Obama says legalising drugs a "Legitimate Topic for Debate"

.
The following press release has been issued by Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) . Whilst some way from a shift in policy it is at least a significant shift in tone, especially given the US Drug Tsar's insistence that 'legalization is not in the president's vocabulary nor is it in mine'.

Well, here he is talking about it, and certainly not laughing it off like the last time he was asked. He specifically says he doesnt support legalisation, but certainly seems to be edging towards some form of decriminalisation of use. Progress then, albeit small steps. And as LEAP make clear - its important for actions to match words. 

Still, lets have that debate.......

here's the video:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 27, 2011
CONTACT: Tom Angell - (202) 557-4979 or media//at//leap//dot//cc

Obama Says Legalizing Marijuana and Other Drugs a "Legitimate Topic for Debate"

President Says We Need to Shift to Public Health Focus, But His Budgets Haven't Done That

WASHINGTON, DC -- Today, in response to a video question from a former deputy sheriff about whether it is time to discuss legalizing and regulating drugs in light of the failure of the "war on drugs," President Barack Obama said that it is "an entirely legitimate topic for debate" but that he is not in favor of legalization.

The President then went on to say that he sees drug abuse as a public health issue and that a shifting of resources is required, away from the traditional approach of incarcerating nonviolent drug offenders.

"The president talks a good game about shifting resources and having a balanced, public health-oriented approach, but it doesn't square with the budgets he's submitted to Congress," said Neill Franklin, a retired Baltimore narcotics cop and executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a group of cops, judges and prosecutors who support legalizing and regulating drugs. "The Obama administration has maintained the Bush-era two-to-one budget ratio in favor of prisons and prosecution over treatment and prevention. It doesn't add up. Still, it's historic that the president of the United States is finally saying that legalizing and regulating drugs is a topic worthy of discussion. But since the president remains opposed to legalization, it's clear that the people are going to have to lead the way. Police officers and innocent civilians are dying every single day in this drug war; it's not a back-burner issue."

The president's comments today, part of a forum organized by YouTube where people could submit and vote on questions, came in response to a question from MacKenzie Allen, a LEAP member and a retired deputy sheriff who did policing in Los Angeles, CA and King County (Seattle), WA. Allen's question got the most votes in the contest, garnering twice as many as the second most-popular question.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) represents police, prosecutors, judges, FBI/DEA agents and others who want to legalize and regulate drugs after fighting on the front lines of the "war on drugs" and learning firsthand that prohibition only serves to worsen addiction and violence. More info at http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com.

Exec summary of Transform's 'Blueprint for Regulation' now available in Russian

We are pleased to announce the publication of a Russian translation of 'After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation' (24 page executive summary),Transform's groundbreaking 2009 publication that considers the detail of how a post-prohibition regulatory framework for drug markets can operate (click the image below to view the pdf). We are grateful to our Russian colleagues for providing the translation.

The Russian translation of the exec summary joins the existing translations in Portugese, Spanish and Italian (print copies also available). A German translation is due for pulication shortly. 2011 will also see the arrival of translations of the complete text of the book into German, Spanish and Italian.

IDPC calls on countries to abstain from objecting to Bolivian proposal to lift UN coca ban

The following press release and advocacy note were issued by the International Drug Policy Consortium (of which Transform is a partner member) on Jan 13th

Update Sunday Jan 16: Diplomatic games to oppose lifting unjust ban on coca chewing

TNI detail latest developments as a number of countries withdraw objections, whilst the US continues its manoeuvring to push the objection through.

Update Tuesday Jan 18: The U.S. Moves to Block Bolivia’s Request to Eliminate U.N. Ban on Coca Leaf Chewing TNI cover latest developments as US prepare to lodge their objection 

Correcting a historical error: IDPC calls on countries to abstain from submitting objections to the Bolivian proposal to remove the ban on the chewing of the coca leaf

Several governments led by the United States are mobilising to block a request by the Bolivian government to remove an international ban on the centuries-old practice of chewing coca leaves. The 18-month period to contest Bolivia’s requested amendment ends January 31, 2011.

In 2009, Bolivia’s first indigenous President, Evo Morales Ayma, sent a request to the United Nations to remove the unjustified ban on coca leaf chewing. This would amend the 1961 United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and bring it in line with the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Mr Morales sought to correct a historical error. He stated in his letter to the Secretary General: "Coca leaf chewing is one of the socio-cultural practices and rituals of the Andean indigenous peoples. It is closely linked to our history and cultural identity.” This ancestral practice "cannot and should not be prohibited.”

In the 1990s, a study conducted by the World Health Organisation concluded that chewing coca causes none of the harmful health or social consequences as cocaine use.  The US blocked the publication of this evidence. 

The US and a number of other governments including the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, the Russian Federation, Japan and Colombia are now planning to stop the right of Bolivians to express their own culture. They are planning to lodge formal objections to the amendment prior to the deadline on the January 31, 2011 which would result in the UN rejecting the Bolivian request.

Jeremy Corbyn, a UK Member of Parliament and the Secretary of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Bolivia, said, 

“At a time when drug prohibition has enriched and emboldened criminal cartels to such an extent that they are attempting to violently annex the state in parts of Mexico and Guatemala, the US is expending considerable effort in blocking the Bolivian government’s legitimate and democratic right to protect and preserve a harmless indigenous practice. The international community needs to get its priorities right and resist this culturally ignorant attempt to dictate to indigenous people in Bolivia.”

The International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC) calls on countries not to oppose the amendment. Ann Fordham, the Coordinator of IDPC, stated, 

Bolivia has made a reasonable and democratic request to the international community. The fact that predominantly Western countries are unwilling to allow even the slightest amendments to the drug control regime, even where they conflict with the cultural and indigenous rights, is a very worrying development.”

ends 

IDPC Advocacy Note  (available in pdf here)

In 2009, the Bolivian government requested that the United Nations amend the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs(1). The proposed amendment would remove the unjustified ban on coca leaf chewing while maintaining the strict global control system for coca cultivation and cocaine(2). The 18month period to contest Bolivia’s requested amendment ends January 31, 2011. Several countries, including the United States, Colombia, the Russian Federation, Japan, France, the UK, Germany, Italy, Sweden and Denmark, are considering submitting formal objections to the Secretary General. IDPC calls on these governments to think again. The continuation of the ban clearly conflicts with official multilateral government declarations, including the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples(3). 

