11 current Latin American leaders call for exploration of legal drug regulation

                                                                                                   

          Tuxtla Summit Merida, Yucatan Dec. 2012. Photo credit: Mexican Presidnet's website

A remarkable and almost unreported event took place at the beginning of December last year at the somewhat obscure, 13th summit of the Tuxtla Mechanism for Dialogue. (See here For more on the Mechanism.)

It was reported in El Universal on 6 Dec 'Frenar consumo de droga o regularlo, exigen paises a EU' and in the Washington Post on 19 Dec 'Latin American leaders assail US drug 'market'', but has had no international pick up beyond.

A dozen Latin American countries issued a joint statement on organised crime and drug trafficking (here is the original Spanish text on the Mexican Government website).  Point 7 is translated here:

“What would be desirable, would be a significant reduction in the demand for illegal drugs. Nevertheless, if that is not possible, as recent experience demonstrates, the authorities of the consuming countries ought then to explore the possible alternatives to eliminate the exorbitant profits of the criminals, including regulatory or market oriented options to this end. Thus, the transit of substances that continue provoking high levels of crime and violence in Latin American and Caribbean nations will be avoided.”

What is remarkable is that the call to reduce demand (that no one would take issue with in principle) comes with the caveat that there is little evidence that this is possible, thereby leaving the call to explore alternatives - including 'regulatory or market oriented options'. This is in effect, an unambiguous call to legalise and regulate drugs. This is a fairly standard construction of the issue (similar to that adopted by Calderon recently) to avoid using the loaded term of 'legalisation' (something Colombian President Santos has been less hesitant about).

The statement is a clear acknowledgement of the often unspoken understanding that the war on drugs is fuelling  much of the violence and chaos in Latin America. This then is a very clear call on consumer countries to take the lead in ending the war and replacing it with a legal system of regulation and control.

The summit was attended by the Presidents of Guatemala, Alvaro Colom; Honduras, Porfirio Lobo; Mexico, Felipe Calderon; Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega; Panama, Ricardo Martinelli; the Dominican Republic, Leonel Fernandez; and the First Vice President of Costa Rica, Alfio Piva Messer. Also present were the Foreign Ministers of Belize, Wilfred Elrington; Colombia, Maria Angela Holguin; and El Salvador, Hugo Martinez. Chilean President Sebastián Piñera was also present as a special guest.

Following President Santos’s lead, twelve countries have now effcetively called for an end to the war on drugs. The significance of this is great, but the silence following it has been deafening. Perhaps because there was no pro-active media promotion of the statement, it has not been reported anywhere nearly as widely as last years ground breaking Global Commission report. That report - suypported by a global media campaign - was however, made up almost entirely of former presidents. The Tuxtla group are all incumbents.

This is a game changer. It is difficult to see how for example, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs can go through its standard motions with this Declaration on the table - it a direct challenge to the restrictions placed on signatory states experimenting with alternatives to prohibtion. The same is likely to be the case for any other transnational events based on entrenched prohibtionist orthodoxy. The issue ought now to be high on the agenda of any and all summits involving Latin American countries – G20, Summit of the Americas and so on.

Whilst this is a step change in the level of challenge to the prohibitionist orthodoxy, there are problems with it too. It is a construction of the issue fully intended to take the heat off producer and transit countries and place the blame for their problems squarely at the door of the US and other major consumer countries. This is entirely understandable given the historical and geopolitical context of contemporary prohibition. However, it raises two important issues:

Firstly, Are the Latin Americans seriously going to wait until the US leads them to a brave new world of peace? And secondly, the fact is that ALL countries (including the Latin Americans) are signatories to the Conventions upon which the drug war is founded. Whilst the geopolitical pressure for non-super powers to sign up and adhere to the Conventions is huge, it is nonetheless a fact that they are complicit in maintaining the legal infrastructure of the war on drugs and pursue the war with a ferocity unseen in other parts of the world. Their position would be more credible if they were to make moves nationally, regionally, and at the UN, to de-securitise drugs and develop and implement policies that adhere to human rights and public health norms.

That said, this is still a watershed moment in calling time on the war on drugs and those countries that are taking the lead deserve great credit for going on the record publicly (albeit quietly). We would encourage readers of this blog to contact their elected representatives to inform them of this development and to take the time to praise those leaders who were there, for making this statement.

Daily Mail and the Cochrane review on heroin prescribing

I've just sent the following email:

Dear [Daily Mail] Corrections editor

There appears to be a quite serious factual error in the piece 'More heroin for heroin addicts – is the Department of Health quite off its head?' by Kathy Gyngell online here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2095339/More-heroin-heroin-addicts--Department-Health-quite-head.html

I am unclear if this is only in the Mail Online or also in the print version. Regardless, in this piece the author states that:

"The last Cochrane Review on the matter concluded that, ‘No definitive conclusions about the overall effectiveness of heroin is possible’. The DoH, though, was persuaded that UK trials would prove this wrong."

Although not cited or linked directly (which, as an aside, would be useful - in fact I would suggest should be standard practice when referencing scientific literature) this appears to be quoted from the conclusion of July 2009 Cochrane study on 'heroin maintenance for chronic heroin dependents' which is available here:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003410.pub2/abstract

Its conclusion in full:

"No definitive conclusions about the overall effectiveness of heroin prescription is possible. Results favouring heroin treatment come from studies conducted in countries where easily accessible Methadone Maintenance Treatment at effective dosages is available. In those studies heroin prescription was addressed to patients who had failed previous methadone treatments. The present review contains information about ongoing trials which results will be integrated as soon as available."

