. We need more humane and effective ways to reduce the harm caused by drugs. The one thing we cannot afford to do is to go on pretending the “war on drugs” is working." said Richard Branson, founder of the Virgin Group and cofounder of The Elders, United Kingdom.

Commission Members (Those appearing at June 2 press conference are italicized and those who are also speaking are underlined):

Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations, Ghana

Louise Arbour, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, president of the International Crisis Group, Canada

Richard Branson , entrepreneur, advocate for social causes, founder of the Virgin Group, cofounder of The Elders, United Kingdom

Fernando Henrique Cardoso , former President of Brazil (chair)

Marion Caspers-Merk, former State Secretary at the German Federal Ministry of Health

Maria Cattaui, Petroplus Holdings Board member, former Secretary-General of the International Chamber of Commerce, Switzerland

Ruth Dreifuss, former President of Switzerland and Minister of Home Affairs

Carlos Fuentes, writer and public intellectual, Mexico

César Gaviria, former President of Colombia

Asma Jahangir, human rights activist, former UN Special Rapporteur on Arbitrary, Extrajudicial and Summary Executions, Pakistan

Michel Kazatchkine, executive director of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria , France

Mario Vargas Llosa, writer and public intellectual, Peru

George Papandreou, Prime Minister of Greece

George P. Shultz, former Secretary of State, United States (honorary chair)

Javier Solana, former European Union High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy , Spain

Thorvald Stoltenberg, former Minister of Foreign Affairs and UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Norway

Paul Volcker, former Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve and of the Economic Recovery Board

John Whitehead, banker and civil servant, chair of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, United States

Ernesto Zedillo, former President of Mexico

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world. Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and 40 years after President Nixon launched the US government’s war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed.

Vast expenditures on criminalization and repressive measures directed at producers, traffickers and consumers of illegal drugs have clearly failed to effectively curtail supply or consumption. Apparent victories in eliminating one source or trafficking organization are negated almost instantly by the emergence of other sources and traffickers. Repressive efforts directed at consumers impede public health measures to reduce HIV/AIDS, overdose fatalities and other harmful consequences of drug use. Government expenditures on futile supply reduction strategies and incarceration displace more cost-effective and evidence-based investments in demand and harm reduction.

Our principles and recommendations can be summarized as follows:

End the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others. Challenge rather than reinforce common misconceptions about drug markets, drug use and drug dependence.

Encourage experimentation by governments with models of legal regulation of drugs to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens. This recommendation applies especially to cannabis, but we also encourage other experiments in decriminalization and legal regulation that can accomplish these objectives and provide models for others.

Offer health and treatment services to those in need. Ensure that a variety of treatment modalities are available, including not just methadone and buprenorphine treatment but also the heroin-assisted treatment programs that have proven successful in many European countries and Canada. Implement syringe access and other harm reduction measures that have proven effective in reducing transmission of HIV and other blood-borne infections as well as fatal overdoses. Respect the human rights of people who use drugs. Abolish abusive practices carried out in the name of treatment – such as forced detention, forced labor, and physical or psychological abuse – that contravene human rights standards and norms or that remove the right to self-determination.

Apply much the same principles and policies stated above to people involved in the lower ends of illegal drug markets, such as farmers, couriers and petty sellers. Many are themselves victims of violence and intimidation or are drug dependent. Arresting and incarcerating tens of millions of these people in recent decades has filled prisons and destroyed lives and families without reducing the availability of illicit drugs or the power of criminal organizations. There appears to be almost no limit to the number of people willing to engage in such activities to better their lives, provide for their families, or otherwise escape poverty. Drug control resources are better directed elsewhere.

Invest in activities that can both prevent young people from taking drugs in the first place and also prevent those who do use drugs from developing more serious problems. Eschew simplistic ‘just say no’ messages and ‘zero tolerance’ policies in favor of educational efforts grounded in credible information and prevention programs that focus on social skills and peer influences. The most successful prevention efforts may be those targeted at specific at-risk groups.

Focus repressive actions on violent criminal organizations, but do so in ways that undermine their power and reach while prioritizing the reduction of violence and intimidation. Law enforcement efforts should focus not on reducing drug markets per se but rather on reducing their harms to individuals, communities and national security.

Begin the transformation of the global drug prohibition regime. Replace drug policies and strategies driven by ideology and political convenience with fiscally responsible policies and strategies grounded in science, health, security and human rights – and adopt appropriate criteria for their evaluation. Review the scheduling of drugs that has resulted in obvious anomalies like the flawed categorization of cannabis, coca leaf and MDMA. Ensure that the international conventions are interpreted and/or revised to accommodate robust experimentation with harm reduction, decriminalization and legal regulatory policies.

Break the taboo on debate and reform. The time for action is now.

Press Release: War on Drugs - Obama and Cameron can leave a legacy of peace

News release. No Embargo. Date: 31 May 2011

Tel: 0117 325 0295 or 07970 174747
Web: www.tdpf.org.uk

War on Drugs - Obama and Cameron can leave a legacy of peace

On Thursday 2 June the Global Commission on Drug Policy, a panel of world leaders and politicians, will host a press conference at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York to launch a report that describes the drug war as a failure, and calls for a paradigm shift in global drug policy, including the decriminalisation and legal regulation of drugs.