Protecting the indigenous and cultural right of Andean-Amazon peoples to chew coca does not undermine the international efforts to address the significant problems related to the illicit cocaine market. The amendment’s defeat would demonstrate that the international community continues to prioritise a punitive zero-tolerant approach to drug control over the rights of indigenous peoples. Objecting to the requested amendment would perpetuate an obvious violation of these liberties.

Furthermore, reasonable and technically sound amendments to the drug control Conventions should be
seen as a normal part of the modernisation process to make them fit for purpose in the 21st century.

Background

The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs(4) is the key United Nations agreement that enshrines the global drug control system. When it was drafted and agreed, one of the drugs that Western governments wanted to bring under tight international control was cocaine. However, a dilemma existed in the widespread and culturally embedded traditional practice of chewing coca leaves in several Latin American countries (Colombia's Indigenous territories, the Brazilian Amazon, Peru and Bolivia and the North of Argentina and Chile). Unlike cocaine use, chewing coca leaf causes no known health or social problems. Nevertheless, chewing coca was banned, with governments being given twenty-five years to eradicate the practice. That deadline expired in 1989(5). Since then, the International Narcotics Control Board has constantly pressured countries to enforce the ban.

The ban on coca chewing was passed in a time when scant attention was given to cultural and indigenous rights, and records of the debate around coca leaf at that time show that the international community did not consider the rights and interests of the communities that consumed coca leaves to perpetuate religious, social, cultural and medicinal traditions.

The findings of the UN 1950 Coca Leaf Enquiry Commission report formed the justification for the ban on
coca leaf chewing in the Single Convention(6). Analysts sharply criticised the report as arbitrary, imprecise, racist, and culturally insensitive. Fifty years on, the United Nations has commendably agreed much stronger protections for indigenous rights. These resolutions raise questions regarding some aspects of the drug control conventions.

There have been several efforts to rectify this error:

1) The 1988 Trafficking Convention stipulated that any measures “shall take due account of traditional licit uses,” but immediately neutralised its possible application by holding that it could not undermine obligations assumed in previous treaties.

2) The World Health Organisation and the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute initiated the Cocaine Project(7) in the early 1990s. This project concluded that traditional consumption of coca leaves has no negative health effects and fulfils positive therapeutic, sacred and social functions for indigenous Andean populations. However, U.S. diplomatic pressure blocked the study’s publication, revealing a  determination to assure that ideology prevails over scientific evidence.

Widespread Support for Reform

Over the past fifty years, national and international law have firmly embedded indigenous peoples’ rights in a number of legal instruments and declarations. The 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples states that “indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions.”(8)

In April 2010, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, an advisory body to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), welcomed Bolivia’s amendment on the traditional use of the coca leaf. “The Forum recommends that Member States support this initiative.”(9) In May 2009, the Forum stated that it “recognizes the cultural and medical importance of coca in the Andean region and other indigenous regions of South America” and recommended “the amendment or abolishment of the sections of the Convention relating to the custom of chewing coca leaf that are inconsistent with indigenous people´s rights to maintain their traditional practices in health and culture enshrined in Articles 11, 24 and 31 of the Declaration”(10).

Representatives of Latin American indigenous peoples have successfully fought for and secured their place in modern politics and society, defending traditional practices including the consumption of the coca leaf. Correcting the historical error banning coca use in its natural form is an indispensable measure to respect the rights of indigenous peoples in Bolivia, Peru and Colombia. For example, the Bolivian UN amendment proposal arose from the recognition in the nation’s 2009 Constitution that the coca leaf is an integral part of Bolivia’s cultural heritage.(11) Peru has always maintained a legal coca market and the National Culture Institute declared coca chewing in 2005 as immaterial cultural patrimony(12). Colombia allows traditional use of coca in its indigenous reserves and Argentina also legally recognizes coca leaf use and protects the rights of its consumers(13). With the August 2009 Presidential Declaration of Quito(14), all South American nations expressed support for the Bolivian proposal, requesting that the international community respect the ancestral cultural practice of coca leaf chewing. Potential Outcomes

If no UN members submit objections by 31st January, the amendment would automatically enter into force. If some nations object, ECOSOC will have the following options:

(a) Approve the amendment, which would not apply to objecting nations;
(b) Reject the amendment in response to objections and the substantive arguments provided; or
(c) Convene a Conference of the Parties to discuss the matter

Conclusion and Recommendations

IDPC strongly urges the international community to abstain from submitting objections to the proposed
amendment to ensure that the discriminatory and scientifically unsubstantiated ban on natural coca leaf
consumption can finally be eliminated. IDPC also calls on ECOSOC Member States to support the
amendment’s approval, with the understanding that its stipulations will not apply to objecting nations.
Resolving this contradiction between the 1961 Single Convention, the 1988 Convention and the UN
Declarations on the rights of Indigenous Peoples is long overdue.

For further background information:

• Aide-Memoire on the Bolivian Proposal to Amend Article 49 of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Government of Bolivia,
  
• Coca leaf: Myths and Reality, TNI web page with links to all relevant coca publications,

References:




1.  Economic and Social Council (15 May 2009), Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, as amended by  the Protocol amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 (New York, 8 August 1975) - Proposal of amendments by Bolivia to article 49, paragraphs 1 (c), E/2009/78 and 2 (e),
http://druglawreform.info/images/stories/documents/ECOSOC_Bolivia_Coca_EN.pdf

2. Cocaine is the concentrated alkaloid extracted from the coca plant. The process of extracting this alkaloid is difficult and lengthy, involving numerous chemicals and requiring significant quantities of coca leaves (upwards of 100 kilos). It is not economically viable to extract cocaine from sun-dried coca leaves, coca tea or coca flour available in the legal consuming markets in the Andes region. See Henman, A & Metaal, P. (2009) Coca Myths. TNI Drugs and Conflict Debate papers, June 2009, No. 17, http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/debate17_0.pdf.