This study has, however, subsequently been updated twice. All Cochrane reports are subject to regular review, with any new study findings incorporated, and conclusions updated accordingly.

An updated version of the study was published in August 2010

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003410.pub3/abstract

In this updated version, the conclusion was also updated to:

"The available evidence suggests an added value of heroin prescribed alongside flexible doses of methadone for long-term, treatment refractory, opioid users, to reach a decrease in the use of illicit substances, involvement in criminal activity and incarceration, a possible reduction in mortaliity; and an increase in retention in treatment. Due to the higher rate of serious adverse events, heroin prescription should remain a treatment for people who are currently or have in the past failed maintenance treatment, and it should be provided in clinical settings where proper follow-up is ensured."

The statement quoted by Gyngell, that ‘No definitive conclusions about the overall effectiveness of heroin is possible’ is no longer in the conclusion.

It was reviewed/updated a second time in December 2011, and the conclusion did not change:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003410.pub4/abstract

The quote used would therefore appear not be from the 'the last Cochrane review' - indeed the most recent two Cochrane reviews do not include this quote. Please bear in mind that Cochrane is regarded as the gold standard in evidence based analysis of health interventions, and thus particular care needs to be taken when quoting them in support of a particular view.

Given that the updated conclusions no longer include the quoted statement, and the meaning of the conclusion is now somewhat different to what is implied in the Gyngell piece, I feel a correction should be made and the piece updated (or removed),  along with an apology to both Cochrane Library for misrepresenting their work, and to readers for potentially misleading them.

I look forward to hearing from you

regards

Steve Rolles, etc...

Ive also pointed out the mistake in the online comments thread. 

Just to note, there are certainly important debates to be had about the cost benefit analysis of heroin prescribing (Transform have made our own contribution here for example) and, as the Cochrane report makes clear - it is an intervention that current evidence only supports for a fairly small group of problematic injectors (although some newer evidence suggest wider applicability). The contributions of Kathy and others is certainly a valid part of the debate, whether you agree with them or not.

Clearly different interventions will work for different people, and these are decisions that need to be made by doctors and their clients based on the best possible evidence. That the Government has made this particular option more available based on new evidence (something you can obviously only get by doing the trials the Mail seems so critical of) is surely a welcome development. All other debates aside, making sure treatment providers should have the widest possible range of options available, informed by the best possible evidence, is unambiguously a good thing.  

Anyway - this is really just to flag up that the Cochrane library has apparently been misrepresented in the Mail, and whatever one may feel about the heroin / drug policy debate, that is not a good thing.

Finally, if I've made a mistake about this - and these things do happen, Im happy to put up a correction and apology. 

Latin America: Crucible for a new approach to drugs?

The debate on drug law reform continues to gather momentum in Latin America with another statement from the Colombian President on legalisation. As told by Colombia Reports:

Santos and Nicaraguan writer and former vice-President Sergio Ramirez discussed the possibility of legalizing drugs and the impact on Latin America, during a debate at the literature and arts Hay Festival in the coastal city of Cartagena.  "I know that this can't be the opinion of a state or the president of the republic, but I am a normal citizen, so I can [say it]. The solution is decriminalizing drugs. It must be decriminalized," Ramirez was quoted by Colombia's presidential website.

"I am not against this," Santos responded. "And I am saying this as president of the republic. This decision would be acceptable for Colombia if taken by the entire world." "Colombia maybe the country that has suffered most fighting drug trafficking. It has cost us our best leaders, our best journalists, our best judges and our best policemen," Santos added.

There is some confusion here (perhaps an issue of translation) between 'decriminalisation' (generally referring to personal possession/use) and 'legalisation' (generally referring to exploring regulated markets) although it is safe to assume, from previous comments made by Santos, that he is talking about the latter*.

In fact Santos is clear in his statements that he supports not only a debate on legalisation but that he would not oppose legal regulation of some drugs - notably marijuana and possibly cocaine - if it was a multilateral initiative. His reluctance to act unilaterally is understandable given not only the international nature of both the trade and the legal framework, but the serious diplomatic and political flak Colombia would risk attracting from the US and others.

He has also said he does not want to lead the debate, but is in effect doing just that with his regular comments on the subject. He is no doubt fully aware of the media impact they have, especially given Colombia's profile and influence, and its unique place in drug war history. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that he is making a considered and deliberate effort to push this issue forward on the domestic and international stage.

That he is a sitting head of state makes these comments especially significant. Many former Latin heads of state have made similar statements, not least in last year's Global Commission on Drug Policy.  One of his predecessors, Cesar Gaviria, recently wrote the foreword to the Spanish Translation of  Transform's 'After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation'.

These comments have served the useful function of creating political space for others, including recently Mexico's President Calderon, and Guatemalan President Molina, to start speaking out too.

Comments from multiple sitting presidents are far harder for other governments to brush aside. Compare the US' cursory dismissal of the Global Commission report with the more diplomatic statements from the US ambassador to Colombia who acknowledged that legalisation was 'on the table' and 'had to be addressed'. Or the comments this week from U.S. Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman that she 'respects' the call for a debate despite not supporting legalisation.

Progress then, in taking the debate forward at least. But are we edging towards something more concrete?