Transform Drug Policy Foundation welcomes the report, because fifty years of global prohibition have resulted in massive levels of crime, destabilised entire nation states, created huge health harms, criminalised 250 million users, and wasted trillions of dollars.

Danny Kushlick, Head of External Affairs said: “This report is a watershed moment that puts legal regulation of drugs onto the mainstream political agenda worldwide.

“Globally we spend $100 billion a year on the war on drugs, so if we carry on as we are, over the next decade we will waste a trillion dollars increasing insecurity, damaging development and promoting crime and ill-health in some of the most disadvantaged places on earth.

“We call on UK party political leaders to call a ceasefire in their political point scoring, and instead unite to explore peaceful and effective alternatives to the war on drugs.

“The UK Government is also in the perfect position to bring the US to the table to negotiate an end to the war on drugs and a Marshall Plan to consolidate the peace. In 2002 David Cameron called for the UN to debate legal regulation, and in 2004 President Obama described the war on drugs as an “utter failure”. Cameron and Obama now have the greatest opportunity ever to use the ‘essential relationship’ to find a peaceful solution to the longest conflict of modern times. Ending the war on drugs and bringing peace to some of the most violent places in the world would be a truly great legacy.”

ENDS

Contact:

Danny Kushlick, Head of External Affairs (+44) 07970 174747

Steve Rolles, Senior Policy Analyst (+44) 07980 213943

Notes for Editors:

1. For full details of the Global Commission on Drugs report and press conference see http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2011/05/former-presidents-of-brazil-colombia.html

2. Transform Drug Policy Foundation is an NGO with special consultative status at the United Nations www.tdpf.org.uk

3. Count the Costs is a global campaign supported by 30 NGOs exposing the costs of the war on drugs: www.countthecosts.org

4. David Cameron

Parliamentary debate, December 5th 2002, when David Cameron told the House of Commons, "I ask the [Labour] Government not to return to retribution and war on drugs. That has been tried, and we all know that it does not work."

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

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

Source: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/318/31814.htm

"Politicians attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator by posturing with tough policies and calling for crackdown after crackdown. Drugs policy has been failing for decades."

Source: 'Tory contender calls for more liberal drug laws' Marie Woolf, The Independent 07.09.05

5. President Barack Obama

"The war on drugs has been an utter failure":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOobQ3TPhHU

6. Supporters of Reform

For a list of political leaders, professional and faith leaders, and celebrities backing an end to the war on drugs see: http://tdpf.org.uk/MediaNews_Reform_supporters.htm

Former Presidents of Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Switzerland, Prime Minister of Greece, Kofi Annan, George Shultz and Paul Volcker Call for Paradigm Shift in Global Drug Policy

Media Advisory

Date: 27 May 2011
For Immediate Release: May 27, 2011
Contact: Tony Newman (646)335-5384

Former Presidents of Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Switzerland, Prime Minister of Greece, Kofi Annan, George Shultz and Paul Volcker Call for Paradigm Shift in Global Drug Policy

Commission of World Leaders Urges New Approaches to Failed Drug War, Move from Criminal Justice toward Public Health Approach

Live Press Conference and Teleconference on Thursday, June 2 in New York City

The Global Commission on Drug Policy will host a live press conference and teleconference on Thursday, June 2 at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City to launch a new report that describes the drug war as a failure and calls for a paradigm shift in global drug policy.

The Commission is the most distinguished group of high-level leaders who have ever called for such far-reaching changes in the way society deals with illicit drugs – such as decriminalization and urging countries to experiment with legal regulation. The Executive Director of the global advocacy organization AVAAZ, with its nine million members worldwide, will present a public petition in support of the Global Commission’s recommendations that will be given to the United Nations Secretary General.

What: Press Conference and Teleconference to release Global Commission report.
When: Thursday, June 2 at 11 am, EST
Where: The Waldorf Astoria Hotel, 301 Park Avenue, New York (Beekman Suite)

By Phone:

USA: 1-800-311-9404 (Password: Global Commission)
From Outside the USA: 1-334-323-7224 (Password: Global Commission)

Commission Members (Those italicized will be at the press conference. Those speaking are italicized and underlined):

Kofi Annan,former Secretary General of the United Nations, Ghana

Louise Arbour, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, president of the International Crisis Group, Canada

Richard Branson, entrepreneur, advocate for social causes, founder of the Virgin Group, cofounder of The Elders, United Kingdom

Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former President of Brazil (chair)


Marion Caspers-Merk, former State Secretary at the German Federal Ministry of Health


Maria Cattaui, Petroplus Holdings Board member, former Secretary-General of the International Chamber of Commerce, Switzerland


Ruth Dreifuss, former President of Switzerland and Minister of Home Affairs

Carlos Fuentes, writer and public intellectual, Mexico

César Gaviria, former President of Colombia

Asma Jahangir, human rights activist, former UN Special Rapporteur on Arbitrary, Extrajudicial and Summary Executions, Pakistan

Michel Kazatchkine, executive director of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria , France

Mario Vargas Llosa, writer and public intellectual, Peru

George Papandreou, Prime Minister of Greece

George P. Shultz, former Secretary of State , United States (honorary chair)

Javier Solana, former European Union High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy , Spain


Thorvald Stoltenberg, former Minister of Foreign Affairs and UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Norway

Paul Volcker, former Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve and of the Economic Recovery Board

John Whitehead, banker and civil servant, chair of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, United States

Ernesto Zedillo, former President of Mexico

An EMBARGOED copy of the report and press release will be made available starting on May 30. Contact Tony Newman (646-335-5384 or tnewman@drugpolicy.org) to request these materials.