3.  United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on 13 September 2007, http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html

4. 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, as amended by the 1972 Protocol,
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/convention_1961_en.pdf

5. The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs entered into force in 1964. The deadline for banning the
chewing of coca leaves was the 12th December 1989. 

6. Economic and Social Council (May 1950), Report of the Commission of Enquiry on the Coca Leaf,
http://www.tni.org/archives/drugscoca-docs/enquiry1950.pdf

7. World Health Organization & United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute, Cocaine project, http://www.tni.org/archives/docs/200703081409275046.pdf

8. Article 31 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Adopted by General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on 13 September 2007,- http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html 

9. Economic and Social Council, Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Report on the 9th session (19-30 April 2010), E/2010/43-E/C.19/2010/15, http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/E_2010_43_EN.pdf 

10. Economic and Social Council, Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Report on the 8th session (18-29 May 2009), E/2009/43 - E/C.19/2009/14, http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents /E_C_19_2009_14_en.pdf

11. Article 384 of the Bolivian Constitution: “The State protects the original and ancestral coca leaf as part of the cultural heritage, and a renewable natural resource of Bolivia’s biodiversity: in its natural state it is not a narcotic. Its valuation, production, trade and industrial uses will be defined by law”.
12.  Resolution 1707/INC of December 6th 2005, Peruvian National Culture Institute,
http://www.inc.gob.pe/patrimonio_cultural.shtml?x=23

13. Criminal Law, N 23.737, 1989, Art. 15: “The possession and consumption of the coca leaf in its natural state, destined for the practice of "coqueo" or chewing, or its use as an infusion, will not be considered as possession or consumption of narcotics”. http://infoleg.mecon.gov.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/0-4999/138/norma.htm

14. Declaración Presidencial de Quito (10 August 2009), III Reunión Ordinaria del Consejo de Jefas y Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno de la Unión de Naciones Suramericanas (UNASUR), http://www.comunidadandina.org/unasur/10-809Dec_quito.htm

Sinn Fein initiates reform in Ireland

Sinn Féin, Ireland’s fastest growing political party, has taken several steps to encourage a more effective, evidence-based approach to tackling the problems of drug addiction and drug-related crime.

In its most recent drug policy document, Sinn Féin demonstrates a welcome and pragmatic understanding of the factors influencing drug abuse, stating:

“Harmful drug use has a complex relationship with class, inequality and poverty. Unless poverty and inequality are tackled, the scourge of drugs will continue.”

The party’s reasoned stance on drug use continues with the call for a drug policy which is founded on facts rather than ideology:

“The administration of criminal justice as it interacts with drug-related crime should be reviewed, reformed and tailored to more effectively address and reduce systemic crime, economic compulsive crime and psychopharmacological crime. A broad societal debate considering every possible approach and all relevant evidence from other jurisdictions including those that have experimented with decriminalization and/or legalization is warranted to this end.

“New approaches must be informed by the most credible emerging evidence and international best practice.”

Sinn Féin has further indicated its willingness to embrace drug policy reform with the introduction of a bill to regulate the sale of ‘legal highs’. Presented to the Irish Parliament in April this year, the bill proposes the establishment of a Non-Medicinal Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority, whose main functions would be:

• To formulate and publish rules for the issuing of licenses to those involved in the retail, distribution, import and production of non-medicinal psychoactive substances
• To establish and maintain a publicly available register of those licensed to engage in the sale, importation, distribution and production of non-medicinal psychoactive substances
• To conduct or otherwise instigate inspections of licensees’ premises, products and any property connected to the sale, distribution, importation and production of non-medicinal psychoactive substances

In the explanatory memorandum to the bill, the Sinn Féin spokesperson for Justice, Social Welfare and International Affairs, Aengus Ó Snodaigh, highlighted the futility of adopting a purely prohibitive stance on the trade of these substances via ‘head shops’:

“The current system of identifying and banning substances has proven ineffective in dealing with these dangerous substances. Through cynical labelling and the masking of active ingredients the head shops have managed to establish an increasingly lucrative industry to the detriment of public health and well-being.”

In contrast, Ó Snodaigh rightly claims that by taking a regulatory approach to the sale and distribution of legal highs, the new bill will help to “protect public health and reduce the risk of harm from such products and substances”.

Ó Snodaigh further highlighted his party’s commitment to establishing a more effective drug policy by putting a parliamentary question to the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Micheál Martin. After being made aware of the proposal by Transform, Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for his views on carrying out a transnational impact assessment of drug policy, a measure initially advocated in a briefing paper by the International Drug Policy Consortium.

Martin’s response to the question was typically evasive and dismissive, stating that he was “not aware” that the IDPC’s proposals for an impact assessment of drug policy had been raised in any relevant international forum.

As Transform is proposing, impact assessments of drug policy are a vital step in establishing a fairer and more successful solution to the challenges of problematic drug use and the illegal drug trade. Without such non-partisan evaluations of drug policy, drug war ideology, knee jerk responses to media panics and populist law and order posturing will continue to underpin governmental approaches to drugs. Bad policy can be the only result and the plight of the most vulnerable members of society will continue to worsen.

'Legalise and regulate drugs' says UK's former drugs and defence Minister

Bob Ainsworth MP, former Home Office drugs minister and Secretary of State for Defence, will call for the legalisation and regulation of drugs during a Parliamentary debate he is leading in Westminster Hall, at 2.30pm, Thurs 16th December 2010.

Mr Ainsworth said;

“I have just been reading the Coalition Government’s new Drugs Strategy. It is described by the Home Secretary as fundamentally different to what has gone before; it is not. To the extent that it is different, it is potentially harmful because it retreats from the principle of harm reduction, which has been one of the main reasons for the reduction in acquisitive crime in recent years.