In Colombia itself Santos' leadership on this issue ontinues to spark debate, support and opposition, but interestingly may have also prompted the creation of a national steering committee led by former General Secretary of the PDA party Bula Camacho, and former Attorney General Gustavo de Greiff's Office. they are proposing to run; "a vast campaign at the international level at UNASUR, the OAS and the UN....to move from the "timid proposal" made by President Juan Manuel Santos to take concrete steps for the international community to decide on decriminalization [probably meaning legalisation given the context] as a means to counter the scourge of drug trafficking.". This grouping is led by Santos' leftist opponents - but notably they are trying to outflank him as reformer,  rather than the more familiar rhetorical drug war posturing in opposing such moves seen elsewhere, including the UK. 

It remains to be seen who else gets involved, and with what resources, but getting the issue of legally regulating drugs on the agenda of the organisations Camacho mentions would be a major step forwards. And domestic pressure to speak up at the OAS, UNASUR or CELAC  may be exactly what Santos wants.

With the ever growing confidence and assertiveness of the region, building a coalition of Latin American countries on the way to calling for increased policy flexibility at the UN level (that would atleast allow exploration of decriminalisation / rregulation models) really would be that over used phrase - a game changer.

Useful background coverage from Colombia Reports here 

*decriminalisation of personal use is less controversial in Latin America - already being in place in a number of Latin American Countries, including Mexico and Colombia - although the Colombian situation is in legal flux. See Drug reform in Latin America

Released today: new Count the Costs briefing on the crime costs of the war on drugs

Click to download the PDF

This below is reproduced from the Count the Costs blog.

Far from eliminating drug use and the illicit trade, prohibition has inadvertently fuelled the development of the world’s largest illegal commodities market – a market worth hundreds of billions of dollars, controlled solely by criminal profiteers. Produced in collaboration with project supporters Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, Transform Drug Policy Foundation, Release, theInternational Centre for Science in Drug Policy and Harm Reduction International, the latest Count the Costs briefing outlines how this illicit, unregulated market generates:

• Organised crime
• Street crime
• Mass incarceration
• Violent crime
• Crimes perpetrated by governments/states
• Vast economic costs in terms of drug war-related enforcement

The briefing will form a key part of our outreach to mainstream NGOs working in the criminal justice sector, building on the endorsements Count the Costs has already received from organisations such as the Howard League for Penal Reform and Make Justice Work.

Evidence from across the world reveals that although law enforcement can show seemingly impressive results in terms of arrests and seizures, impacts on the drug market are inevitably marginal, localised and temporary. Indeed, as the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime acknowledges, one of the unintended consequences of the war on drugs is the so-called “balloon effect”, whereby rather than eliminating criminal activity, enforcement just moves it somewhere else. When enforcement does take out criminals, it also creates a vacuum, and even more violence, as rival gangs fight for control.

The Count the Costs initiative has the widely shared goal of a safer, healthier and more just world. It is time for all sectors affected by current approaches to drugs, particularly those agencies, organisations and individuals concerned with crime reduction, to call on governments and the UN to Count the Costs of the war on drugs and explore the alternatives.

Christmas Match Funding Challenge Starts Today! Double Your Gift And Help End the War On Drugs

The Allen Lane Foundation, for a second year running, have offered us an amazing opportunity to get your gift to End the War on Drugs doubled, and it starts TODAY.

Increasing numbers of politicians, policemen, doctors, journalists, and academics are acknowledging that the War on Drugs has failed. Even the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, which is responsible for enforcing the current approach, has identified huge negative unintended consequences of this policy.

Deploying military and police to eradicate drug crops, ever more punitive enforcement activities, and mass incarceration are expensive and invariably counter-productive. The drug war is having a particularly devastating impact on some of the most vulnerable throughout the world. From Afghanistan, to Mexico, to the UK, leaving the drug trade in the hands of violent criminals is destroying communities, and ensuring drug related heath harms continue to get worse. 

Yet, we are now at a once-in-a-generation tipping-point moment. This year, we have seen a growing trend towards the decriminalisation of drug possession internationally, and a rising chorus of voices calling for a new approach to drug policy, with public figures such as the Global Commission on Drug Policy, (including Kofi Annan and four former heads of state), a former UK Defence Secretary, the editor of the British Medical Journal, and the serving Presidents of Mexico and Colombia all questioning the war on drugs and calling for reform.

Transform has played a key role in shifting the domestic and international debate from the margins to the mainstream, and meaningful reforms are now a very real possibility. We need your help to build on this momentum and seize this opportunity to end the war on drugs.

If you donate through our website today your gift could be worth twice as much (and even more with Gift Aid). It's all thanks to the Allen Lane Foundation who will match gifts pound-for-pound online. And, this year, the pot of matched funding available is worth £70,000 - that means there’s never been a better time to give.

So, please, get your gift doubled right now. And, don't forget to forward this message to your friends and family too, and help us make the most of this amazing opportunity to end the War on Drugs and create a safer, healthier world.

We really do appreciate your help. Thank you and Merry Christmas

Caroline Pringle
Chief Executive

An evidence based experiment in the criminalisation of drug use – Czech it out

We were surprised and impressed recently when we came across a little known piece of work that shows how a government, well disposed to using evidence to influence its drug policy, can employ science to make a positive difference.