The report and press release are EMBARGOED until 12:01 am GMT on June 2.

To learn more about the Commission, visit: www.globalcommissionondrugs.org

AVAAZ seeks 1 million supporters for petition to end the war on drugs

 

The ever impressive online actvitist organisation AVAAZ are challenging the war on drugs and calling for a new approach based on 'decriminalisation, regulation, public health and education' in their latest mobilisation. AVAAZ describe themselves as follows:

'Avaaz—meaning "voice" in several European, Middle Eastern and Asian languages—launched in 2007 with a simple democratic mission: organize citizens of all nations to close the gap between the world we have and the world most people everywhere want.

Avaaz empowers millions of people from all walks of life to take action on pressing global, regional and national issues, from corruption and poverty to conflict and climate change. Our model of internet organising allows thousands of individual efforts, however small, to be rapidly combined into a powerful collective force. '

The latest campaign petition statement - which you can sign here - is as follows:

To Ban Ki Moon and all heads of State

"We call on you to end the war on drugs and the prohibition regime, and move towards a system based on decriminalisation, regulation, public health and education. This 50 year old policy has failed, fuels violent organised crime, devastates lives and is costing billions. It is time for a humane and effective approach."

The preamble text notes that the campaign is timed to coincide with the launch of the Global Commission on Drugs report (produced by 'heads of state and foreign policy chiefs of the UN, EU, Brazil, Mexico' ), set to make similar recommendations next month.

The campaign is seeking to get 1 million supporters - something that AVAAZ, with more than 8 million subscribers is more than capable of achieving (all were emailed today - and as we write the total is already over 100k with many more signing every second).

Petitions can often be ineffectual, but something of this scale, at this key juncture in the debate can have a real impact so we urge all our readers and supporters to help promote this initiative around their contacts and networks in any way you can.

Security experts discuss ending the war on drugs

There can be no question that global security is fundamentally compromised by the world’s commitment to the war on drugs. Could this fact be instrumental in bringing an end to the global prohibition?

As has been demonstrated by the recently launched Count the Costs campaign, the war on drugs detrimentally impacts on numerous policy areas – Crime, Development, Security, Health, Expenditure, Stigma and Discrimination, Human Rights and the Environment. Some of these policy paths have been well-trodden by reformers; others have witnessed almost no footfall. Whilst all of them have the potential to engage policy makers, the question we have been asking is, which of them has the potential for the most engagement and concern? We have come to the conclusion that demonstrating the negative impacts of the war on drugs on security, and bringing security and intelligence agencies into the debate, has substantial untapped potential tomove the debate forward. When current and former military and intelligence personnel critique the war on drugs or indeed, explicitly call for reform to the status quo, formerly uninterested policy makers are likely to pay attention.

Up until relatively recently it had been received wisdom that drugs, crime and insecurity were inextricably linked. As the reform agenda gains traction, it is increasingly understood that the drugs/crime nexus is created, not by primarily by drug use/misuse, but in substantially part by the the prohibtionist policy environment; the war on drugs itself.

In 2008 even the head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime conceeded in a discussion paper that prohibition had created a series unintended negative consequences, including 'vast' criminal market. However, there is relatively little engagement in the public debate with the fact that, along with the vast criminal market there are whole regions of the world whose national security is fundamentally compromised by the war on drugs.

There have been lone voices – for example David Passage (former director of Andean Affairs at the US State Dept), Eliza Manningham Buller (former Director General of MI5), and there is some literature. Notable amongst them is Chasing Dragons. But now the security issue is emerging, blinking into the sunlight. In October 2010, (entirely by coincidence) NOREF, the Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) both ran workshops exploring the connection between drug trafficking and security.

Papers from NOREF are available here, here and here.

Transform took part in the IISS project, which consisted of two workshops and will culminate in an IISS Adelphi publication. The first workshop involved an exploration of the security issues for key geographical regions involved in production and trafficking. As a contribution to the discussion, Transform (and PhD student Emily Crick) produced a paper exploring drugs and security using the International Relations theory of Securitisation. This theory helps demonstrate that there are in fact two drug wars being fought – one ostensibly fighting against ‘drugs’ and ‘drug abuse’ because of their ‘threat’ to mankind; the other, fighting against organised crime (whose power is based on the opportunities created by the primary securitisation) because of the ‘threat’ they present to nation states (see previous blog on securitisation)

Workshop 1, 5 October 2010: Participants and agenda

A wide ranging discussion explored the scope of the drugs and security connection, including contributions from Dr. Mohammed Zafar Khan, Former Deputy Minister, Afghan Ministry of Counter Narcotics, Sanho Tree from the Institute for Policy Studies, the Colombian Ambassador to the UK, and others. The discussion effectively took place on two levels with some engaging wholeheartedly with the question of the impact of prohibition upon security and others remaining in their comfort zone by effectively giving country reports of security impacts.