However, prohibition has failed to protect us. Leaving the drugs market in the hands of criminals causes huge and unnecessary harms to individuals, communities and entire countries, with the poor the hardest hit. We spend billions of pounds without preventing the wide availability of drugs. It is time to replace our failed war on drugs with a strict system of legal regulation, to make the world a safer, healthier place, especially for our children. We must take the trade away from organised criminals and hand it to the control of doctors and pharmacists.

As drugs minister in the Home Office I saw how prohibition fails to reduce the harm that drugs cause in the UK, fuelling burglaries, gifting the trade to gangsters and increasing HIV infections. My experience as Defence Secretary, with specific responsibilities in Afghanistan, showed to me that the war on drugs creates the very conditions that perpetuate the illegal trade, while undermining international development and security.

My departure from the front benches gives me the freedom to express my long held view that, whilst it was put in place with the best of intentions, the war on drugs has been nothing short of a disaster.

Politicians and the media need to engage in a genuine and grown up debate about alternatives to prohibition, so that we can build a consensus based on delivering the best outcomes for our children and communities. I call on those on all sides of the debate to support an independent, evidence-based review, exploring all policy options, including: further resourcing the war on drugs, decriminalising the possession of drugs, and legally regulating their production and supply.

One way to do this would be an Impact Assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act in line with the 2002 Home Affairs Select Committee finding – which included David Cameron – for the government to explore alternatives to prohibition, including legal regulation.

The re-legalisation of alcohol in the US after thirteen years of Prohibition was not surrender. It was a pragmatic move based on the government’s need to retake control of the illegal trade from violent gangsters. After 50 years of global drug prohibition it is time for governments throughout the world to repeat this shift with currently illegal drugs.”

Peter Lilley MP, former Conservative Party Deputy Leader said

“The current approach to drugs has been an expensive failure, and for the sake of everyone, and the young in particular, it is time for all politicians to stop using the issue as a political football. I have long advocated breaking the link between soft and hard drugs – by legalising cannabis while continuing to prohibit hard drugs. But I support Bob Ainsworth’s sensible call for a proper, evidence based review, comparing the pros and cons of the current prohibitionist approach with all the alternatives, including wider decriminalisation, and legal regulation.”

Tom Brake MP, Co-Chair, Liberal Democrat Backbench Committee on Home Affairs, Justice and Equalities said;

“Liberal Democrats have long called for a science-based approach to our drugs problem. So it is without hesitation that I support Bob Ainsworth’s appeal to end party political point-scoring, and explore sensitively all the options, through an Impact Assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act.”

Labour’s Paul Flynn MP said;

"This could be a turning point in the failing UK 'war on drugs.' Bob Ainsworth is the persuasive, respected voice of the many whose views have been silenced by the demands of ministerial office. Every open rational debate concludes that the UK's harsh drugs prohibition has delivered the worst outcomes in Europe - deaths, drug crime and billions of pounds wasted."

ENDS

Contact:

Neil Smith, Office of Bob Ainsworth MP SMITHN(at)parliament.uk
Martin Powell, TDPF head of campaigns martin(at)tdpf.org.uk
Steve Rolles, TDPF Senior Policy Analyst steve(at)tdpf.org.uk
Transform Office 0117 941 5810

Notes for Editors:

• Bob Ainsworth MP has represented Coventry North since 1992 and has held a number of shadow and ministerial positions including:

Home Office - Parliamentary secretary, with responsibility for drugs (Jun 2001 - Jun 2003)
Deputy Chief Whip (June 2003 – June 2007)
Minister for the Armed Forces (June 2007 – May 2009)
Secretary of State for Defence (June 2009 – May 2010)
Shadow Secretary of State for Defence (May 2010 – October 2010)

Bob Ainsworth's Blog Biography and Guardian profile

• For more information on calls for an Impact Assessment of our approach to drugs see: Transform / IDPC briefing: 'Time for an impact assessment of drug policy' .

• David Cameron on drug law reform : Tory contender calls for more liberal drug laws(Independent 2005)
  
  As a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into drug misuse in 2002 David Cameron voted in favour of recommendation 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).”

• The Liberal Democrat party policy recognises “The failure of prohibition”, supports decriminalisation of drugs, and calls for an audit comparing the current approach with the alternatives. Lib Dem drug policy paper. Lib Dem manifesto
  
  
• There is a long history of those involved in developing or delivering drug policy supporting reform once out of office. See Transform's 'supporters of reform' archive which includes:

- Former drugs Minister Mo Mowlam: 'Fight terror: legalise the drugs trade' (Guardian 2002)

- Julian Critchley, former Director of the UK Anti-Drug Coordinating Unit: 'All the experts admit that we should legalise drugs' (Independent 2008)

• The difference between decriminalisation and legalisation:

Decriminalisation is the removal of criminal sanctions for the production, supply or use of an illegal drug. Civil or administrative sanctions, such as a fine or requirement to enter treatment, may remain, even if criminal sanctions (resulting in prosecution and a criminal record) are removed. In popular usage, the term 'decriminalisation' usually refers to the removal of criminal sanctions for possession of drugs for personal use, while sanctions often remain for the production or supply of drugs.

Legalisation and regulation - ‘legalisation’ is a process - moving away from absolute prohibition - and does not specify what legal framework to regulate production, supply and use of drugs replaces it. ‘Legalisation and regulation’ is not the free for all some have envisaged, and is not a free market model as espoused by some libertarians. Instead it involves controls on producers, products, vendors and consumers. For example models of strict legal regulation see Transform's 2009 publication: “After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation”

Watch Speakers from Transform's 'Ending the War on Drugs' Event

We have now uploaded footage of the speakers at our 'Ending the War on Drugs' event which has held last month in London.

This was a really successful event, with some great speeches from a range of people who each provided their own particular insight into the so-called 'War on Drugs'.