Earlier this month Steve Rolles and Danny Kushlick attended an event at the House of Lords. One of the presentations was by Pavel Bem, a conservative MP in the Czech Parliament.  He presented the results of an impact analysis that effectively paved the way for the contemporary Czech decriminalisation of drug possession in 2002.  The initiative was, in effect, a perfect experiment:

This is the brief history:

 

• 1993    Governmental Drug Commission
• 1993    1st National Drug Strategy - drugs decrminalised for persoanl possession
• 1998    Criminal Law penalizing possession brought in
• 1999    Impact Analysis Project (PAD) of the New Drugs Legislation (GDC)
• 2002    PAD outcomes prove negative impacts
• 2002-10 New National Drug Strategy and New Penal Code - decriminalises possession

A period of decriminalisation of possession was briefly interrupted by recriminalisation.  Following an impact analysis of the recriminalisation, showing negative outcomes, drugs were decriminalised again.

The following is taken from the TNI’s excellent Drug LawReform in Latin America Website:

The first major post-communist reform of Czech drug laws was completed as early as 1990. Among other legislative changes that were seen as returns to democratic and humanistic values, capital punishment and punishment for simple possession of illegal drugs were abolished.

However, in 1997 a proposal was submitted to the Czech parliament that would re-introduce criminal penalties for drug users for possession of any amount of illegal drugs. The government subsequently submitted its own more modest proposal introducing criminalization of possession, but only for amounts that were "bigger than small", which was approved by parliament in April 1998.

The law was subsequently vetoed by Vaclav Havel, then president of the Czech Republic. Then, the parliament overturned the president's veto and the amended law went into effect on January 1, 1999. Following these turbulent events, the National Drug Commission proposed that the government evaluate the impact of the new amendments by means of funding a scientific study.

The researchers were asked to address five hypotheses that the Czech government wanted to have tested. The hypotheses were: "After the introduction of the penalty for possession of illegal drugs, (1) availability of illegal drugs will decrease; (2) number of (prevalence of) current drug users will decrease; or at least (3) the incidence of new users will decrease; (4) there will be no increase in the negative health consequences related to illegal drugs; and (5) social costs will not increase."

The study, "An Impact Analysis Project of the New Drug Legislation in the Czech Republic" (October 2001), concluded that the implementation of a penalty for possession of illicit drugs for personal use did not meet any of the tested objectives and was loss-making from an economic point of view.

Download the summary document by clicking on the image below:

The importance of this social experiment cannot be underestimated.  It shows that if government is willing to operate according to evidence then the policy change can be made in accordance with it.

Whilst this was not a full impact assessment as we understand it, (for instance, it didn’t explore the possibility of legal regulation) it is important to know that this kind of work is possible to conduct and that if done well, it can affect policy decisions.

Impact Assessment can be conducted at all levels of government, from city to transnational.  We call on policy makers at every level to ensure cost-effectiveness of expenditure and demonstrate that key impacts are being achieved.  And we ask drug policy activists to pressure them to do so.

For more on Impact Assessment:

• Transform has a long standing call for Impact Assessment, supported by a wide range of individuals and organisations.

• Liberal Democrats conference motion

• European Commission – Impact Assessment of legal highs

• International Drug Policy Consortium – Impact Assessment Briefing

2 Literary Stocking fillers – Drugs and drug policy ‘Must reads’

Here are two books that would make excellent Christmas presents this year.  The first is drugs historian, writer, broadcaster and Transform Trustee Mike Jay’s recently updated:

Emperors of Dreams – Drugs in the nineteenth century:

About which Julian Keeling in The New Statesman and Society said:

"Intelligent, witty, cogent and a bit pissed off, Emperors of Dreams is one of the best books on drugs I have come across, and should be mandatory reading for anyone concerned with drug legalisation."

Coleridge and de Quincey swilling bitter draughts of laudanum, Sigmund Freud and Sherlock Holmes dallying with cocaine, Baudelaire and Gautier rapt in hashish fantasies behind velvet curtains, even Queen Victoria swallowing her prescription dose of cannabis - these snapshot images are familiar, but what is the story which lies behind them? How did cannabis and cocaine, opium and ether, mushrooms and mescaline enter the worlds of nineteenth century Britain, Europe and America, and what was their impact on the century’s dreams and nightmares?

Emperors of Dreams paints a fresh and startling picture both of today’s illicit drugs and of the nineteenth century in general. It shows that the age of Empire and Victorian values was awash with drugs, and traces their course through the rapidly evolving arenas of science and colonial expansion and the demimondes of popular subculture and literary fashion, putting into context the drug habits and references of writers as diverse as Coleridge, de Quincey, Baudelaire, Dumas, Conan Doyle, Robert Louis Stevenson, William James and Sigmund Freud.

See here for more reviews

The second is former Guardian Society Editor Malcolm Dean’s:

Democracy Under Attack – How the media distort policy and politics

Geoff Mulgan, former Director of the Prime Minister's Policy Unit and the Cabinet Office's Strategy Unit in Tony Blair's Government says of the book:

"Malcolm Dean has been uniquely well-placed to witness innumerable policy successes and failures, and the often distorted lens through which they have been covered by the media. This thoughtful and wise book will be invaluable for anyone working in the media who's involved in explaining social policy, and to anyone involved in social policy who needs to get the media on their side."

How big a beast is the media? Can right wing tabloids influence social policy using their ability to fan fears and prejudices? Malcolm Dean, the Guardian's longstanding chief monitor of social policy, expertly indicts his own trade through a series of seven case studies. Drawing on four decades of top level Whitehall briefings, topped up by interviews with 150 senior participants in the policy-making process, the book is packed with new insights, and colourful stories, from events in Whitehall's corridors, culminating in a damning list detailing the seven deadly sins of the 'reptiles' (modern journalists).