The second workshop was intended to provide participants with the opportunity both to critique the status quo and to engage in some blue skies thinking around the impact of ending the overwhelmingly security oriented approach. To help facilitate dialogue Emily Crick presented a critique of the securitised approach and Danny Kushlick of Transform demonstrated the various policy options that are made available under a de-securitised regime of legal regulation and control. (The Transform/Crick papers on securitisation and de-securitisation are being disseminated to intelligence agencies, security/strategic think tanks and the military both in the UK and beyond)

Workshop 2, 19 April 2011: Participants and agenda.

It attracted participants from a wide range of countries, organisations and agencies, including representatives from the UK (Serious and Organised Crime Agency, FCO), Russia, China, and Mexico. Many participants found the blue skies element challenging (as you would expect from officials who spend their lives working within the prevailing paradigm of prohibition).

Despite being invited the Americans were notably absent from the workshops – a glaring gap, given the US’s deep and abiding commitment to maintaining the status quo.

There are many potentially fruitful policy veins that remain untapped. For example the development world has been reluctant to involve itself in the reform agenda. But members of the security field appear only too willing to get stuck in and are to be congratulated for doing so.

There are those who have expressed concern that engaging in the security agenda has significant risks, not least of which is that it could further solidify the security-oriented regime and discourse. We are not naïve enough to forget that some significant security and intelligence fiefdoms are predicated on and resourced by the commitment to a global war on drugs. Indeed for some it is their very lifeblood. However, our experience thus far is that some in the security and intelligence world are willing to play their part in exposing the tragic irony of the overwhelmingly negative impact of the war on drugs on national, international and human security.

New Journal on Human Rights and Drug Policy available in full online

ISSN 2046-4843 (print)

ISSN 2046-4851 (online)

The first edition of the new International Journal on Human Rights and Drug Policy is now available online in full. Produced by the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy the journal critically engages with many of the frequently neglected human rights issues raised by drug policy and law enforcement. It is also open access, so available to all. Highly recommended.   

CONTENTS

Editorial
R. Lines, ‘Deliver us from evil’? – The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 50 years on


Original Articles


P. Gallahue, Targeted Killing of Drug Lords: Traffickers as Members of Armed Opposition Groups and/or Direct Participants’ in Hostilities


Y. McDermott, Yong Vui Kong v. Public Prosecutor and the Mandatory Death Penalty for Drug Offences in Singapore: A Dead End for Constitutional Challenge?


Interview

Litigating against the Death Penalty for Drug Offences: An interview with Saul Lehrfreund & Parvais Jabbar


Commentaries

D. Barrett & P. Veerman, Children who use Drugs: The Need for More Clarity on State Obligations in International Law


A. Crocket, The Function and Relevance of the Commission in Narcotic Drugs in the pursuit of Humane Drug Policy (or the ramblings of a bewildered diplomat)


Case Summary

S. Ka Hon Chu, Canadian Court of Appeal Upholds Supervised Injection Site’s Right to Operate


Download full volume with cover

Public Meeting: War on Drugs - or Time for Peace?

On Friday 13th May, Professor David Nutt and Danny Kushlick will take part in a discussion on drug policy at Cotham School, Bristol. Join us from 6.30pm.

Click on the image below to view details:

Press Release: Russian policy of breaching international agreements continues, as UN Secretary General arrives in Moscow

Transform's colleagues in the harm reduction field have asked us to circulate this press release on their behalf.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

More then forty major civil society organizations working in the field of HIV and drugs in Russia and internationally, have sent an open letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations calling to advocate for human rights oriented and scientifically based drug treatment and HIV prevention in Russia. Ban Ki-Moon is arriving to Moscow on April 21, 2011 and has scheduled several meetings with high level Russian officials, including the President Dmitry Medvedev.

Currently, the number of new cases of HIV in the country continues to grow and has long passed a critical point. According to the UN documents Russia remains among a few countries worldwide where HIV epidemics are on the rise. This epidemic is driven by sharing contaminated injection equipment for drug use. At the same time the government denies its drug dependent citizens access to life-saving evidence-based prevention and treatment interventions such as opioid substitution treatment with methadone or buprenorphine and needle and syringe HIV prevention programs, recommended by the UN.

“Neglecting the rights of people who use drugs, especially at the concentrated stage of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, will inevitably lead to serious health and social consequences for the society as a whole”, the letter says. It goes on by pointing out that the Russian government has “failed to ensure universal access to HIV prevention and treatment when millions of people who inject drugs are deprived of medical and social services support because the Government’s rejects the UN-recommended comprehensive package which includes substitution treatment and needle and syringe programs”.

Currently the use substitution treatment is legally banned in Russia which many experts believe is contrary to the letter and spirit of the UN Drug Conventions. Needle and syringe programs are considered by the Government as a threat to the national anti-drug strategy. Public debates on these issues are officially stifled and since recently, officially subjected to a legal ban.