The speakers are Angus MacQueen, award-winning documentary maker and director of the recent Channel 4 series 'Our Drugs War'; Carel Edwards, former head of the European Commission's Anti-Drug Coordinating Unit; and Misha Glenny, a specialist on Southeastern Europe and author of 'McMafia: Seriously Organised Crime'.

Angus MacQueen speaking at Transform Event from Transform on Vimeo.

Carel Edwards speaking at Transform Event from Transform on Vimeo.

Misha Glenny speaking at Transform Event from Transform on Vimeo.

'The Nation' magazine special issue / cover feature on ending the Drug War

Great to see yet more mainstream media coverage of the drug law reform debate, this time in a special issue  of The Nation Magazine. The cover story includes a visual riff on the logo of the infamous D.A.R.E drug prevention program, a gag used previously by Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP is covered in one of the feature articles, by SSDP director Aaron Houston - see below).  

The feature content list is as follows (most available online for non-subscribers):

• Rebalancing Drug Policy

A special Nation forum, with contributions from Ethan Nadelmann, Marc Mauer, Bruce Western, Tracy Velázquez, David Cole and Laura Carlsen.

• Breaking the Taboo

The prospects for reforming drug policy have never been so good. Ethan Nadelmann

• Beyond the Fair Sentencing Act

Congress's vote to scale back mandatory sentences for federal crack cocaine offenses was a watershed in the long campaign for better drug policy. Marc Mauer

• Decriminalizing Poverty

America doesn't have a drug problem. It has a poverty problem. Bruce Western

• The Verdict on Drug Courts

Drug courts have helped some addicts recover. But they may be delaying expansion of treatment programs that will best reduce harms from addiction. Tracy Velázquez

•  Restoring Lost Liberties

(Subscribers only) The drug war has been waged not only on traffickers and users but on liberty and equality. David Cole

• A New Model for Mexico

(Subscribers only) The problem with the drug war in Mexico is not that it's unfunded. It's unwinnable.Laura Carlsen

• Altered State: California's Pot Economy

Despite the defeat of Proposition 19, growers in California are expanding a profitable system for cultivating pot. Sasha Abramsky

• Budding Prospects: Youth Activists Push Marijuana Reform

Fueled by serious funds, young advocates of legalization are poised for big gains. Aaron Houston

• Obama's Drug War

The administration is promoting failed law enforcement programs as economic stimulus. Michelle Alexander

• As Juárez Falls

The killing in Juárez bears less resemblance to warfare between cartels than to criminal anarchy. Ed Vulliamy

• The Wachovia Whistleblower

Ed Vulliamy

Transform Launches New Impact Assessment Web Page

We have recently added a new page to the Transform website promoting our call for an Impact Assessment (IA) of drug policy.

An IA would make an independent, non-partisan evaluation of the merits and flaws of existing domestic and international drug policy, and compare them with the costs and benefits of alternatives - including further resourcing for a criminal justice led approach, decriminalising personal possession, or legally regulating production and supply. The outcomes of this evaluation would then point the way to the most effective policies to manage drug production, supply and use.

In 2007 a UK government review concluded that such an evaluation could not be made – a conclusion that the UK Home Affairs Select Committee strongly condemned (in its report March 2010 report on the cocaine trade). The Committee diplomatically declared it “careless” that the Government published its Drugs Strategy in 2008 without having assessed the effectiveness of existing drug policy. Consequently, the Committee said that it

“support[s] calls for a full and independent value-for-money assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and related legislation and policy.”

Since then support for an IA has grown rapidly, with several prominent public figures and organisations calling for an objective review of current drug policy - including the Howard League for Penal Reform, Prof Sir Ian Gilmore and Lord Norton of Louth.

The beauty of this call is that it is policy neutral and therefore can be supported by those who support prohibition, those who are undecided, as well proponents of reform. To his great credit Prof Neil McKeganey has signed up to support an IA.

To find out more about what an IA would involve, and to see who supports it, please visit the new web page here.

California's message - end the War on Drugs, cut the deficit

Campaigners are confident that it is now when, not if, marijuana is legalised in the US, with several states likely to vote on legalisation initiatives in 2012, and a Presidential election year that increases turn out of liberal voters likely to vote “yes” in California. Where the largest US state leads, others follow, but the ramifications would be global. Mexican and Colombian politicians have said their countries would follow suit, with a snowball effect all but inevitable.

Colombia’s President Santos has said:

"How does one explain to indigenous people that they are not to grow marijuana at the risk of being thrown into jail, but that in the richest state of the United States, they have legalized its production, sale, and consumption?"

If the architect of the War on Drugs acted in direct contravention of the UN Conventions underpinning prohibition, the unravelling of the current approach to all drugs could be rapid.

But why is legal regulation of marijuana in the California now on the cards, and are the circumstances the same in the UK?

Partly it is the bloody reality of the Drug War's failure arriving uniquely on America’s Mexican doorstep. Partly it is a generational shift as older voters are replaced by younger ones who lean towards reform - which is also happening in the UK.

But the most important trigger is probably economic. As public spending is slashed to reduce California’s budget deficit, the State Board of Equalisation estimates that legalising and taxing cannabis could raise $1.4 billion dollars, with huge additional savings in reduced enforcement costs. Others have disputed this figure on and the precise number will clearly depend on price controls tax levels and other variables. Regardless, this is an argument that is not going away soon - in the UK as much as the US.

As dust from the Comprehensive Spending Review settles, ministers claim no area of public spending will escape scrutiny. Exploring non criminal justice responses to drug users, or more ambitiously, legally regulated drug production and availability, could dramatically improve outcomes for society, make substantial cost savings, and generate tax revenues. Currently, enforcement aimed at reducing supply costs us £380 million per year, but the Home Office estimates the additional cost of ‘dealing with drug related crime’ is £1.7 billion a year, rising to over £4 billion a year, if costs across the criminal justice system (prisons etc.) are included.

Yet despite these billions, the Government’s own analysis shows we are further than ever from the promised ‘drug free world’. Drugs are cheaper than ever before, use of the most harmful is at record highs, and massive levels of drug motivated crime is fuelling a crisis in the criminal justice system - at a time when the Government plans to reduce prisoner numbers.

