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:

New feature documentary: 'Cocaine Unwrapped'

Transform is pleased to support the upcoming release of new feature documentary 'Cocaine Unwrapped' directed by Rachel Seifert. Below is the film trailer, and a description of the film - followed by details of the upcoming preview screenings in Liverpool (Nov 1st)and London (Nov 10th), and the public  premiere on Nov 29th. We have also included a video of a recent episode of Cinepolitics in which Steve Rolles from Transform discusses the film.

Trailer:





Film description from the film makers Dartmouth films;

"This film is the story of cocaine – from production to consumption, as it journeys from the USA to the countries of Latin America. Between scenes we hear from the Western consumers who are unaware of the reality of the trade which their consumption supports. Major Neill Franklin was a police officer for 33 years on the streets of Baltimore. As he drives around the now devastated, boarded up and frequently deserted streets of his community he explains how the decline of industry pushed many heads of households into illegal drug dealing. Incredibly, as he describes how a drugs deal is done on the streets, we see one played out in front of our eyes. Streets where once it was fun to live are not now safe – even in the daytime. Drawing on his experience as a law enforcement officer, Franklin is certain that the USA’s drug policies need to change.

In Columbia 140,000 members of the police are fighting the war on drugs – one of them, Lieutenant Jose Castro takes us on an operation to manually eradicate a coca plantation which, as the country’s vice president explains, is a key part of the war against drugs, which in his country is tied up with paramilitary and criminal gangs. But for Maria, a small farmer in the Tumaco region, the indiscriminate aerial spraying kills not just her coca but her chocolate, banana and yucca plants. As local community leaders explain, the programme causes ill health, economic stagnation and massive displacement of the population. Cesar Gavira, president of Columbia from 1990-94, believes that the social damage caused by the war against
drugs is “terrible….it destroys the lives of people who are not criminals and who are just trying to survive.”

Bolivia is taking a different approach. As president Evo Morales explains, coca leaf in its natural state is not cocaine – it is just a leaf. But for twenty years, until 2005, with the support of the USA the Bolivian government waged a war against coca growers, causing death and destruction. This all changed when Morales was elected president and allowed farmers to grow limited amounts of coca, as we hear from Lucio, a local farmer. At the meeting of the Chapare Coca Growers Union the local co-ordinator Tomas Rejas urges his members to support the government policy of reducing overall production, switching to other crops. And at the Windsor tea factory we see how coca tea is made for the consumer market – but a market which Bolivia cannot exploit because the UN Vienna Convention limits its export. Bolivia not, however, a cocaine free country, as we see when we join the Bolivian anti-drug police as they discover – and destroy – a cocaine factory in the jungle.

As Bolivia abandoned the war against drugs, Mexico stepped it up. We arrive in Cuidad Juarez as the police discover the body of yet another victim of the internecine battle between the drugs gangs. A local journalist, Luis, explains how the level of violence has escalated in recent years, showing the rows of graves already dug to bury the victims. We hear of violence and intimidation from both former gang members and lawyers. As Sanho Tree, of the Institute for Policy Studies explains, the government intervention destabilised the illegal trade, sparking the escalating war in which, as opposition senator Carlos Navarette claims, has led to the corruption of the police and state. Attorney General Medina Mora is convinced that the government is doing the right thing to create peace and security but points out that there would be no problem is there was no demand.

In Ecuador another South American president is taking a different tack than in the past. Rafael Correa, whose father spent three years in an American prison for drugs trafficking, has pardoned and released over 2000 women drugs mules. People like Theresa, who points out that it is not enough just to be let out of prison – there need to projects to help people earn a legal living. Visiting the women in prison we learn how many became mules out of necessity – widowed, with children but without education, this was the only route out of poverty.

Finally we return to the streets of Mexico and Baltimore. In Mexico we see children as young as 10 who have been drawn into a cycle of street living, drug taking and begging. People like Dr Huber Brocca are running a shelter to help get them off drugs but his hope is that the war on drug is replaced by a war on poverty. And in Baltimore we meet prisoner Erik Thompson, a street dealer imprisoned for 25 years – more than some murderers, more than some paedophiles. As Neill Franklin concludes – incarceration is not solving the problem, it is destroying communities. Gil Kerlikowske – President Obama’s drugs “czar” says that in future there will be a more balanced strategy, combining treatment and prevention as well as enforcement. But as the concluding contributions from many of the film’s contributors say: this is a problem of the West – we are the consumers who create the demand."

Cocaine Unwrapped – Preview Screenings

1st November screening at Picturehouse at Fact Liverpool at 6pm.
Tickets available here

10th November screening at Stratford East Picturehouse in London at 8:30pm.
Tickets avaialable here

Cocaine Unwrapped – Public Premiere
29th November screening at Curzon Soho in London (tickets for this not on sale yet)


More information:

• Cocaine Unwrapped website
• Facebook page
• Twitter

Cinepolitics discussion of the Film:

Majority in US support cannabis legalisation for the first time

An interesting development this week in the US, as support for legalisation of cannabis/marijuana finally achieved a majority - with the latest Gallup national polling showing 50% in favour and 46% opposed. This landmark follows years of growing support for the move despite increasing efforts to undermine the reform campaign by various state and federal agencies - and little support from members of congress or the senate.