The letter emphasises that efforts of civil society and international organizations are counterbalanced by the Government’s ideology-driven position of “zero tolerance” toward drug use. Numerous violations of human rights stemming from Russia's repressive and ineffective policy toward people using drugs have been documented and submitted to the UN Human Rights bodies”.

The civil society organizations called upon the UN Secretary General to urge the Russian Government to officially recognize the UN-recommended interventions as essential in combating HIV among drug users. According to the UN official documents, needle and syringe programs and substitution treatment are among the nine core interventions to prevent HIV among injecting drug users. Methadone and buprenorphine are included on the WHO Model Essential Medicines List.

It is noteworthy that during his visit to Cambodia at the end of 2010, the UN Secretary General met with patients of a methadone clinic and some of them received methadone from his hands and hands of his wife.

For contacts – Andrey Rylkov Foundation for Health and Social Justice:

In Moscow –

Ivan Varentsov (English, Russian)

Tel: +79166425682, ivan@harmreduction.org

In San-Francisco –

Anya Sarang (English, Russian)

Tel: +1-415-810 1117

The problem with Drug Tsars

I met the US Drug Tsar Gil Kerlikowske recently. It was at a reception at the US Ambassador's residence in Vienna during the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs. This is an annual event, and a welcome opportunity for the NGOs attending the CND in an official capacity (Transform has ECOSOC special consultative status) to meet various US figures and ONDCP staff.

I asked how the potential tensions between state, federal and international law might play out if one of the US State ballot initiatives to legalise and regulate cannabis/marijuana was passed by voters. Kerlikowske's answer was to list a number of arguments against legalisation - all familiar to those who followed the debate around Prop 19 in California last year.

 

The Drugs Tsar, Gil Kerlikowske at the US Amassador's reception in Vienna, 

with Anita Krug and Aram Barra from YouthRise/Espolea*

I responded by saying that I understood the arguments for and against, but was specifically interested in what would happen in terms of the conflicts between state, federal and international law, given the the likelyhood that one of the various proposed state ballot initiatives would pass in 2012 (the California initiative is set to rerun, as well as initiatives in Colorado, and other states). This time Kerlikowske pointed out that 56% of voters in California had been sufficiently concerned about Marijuana abuse and drug driving to oppose the 2011 prop 19 initiative.

So I essentially repeated the question; quite aside from the debate and public opinion, what is the Federal response or sequence of events, should such an intiative actually succeed? - noting that this was a reasonable question given how close the Californian vote had been and the likelyhood, probable certainty that one of the other initiatives would succeed in the near future. This time Kerlikowske responded that he didn't 'deal in hypotheticals'  - a response familiar to Prop 19 debate watchers.

So, pointing out that those in policy making naturally had to deal with hypotheticals as a matter of routine, I asked a slightly rephrasesd question; had the ONDCP done any scenario planning to explore this particular hypothetical, given its likely imminent move to non-hypothetical status. Kerlikowske replied that he 'couldn't comment'.

This was one of those unenlightening conversations that NGOs have with politically appointed civil servants on an almost daily basis - so largely unexpected. But a curious fact about the ONDCP director's role, that puts these sorts of conversations into some perspective, is that his position on legalisation is specifically mandated:

According to Title VII Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998: H11225:

Responsibilities. –The Director– [...]
(12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that–

1. is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and
2. has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;

Whatever Kerlikowske's views, and whatever evidence he is presented with (as he is not allowed to let the ONDCP gather any) he is duty bound to proffer a blanket opposition to any form of move to legally regulated markets, for any reason.  There is something fundamentally obnoxious and anti-science about this wording, contained as it is in an Act of Congress, especially given the fact that Kerlikowske's statements on legalisation are often superficially factual (as indeed is the risible DEA guide  'Speaking Out Against Legalisation'). How balanced can we expect this analysis to be if all research on non-drug war options is forbidden and all comments subject to Congressional diktat? 

More concerning were recent comments from Kerlikowske in an interview with Foriegn Policy in which legalisation cropped up again;

Foriegn Policy: You've made your views on legalization very clear in the past. How do you respond to the growing number of former Latin American leaders -- former Mexican President Vicente Fox, most recently -- who have come out in favor of legalization or at least a radical overhaul of the current policy?

Gil Kerlikowske: Isn't if funny how people who no longer have responsibility for anyone's safety or security suddenly see the light? I think it's not a lot different from what we've heard in recent years in the United States, which is: We've had a war on drugs for 40 years and we don't see success. If we have a kid in high school, they can still get drugs or there's drugs on the street corner. So legalization must be an answer.

What we in government fail to do is to show that there really are quite successful, cost-effective programs we can use, so we don't have to go from the "war on drugs has failed" to "let's legalize."

By the way, I've never seen any of the legalization arguments that say, here's how it will work and here's how we'll regulate it. Heaven knows, we're not very successful with alcohol. We don't collect much in tax money to cover the costs. We certainly can't keep it out of the hands of teenagers or people who get behind the wheel. Why in heavens name do we think that if we legalize marijuana, we'd have a system where we could collect enough tax revenue to cover the increased health-care costs? I haven't seen that grand plan.