Despite this staggering cost ineffectiveness, drug enforcement spending remains protected from public scrutiny within a political bubble of law and order populism. This year alone, reports from the National Audit Office, The Public Accounts Committee and Home Affairs Select Committee have blasted the Home Office for having no meaningful evaluation of the impact of the money spent. In terms of major public spending initiatives, drug policy is unique in this regard. But with widespread concern about public spending cuts, the blank cheque for the drug war may soon be a thing of the past.

Crucially, it is now widely accepted that many of the costs of ‘the drug problem’ – including gang violence and acquisitive crime committed by addicts - are primarily fuelled by drug prohibition, not drug use per se. The Home Office does not dispute this, nor does the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, which has acknowledged a ‘vast criminal black market’ is one of the ‘unintended negative consequences’ of the current approach.

Yet such is the political fear of more cost-effective approaches, including Portuguese-style decriminalisation or the regulatory models for drug production and supply explored in Transform’s Blueprint for Regulation (with controls over products, vendors, outlets, access and marketing), that they have never been seriously considered. Questions about legal regulation are rebuffed with claims that the benefits would be outweighed by increased health costs from an assumed increase in use. These claims are baseless. The Home Office has never, and will not do, the cost benefit analysis needed to substantiate them. There is also no evidence that prohibition has been an effective deterrent, or reduced drug harms, or that strictly controlled legal availability would increase misuse. When challenged, successive governments have admitted all they have is a ‘belief’ the current system is effective.

Transform’s analysis, which the Government does not dispute, shows that legally regulating drug supply could save around £2 billion a year from the Home Office budget alone (primarily through a 75% drop in drug motivated crime), with much greater savings to society as a whole. On top of this is the potential to tax cannabis in particular. California’s $1.4 billion marijuana tax take would be from a population only about two thirds that of the UK, whilst in the Netherlands (one quarter of the UK population, with lower levels of use) ‘coffee shop’ tax revenue is 400 million Euros a year, which would rise by 260 million Euros if the supply of cannabis to the coffee shops were taxed as well.

The stark reality is that squandering money on the War on Drugs is not just counterproductive, it starves worthwhile projects of funds. If legally regulating drugs realised £2 billion a year in savings and taxes - which is an extremely conservative estimate - it would be equivalent to paying the salaries of 86,000 police constables, or 92,600 teachers, or 94,000 nurses. Alternatively we could refurbish around 250 schools every year and reverse the cut in Child Benefit. Or just fund proven drug treatment and education programmes properly.

Whilst this research is based on limited data, it demands that at the very least the Government formally counts the costs and benefits of the current approach, and explores alternatives. No more, in fact, than has been called for by the pre-coalition Lib Dems, and David Cameron when on the Home Affairs Select Committee.

When even the US is exploring legal regulation, what is the UK still afraid of? The Government needs to ask; is it really still worth squandering billions a year just to sound tough on drugs?

Drug warriors coming in from the cold? Calls for legal marijuana to be strictly regulated

With US support for the legalisation of cannabis/marijuana fast approaching the 50% threshold  (California's Prop 19 legalisation ballot measure recently polling the highest ever US support, at 46.1%), and a string of new referendums and Bills coming up in the next couple of years, the debate is moving from if marijuana is legally regulated, to how to regulate it properly. Arguably it was concerns about the legislation in practice rather than priciple that led to Prop 19 falling short. 

US views on marijuana laws - from Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight blog

An interesting sign of the changing debate is that even a year ago it would have been unthinkable for a historically prohibitionist US organisation like National Families in Action to launch “But What About the Children" campaign. In their own words this is:

“…a campaign to hold a legalized marijuana industry accountable for ensuring that children will not have access to the drug if any law is passed to legalize the drug. The campaign holds that any marijuana legalization law should incorporate provisions to avoid what medical science has learned about alcohol and tobacco use in order to prevent marijuana use and addiction among children.”

In other words, whilst NFIA remains adamantly opposed to marijuana legalisation, it recognises it is now on the cards, and if it happens, then production and supply should be properly regulated. It is particularly interesting to see the 'imperilled child' narrative - so long used to argue against drug law reform - now being used as the basis for a call for more effective market regulation (based in significant part on lessons learned from mistakes with alcohol and tobacco regulation). Quite right too.

Given research shows steadily increasing availability and falling price, and that 80-90% of US 12th graders have easy access to cannabis, (many finding alcohol harder to get), amongst the many benefits of legal regulation of the currently criminal trade, regulation presents an obvious opportunity to protect children and young people. Below are NFIA’s suggestions for how regulation should function, with some added commentary and quotes from the relevant sections of Transform's recent 'Blueprint for Regulation (pdf)', (see in particular the chapter on cannabis regulation, page 110).

10 Provisions to Protect Children if States or Local Communities Legalize Marijuana

 1. No Advertising - An advertising ban on legal marijuana.

 From Blueprint (p.48):

"Links between the advertising and promotion of alcohol and tobacco products, and increased levels of usage of those products, are well established. Such advertising and promotion could easily drive a similar expansion in psychoactive drug usage. 

Therefore, the default position of any licensing regime should be a complete ban on all advertising, promotion or marketing of all drugs, with any exceptions made only on a cautious case by case basis by the relevant authorities. This ban should include any alcohol and tobacco marketing activities. A default ban should also exist on political donations from any commercial opera­tors in the drugs market. 

The distinct nature of drug risks relative to most other commodities, and the particular need to protect vulnerable groups from exposure to these risks, justifies this stringent restriction of standard commercial freedoms. These controls should extend to point of sale advertising, and the external appearance and signage for outlets.

Such controls should be as strict as possible, within the context of local legal regimes. For example, in the US, a free speech argument can be made against such a ban. However, even though the Supreme Court has extended a degree of ‘free speech’ protection to commercial speech, such speech is still subject to various controls and limitations."