It is impossible to tease out precisely what has led to this progressive shift in public opinion. Presumably it has been a combination of factors including:

• A growing realisation that the more hyperbolic reefer madness propaganda of the past was just that.
• A demographic shift, as current and former users progressively become a larger part of the electorate, and also move into positions of influence. 
• Growing disquiet over the human and financial costs of mass arrests for cannabis possession offences, particularly at a time of economic crisis.
• The success of the California ballot initiative last year in planting in the public's mind the idea that legalisation is probably inevitable, and could mean controlling, regulating and taxing the industry - not a free-for-all
• The success of decriminalisation models for cannabis possession in a number of US states, and other more far-reaching reforms in Europe (e.g. Dutch coffee shops and Spanish cannabis club models).   
• The growing US medical cannabis industry demonstrating that a regulated market model can exist without creating significant problems.
• Increasingly effective and sophisticated campaigning from the reform movement that has pushed the reform arguments into the mainstream public discourse

What is more, these results have even been achieved with a simple 'do you support legalisation: yes/no?' question. When the question is framed as 'legalisation and taxation', or 'legalisation with restricted sales to minors' - support rises even higher.  This points to the importance of being clear about the regulatory models being advocated - rather than just pointing to 'legalisation' - which is a process not an actual policy model, and is frequently misunderstood to mean abandoning all controls.

In any case, US politicians will no longer have the excuse of following (or pandering to) public opinion - rather than showing principled leadership. Support for legalisation could now be an electoral strength rather than a liability, depending on which constituency a politician is targeting - as the breakdown of support below reveals:

Interestingly, in the UK after years of a similar pattern of growing support, we have seen something of a retreat from approaching 50% support, to nearer a third - although it depends how you ask the question. This probably results from more potent indoor grown cannabis (or in the media - 'skunk') becoming increasingly prevalent in the market, and the perception (correct or not) of its increased risk influencing views on whether cannabis more broadly should be legally regulated or not (regulation obviously allows controls on strength potency to be put in place, whilst prohibtion has arguably fuelled the 'skunkification' of the UK market).  The more fevered Skunk related 'reefer madness' media coverage that accompanied the cannabis reclassification saga did not help.

None the less, where the US leads on drugs, the UK follows. If public opinion converts into actual reform - whether at state or federal level - it will be hugely significant for drug policy reform internationally, with a number of Latin American countries already indicating they would have to follow suit.

The hope is that if and when it does happen in the US, they do it properly. There is a concern amongst many European reformers that a US model might be overly commercialised; and that an inadequately regulated cannabis market could lead to some of the same problems with marketing and promotions that we have seen with the alcohol and tobacco industry in the last century, only now beginning to be addressed. In short, if the US move towards cannabis legalisation, that would be great, but if they do it badly, it could end up holding back reform elsewhere.

Finally, here's a great rant* about this recent development from Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC news.

*I'd take issue with the description of cannabis as 'harmless'

ACMD repeats call for decriminalisation of drug possession

In its submission to the drug strategy consultation last year, the ACMD effectively called for the decriminalisation of drug possession for personal use of all drugs. The term 'decriminalisation' is rather ill-defined, and often misunderstood as either legalisation, or removal/complete repeal of a law. Given this, the ACMD understandably avoided the term - opting instead for diversion, which perhaps more usefully describes what they were suggesting (even if they were also unambiguous about not being 'processed through the criminal justice system'). The wording they used was as follows:

"The ACMD believe that there is an opportunity to be more creative in dealing with those who have committed an offence by possession of drugs. For people found to be in possession of drugs (any) for personal use (and involved in no other criminal offences), they should not be processed through the criminal justice system but instead be diverted into drug education/awareness courses (as can happen now with speeding motor car offenders) or possibly other, more creative civil punishments (e.g. loss of driving licence or passport). If, however, there were other trigger offences (e.g. theft, burglary etc) then the usual test and treatment procedures would occur. Such approaches may be more effective in reducing repeat offending and reducing costs to the criminal justice system.

There should be “drugs awareness” courses to which those found in possession can be referred as a diversion – this would be the equivalent of the apparently successful “speed awareness” courses to which drivers can be referred as a diversion. These could also be available to those being conditionally cautioned where there is evidence of drug use. "

For some reason this didn't attract the attention of the media - somewhat oddly given recent history on arguably less contentious issues such as minor changes in penalties for cannabis possession. The inclusion here of the '(any)' making this a much more significant call in practical terms. Presumably no journalists actually read the whole document (consultations are famously tedious), and with organisations like Transform choosing to let the ACMD manage it as they saw fit, and no press releases emerging, it has remained largely under the radar. The only public sighting was in the recent LibDem drug policy reform motion - but even the considerable media this attracted didn't seem to draw attention to the ACMD call.