It has a cogent, detailed and comprehensive description of UK drug policy shenanigans from 2000-2007, including contributions from Transform.  

  

Reviewed in Camden New Journal

Its only competition covering this period is in The Diaries of Chris Mullin – A view from the foothills, 2009.  Which, amongst other gems, gives the inside dope on Mullin's groundbreaking leadership as Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee Drug Policy Enquiry of 2001/2.

If you are purchasing online, please do it through Transform's Amazon Account, to donate to Transform as you purchase. All books have a link to www.amazon.com where the book is available to purchase. If purchased through these links, thanks to the Amazon Associates affiliate programme, Transform receives a ten percent donation of the cost of the book.

Go on, fill your snow boots!

US Ambassador to Colombia says legalisation debate is 'on the table'

An interesting development in the Latin American drug law reform debate this week. In an interview with Spanish newspaper El Pais on Monday (as reported in Colombia reports), US Ambassador for Colombia, Peter Michael McKinley, when the question of Colmbian president Santos' recent remarks on drug legalisation came up, said that the issue 'had to be addressed':

"the issue presented itself several times in the last 20, 30 years, and it is now a question that is on the table, and what is always important in political debates is to analyze the options present."

McKinley, was clear however, said that even though the debate is taking place, the U.S.

"remained opposed to legalization." 

According to the report, the ambassador went on to describe Colombia as an important ally of the U.S. in the struggle against narco-trafficking, and praised the evolution of the Andean country over the last decade.

"The transformation of the past ten years in Colombia in terms of security, struggle against narco-terrorism, construction of institutions or strengthening democracy is something not only recognized by Colombians, but by governments on an international level,"

The significant part of this is the opening quote that acknowledges the active debate happening in Latin America, that legalisation is 'on the table' in that debate, and that it is important to analyze all the options. This is ofcourse a long way from endorsing a reform position, indeed he makes the US opposition all too clear. However, the statement is effectively an endorsement of the Santos position - that there needs to be a debate of the options, and legalisation (or as Calderon puts it 'market alternatives') needs to be amongst them.

Even this acknowledgement of the importance of a debate and analysis of options feels like progress in the context of the historically entrenched viewpoint and hawkish drug-war posturing. 

Home Affairs Select Committee announces major new drugs Inquiry

The Home Affairs Select Committee today announced a major new Inquiry into the UK's drug policy. The terms of reference are as follows:

"DRUGS

The Committee will undertake a comprehensive review of drugs policy in the new year. The Committee will examine the effectiveness of the Government’s 2010 drugs strategy and the UK Government’s contribution to global efforts to reduce the supply and demand of illicit drugs. Specifically, the Committee will consider:

• The extent to which the Government’s 2010 drug strategy is a ‘fiscally responsible policy with strategies grounded in science, health, security and human rights’ in line with the recent recommendation by the Global Commission on Drug Policy
• The criteria used by the Government to measure the efficacy of its drug policies
• The independence and quality of expert advice which is being given to the government
• Whether drug-related policing and expenditure is likely to decrease in line with police budgets and what impact this may have
• The cost effectiveness of different policies to reduce drug usage
• The extent to which public health considerations should play a leading role in developing drugs policy
• The relationship between drug and alcohol abuse
• The comparative harm and cost of legal and illegal drugs
• The impact of the transfer of functions of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse to Public Health England and how this will affect the provision of treatment
• The availability of ‘legal highs’ and the challenges associated with adapting the legal framework to deal with new substances
• The links between drugs, organised crime and terrorism
• Whether the UK is supporting its global partners effectively and what changes may occur with the introduction of the national crime agency
• Whether detailed consideration ought to be given to alternative ways of tackling the drugs dilemma, as recommended by the Select Committee in 2002 (The Government's Drugs Policy: Is It Working?, HC 318, 2001–02) and the Justice Committee’s 2010 Report on justice reinvestment (Cutting crime: the case for justice reinvestment, HC 94, 2009–10).”

Organisations and individuals interested in making written submissions are invited to do so by Tuesday 10 January 2012. Submissions should be no longer than 2,500 words. Further advice on making a submission can be found below."

It is a very wide mandate (perhaps too wide?) but the content of the questions is significant, with a clear focus on some of the key themes in the drug policy and law reform debate raised by the groundbreaking 2002 HASC drugs inquiry, and those that have developed subsequently.

Of note is the fact that the Global Commission Report (that made a range of pragmatic recommendations including decriminalisation of drug possession and an experiment with legalisation/regulation) - is mentioned at the outset, and the previous inquiry's final recommendation specifically alluded to at the end. This was:

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  

So there is a clear focus on the harms of prohibition and the law reform debate - obviously directly reinforced by a number of the other questions.

On past experience it's clear the Committee would not be raising these issues if it wasn't genuinely interested in them, and one senses the positive change in the political climate around this debate, in the media, in mainstream politics, in the public, and in Parliament have all laid the foundations for what could, potentially, be a very important piece of work.

A note of caution should come from the the last time the Committee tackled the drug issue - 2010's report on cocaine - which was very poor, disappointing on almost every front.  It's not clear who is driving this latest move, but it's welcome that it is happening and, as with the previous inquiries, we encourage interested parties to provide evidence, particularly those beyond the usual suspects.  The Count the Costs initiative provides a steer as to who they might be. Do contact us for help.