Interestingly the NFIA site specifically discusses the free speech point here.  In Blueprint there is some additional detailed discussion on how this ban might operate for cannabis specifically on page 114 (see also - point 4 below).   

 2. A Penalty Fee - on the marijuana industry for every underage user.

Retailers selling to those underage should face a hierachy of penalties including fines and loss of licenses, potentially even criminal sanctions, as should producers found to be colluding in this practice. However it would be unfair to fine legitimate producers and retailers meeting their legal duties. There is no obvious equivalent to this suggestion in alcohol and tobacco policy, although taxes (sometimes described as 'sin taxes') could be seen as a parallel despite generally being argued as a form of dissuasion and/or income generation.  Blueprint does, however, call for vendors to have 'Shared responsibility re: nuisance in the immediate environment, litter, local enforcemetn costs'

3. Automatic Repeal of marijuana legalization if underage marijuana use exceeds certain levels.

Presumably the NFIA does not think prohibition should be repealed if use hits a certain level! Drug policy should be based on evidence of what works best for society, not arbitrary levels of use. Levels of use and misuse are influenced primarily by a complex interplay of social economic and cultural variable (for which the industry is not responsible)  not drug policy or legislation. However, Blueprint does, none the less, urge caution (p.68):

"This [cautious phased introduction] approach should be, by default, based on a precautionary prin­ciple, particularly where evidence from existing policy is thin, or specific high-risks are identified. New models will thus initially err towards stricter, more intrusive regulation, with lower restriction levels only subsequently coming into play. A precautionary and incremental approach allows for key concerns, such as availability to youth, increase in high risk behaviours or other specific public health concerns, to be closely monitored. If problems do arise, policy can take a step back, be refined and adjusted, and alternative or additional regulatory tools can be deployed."

4. No Product Placements, sponsorships, point-of-purchase marketing, or depictions in entertainment venues.

Broadly speaking we support this. The discussion of cannabis regulation in Blueprint (p 114) suggests that:

"Cannabis use is embedded in much popular culture. Cannabis products and product  iconography are generally non-branded and generic, so a blanket prohibition of anything that might constitute promotion or advertising of cannabis would therefore be impractical. Reasonable controls on exposure to children and young people may be easier to put in place, but would remain difficult to globally define and enforce. However, best practice and evidence from existing controls already widely applied to references to drugs—legal and illegal—in youth media and advertising can be more widely applied.

 Clear lessons can be learnt from experiences with restrictions on promotions and marketing of alcohol and tobacco. Areas where cannabis advertising promotion controls are more realistic include:

Advertising for venues for commercial sales could be limited both in content and scope—for example, to specialist publications, or adult only venues. A complete ban on advertising for promotion of venues is not realistic. Dutch coffee shops are not allowed to advertise but do to some extent—the prohibition in practice acts as a moderating influence, rather than a total ban

Restrictions could be placed on appearance and signage of venues/outlets. In the Netherlands, coffee shops are not allowed to make external references to cannabis, or use related imagery. Rastafari imagery, a palm leaf image, and the words ‘coffee shop’ have become the default signage.

Restrictions could be placed on advertising for certain types of paraphernalia that contain drug references."

5. An Industry-Financed Fund from marijuana profits to pay for the damage legal marijuana will do, so that taxpayers won’t have to pick up the tab.

There is a mistaken presumption here that legal marijuana will do more damage, and incur more cost, than illegal marijuana - the tab for which taxpayers already pay - as well as the huge enforcement tab. The industry should be taxed at an appropriate level to balance the potentially conflicting interests of maximising returns, influencing use levels and minimising the illegal markets (see price controls discussion in Blueprint on page 41) .Any tax income (and it is assumed this would be significant given the scale of the market) could support proven public health interventions including treatment, education and prevention, as well as helping to address some of the underlying social drivers of problematic use. 

6. A State Agency to Tax and Regulate the marijuana industry, including marijuana purity and potency.

We agree. It is vital that a state agency, or agencies should regaulate all relavant aspects of production and availability. On purity and potency specifically, from Blueprint (page 113):

"Controls could manage the strength/potency of herbal or resin form cannabis, based on relative proportions of active ingredients (that is, ratio of THC [tetrahydrocannabinol] to CBD [cannabidiol]). Maximum and minimum % content could be specified." 

7. Licensed Growers, Distributors, and Retail Sellers Marijuana sold only in licensed retail stores where no other products are sold.

We agree on strict licensing including of retail outlets, though we also envisage Dutch-style licensed "coffee-shops", that could sell food and non-alcoholic drinks too. From Blueprint:

"The basic models would involve various forms of licensed sales, for consumption on premises or for take-out—these would be conditional on controls outlined below, and would not preclude a potential pharmacy sales model.

A regulated market model (see: page 27) might be an appropriate incremental step as legal supply infrastructure and outlets were established. A key task of any regulatory body would be to manage supply so as to prevent the emergence of branded products and limit all forms of profit driven marketing and promotions."

Blueprint also considers how the inevitable small scale growing for personal use could be catered for in a new legal system (p. 214).

8. No Drugged Driving - A ban on driving with marijuana in the systems of drivers or passengers.

We agree that no one should drive with levels of any drug in their system sufficient to impair their performance - and, to be fair, no one arguing for reform has ever said different. Just as with alcohol, the detail of what level that is needs setting in law - there is ongoing debate whether it should be zero (it varies between jurisdictions). Technical issues exist with cannabis as, unlike alcohol, it is detectable in the system long after any impairment is evident. Until these issues are resolved it may be that impairment testing (possibly in support of more conventional drug testing) is the most effective  response. This is a developing field and should be guided by evidence of what is effective at reducing drug impaired driving and its negative consequences.

We disagree with a ban on passengers with drugs in their system, and even the NFIA gives no justification for including them. It might prove impossible to enforce - would the resposibility for drug free passengers be with the driver? What about buses, trains, planes?