The first comment from Kerlikowske here is, I would suggest, an entirely misplaced and innappropriate ad hominem aimed at Fox and other former public servants who differ with Kerlikowske's (legally imposed) prohibitionist perspective. More importantly, from Transform's perspective, is the comment about never having seen 'any of the legalization arguments that say, here's how it will work and here's how we'll regulate it.'  As Transform's widely distributed and cited 2009 publication 'After the War on Drugs; Blueprint for Regulation'  addresses precisely this question in some detail (50,000 words, 215 pages), I found this statement a little surprising.

What's more Transform's efforts on this front have been built on previous work including ‘A Public Health Approach to Drug Control’ (2005) by the British Colombia Health Officers Council, and Effective Drug Control: Toward A New Legal Framework' (2005) by the King County Bar Association. The latter is based in Seattle, and produced the document whilst Kerlikowske was Seattle police chief. 

We have sent Kerlikowske a letter drawing attention to this work, and a copy of Blueprint, which he is presumably allowed to read - even if he must do so in his own time and never mention it in public.  

*photo: Steve Rolles

IHRA Counts the Costs of the War on Drugs

A key cost of the war on drugs is the the lack of access to to harm reduction (including needle exchange and opiate substitution treatment) and treatment, and the still high prevalence of HIV/AIDS amongst injecting drug users, that results where such access remains inadequate. Drug war politics continue to prioritise punitive enforcement over proven public health interventions, even when these have been clearly and unequivocally advocated in widely adopted declarations by UN health agencies. Worse still, it is invariably the the most vulnerable groups in society who carry the greatest burden of these costs - in terms of their health and wellbeing, freedoms and human rights.

Transform is pleased to support this year's IHRA conference declaration (sign here , download the pdf here) copied below, that highlights many of these issues and calls upon Governments to meet their commitments to address them. We encourage all interested parties to do the same.

IHRA is a partner organisation in the new Count the Costs project, launched this March at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna. They are part of the grouping of organisations helping to gather and present more resources over the coming year, highlighting the health and human rights costs of the continued political commitment to a global war on users, suppliers and producers and the communities in which they live.

The Official Declaration of the 2011 International Harm Reduction Conference

Of the 33.3 million people living with HIV globally, an estimated three million are people who inject drugs.^{12 3} They account for 30% of HIV infections outside of sub-Saharan Africa, and up to 80% of infections in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.


The 2001 UNGASS Declaration of Commitment and the 2006 Political Declaration on HIV/AIDS established time-bound targets to be met and reported on by countries worldwide. The commitments aimed to address the needs of people who inject drugs, their families and the communities in which they live through an “urgent, coordinated and sustained response.” ^{4 5} These commitments remain unfulfilled. People who inject drugs are increasing as a percentage of global HIV infections with devastating consequences for individuals and communities.

The mobilisation of an “intensified, much more urgent and comprehensive response”⁵ to HIV for people who inject drugs requires strong global leadership, concrete national policies and adequate funds to implement and scale up evidence-based services. The targets and commitments set in the 2006 Political Declaration must be met to address the needs of, and to fulfill the human rights of people who inject drugs living with and at risk of HIV. World leaders gathering at the June 2011 UN General Assembly High Level Meeting on HIV/AIDS must ensure that these commitments are met as a matter of urgency.

At the 2011 United Nations High Level Meeting on HIV/AIDS, we, the undersigned, call for:

1. Acknowledgement that people who use drugs, as a key population group affected by HIV and AIDS, have not reached universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support;
2. Renewed commitment and action toward the goal of universal access to comprehensive HIV prevention, treatment, care and support for people who inject drugs through the financing, implementation and scale-up of evidence-based harm reduction interventions; and
3. Commitment to removing legal and policy barriers to achieving the aims above, particularly a reorientation of punitive drug policies toward evidence- and human rights-based approaches.

It is time for action on HIV-related harm reduction. It is time for accountability for the rights of people who inject drugs.

A number of commitments made in the 2006 Political Declaration to address the international response to HIV remain unmet for people who inject drugs. Among them:

Commitment: “Ensure that a wide range of prevention programmes...including sterile injecting equipment and harm-reduction efforts related to drug use...is available in all countries, particularly the most affected countries” [paragraph 22]

Of the 158 countries and territories with reported injecting drug use globally, almost half lack essential harm reduction services.⁶ In most countries where needle and syringe programmes and opioid substitution therapy are available, coverage is still poor, reaching far below the numbers needed to have an impact on the epidemic.^{7 8} The situation for people held in places of detention is dire. Thirty-nine countries currently provide opioid substitution therapy in prisons, while only ten provide needle and syringe exchange, often reaching small numbers in few institutions.⁹

Action required: Evidence-based programmes targeting people who inject drugs need to be implemented and scaled up urgently across all settings in order to effectively prevent the further spread of HIV.

Commitment: “Reduce the global HIV/AIDS resource gap” [paragraph 39]

Less than 10% of the estimated need for harm reduction funding globally is presently being met. Current expenditure works out to less than three US cents per day per person injecting drugs.^{1011 12}

Approximately US$160 million was spent on HIV-related harm reduction in low and middle income countries in 2007, falling far short of the US$2.13 billion that UNAIDS estimates was needed in 2009, and the $3.2 billion in 2010.