 

New Count the Costs briefing on the environmental costs of the war on drugs

The below is reproduced from the Count the Costs blog.

Continuing our engagement with organisations and individuals outside the drug policy sector, we are today pleased to announce the publication of the Count the Costs initiative Environment Briefing. We intend to use the briefing to encourage environmental NGOs – such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the World Wildlife Fund – to take a public stand on the drugs issue and advocate for reform. And we urge drug policy reformers and those in the environmental movement to use the briefing to encourage campaigns and policy people in green NGOs to engage with drug policy.

Examining a range of environmental issues surrounding the war on drugs, the briefing includes several case studies as well as sections on:

• The futility of drug crop eradications
• The aerial fumigation of drug crops, a practice that is still permitted in the world’s second most biodiverse country, Colombia
• The deforestation that occurs as law enforcement drives drug crop producers into ever more remote and ecologically valuable regions
• The pollution caused by unregulated, illicit drug production methods

While some of the consequences of the war on drugs are relatively well known and understood by those aware of the issue, the environmental impacts of current drug policy are seldom given proper consideration. This must change. As this briefing outlines, if these environmental costs are to be minimised or avoided, alternative forms of drug control must be explored.

The briefing is available online as a PDF, with print copies available on request. 

Transforming Drug Policy: A Shared Responsibility

The column below by Transform's head of External Affairs, Danny Kushlick, was published today on thejournal.ie website under the title: Prohibiting drugs hasn’t worked – so why are we still trying?

 
PRESIDENT JUAN MANUEL Santos of Colombia spent two days in London last week. He stated quite categorically that “cocaine is killing my country”, and that cocaine users should refrain because they are contributing to the mayhem in Colombia.

This line of argument emerged from a campaign developed in Colombia called Shared Responsibility. His rhetoric is especially interesting because in the Observer he recently called for a debate on the legalisation of cocaine. So what exactly is he saying, and why is it relevant for the people of Ireland?

First, let’s be absolutely clear – it is not cocaine, or cocaine use per se that is killing his country. The chaos and violence emerges from the cocaine market prospering under global prohibition. This is what creates the violence surrounding its production and supply; in precisely the same way that the prohibition of alcohol did in the US in the twenties. So Santos finds himself in a double bind: whilst he and his government have been highly critical, they are necessarily political supporters of the global war on drugs, a venture initiated and heavily backed by the US and other key allies.

The global prohibition of certain drugs (not alcohol or tobacco of course) for non-medical use came into being with the signing of the United Nations Single Convention on Drugs of 1961. The economics of prohibition means that commodities that are mere plants at the point of production, become worth more than their weight in gold by the time they reach Western consumers. There are now an estimated 250 million illegal drug users worldwide.

Tragically and predictably, by the mid 80s, organised criminals, insurgents and paramilitaries the world over had built huge empires on the extraordinary profits (with margins as high as 3,000 per cent) gifted to them by the prohibition. To confuse matters, the war on drugs was now conflated with the war on organised crime. And so the ‘Drug Problem’ was made manifest.

‘The people of Ireland are tacitly supporting the policy that is killing Colombia’

Most UN member states (including Colombia) are signatories to the UN Single Convention on Drugs – including the Republic of Ireland. And that is why Mr Santos’s statement about cocaine is of direct relevance to Irish people. The people of Ireland are tacitly supporting the policy that is killing Colombia.

But it is not just Colombia. Prohibition – the global war on drugs, is killing many others in Afghanistan, Guinea Bissau and Mexico (where over 40 000 have died in drug related violence since 2006). Ireland is a party to prohibition in principle and in law We are all in this together – it is a shared irresponsibility.

A poll earlier this year, commissioned by the European Commission sought the views of young people on drug policy throughout the EU. The highest levels of support for legalisation were from the citizens of Ireland and France, with 21 per cent saying that legalisation is one of the most effective ways of dealing with drugs.

There is clearly a mood to change policy and law, and at the very least to begin a debate on alternatives. So, why can’t a genuine, high-level debate begin? Fear and ignorance amongst both voters and politicians clearly underlie much of the stasis holding the current policy in place, but ‘politics’ is at least as important.

It is instructive to look at the drug policy trajectory of two world leaders – Barack Obama and David Cameron. Both are former users of illegal drugs and both held reform positions before they reached high office. Once in high office their views apparently shifted to more hawkish, populist positions.

‘Alternative views cannot be tolerated’

The fact is that the long standing system of prohibition has created an environment in which alternative views cannot be tolerated, resulting in the increasingly understood ‘retirement syndrome’, whereby recently retired government officials fall over each other to call for legalisation – freedom from political office allowing them to speak their minds.

Irish support for reform is reflected in the work of Paul O’Mahoney’s, The Irish War on Drugs: The Seductive Folly of Prohibition, in the politicking of Independent TD Luke “Ming’’ Flanagan, and the thoughtful policy development of Sinn Fein. In a recent news story, junior health minister Róisín Shortall – who is in charge of Ireland’s drugs strategy – said she had an “open mind” in relation to Portugal’s decriminalisation model. She said she was “particularly interested” in the country’s “yellow card” system, which warns users about their behaviour and tries to steer them away from drugs.

However, if Ireland is to free itself from the shackles of a policy developed in a bygone era, one which preceded the sixties drug culture and the widespread normalisation of recreational drug use, it will require politicians to step up to the mark and call for reform.