9. No Drugged Employees or Students - A ban on people coming to work or school with marijuana in their systems.

No one should be going to work or school intoxicated so that it impairs their performance, particularly for safety critical responsibilities, but this should be dealt with consistently for all substances (including alcohol) through existing practices, contracts and agreements. We would caution against over-intrusive testing regimes that do not focus on impairment – which have generally shown to be unjustified and ineffective.

10. Smoke-Free Laws Apply - No marijuana use where tobacco smoking is banned.

We agree (see page 61) - although there should usefully be a caveat, detailing different rules for non-smoked cannabis.

2 More Provisions to protect children if Congress legalizes marijuana.

11. Marijuana Controlled by FDA. Marijuana placed under the control of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, like tobacco is now.

We agree. This seems sensible - unless a separate agency is established as suggested in point 6 above.

12. A Surgeon General’s Report on the impact of legal marijuana.

We agree, but as part of a much broader ongoing evidence-based evaluative process of all aspects of the approach taken to drugs at the national and international levels.


So...


Essentially we agree in whole or part with the majority of the regulatory measures the NFIA is suggesting, many of which could have been taken from Transform's “Blueprint for Regulation”. Whether they have been reading it or not doesn't matter, indeed if they are reaching the same conclusions without reading it that is probably a good sign that when people think sensibly about regulating drugs they will tend to come to similar conclusions. And there are plenty of sensible people advising this campaign initiative.

We look forward to genuinely trying to find a common platform that all groups and individuals interested in regulating drugs properly can support in any post-prohibition world.

High Society: Wellcome Collection exhibition of drugs in history

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Media Advisory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Press conference details:

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

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

For press enquiries please contact:

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

+91 9930 925496 fionalander at gmail.com

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

UN Doc No A/65/255

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

Summary

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

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

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

Recommendations

Member States should:

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

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

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

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

The United Nations drug control bodies should:

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

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

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

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

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

Transform launches updated and re-designed 'Comparative Cost-Effectiveness of Drug Prohibition/Regulation' report

On the eve of the Comprehensive Spending Review it seems like an opportune moment to relaunch Transform's 2009 report: 'A Comparison of the Cost-Effectiveness of Prohibition and regulation of Drugs', now updated and beautifully redesigned (available online pdf). The publication created a decent media splash, led to a PQ and ultimately a meeting with the Prime Minister (see below for summary and details). 

 

Summary:

‘The benefits of… [legalisation/regulation] – such as taxation, quality control and a reduction in the pressures on the criminal justice system – are far outweighed by the costs and for this reason, it is one that this Government will not pursue either domestically or internationally.”

Home Office Briefing, 2008

• Despite the billions spent each year on proactive and reactive drug law enforcement, the punitive prohibitionist approach has consistently delivered the opposite of its stated goals. The Government’s own data clearly demonstrates drug supply and availability increasing; use of drugs that cause the most harm increasing; health harms increasing; massive levels of crime created at all scales leading to a crisis in the criminal justice system; and illicit drug profits enriching criminals, fuelling conflict and destabilising producer and transit countries from Mexico to Afghanistan. This is an expensive policy that, in the words of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, has also created a raft of 'negative unintended consequences’.
  
  
• The UK Government specifically claims the benefits of any move away from prohibition towards legal regulation of drug markets would be outweighed by the costs. No such cost-benefit analysis, or even a proper Impact Assessment of existing enforcement policy and legislation has ever been carried out here or anywhere else in the world. Yet there are clear Government guidelines that an Impact Assessment should be triggered by amongst other things, a policy going out to public consultation or when ‘unintended consequences’ are identified, both of which have happened with drug policy in recent years.
  
  
• Alternative approaches - involving established regulatory models of controlling drug production, supply and use - have not been considered or costed. The limited cost effectiveness analysis of current policy that has been undertaken has frequently been suppressed. In terms of scrutinizing major public policy and spending initiatives, current drug policy is unique in this regard.
  
  
• The generalisations being used to defend continuation of an expensive and systematically failing policy of drugs prohibition, and close down a mature and rational exploration of alternative approaches, are demonstrably based on un-evidenced assumptions.
  
  
• This paper is an attempt to begin to redress these failings by comparing the costs and benefits of the current policy of drug prohibition, with those of a proposed model for the legal regulation of drugs in the UK. We also identify areas of further research, and steps to ensure future drugs policy is genuinely based on evidence of what works.
  
  
• This initial analysis demonstrates that a move to legally regulated drug supply would deliver substantial benefits to the Treasury and wider community, even in the highly unlikely event of a substantial increase in use.

A Selection of Media Coverage from the April 09 launch:

BBC radio 4: The Today Programme:

• Transform's Steve Rolles (report editor) Drug policy "not cost-effective"

BBC Mark Easton's Blog: Could we save billions by legalising drugs?

BBC R4 'More or Less': the price of prohibition (podcast or listen again)

Guardian news: Legalisation of drugs could save UK £14bn, says study

Guardian Comment piece by Danny Kushlick: Immunised from scrutiny

Telegraph: Illegal drugs cost the country £16bn a year, says charity Transform
Financial Times: Call to review drugs legalisation

Mirror: Legalise drugs to halve crime

Metro: Halve drug deaths by making heroin and cocaine legal

The London Paper: legalising heroin and cocaine could halve drug deaths report says

The Herald: Call for heroin and cocaine to be legalised in bid to halve deaths

ePolitix: Legalising heroin and cocaine could save £10 bn

BMJ medical ethics blog: Drug Policy Transformed

The Register: Legalising drugs would save UK plc a packet. Common sense doomed by Guardian/Daily mail axis

New Statesman: Limping Along on the Left

Daily Mail: Peter Hitchens: Eliot Ness couldn't stop booze, but he would win today's war on drugs ("Another parcel of garbage from the pro-drug lobby")


Further reading:

• Transform's submission to the 2010 drugs strategy consultation (see in particular the section on evaluation)
  

• Epic three year FOI battle to release suppressed Home Office drug strategy evaluation reaches its denouement

• Gordon Brown responds to Transform's call for Impact Assessment