Action required: National and international resources for HIV-related harm reduction must be scaled up as a matter of urgency.

Commitment: “Eliminate gender inequalities, gender-based abuse and violence; increase the capacity of women and adolescent girls to protect themselves from the risk of HIV infection, principally through the provision of health care and services” [paragraph 30]

Women and girls who inject drugs are more vulnerable to drug-related harms, including HIV infection, than are men who inject drugs.¹³ In a number of regions globally, injecting drug use is often perceived to conflict with the “socially derived roles of women as mothers, partners and caretakers”, exposing them to greater stigma and human rights violations than men who inject drugs.^{13 14 15} Most women do not have access to services that meet their sexual and reproductive health needs and increase their capacity to protect themselves from HIV infection.¹⁶ Incarcerated women who inject drugs face elevated health risks, including HIV infection, than do non-incarcerated women, yet have little or no access to legal frameworks and services that address their particular needs.^{17 18 19}

Action required: Gender-specific services and policies that facilitate their implementation are urgently required to ensure that women who inject drugs can effectively protect themselves from HIV infection.

Commitment: “Address the rising rates of HIV infection among young people to ensure an HIV-free future generation through the implementation of comprehensive, evidence-based prevention strategies” [paragraph 26]

Young people are increasingly affected by HIV and other harms associated with drug injecting.^{20 21} While we know that early intervention is necessary across age groups, legal barriers often prevent their implementation.^{22 23} In accordance with recent recommendations by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, there remains a need to provide “specialised and youth friendly...harm reduction services for young people” and to “amend laws that criminalise children for possession or use of drugs” in countries where such policies continue to be enforced.²²

Action required: In order to effectively address drug injecting among young people, legal age restrictions for accessing sterile equipment and opioid substitution therapy must be lifted. Services integrating harm reduction, HIV testing and prevention, and sexual and reproductive health for young people must be made widely accessible.

Commitment: “Overcome legal, regulatory or other barriers that block access to effective HIV prevention, treatment, care and support” [paragraph 15]

There is clear evidence that criminalisation of people who use drugs and law enforcement have not only failed to reduce the prevalence of drug use, but have created harms that fuel the HIV epidemic.^{23 24 25 26} Many countries continue to prohibit the provision of sterile injecting equipment and opioid substitution therapy and criminalise drug possession and paraphernalia.^{2728 29 30}

Such measures can drive people who inject drugs away from prevention and care services and increase the risk of HIV infection. People who inject drugs face further discrimination in terms of access to effective HIV treatment.

Action required: Ineffective and punitive drug policies, particularly criminalisation of drug possession, must be reformed to ensure the realisation of human rights, and to support the implementation of evidence-based interventions for people who inject drugs, as outlined in the Vienna Declaration.³¹

Commitment: “Eliminate all forms of discrimination against and ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by people living with HIV and members of vulnerable groups” [paragraph 29]

People who inject drugs, particularly women, continue to experience multiple layers of stigma and discrimination that effectively undermine HIV prevention, treatment and support efforts.^{3233 34 35 36} Record incarceration figures due to drug law enforcement have led to overcrowding and poor conditions in prisons.^{37 38}

Severe human rights violations against people who use drugs, such as cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, arbitrary arrest and detention, and extortion and police violence have been documented widely in a number of countries.

Action required: Punitive and discriminatory measures must be discontinued, and adequate resources dedicated to promoting health and human rights-based responses to drug use and HIV.

References

¹ UNAIDS (2010) Global Report on the AIDS Epidemic. View report Geneva: The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS.
² Mathers B et al (2008). The global epidemiology of injecting drug use and HIV among people who inject drugs: A systematic review. Lancet, 372 (9651), 1733-1745.
³ Mathers B et al (2010). HIV prevention, treatment, and care services for people who inject drugs: A systematic review of global, regional, and national coverage. Lancet, 375, DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60232-2.
⁴ 2001 Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS, UN GA Special Session on HIV/AIDS, 25-27 June 2001, paragraph 7.
⁵ Political Declaration on HIV/AIDS UN GA Res 60/262, 2 June 2006, paragraph 14.
⁶ Cook C. (2010) The Global State of Harm Reduction: Key Issues for Broadening the Response. London: International Harm Reduction Association.
⁷ Mathers, B. Degenhardt, L. Ali, H. Wiessing, L. Hickman, M. Mattick, R. P. Myers, B. Ambekar, A. Strathdee, S. A. HIV prevention, treatment, and care services for people who inject drugs: a systematic review of global, regional, and national coverage. The Lancet. 2010 Mar. 20: 375(9719):1014-28.
⁸ WHO, UNODC, UNAIDS (2009) Technical Guide for Countries to Set Targets for Universal Access to HIV Prevention, Treatment and Care for Injecting Drug Users. Geneva: World Health Organisation.
⁹ Jurgens R. (2010) ‘Out of sight, out of mind: Harm reduction in prisons and other places of detention.’ In The Global State of Harm Reduction: Key Issues for Broadening the Response. London: International Harm Reduction Association.
¹⁰ Stimson G., Cook C., Bridge J., Rio-Navarro J., Lines R., Barrett D. (2010) Three Cents a Day Is Not Enough: Resourcing Harm Reduction on a Global Basis. London: International Harm Reduction Association.
¹¹ Stimson G., Cook C., Bridge J., Rio-Navarro J., Lines R., Barrett D. (2010) Three Centre a Day Is Not Enough: Resourcing Harm Reduction on a Global Basis. London: International Harm Reduction Association.
¹² UNAIDS (2007) Financial Resources Required to Achieve Universal Access to HIV Prevention, Treatment, Care and Support. UNAIDS Inter-agency Task Team on Young People. World Health Organisation: Geneva.
¹³ Roberts A., Mathers B. and Degenhardt L. (2010) Women who inject drugs: A review of their risks, experiences and needs. Secretariat of the Reference Group to the UN on HIV and Injecting Drug Use. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC), University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
¹⁴ Sherman, S.G., Women and drugs across the globe: A call to action. International Journal of Drug Policy, 2008. 19(2): p. 97‐98.
¹⁵ Olszewski, D., Giraudon, I., Hedrich, D., Montanari, L., Women's Voices: Experiences and perceptions of women who face drug‐related problems in Europe. 2009. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
¹⁶ Roberts A., Mathers B. and Degenhardt L. (2010) Women who inject drugs: A review of their risks, experiences and needs. Secretariat of the Reference Group to the UN on HIV and Injecting Drug Use. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC), University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
¹⁷ Ashdown J. and James M. (2010) Women in Detention. International Review of the Red Cross. Volume 92: 877.
¹⁸ Ashdown J. and James M. (2010) Women in Detention. International Review of the Red Cross. Volume 92: 877.
¹⁹ WHO, UNODC (2009) Women’s health in prison: correcting gender inequity in prison health. Download PDF. Copenhagen, Denmark.
²⁰ EHRN (2009) Young people and injecting drug use in selected countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Eds. Jean-Paul Grund and Simona Merkinaite. Eurasian Harm Reduction Network View PDF.
²¹ WHO (2006) Preventing HIV/AIDS in Young People: A systematic review of the evidence from developing countries. Eds. David A. Ross, Bruce Dick and Jane Ferguson. UNAIDS Inter-agency Task Team on Young People. World Health Organisation: Geneva.
²² Committee on the Rights of the Child (2011) Fifty-sixth session: Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Article 44 of the Convention.
²³ Degenhardt L, Chiu W-T, Sampson N, et al. (2008) Toward a global view of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, and cocaine use: Findings from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. PLOS Medicine. 5:1053-67.
²⁴ Jurgens R, Ball A, Verster A. (2009) Interventions to reduce HIV transmission related to injecting drug use in prison. Lancet Infectious Disease. 9:57-66.
²⁵ The National Centre on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (2009). Shoveling up II: The impact of substance abuse on State budgets. New York: Columbia University.
²⁶ Reuter P. (2009) Ten years after the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS): assessing drug problems, policies and reform proposals. Addiction 2009;104:510-7.
²⁷ Reuter P. (2009) Ten years after the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS): assessing drug problems, policies and reform proposals. Addiction. 104:510-7.
²⁸ Lert F. and Kazatchkine M.D. (2007) Antiretroviral HIV treatment and care for injecting drug users: an evidence-based overview. International Journal of Drug Policy. 18:4.
²⁹ IHRD (2008). Harm Reduction Developments 2008: Countries with Injection Driven HIV Epidemics. New York: International Harm Reduction Development Program (IHRD) of the Open Society Institute.
³⁰ Wolfe D., Carrieri P. and Shepard D. (2010) Treatment and care for injecting drug users with HIV infection: a review of barriers and ways forward. Lancet. 376: 9738, 355-366.
³¹ The Vienna Declaration (2010) View declaration.
³² Ahern J, Stuber J, Galea S. (2007) Stigma, discrimination and the health of illicit drug users. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 88:188.
³³ Gallahue P. and Lines R. (2010) The Death Penalty for Drug Offences: Global Overview 2010. The International Harm Reduction Association. London: International Harm Reduction Association (IHRA).
³⁴ Open Society Foundations (2010) Human Rights and Drug Policy Briefings for the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs “Briefing 2: Human Rights and Drug Policy: Drugs, Criminal Laws and Policing Practices.” Download PDF. December 2010.
³⁵ Human Rights Watch (2010) Where Darkness Knows No Limits: Incarceration, Ill-treatment and Forced Labour as Drug Rehabilitation in China. Ed. Joseph Amon. New York: Human Rights Watch.
³⁶ IHRD (2009) Human Rights Abuses in the Name of Drug Treatment: Reports from the Field. New York: International Harm Reduction Development Program (IHRD) of the Open Society Institute.
³⁷ United Nations General Assembly. A/65/255 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. Paragraph 68.
³⁸ C. Hughes and A. Stevens (2007) The Effects of Decriminalization of Drug Use in Portugal. The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme. Briefing Paper 14.