Mr Santos’s position is not completely coherent. He is fighting a war on drugs at the same time as calling for a debate about ending it. However, he has taken a courageous stance in calling for a debate on legalisation and regulation (to understand what this might mean see Transform’s groundbreaking book After the war on drugs – Blueprint for Regulation). He has shown leadership, but undoing the global prohibition will take more than that.

In order to transform drug policy into one that is effective, just and humane, UN member states will need to develop a coalition willing to act in concert to challenge the status quo. They will need to call on their peers to Count the Costs of the War on Drugs and explore the alternatives. This is about turning shared responsibility into something more than rhetoric. Putting in place a system of state regulation and control is no panacea.

However, Ireland can share the responsibility for global drug control and support President Santos in raising the debate on legalisation and regulation. Remaining silent on the issue at national and international levels is no longer an option for Ireland or for any other UN member state, for whom the status quo means support for the killing of Mr Santos’s country.

Danny Kushlick is the head of external affairs at the Transform Drug Policy Foundation. For more information, you can visit Transform’s website, blog, subscribe to their Facebook page or follow them on Twitter.

Former president of Brazil calls on NGOs to back the Count the Costs initiative at UK event

This blog originally appeared on the Count the Costs website.


Last Friday 18 November, Transform Drug Policy Foundation, in partnership witha group of major UK drug policy organisations, held a private dinner and discussion for a select group of 30 key NGOs from the development, security, human rights and environment sectors at the Commonwealth Club in London. The high-level event featured presentations by the former president of Brazil and chair of the Global Commission on Drug Policy Henrique Fernando Cardoso (available to view below), the former president of Switzerland Ruth Dreifuss (also of the Global Commission) and Eduardo Medina Mora, Mexican Ambassador to the UK and Mexico's former attorney general.

Former president of Brazil calls on NGOs to support Count the Costs from Transform on Vimeo.

The event, Time to Count the Costs of the War on Drugs, formed part of our wider Count the Costs initiative and focused on highlighting the devastating impact of the war on drugs on international development and security, human rights, and the environment. Briefings outlining the costs to these first two sectors can be downloaded from the Count the Costs website (development and security here; human rights here), and the environment briefing will be available in the next few days. 

We were delighted by the high-level representatives who attended our event and the overwhelmingly positive and supportive tone of the evening. While many of the attendees wish at present to remain anonymous, we can confirm that senior representatives from organisations such as Health Poverty Action, Avaaz, Christian Aid, the Institute for Development Studies and Penal Reform International all came to hear about the costs of the war on drugs to their respective fields.

In addition, following his attendance at the event, Jonathan Glennie of the Overseas Development Institute wrote an excellent piece in The Guardian mentioning Count the Costs and calling on the development community to engage with the drugs debate.

As a result of this event, and the Count the Costs initiative more generally, we're increasingly confident that mainstream, non-drug policy NGOs will become more and more involved in the drugs issue and help advocate for reform. Indeed, Count the Costs is demonstrating to a range of organisations the extent to which their work is being undermined by current drug policy – and why they need to take a stand on it.

To see the current list of organisations that endorse the Count the Costs initiative, see the supporters page. And, if you haven’t already, please sign up to the Count the Costs statement.

Drug Policy for the 21st Century: Film and Debate

On behalf of Transform Drug Policy Foundation Scotland, we're pleased to announce an upcoming event taking place in Glasgow, on 8 December.

'Drug Policy for the 21st Century' will feature the UK premiere of the award-winning Canadian documentary 'Raw Opium: Pain, Pleasure, Profits', as well as a presentation of the recommendations made in June this year by the Global Commission on Drug Policy. This will then feed into an open discussion guided by the following panel:

• Jolene Crawford, founder of Transform Drug Policy Foundation Scotland
• David Graham Scott, Glasgow-based filmmaker and public speaker on addiction issues
• David Liddell, director of the Scottish Drugs Forum
• Mike McCarron, board member of Transform Drug Policy Foundation Scotland with three decades' experience working on criminal justice, health and social issues

The event is being hosted by TDPF Scotland, in association with the Scottish Drugs Forum, Addiction Debates and the Royal Society of Arts.

Registration for the event costs £20. To book a place, please email info@tdpfscotland.org.uk, or telephone Mike McCarron on 07833 595 845.

Further details, including a full programme of the afternoon's proceedings, can be found in this PDF.

Sex, Drugs and a Rocky War: A Panel Discussion on Gender and Drugs

This panel discussion will take place on Thursday 17 November at the Centre for Culture, Media and Creative Industries (CMCI), Room 7C, Chesham Building, King's College London, Stand Campus, WC2R 2LS.

Panel presenters and topics will include:

• Emily Crick - MPhil Candidate at Swansea University - "A Brief History of International Drug Laws and the Absence of Gender"
• Jane Slater - Operations and Fundraising Manager, Transform Drug Policy Foundation - "Gender: Counting the Costs of the Drug War"
• Francesca Tronco Garcia - former member of the United Nations Office for the High Commissioner of Human Rights in Mexico - "Obscurity and Impunity: An Overview of the Gendered Effects of the Militarization Under the Mexican War on Drugs"

For more information, please read the flyer below.

Parliamentary Motion calls for Impact Assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act

The following Early Day Motion has been tabled in the UK parliament

"That this House notes the serious harm caused by drugs; recognises the need for evidence-based policy making with a clear focus on prevention and harm-reduction; and calls on the Government to establish an independent panel tasked with carrying out an impact assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, reviewing the approach adopted by other countries, and making recommendations for reform."