The ACMD has now repeated the call in its submission to the Sentencing Council consultation on drug offences. The specific issue of non-criminal sanctions for possession offences was (somewhat absurdly given developments around the world), outside of the remit of the consultation. The ACMD has chosen to include the call (using almost identical text to that included in the strategy consultation submission) in part of their response to the open ended final question: 'Are there any further comments that you wish to make?':

"The ACMD also believe that there is an opportunity to be more creative in dealing with those who have committed an offence by possession of drugs. For people found to be in possession of drugs (any) for personal use (and involved in no other criminal offences), they should not be processed through the criminal justice system but instead be diverted into drug education / awareness courses (as can happen now with speeding motor car offenders) with concomitant assessment for treatment needs (if the person consents), or possibly other, more creative civil punishments (e.g. loss of driving licence or passport). If, however, there were other trigger offences (e.g. theft, burglary etc) then the usual test and treatment procedures would occur. Such approaches may be more effective in reducing repeat offending and reducing costs to the criminal justice system. There should be “drugs awareness” courses to which those found in possession can be referred as a diversion – this would be the equivalent of the apparently successful “speed awareness” courses to which drivers can be referred as a diversion. These could also be available to those being conditionally cautioned where there is evidence of drug use."

Whether anyone notices this time  or if there is a fuss as a result, remains to be seen (it has been reported in the Times and NI stablemate Fox news and is popping up on twitter). It is, on the face of it, a very reasonable proposition, argued with reference to efficacy as you would hope from the Council, and making a useful parallel with the manner in which driving offences are dealt. The call has presumably been informed by growing evidence of such diversion schemes in various Latin American and European countries, most prominently Portugal.

A tweet from the Guardian's Alan Travis notes that the Home Office has stated in response that "We have no intention of liberalising our drug laws"- the standard line they use when any such reforms are mooted (failing to engage with the argument or evidence in any way). This may now prove to be inadequate, given that the call has come from the body of experts appointed by the Home Office under the auspices of the Misuse of Drugs Act, and operating within the Home Office. A ministerial response may be necessary - although neither ACMD statements were directed to a minister specifically.

However this now develops it is a welcome move from the sometimes timid ACMD, and inspiring to see they have not been cowed by the political heat that followed the David Nutt debacle.

UNDP Commission on HIV and the law looks at decriminalisation

The Global Commission on HIV and the Law, convened by the United Nations recently concluded the last of 7 regional dialogues, the high income countries' dialogue held in Oakland, California.

The objectives of the Commission are to:

• Analyse existing evidence and generate new evidence on rights and law in the context of HIV, and develop rights-based and evidence-informed recommendations
• Increase awareness amongst key constituencies on issues of rights and law in the context of HIV, and engage with civil society and strengthen their ability to campaign, advocate and lobby

Part of the focus of the commission's work has been to look at criminalisation of certain lifestyles and activities - including drug use, sex work, and men who have sex with men - and consider the potential impacts of such legal and policy environments in shaping the HIV epidemic and responses to it. It is notable that the idea of decriminalisation of personal drug use (as well as sex work and MSM) is not taboo and is widely supported within the historically pragmatic HIV policy arena. At UN level a number of agencies have made clear statements supporting decriminalisation in this context, including UNAIDS, and the General Secretary Ban Ki Moon;

“I urge all countries to remove punitive laws, policies and practices that hamper the AIDS response… Successful AIDS responses do not punish people; they protect them… We must ensure that AIDS responses are based on evidence, not ideology, and reach those most in need and most affected.”

Michel Sidibé, UNAIDS Executive Director, Joao Gulao, Gill Greer,

Tim Barnett and Festus Mogae (Former President of Botswana) agreeing 

on an anti-discrimination resolution at the Leaders on Discrimination 

session the 18th International AIDS Conference in Vienna, Austria on 

22 July 2010 (image thanks thebody.com).

Transform's senior policy analyst Steve Rolles was invited to join the expert advisory group for the High Income country dialogue, reviewing the background papers on the drugs issue and abstracts from civil society groups for the high income countries region in the run up to the Oakland dialogue.

Perhaps suprisingly, given the key role of policy and law in shaping risk taking behaviours amongst people who inject drugs (most obviously needle sharing), there were disappointingly few submissions from drug policy or harm reduction organisations. Steve was invited subsequently to attend the dialogue, joining - in the drug section of the dialogue - a drug policy activist from Portugal, representatives of  the Drug Policy Alliance, a harm reduction service provider from North Carolina, and a fomer special adviser from the White House ONDCP. The session video will be available online at some point (we will update this post and tweet when that happens).

Civil society groups were joined by Government representatives for the two day dialogue. Two US members of congress were present as were two of the 15 commissioners. 

 Congressman Jim McDermott (Right) among the participants 

Dialogue moderator, BBC World's Nisha Pillai

 Participant Deon Hayward from US based Women with a Vision

Congresswoman (and HIV and the Law Commissioner) Barnara Lee

Transform had the strong sense that the Commission report - expected early next year - will be based soundly on the voluminous evidence it has gathered from around the world on effective responses to HIV - making clear and unambiguous recommendations free from ideology and historic political taboos that have dogged many of these issues. It should be a strong advocacy tool for drug policy in the future - and a yardstick against which governments' drug policy responses in the context of people who inject drugs and HIV can be measured.

Whilst it will not be venturing into issues of regulated drug markets, it is likely to make a clear call for decriminlisation of drug users - and be very supportive of proven harm reduction interventions including needle and syringe programs, opiate substitution therapy (and hopefully heroin prescribing as an option), harm reduction provision in prisons and supervised injecting facilities. 



From the Commission website:

Global Commission on HIV and the Law

Many of the successes in mitigating the causes and consequences of HIV have taken root where laws have been used to protect the human rights of the marginalized and disempowered. For example, in some countries anti-discrimination laws have helped people living with HIV keep their jobs and their homes and look after their families. Laws to protect confidentiality have contributed to increasing confidence in heath systems, encouraging people to learn their HIV status and to access HIV prevention and treatment. Legal guarantees of property and inheritance rights for women and girls have helped to mitigate the social and economic burdens of AIDS. Still in many places across the globe, the legal environment is presenting significant challenges for sustaining and scaling up effective HIV responses. In many countries, laws and policies continue to prevent access to life-saving HIV treatment. Every day people living with HIV and people most at risk, including sex workers, drug users, prisoners, men who have sex with men, and transgender people, suffer stigma, discrimination and violence. Laws and practices that discriminate against women or fail to protect their rights, including the right to be free from violence, make women particularly vulnerable to HIV.

The Global Commission on HIV and the Law will interrogate the relationship between legal responses, human rights and HIV. The Commission shall also focus on some of the most challenging legal and human rights issues in the context of HIV, including criminalisation of HIV transmission, behaviours and practices such as drug use, sex work, same-sex sexual relations, and issues of prisoners, migrants, children's rights, violence against women and access to treatment. The Global Commission on HIV and the Law will develop actionable, evidence-informed and human rights-based recommendations for effective HIV responses that protect and promote the human rights of people living with and most vulnerable to HIV.

Lib Dems can lead the way on drug policy

Update 19 Sept 2011 - The Lib Dem Motion "Protecting Individuals and Communities from Drug Harms" was passed by conference, and is therefore now Lib Dem Party policy. Watch the full conference debate you tube here.


(This Blog originally appeared on politics.co.uk)


The Lib Dems have long held the most reasonable, evidence based drug policy of the three biggest UK parties, and if passed, their latest drugs motion would build on that history in grand style. At its heart is a call for a rather dull sounding “Impact Assessment” of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MDA) by an independent panel, to compare all the costs and benefits of the current approach to drugs with alternatives, such as Portuguese style decriminalisation of possession, and models of legal regulation including for cannabis, and Swiss-style heroin prescription. This is an eminently sensible approach that would allow future drug policy to be based on evidence of what works, rather than political rhetoric or tabloid fever.


But make no mistake – it would be truly groundbreaking. Firstly, none of the many previous reviews of drug policy have done this kind of comprehensive comparison. (In the US, the Drug Czar’s Office is actually banned from doing research that might show benefits from legal regulation.) Secondly, it would also be far harder to ignore because it would have been Government initiated, originate from Lib Dem Party Policy, and be of huge public interest, like the recent Banking Review.


Yet an Impact Assessment of this kind is not radical - it is the gold-standard approach for assessing public policy the world over. In fact, if the Misuse of Drugs Act were introduced today it would be required to have one carried out on it in advance of enactment, and after 3-5 years to see if it is actually doing what it was intended to.


This has been a requirement for all Acts of Parliament since 2005 for the very good reason that laws often have unintended consequences, and it makes sense to assess whether they outweigh the benefits. And if there is one thing everyone agrees about in drug policy it is that the MDA (and similar legislation in other countries) was not intended to create a huge criminal market; undermine international development and security; increase health harms including HIV/AIDS; promote stigma and discrimination; lead to deforestation and pollution, and undermine human rights all over the globe (see countthecosts.org for details). Yet even the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, which oversees the system of global prohibition, acknowledges it has created all these ‘unintended consequences’.


Would such an Impact Assessment be possible? Despite what the current and last Government have said, yes it would be – which is why the European Commission is starting one looking at different approaches to controlling new synthetic drugs - so-called ‘legal highs’. What if there are gaps in the research base? Then one of the key things an IA can do is identify them and provide guidance in prioritising which gaps should be filled first, and which are not crucial to forming an overall conclusion. That is why an Impact Assessment approach is endorsed by a range of NGOs and academics from various sectors affected by drug policy, and politicians from all parties, including the Conservative Peer and Professor of Government Lord Norton, who was the prime mover in making Impact Assessments obligatory for all new Acts. Impact Assessments may not make for great sound bites or lurid tabloid headlines, but they do result in better policy, and at a time of severe cuts, there is a pressing need to ensure all public spending is as effective as possible.


This motion is also timely. Globally, the tide has turned, and ever more prominent statesmen and women are calling for an end to the failed war on drugs and its replacement with models of legal regulation based on science, public health and human rights principles. Those voices now include the former Secretary-General of the UN Kofi Annan, seven former Presidents including of the US, Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Honduras and Switzerland, and the current Prime Minister of Greece, not to mention senior doctors, police, academics and religious leaders. In response, the Tory and Labour frontbenches continue shouting; “Drugs are bad for you, ban them” whilst refusing to explore different approaches – even when shown to work in other countries. That is not principled leadership, and looks increasingly irresponsible.

 

The Lib Dem motion is only part of a much broader, growing global campaign for a full review of the War on Drugs, and all the alternatives. The War on Drugs: Count the Costs project (www.countthecosts.org) was launched this year to mark the 50th Anniversary of the UN Convention that underpins the current approach. It is bringing together groups and individuals from every sector affected by drugs, and every region. We might have a range of views on what we should do about drugs, but we share a commitment to make the world a safer, healthier place. As a result we also share one simple aim – let’s count the costs of the war on drugs and explore the alternatives, so we can base drug policy on evidence of what works. And an Impact Assessment of the UK Misuse of Drugs Act would be an excellent place to start.

Former Colombian president writes foreword for new Spanish translation of 'After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation'

With the ever increasing importance of Latin America to both the debate around drug policy, and the politics of ending the failed drug war, Transform is pleased to announce the Spanish translation (PDF) of our book 'After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation'.  We are also delighted to announce it has a new foreword by César Gaviria, former president of Colombia, and member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy.

Transform's Head of External Affairs, Danny Kushlick, is currently in Mexico, at the III Conferencia Latinoamericana y I Conferencia Mexicana sobre Políticas de Drogas, promoting the translation of the book, along with the new Spanish Count the Costs website and briefings.

Below is former President Gaviria's foreword in English, followed by the Spanish:

We are on the brink of a substantial shift in international drug policy that will transform the entire globe. After decades waiting in the wings, alternatives to prohibition are now firmly on the negotiating table for discussion. The media’s overwhelmingly positive response to the report from the Global Commission on Drug Policy, (on which I am proud to have sat as a member), has shown that there is a big appetite for change.

This Spanish translation of ‘After the war on Drugs – Blueprint for Regulation’ is so relevant now because of the overwhelmingly catastrophic impacts of the war on drugs in Latin America, but also because there now exists here an appetite for progressive reform. In the last year the presidents of both Colombia and Mexico have called for an evidence based discussion of alternatives, including legal regulation.

When it happens, the shift to legal regulation will result in major benefits for states significantly involved in production, transit and consumption of currently illegal drugs. However, the positive repercussions will ripple out far wider and ultimately will bring benefits for all of us – increasing security, promoting development, bolstering democracy and upholding human rights. All of which are close to my heart, from my time as Secretary General of the Organisation of American States, of which these policy principles form the four pillars.

However, it is not all plain sailing. The US has led other UN member states to object to Bolivia’s request to amend the UN Single Convention to allow indigenous coca chewing, because they claim it would jeopardise the ‘integrity’ of the 1961 UN Single Convention on drugs. ‘Integrity’ implies that the overarching system of drug control is “unimpaired, sound, essential and complete”. Every report on drugs from the last ten years shows this to be very far from the truth. None has gone anywhere near giving the current regime a clean bill of health, and in fact most have questioned both its underlying principles and its outcomes, including those from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime itself.

It would be more apt to describe the current system as ‘corrupt’, in its original sense, meaning rotten and broken. From its conception the UN drug control system has been split in two. In 1961 the Single Convention on Drugs formulated a strict system of regulation on the production, supply and use of drugs for medical use, whilst at the same time constructing an absolute global ban for non-medical production, supply and use.

These control regimes produced two very different markets – one regulated by governments and subject to international trade agreements, the other run by organised criminals, insurgents, paramilitaries and corrupt officials, completely beyond the control of governments or supranational agencies. It is this latter market that afflicts states as far apart as Afghanistan – where the rule of law is significantly undermined by their involvement in opium production, Colombia – whose governance is compromised by the catalysing influence of cocaine in supporting the activities of insurgents, paramilitaries and parapoliticians, Guinea Bissau – where the fragile state collapsed into a narcostate when it became part of the new cocaine transit route, and Mexico – where turf war violence has led to tens of thousands of the most horribly violent deaths in the last few years.

And yet, at the same time, legal cocaine is produced for the medical market, without undermining regional or global security, and opium is grown all over the world for both pain control and for the treatment of addiction, without undermining development in fragile states or contributing to crime and criminality. The only conclusion we can draw from these contrasting examples is that it is the control regime that determines the efficacy of the outcomes. The opium poppies swaying in the breeze in fields in India, Tasmania and the UK will travel a vastly different route than those grown in the fields of Southern Afghanistan.

As this ‘Blueprint’ demonstrates in some detail, drug regulation is anything but a step into the unknown. The parallel, legally regulated drug market has a long history and a robust evidence base that shows both its strengths and its weaknesses. One lesson we must learn from our experience is that governments must intervene with more vigour in the alcohol and tobacco markets. Multi-national companies that hold profitability as the highest priority are unlikely to hold their customers’ health in the highest regard. No one with a serious interest in the needs of the disadvantaged and vulnerable would countenance the free sale of heroin from unlicensed vendors, (as is currently the case for tobacco).

‘After the War on Drugs – Blueprint for Regulation’ describes three basic options for government regulation – prescription, pharmacy dispensing and licensed sale. Given that the UN estimates that there are up to 250 million users of illegal drugs, it is perverse in the extreme to leave the trade that supplies them, in the hands of organised criminals and unregulated dealers.

The world needs, and deserves, a control regime that is not corrupt, that has genuine integrity – that is sound, complete and whole – that is democratic, and delivers security, development and health within a human rights framework. I am realistic. I believe it could take another ten years to turn this ‘Blueprint’ into reality. It is a tragedy that in the next decade many thousands more will die using dirty drugs or trying to stop, or fighting over the spoils of, the illegal trade. At the same time we will collectively waste another trillion dollars on the global war on drugs.

But positive steps in the right direction are already underway and public support for reform increases inexorably. Decriminalisation of drug users is gaining ground in several Latin American countries and experiments with the legal regulation of cannabis are almost certain to start in several places within a few years time.

I commend readers of this book to pass it on to politicians who have the power to implement its conclusions. It will prove an invaluable resource for those seeking an exit strategy from the drug war and a solid foundation for peace and security in Latin America and beyond.

César Gaviria
former President of Colombia
June 2011

Nos encontramos al borde de un significativo cambio en cuanto a políticas internacionales sobre drogas, un cambio que transformará todo el planeta. Tras décadas de esperar su turno por salir a escena, las alternativas a la prohibición se encuentran ahora firmemente colocadas en la mesa de negociaciones para ser discutidas. La respuesta abrumadoramente positiva de los medios de comunicación al informe de la Comisión Global sobre Políticas de Drogas (a la cual me enorgullezco de pertenecer), ha mostrado que existe una enorme sed de cambio.

Esta traducción al español de “Después de la Guerra contra las Drogas – Una Propuesta para la Regulación” es tan relevante ahora debido a los abrumadoramente catastróficos impactos de la guerra contra las drogas en América Latina, pero también porque ahora existe aquí gran entusiasmo por una reforma progresista. Durante el último año, los presidentes tanto de Colombia como de México han formulado llamados por una discusión basada en evidencias sobre estrategias alternativas, incluyendo la regulación legal.

Cuando ocurra el cambio hacia la regulación legal, éste resultará en importantes beneficios para los países que se encuentran involucrados de manera significativa en la producción, tránsito y consumo de drogas actualmente ilegales. Las repercusiones positivas, sin embargo, se expandirán mucho más allá de estos países y, en última instancia, nos beneficiarán a todos – incrementando la seguridad, promoviendo el desarrollo, reafirmando la democracia y ratificando los derechos humanos. Todos estos valores los llevo muy dentro de mí, desde la época en que fui Secretario General de la Organización de Estados Americanos, cuyos cuatro pilares coinciden con estos principios de política.

Éste no será, sin embargo, un recorrido sin tropiezos. Los EE.UU. han llevado a otros Estados miembros de la ONU a objetar la solicitud de Bolivia de enmendar la Convención Única sobre Estupefacientes de las Naciones Unidas para permitir que poblaciones indígenas mastiquen hoja de coca, afirmando que ello amenazaría la “integridad” de la Convención Única de 1961. “Integridad” implica que el sistema global para el control de drogas es “intacto, sólido, esencial y completo”. Cada informe sobre drogas de los últimos diez años muestra que ello está muy lejos de ser cierto. Ninguno de estos informes ha llegado al punto de afirmar que el régimen actual está libre de problemas y, de hecho, la mayoría de estos reportes, incluyendo aquellos elaborados por la propia Oficina de las Naciones Unidas sobre las Drogas y el Delito, cuestionan tanto los principios subyacentes como los resultados de este régimen.

Sería más apropiado describir el sistema actual como “corrupto” en el sentido original del término, que significa podrido y dañado. Desde su concepción, el sistema para el control de drogas de la ONU ha estado escindido en dos. En 1961, la Convención Única sobre Estupefacientes formuló un estricto sistema de regulación sobre la producción, suministro y consumo de drogas para uso médico, mientras al mismo tiempo construía una prohibición global absoluta para la producción, suministro y consumo de drogas no médicas.

Estos regímenes de control produjeron dos tipos de mercados muy diferentes – uno regulado por los gobiernos y sujeto a acuerdos comerciales internacionales; y el otro manejado por organizaciones criminales, insurgentes, paramilitares y funcionarios corruptos, ubicado completamente fuera del control de los gobiernos y las agencias supranacionales. Es éste último mercado el que está afligiendo a países tan distantes como Afganistán – donde el Estado de Derecho ha sido significativamente socavado debido a su participación en la producción de opio; Colombia – cuya gobernabilidad está comprometida por la influencia catalizadora de la cocaína en apoyo de las actividades de subversivos, paramilitares y parapolíticos; Guinea Bissau – donde el frágil Estado colapsó para convertirse en un narco-Estado al volverse parte de la nueva ruta para el tránsito de cocaína; y México – donde la violencia de la lucha interna por el control de territorios ha producido decenas de miles de los asesinatos más espantosamente violentos perpetrados en los últimos años.

Y sin embargo, al mismo tiempo, se produce cocaína legal para el mercado médico sin socavar la seguridad regional o global, y se cultiva amapola en todo el planeta tanto para controlar el dolor como para tratar adicciones sin socavar el desarrollo en Estados frágiles ni contribuir a la delincuencia y la criminalidad. La única conclusión que podemos extraer de estos ejemplos contradictorios es que lo que determina la eficacia de los resultados es el régimen de control. El viento que hace balancear los cultivos de amapolas opiáceas en la India, Tasmania y el Reino Unido, les lleva por una ruta diametralmente distinta a la trazada para los cultivos de la misma planta en el sur de Afganistán.

Tal como la presente “Propuesta para la Regulación” demuestra en detalle, la regulación de las drogas no es en absoluto un paso hacia lo desconocido. El mercado paralelo de drogas, legalmente regulado, tiene una larga historia y una sólida base de evidencias que muestra tanto sus fortalezas como sus debilidades. Una lección que debemos recoger de nuestra experiencia es que los gobiernos deben intervenir con más vigor en los mercados de alcohol y tabaco. Es improbable que compañías multinacionales cuya máxima prioridad es la ganancia, tengan mucho respeto por la salud de sus clientes. Ninguna persona seriamente interesada en las necesidades de las personas desfavorecidas y vulnerables toleraría la venta libre de heroína por parte de vendedores sin licencia (tal como ocurre actualmente con el tabaco).

“Después de la Guerra contra las Drogas – Una Propuesta para la Regulación” describe tres opciones básicas para regulación por parte del gobierno – prescripción, venta a través de farmacias y venta con licencia. Dado que la ONU calcula que existen cerca de 250 millones de consumidores de drogas ilegales, resulta extremadamente perverso dejar el comercio que les proporciona estas sustancias en manos de criminales organizados y traficantes exentos de regulación.

El mundo requiere y merece un régimen de control que no sea corrupto, que tenga una genuina integridad – que sea sensato, completo y cabal – que sea democrático, y que ofrezca seguridad, desarrollo y salud en un marco de derechos humanos. Soy realista. Creo que podría tomar otros diez años convertir esta “Propuesta” en realidad. Resulta trágico que en la próxima década muchos miles de personas más deban morir consumiendo drogas sucias o tratando de dejarlas, o disputando el botín del tráfico ilegal. Al mismo tiempo, colectivamente desperdiciaremos otro billón de dólares en la guerra global contra las drogas.

Sin embargo, ya se están dando pasos positivos en la dirección correcta, y el apoyo del público hacia la reforma crece inexorablemente. La descriminalización de los consumidores de drogas está conquistando terreno en varios países de América Latina, y es casi seguro que dentro de pocos años empiecen experimentos con la regulación legal de cannabis en varios lugares.

A quienes lean este libro, les encomiendo que lo hagan llegar a los políticos que tienen la autoridad para implementar sus conclusiones. Este libro resultará ser un recurso invalorable para quienes busquen una estrategia para escapar de la guerra contra las drogas, y una base sólida para lograr la paz y la seguridad en América Latina y en otras latitudes.

César Gaviria
Ex-Presidente de Colombia
Junio de 2011

La campaña Guerra Contra las Drogas: Calcula los Costos será lanzada en América Latina

Comunicado de Prensa: Difusión Irrestricta

Today the War on Drugs: Count the Costs Campaign (La campaña Guerra Contra las Drogas: Calcula los Costos) will be launched in Latin America, alongside the newly translated Count the Costs website and briefings - now available. 

Danny Kushlick of Transform Drug Policy Foundation (UK) will outline the many costs of the war on drugs, and the aims of the campaign, followed by a screening of the film Cocaine Unwrapped  at the III Conferencia Latinoamericana y I Conferencia Mexicana sobre Políticas de Drogas in Mexico City.

50 Años de la Guerra Contra las Drogas: Calcula los Costos 

La campaña Guerra Contra las Drogas: Calcula los Costos será lanzada en América Latina:

• Lugar: Cinematógrafo del Chopo, Doctor Atl, 37 Colonia Santa María La Ribera, Mexico City
• Fecha y hora: Lunes 12 de setiembre, a las 6 pm 

Danny Kushlick, de la Fundación Transform Drug Policy (Reino Unido), presentará un resumen sobre los numerosos costos de la guerra contra las drogas y las metas de la campaña, seguido de la proyección de la película “Cocaine Unwrapped” [Cocaína Desenvuelta] http://agadem.co.uk/cocaine-unwrapped

La campaña “La Guerra Contra las Drogas: Calcula los Costos” reunirá a actores involucrados de todo el mundo, incluyendo a OSC, gestores de políticas y otros, cuyo trabajo es impactado negativamente por el tratamiento legal a las drogas. Juntos harán un llamado a los gobiernos y agencias internacionales para evaluar intensamente las consecuencias colaterales de la Guerra contra las drogas y explorar alternativas basadas en evidencias.

Aquí el texto completo de este llamado:

La Guerra contra las Drogas: Calcula los Costos y Explora las Alternativas

Durante 50 años, el mundo ha librado la “guerra contra las drogas” sin lograr prevenir la tendencia en el largo plazo al incremento del suministro y consumo de drogas. Más allá de este fracaso, la Oficina de las Naciones Unidas contra la Droga y el Delito también ha identificado muchas y graves “consecuencias negativas no intencionales” de la guerra contra las drogas. Estos costos no son resultado del consumo de drogas en sí, sino de la elección de un enfoque punitivo impulsado por la aplicación de la ley que, por su naturaleza, coloca el control del negocio de las drogas en manos del crimen organizado, y que criminaliza a muchos usuarios de estas sustancias. En el proceso, este enfoque:

• Socava el desarrollo y la seguridad internacionales, y alimenta el conflicto 
• Amenaza la salud pública, difunde enfermedades y causa la muerte 
• Socava los derechos humanos 
• Promueve el estigma y la discriminación 
• Genera delincuencia y enriquece a los criminales 
• Causa deforestación y contaminación 
• Desperdicia miles de millones en acciones inefectivas para la aplicación de la ley 

La “guerra contra las drogas” en una opción de políticas. Existen otras opciones que deben, como mínimo, ser debatidas y exploradas, valiéndose de las mejores evidencias y análisis que se puedan reunir. Todos compartimos las mismas metas – lograr un mundo más seguro, más saludable y más justo. Por ello, los abajo suscritos hacemos un llamado a los líderes del mundo y las agencias de las NN.UU. para cuantificar las consecuencias negativas no intencionales del enfoque actual hacia las drogas, y evaluar los costos y beneficios potenciales de enfoques alternativos.

Danny Kushlick, hablando en nombre de la campaña Calcula los Costos, dijo: “Tras cincuenta años de guerra contra las drogas, con billones de dólares gastados, las drogas ilegales constituyen una de las mercancías más importantes en el planeta. Incluso la Oficina de las NN.UU. para las Drogas y el Delito, que supervisa en sistema global para el control de drogas, admite que los esfuerzos para aplicación de la ley sobre drogas han alimentado la creación de un vasto mercado criminal con desastrosas consecuencias negativas no intencionales. Ninguna región ha sido más afectada que América Latina.

Sin embargo, ningún gobierno o entidad de las NN.UU. ha calculado jamás adecuadamente los costos, o explorado de manera significativa las alternativas a la guerra contra las drogas. Después de medio siglo, este paso se ha hecho esperar demasiado tiempo. Sólo considerando las evidencias de lo que ha funcionado, y lo que no resultó bien, podremos desarrollar un sistema global para el control de drogas que sea ‘adecuado para este propósito’.”

La campaña Calcula los Costos, permite apreciar numerosos comentarios expresados por líderes del mundo, quienes se refieren a la necesidad de evaluar los costos y beneficios de varios regímenes políticos:

“Hay algunas contradicciones estructurales fundamentales en esta Guerra contra las Drogas… Nosotros en Colombia hemos sido exitosos, pero este éxito está dañando a toda América Central, México, el Caribe, África, y eventualmente regresará a nosotros. Por lo tanto, ¿estamos asumiendo la política correcta en el largo plazo? No tengo objeción a discutir ninguna de las alternativas, pero si vamos a discutirlas, hagámoslo con todas y cada una de ellas, ¿cuál es el costo?, ¿cuál es el beneficio de cada alternativa?”. Presidente Juan Manuel Santos de Colombia, The Washington Post, diciembre de 2010.

La lista de adherentes a la campaña incluye a las siguientes instituciones: International Drug Policy Consortium; Harm Reduction International; Eurasian Harm Reduction Network; Drug Policy Alliance (EE.UU.); Espolea (México); Release (Reino Unido); Fundación Transform Drug Policy (Reino Unido); Sindicato de Libertades Civiles de Hungría; CuPIHD (México); Instituto Transnacional (Países Bajos); International Centre for Science in Drug Policy (Canada); New Zealand Drug Policy Foundation; la Oficina en Washington para Asuntos Latinoamericanos; APDES (Portugal); PIE (Bolivia) y muchas más.

Para ver la lista completa de adherentes, consultar: http://countthecosts.org/es/simpatizantes


FIN


Contacto:

Danny Kushlick, Jefe de Asuntos Externos, Fundación Transform Drug Policy

+44 (0)7970 174747; danny at tdpf.org.uk

Notas para los Editores

1. III Conferencia Latinoamericana y I Conferencia Mexicana sobre Políticas de Drogas se llevará a cabo los días 13 y 14 de septiembre en la Ciudad de México http://www.drogasmexico.org/index.php?nota=4106

2. Los consecuencias colaterales de la Guerra Contra las Drogas fueron presentadas por el entonces Director Ejecutivo de la Oficina de Naciones Unidas contra las Drogas y el Delito, Antonio María Costa, en: “Making drug control 'fit for purpose': Building on the UNGASS decade” [“Adecuando el control de drogas según los objetivos: Consolidando la década de UNGASS”] ONUDD, 2008, p. 10:

“La primera consecuencia no deseada es un enorme mercado negro delictivo que en la actualidad prospera trasladando sustancias prohibidas de los productores a los consumidores… La segunda consecuencia no deseada es lo que se podría llamar el desplazamiento de las políticas. La expansión del mercado negro delictivo requería, obviamente, una respuesta acorde de los servicios encargados de hacer cumplir la ley, así como una mayor cantidad de recursos. La consecuencia fue que la salud pública se desplazó a un segundo plano, y se la atendió más con promesas y retórica, pero menos en la práctica... La tercera consecuencia no deseada es el desplazamiento geográfico. A menudo se le denomina efecto globo, porque al apretar (con controles más severos) en un lugar, se produce una hinchazón (es decir, un aumento) en otro… La cuarta consecuencia no deseada es lo que se podría denominar el desplazamiento de sustancias. Si se fiscaliza el consumo de una droga, reduciendo ya sea la oferta o la demanda, los proveedores y usuarios adoptan otra droga con efectos psicoactivos similares… La quinta consecuencia no deseada es la forma en que consideramos y tratamos a los consumidores de drogas ilícitas. Al parecer, se ha creado un sistema en el cual los que caen en las redes de la adicción se encuentran marginados y excluidos de la sociedad, marcados por un estigma moral y a menudo incapaces de encontrar tratamiento aun cuando estén motivados para someterse a él”.http://countthecosts.org/