It has so far been supported by

Tom Brake	09/11/2011	Carshalton & Wallington	Liberal Democrat	Proposed
Peter Bottomley	09/11/2011	Worthing West	Conservative	Seconded
Bob Ainsworth	09/11/2011	Coventry North East	Labour	Seconded
Caroline Lucas	09/11/2011	Brighton, Pavilion	Green	Seconded
Julian Huppert	09/11/2011	Cambridge	Liberal Democrat	Seconded
Paul Flynn	09/11/2011	Newport West	Labour	Seconded
John McDonnell	09/11/2011	Hayes & Harlington	Labour	Signed
Andrew George	10/11/2011	St Ives	Liberal Democrat	Signed
Jonathan Edwards	10/11/2011	Carmarthen East	Plaid Cymru	Signed

You can follow the list of signatories of this EDM here, and find out more about  EDMs here.

Transform urges UK supporters to contact your local MP and encourage them to support this EDM (see comments below - this can really help, not least because there are many EDMs and MPs are not always aware of them all). You can also be clear that it is a call for an evidence based policy - not any given policy position, or party position.

Transform has been campaigning for an Impact Assessment for a number of years (see here for more information). You can find out more about Impact Assessments by reading this briefing produced by Transform and the International Drug Policy Consortium.

Thousands caned, whipped, lashed or flogged each year for drug and alcohol offences, says new report

We are pleased to copy the media release from Harm Reduction International (below) announcing their important new report published today, on the widespread illegal use of judicial corporal punishment for drug offences.

Governments cannot ‘brutalise their way out of a drug problem’, says international group

Thousands of drug users and alcohol consumers – and people found in possession of small amounts of drugs and alcohol – are subjected to judicially-sanctioned caning, flogging, lashing or whipping each year, says a new report.*

In the landmark study, the non-governmental organisation Harm Reduction International** finds that over forty states apply some type of judicial corporal punishment for drug and alcohol offences. The vast majority of these sentences are handed down in countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Iran and Saudi Arabia. According to the report, such state-sanctioned violence is in clear violation of international law. The report will be launched today in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

The use of caning, flogging, lashing and whipping is in direct violation of international law that prohibits the use of corporal punishment. UN human rights monitors have expressed their concern number of times about the legislation in various countries that allow law enforcement to inflict these types of cruel, inhumane and degrading punishments. Judicial corporal punishment is practiced in countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Libya, Brunei, Darussalam, Maldives, Indonesia (Aceh) and Nigeria (northern states) and many more.

'The use of caning, whipping, lashing and flogging as a sentence for drug or alcohol offences is a clear violation of international human rights law, amounting to cruel inhumane degrading treatment or punishment,‘ said Rick Lines, Executive Director of Harm Reduction International.

'Effective drug policies are those that respect human rights, international standards and scientific evidence of effectiveness,’ said Lines ‘Corporal punishment for drug and alcohol offences fails all three of these tests. It amounts to little more that a government trying to brutalise its way out of a drug problem.'

Said Eka Iakobishvili, Human Rights Analyst for Harm Reduction International and author of the report, ‘There is a need for much more analysis on the impact of practices such as flogging and caning on the lives of the people who are subjected to them. These sentences leave lifelong marks not only people’s physical bodies, but on their psychology as well, that is impossible to cure.’

Inflicting Harm: Judicial corporal punishment for Drug and Alcohol Offences in Selected Countries

To view the full report please click here (PDF, 2 MB)


Further information:

Eka Iakobishvili, Human Rights Analyst and author of the report

Mobile: +44 (0) 79 2561 0407

Email: eka@ihra.net

* ‘Inflicting Harm: Judicial corporal punishment for Drug and Alcohol Offences in Selected Countries’ by Eka Iakobishvili. Published by Harm Reduction International, 2011.

** Harm Reduction International is a leading non-governmental organisation working to promote and expand support for harm reduction worldwide. We work to reduce the negative health, social and human rights impacts of drug use and drug policy – such as the increased vulnerability to HIV and hepatitis infection among people who inject drugs – by promoting evidence-based public health policies and practices, and human rights based approaches to drug policy.

Stop the Violence: Cannabis prohibition, organized crime, and gangs

Stop the Violence BC (British Colombia, Canada) is a new coalition of academics, past and present members of law enforcement, and the general public, concerned about the links between cannabis prohibition in BC and the growth of organized crime and related violence in the province.

Check out the new website here

New animated short video explaining the issues and introduing the new organisation:




From the website:

What is Stop the Violence BC’s objective?

Stop the Violence is an educational campaign seeking to improve community safety by broadening the public’s understanding of the link between cannabis prohibition and gang violence. Guided by the best available scientific evidence, Stop the Violence BC is calling for cannabis to be governed by a strict regulatory framework aimed at limiting use while also starving organized crime of the profits they currently reap as a result of prohibition.

Why are you calling for the regulation of cannabis?

Using regulatory tools proven effective at reducing tobacco use will undercut the huge profits cannabis driving violent organized crime in BC. Not only that, cannabis regulation may also improve community health by making cannabis harder for young people to access, lessening cannabis grow-op associated property damage, and freeing up law enforcement resources to focus on criminal activity where law enforcement can reduce harm.

This initiative is being launched with a new report that 'outlines the links between cannabis prohibition in BC and the growth of organized crime and related violence in the province. The report also defines the public health concept “regulation” and seeks to set the stage for a much needed public conversation and action on the part of BC politicians'.


Click image to read: