By Marianne Coulavin, Student - MA Program 'Policies and Practices in International Organizations', Sciences Po Grenoble*

(Most of this information was compiled in interviews with Dania Putri and Asmae, a young woman of the community of cannabis farmers in the Al Hoceima province of the Moroccan Rif region.)

Morocco is the world’s largest producer of cannabis resin, also known as hashish. In the Rif, the country’s northernmost region, cannabis has grown for centuries. Its mountainous topography and comparatively humid climate suit the ancient crop.

Cannabis cultivation is done in the open. During August and September, if you wander around Ketama, a small rural commune in the region, you are likely to see countless fields of cannabis plants ready to be harvested.

The central Rif is one of the poorest regions of Morocco. Cannabis cultivation is a matter of subsistence. For many households, it serves as a main source of income in a region with few alternative livelihood opportunities and limited public services.

Although growing cannabis is illegal in Morocco, it remains tolerated in the Rif region. Nationally, cannabis cultivation provides a living for around 90,000 to 140,000 families, covering around 50,000 hectares of land.

In order to understand cannabis farming in the Rif, one needs to look at an often unacknowledged fact: gendered labour roles. Men are generally in charge of selling the production while women work in the fields. Community leaders are generally men and thus the faces of the cannabis industry in the region. But women are the harvesting hands of the hashish that reaches Europe.

Farming cannabis is incredibly exerting, explains Asmae, a young woman from the Al Hoceima province. A typical working day in the field lasts some 14 hours; from before dawn, at 05:00, to almost sunset, at 19:00. With a brief 30-minute lunch break to barely recover.

As it could be expected, the daily work of women labourers has been impacted by lockdown measures implemented by the Moroccan government in an attempt to contain the COVID-19 pandemic.

Usually, to speed up cultivation and harvest, farmers hire workers; often young people looking for employment. But these extra pairs of hands are rare these days, as most come from different provinces and are not allowed to travel during pandemic restrictions. Women are left with no choice but to work harder to ensure cultivation runs smoothly.

Besides worsening harvesting conditions, cannabis farming communities are seeing pre-existing challenges exacerbated by the epidemic. In the last couple of years, growers’ earnings have been significantly reduced as prices have plummeted. Trade restrictions have further aggravated the situation, limiting access to foreign markets. As a result, some farmers have begun to stockpile their harvest. Only domestic sales, which normally account for 20% of the total, have remained stable.

Moroccan cannabis growers are also facing a dilemma. The rise in popularity of high-THC strains imported from Europe (locally known as ‘critical’) has conditioned cultivating practices in recent years. But these supposedly high-yielding varieties are also more resource-intensive, demanding higher financial investments, labour, and water. Especially compared to locally-adapted landraces, such as Beldia. While a recent revival of the latter is promising, the ecological impact of foreign demand compounds environmental concerns, such as deforestation. And adds to the burden faced by precarious cannabis growing communities during the pandemic.

To mitigate the economic consequences of the pandemic, the Moroccan government has set up a support scheme ranging from 800 to 1,200 dirhams ($USD 82 - 124) per month depending on the size of the household. While support is welcome, this allowance will not suffice to alleviate the decades-long underdevelopment and marginalisation of the region.

Riffian cannabis growers would greatly benefit from robust investments in infrastructure and the nationwide legal regulation.

And those best placed to offer guidance on that process are traditional farming communities, and particularly women, with their centuries-old experience in cultivation, in deciding how best to advance to formal markets.

According to the Transnational Institute, a comprehensive plan for development in the Rif would include providing technical assistance to farmers, recognising the importance of cannabis to local communities, and exploring innovative and sustainable ways to improve other local sectors – such as tourism – to help diversify the local economy.

Despite the difficulties farmers face, cannabis production remains the most immediately viable and rapidly scalable livelihood in the Rif. As the COVID-19 pandemic is expected to have disastrous health and socio-economic consequences around the globe, the legal regulation of cannabis could support the Moroccan peoples’ resilience.

* This blog post was produced within the framework of a 4-month volunteering experience placement at the International Drug Policy Consortium as part of the student's MA Program 'Policies and Practices in International Organizations' at Sciences Po Grenoble.

Responses to COVID-19 impacts must include Moroccan cannabis farmers

By Beatrix Vas, SSDP Global Development Intern & SSDP Budapest Chapter Leader

In 1999, the United Nations General Assembly declared the 12th of August International Youth Day, intended to draw attention to and celebrate young people’s actions and achievements towards creating a better world for all.

The theme of International Youth Day 2020 is “Youth Engagement for Global Action,” highlighting “the ways in which the engagement of young people at the local, national and global levels is enriching national and multilateral institutions and processes, as well as draw lessons on how their representation and engagement in formal institutional politics can be significantly enhanced.”

As a community of young activists, SSDP members are fully aware of the value of young people’s involvement in decision- and policy making processes at all levels - and we also see the difficulties youth face while engaging in advocacy and formal politics.

Today, the United Nations highlights that we have only 10 years left to make the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development a reality. It is also important to highlight that the Sustainable Development Goals, including ending poverty and ensuring everyone’s right to health is respected, are virtually impossible to achieve unless we end the War on Drugs.

Young people, including SSDP members, are working tirelessly to draw local, national and global policymakers’ attention to how these issues intersect with drug policy reform to influence people's lives. Achievements just in 2020 include SSDP Ghana working with key government institutions to provide input into the the country’s historic new Narcotics Control Commission Bill, which legalized cannabis and hemp for health, research and industrial purposes; SSDP Israel becoming a member of the official Israeli Harm Reduction Forum; members of SSDP Ireland and YouthRISE meeting with the Irish delegation at the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) session to discuss Irish and international concerns for young people; organizing an exhibition about peer-led drug education at the UN; Michigan State University SSDP passing a resolution banning the use of facial recognition technology on campus; and, Ohio State University SSDP campaigning successfully for their university to distribute free fentanyl testing strips on campus.

While in the past couple of years, we have seen improvements in the opportunities available to young people to engage in processes that will continue to shape their lives, we still have a long way to go.

In the most important decision making spaces, youth involvement remains largely symbolic. While the agenda of this year’s Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) session was filled heavily with youth-focused side events on drug prevention and education, and the most significant resolution on the table of the plenary was about youth involvement in drug prevention efforts (put forward by the Russian Federation), it was tremendously difficult if not impossible to find Young Key Affected Populations represented on panels, or getting the opportunity to voice their concerns and opinions. The Youth Delegates to the 2020 Youth Forum still work only in parallel to the actual session, essentially barring them from effective access to the plenary discussions. Their contribution has remained a 5-minute statement - a waste of their voices, efforts, and talents.

As long as youth-focused resolutions, strategies and action plans continue to be adopted without meaningful involvement of young people, these policies will bring little to no progress towards a better life for said youth. Talking extensively about protecting ‘youth at risk’ from drug-related harms means little when current drug policies pose dangers especially for young people... How could it be differently when the living and lived experiences of young people who use drugs are not channeled into policy?!

While young people continue to be used as props on show in spaces like the CND, young advocates face very real, severe risks for their involvement in drug policy reform processes in many places. Several of our friends and allies from the organization Legalize Belarus are currently detained by police.

On this International Youth Day, we call on the United Nations and the global community at large to acknowledge that most often, young people are able to make these outstanding contributions to their communities and local, national, and global level policymaking despite of the exclusionary structure of these processes, not because of any concerted global effort for involving young persons in governance.

Recognizing our achievements is an important step, but the conversation needs to include reducing the institutional barriers on all levels.

Youth at risk and youth on show - Young people's engagement in global drug policy reform

By Jorge Herrera Valderrábano and Monserrat Angulo

As part of the Support. Don’t punish global campaign, several activities took place in Mexico to demand respect for the human rights of people who use drugs. One of them was the Festival Apoye No Castigue, an initiative promoted by young people since 2018 and coordinated by 

Laboratorio sobre Sociedad, Arte y Drogas (now renamed Conexiones Psicoactivas)

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this edition was held virtually with the aim of creating a meeting point and dialogue space between citizens and civil society organizations. Given the incredibly positive response that the Festival has had over the last three years, this year's edition took place over 16 days. Activities delved into various topics concerning human rights, harm reduction and pleasure management, which are key pillars of the paradigm shift in drug policy promoted by the festival.

An important activity within the Festival was the 'psychoactive clothesline', inspired by the work of Mónica Meyer. The initiative invited people to answer a series of questions on social networks: Have you been arrested for using drugs? How was that experience? Have you had a bad experience when taking substances? Have you lived discrimination against for using drugs? And how has your drug use changed during the contingency?. The results showed people have experienced abuse and extorsion at the time of being stopped and arrested by the police. They also highlighted aspects such as theft and sexual harassment when coming into contact with the illegal market. It also brought to the fore that the main consequences associated with discrimination on the grounds of drug use are dismissals and sanctions in educational institutions.

Likewise, we organized a discussion session on young people who have been in conflict with the law, in which we identified that people who use psychoactive substances are criminalised and targeted by police abuse on the daily in Mexico. Although carrying drugs of an amount lower than an established threshold does not attract criminal penalties, people who use drugs remain at the mercy of police arrests, after which they are brought in front of a judge, who is in charge of determining the penalties, or lack thereof. This situation paves the way for extorsion and human rights violations by law enforcement operators. The discussion was guided by a lawyer from an allied organization, who provided resources people could utilise when in conflict with the authorities or the law.

The Festival also shared resources to confront prohibitionism through home-growth and extraction workshops, and spaces to share strategies of care in relation to the use of psychoactive substances, specifically psychedelics. We shared information about a range of health services orientated toward the management of pleasure in nightlife and party settings, as well as developments in terms of psychoactive resistance and other intersecting movements.

The III Support. Don’t Punish festival was structured around some 40 activities organized in thematic blocs: Prohibitions and human rights violations; harm reduction and pleasure management,; cannabis: uses, production and regulation; activism and psychoactive resistance. Each one of the activities, which included panels, talks and contests, were broadcast and open access. Specialists from the health, security and justice sectors joined in from national organizations, such as Espacio Progresista and Movimiento de Diversidad Progresista; regional initiatives, such as Catalyst and the Latin American Network of People who Use Drugs (LANPUD); and international organizations, such as Energy Control.

In general, the Festival allowed us to explore novel ways to organise, demonstrate and mobilise through digital platforms, despite the pandemic situation. This initiative allowed us to exchange knowledge with different organizations that advance drug policy reform worldwide. We met great allies and learned together about new developments in relation to a broad range of topics. And the digital format allowed us to weave networks of solidarity and friendship with colleagues in different latitudes, while expanding the reach of our message.

In commemoration of International Youth Day, we recently launched a survey on drug policy and political participation. And, on 12 August, we will hold the first session of our psychoactive film series, with the film “Kenke”, which narrates the story of a young person who smokes cannabis and faces a series of problems with his family and school due to prejudice, stigma and misinformation. Likewise, at the end of the month we will organise the first in a series of workshops on psychoactive substances and drug policy aimed at young people between 15-27 years old. To register and follow our work, please follow us on social media.

* Jorge Herrera Valderrábano has a B.A. in International Relations from the Tecnológico de Monterrey, and is studying a second major in Social Work at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. He is the cofounder of Instituto RIA, an organization doing research and advocacy to highlight innovations in drug policy with a social justice focus.

Monserrat Angulo studied Sociology at the Facultad de Estudios Superiores Acatlán. She is an activist and collaborator of various projects related to drug policy and risk and harm reduction. She currently works at ReverdeSer Colectivo, a civil organization that seeks to transform peacebuilding policies from a full spectrum perspective.

Young people in #PsychoactiveResistance

By Marianne Coulavin, Student - MA Program 'Policies and Practices in International Organizations', 

Stigma usually stands for a mark of shame, discredit or public disapproval. Stigmatisation involves the artificial categorisation of a group of people as a distinct social entity associated with undesirable social/physical perils. These characteristics are framed as the group’s 

 identity and are often blamed on the group itself, which, in turn, is weaponised to justify their marginalisation.

The stigmatisation of people who use drugs bears serious consequences. It isolates people and undermines their self-esteem and sense of self-worth. It can also deter people experiencing difficulties related to their drug use from seeking treatment and accessing harm reduction facilities, whether to avoid being stimatised or as a result of internalised feelings of being underserving of solidarity and support. Healthcare workers can perpetuate stigma and even refuse to provide service to people who use drugs. As such, stigma is a significant barrier to health promotion, treatment and support. What is more, the stigmatisation of people who use drugs has contributed to 

 discrimination. People who use drugs are discriminated against in a variety of ways, including in relation to access to health services, housing and employment. It is therefore essential to reduce the stigma on drug use and people who use drugs.

It is commonly understood that the vocabulary that we use can influence the feelings and perceptions of our audience. But how exactly? According to Dr Antonis Kousoulis, Director of the Mental Health Foundation, ‘a word brings [to mind] an idea and an idea triggers many other ideas’, and our brain ‘keeps making connections between all those by resurfacing memories, which in turn recall emotions, that then bring other reactions’. So, the way we process and store language, memories and emotions is intimately linked.

Equating a person's identity with their substance use, questioning and diminishing the value of that person on the basis of that use, and dehumanising them through negative labels not only has a significant impact on that person's [mental] health, but also affects public opinion. And these generalised [mis-]understandings, or narratives, condition policy and legal decisions. Consequently, stigmatisation leads to policies and laws that do not prioritise access to health and welfare services, but rather punishment and marginalisation. Breaking this cycle requires sustained and comprehensive efforts, including through the use of non-stigmatising language.

phobia: Everyday stigmatisation of people who use drugs

Stigmatising language in relation to people who use drugs is pervasive and corrosive. Terms like ‘junkie’, ‘addict’ or ‘crackhead’ are used to 

 and trivialise challenging experiences with drugs often steeped in trauma and alienation. Other expressions perpetuate the idea of drug use as deviance or impurity, such as the use of ‘clean’ for people who no longer use drugs. International authorities, health institutions and state laws play their part too. ‘Drug abuse’, a catch-all term for a disparate collection of behaviours related to drug use, implies the existence of an ‘abuser’ and precludes the possibility of safer, positive experiences related to drug use.

phobia is based on stereotypes and assumptions about people who use drugs that are hard to dispel. Such stereotypes are constructed, conveyed and reinforced by formal and informal structures of power, like governments, religions and families. For example, people who use drugs are often portrayed as criminals, unemployed, a burden on public finances and guilty victims of their own behaviour. These assumptions are used to shame and denigrate people who use (or are assumed to use) drugs. They are humiliated, their morality is viewed as damaged, and their actions are all artifically portrayed as the result of their drug use. Discrediting people or explaining their wrongdoings through their drug use, especially regarding public figures, is unfortunately a common practice.

The responsibility of the media in spreading drug-user-phobia and drug shaming is more than evident. Using kinder, precise and respectful language when covering drug-related issues can contribute to bringing about change and reduce stigma.

Importantly, stigma does not affect all people who use drugs equally. Legality, perceptions of harm, but also social status and context play an important role in mediating stigmatisation and its corollary, criminalisation. As such, people who are the most targeted and impacted by stigma belong to groups who are poorer and in other situations of vulnerability.

If under regular circumstances people who use drugs are discriminated against in terms of access to healthcare, during the pandemic these barriers can be magnified. As we already mentioned, stigma can prevent people from seeking help or treatment even though they are at particular risk of contracting and succumbing to COVID-19, due to many factors, and can also result in people being turned down by service providers. In addition, where health facilities are overwhelmed by demand during the pandemic, medical staff may be pushed to make trade-off decisions that could play at the detriment of people who use drugs and other marginalised communities. Stigma is a matter of life and death. Which is why a commitment to undoing stigma, including through the use of person-first language, is more important than ever to ensure the right to health of people who use drugs.

If you wish to know about precise, kinder and respectful language with regard to people who use drugs, check out Words Matter! Language Statement & Reference Guide, by the International Network of People who Use Drugs and the Asian Network of People who Use Drugs (ANPUD).

What’s in a name? How language and stigmatisation are connected

Today, the 26th June, is the annual International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking – an occasion that governments created to commemorate their efforts to achieve the lofty goal of “an international society free of drug abuse”. This costly and futile “drug-free” pursuit has left a trail of destruction and human suffering of unimaginable proportions over the last half century. Draconian law enforcement measures have disproportionately impacted those on the margins of society, people who are poor, women, indigenous peoples, people who are socially disadvantaged because of immigration status, gender orientation, ethnicity or race.

The acute racial injustices of drug control efforts around the world cannot be overstated and are the subject of growing attention. Last year, a group of UN experts on people of African descent noted that “the war on drugs has operated more effectively as a system of racial control than as a mechanism for combating the use and trafficking of narcotics”. Drug law enforcement has led to mass incarceration, arbitrary arrests and detention and devastating police brutality, the burden of which has fallen disproportionately on people of colour across the globe. All of this repression has sought to eliminate the illegal drug trade, yet year on year the UN’s own data shows an ever growing, diversifying and robust global market and this year’s World Drug Report released today, once again confirms the trend.

In the US, Black people are incarcerated at five times the rate of white people with nearly half sentenced for drug related crimes. In the UK, Black people are more than eight times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people, while in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, 80% of those killed by police are black. The burden of these racist policies and policing on indigenous communities has unfortunately received little attention to date. In Australia, indigenous people are 15 to 20 times more likely to be incarcerated than non-indigenous people. While in Canada, despite being constantly praised for following Uruguay in legally regulating cannabis markets, criminal law continues to disproportionately harm Black and Indigenous communities at similar rates as the US.

While repressive drug policies have weaponised the state against communities of colour, it is sadly crucial to remember it was in part designed to do just that. Remnants of colonialism and racism remain embedded in the UN drug control system to this day. Amid the growing clamour of global anti-racist protests and the thuds of fallen monuments of colonialism and white supremacy, it is time to closely scrutinise the racist and cultural imperialistic roots of the so-called “war on drugs” and demand redress and reparations.

Psychoactive substances have been widely used by humans all over the world for millennia. In pre-colonial Africa and much of Asia, cannabis was cultivated, traded, and used as medicine. The plant has a sacred role in the Rastafarian, Sufi and Hindu religions, and its medicinal uses are mentioned in Avicenna’s Canon of Medicine, which was used as an authoritative medical text in Europe well into the 18th century. The coca leaf is revered among the indigenous peoples of the Andean Amazon region, whose worship of the coca plant is central to their culture and spirituality. While the opium poppy has a centuries-old history as a traditional medicine and for ceremonial use in Asia and the Middle East.

Initially, colonial interests in many parts of the world viewed these plants as important commodities to enrich their coffers. In particular, British, French and Dutch colonial powers conducted lucrative trade by producing opium, coca and cannabis for export in their colonies in India, Burma, Indonesia, Morocco and Algeria. The British famously won the Opium War of 1840-42 which enabled unfettered export of opium from British-India to China. Early discussions on opium prohibition were resisted by Britain, as they fought to protect their profitable opium trade.

However, the anti-opium movement backed strongly by the US, which had economic interests in weakening Europe’s political and economic dominance in Asia, was eventually successful in laying the foundations of a global system of drug control. Racism also played a key role in the push for prohibition, as substances like opium and cannabis were associated with Chinese and Mexican immigrants and African Americans, while cocaine was linked to Black men, who according to US government propaganda would either seduce white women with the lure of the substance or become violent under the influence.

Following decolonisation, newly independent countries did not have the might of their colonisers to fight back against the strong arm of the US in their quest to institute global prohibition. The resulting international drug control regime subsequently sought to eradicate traditional practices with flagrant disregard for the human rights of indigenous peoples. UN treaties, negotiated with the tough tactics of the post-war global superpowers, forced countries to criminalise and eradicate the very plants that had been at the cornerstone of local communities' spiritual and healing traditions for centuries. A legacy that to this day has not been rectified.

Racism and imperialism have pervaded the arguments for prohibition from the start and bolstered drug control as an instrument of repression and oppression. Records show that successive international conferences on drug policy in the early 20th century featured predominantly male and white negotiators, who decided that the psychoactive plants that Black and Brown people used should be prohibited, while they drank cognac and smoked cigars. Incidentally efforts to create an international agreement to control alcohol were heavily resisted by the wine-producing countries in Europe, revealing both the double standards of the architects of global drug control and ongoing inconsistencies in the scheduling and regulation of harmful drugs.

Stigmatising certain substances and making their use seem deviant has served to demonise, dehumanise and marginalise the communities who use them. This approach then justifies the use of harsh punishment against certain communities that vested interests seek to oppress. John Ehrlichman, Nixon’s Assistant for Domestic Affairs made a frank admission of this tactic in 1994:

“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the anti-war left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

This strategy has been employed the world over to harm and repress ethnic minority groups and political dissidents.

Recent developments in drug control have included a trend towards cannabis regulation, in a break with the prohibitionist regime of the last century. Uruguay, Canada and many US states now have legally regulated markets for adult use of cannabis. While several countries across Asia and Africa have begun to consider allowing medical cannabis for domestic use as well as production for export. The economic lure of participation in the burgeoning global cannabis market, expected to be worth USD 166 billion by 2025, is now too strong to resist. Unfortunately, these developments have scarcely benefitted those who have borne the brunt of the war on drugs. The global cannabis industry is largely owned by companies based in the Global North and small traditional farmers who have produced cannabis illegally under prohibition in the Global South now find themselves excluded from the legal market. In the US, only 4% of cannabis businesses are owned by African Americans, while Canada has resisted fully expunging criminal records for previous cannabis convictions despite opening up the adult recreational market to industry players.

The shift away from prohibition is long overdue, however; it would be a travesty if these developments further entrenched post-colonial power imbalances and privilege. Steps taken to remove prohibitions on drugs must seek to redress the harms of decades of prohibition on marginalised communities, particularly on people of colour. Governments must decriminalise drug use and cultivation of prohibited plants, ensure full respect for indigenous rights, and divest from law enforcement and prisons. Social justice must be a central tenet of legal regulation initiatives.



The International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking

, on 26 June, is also the Global Day of Action for the Support. Don’t Punish campaign – a growing grassroots solidarity movement that calls on governments to end punishment-centred drug policies and to prioritise seriously-underfunded health and welfare interventions. Today, hundreds of local groups in over 175 cities of 84 countries around the world will echo the same message – that it is time to end the war on drugs, to dismantle the racist global drug prohibition regime and its instruments of repression. The struggle to decolonise drug policies is essential to end their tyranny, and it is only just beginning.

The war on drugs is built on racism. It’s time to decolonise drug policies.

As the world continues to grapple with an unprecedented pandemic that has crippled countries, one of the many issues that has emerged is the gap that is our prison response—and how our shortcomings in this area may very well render the rest of our COVID-19 response useless. The International Drug Policy Consortium recently held a webinar covering countries in Southeast Asia to examine just that.

Southeast Asia suffers from some of the most overcrowded jails in the world. The Philippines stands at over 500% capacity, with 75% of people in detention still awaiting their sentence. Indonesia and Thailand are not far behind housing around 150% of their capacities.

Dr. Raymund Narag, one of the panelists in IDPC’s webinar on “Reducing Incarceration in the Time of COVID-19,” notes how one of the primary contributors to the continuously increasing prison population remains the harsh drug laws in the region. This is compounded by case delay due to the sheer number of people our justice systems have to process and the long prison sentences that are the norm for nonviolent drug offenses—among many other institutional issues exacerbated by disproportionate drug policing. Yohan Misero of Indonesian Act for Justice (AKSI) and Dr. Nang Pann Ei Kham of Drug Policy Advocacy Group Myanmar echo these frustrations, noting how easy it is to arrest people who use drugs in Indonesia and how 50% of people in Myanmar’s prisons are detained for drug offenses.

The poor state of jails and prisons in Southeast Asia make people in detention some of the most vulnerable for COVID-19. Overcrowding, malnutrition, and poor sanitation in the facilities have already left them with poor health and immunity. The difficulty in accessing health services and limited resources to prevent the spread of infections among the prison population only make it worse. In Cebu where Atty. Cathy Alvarez of StreetLaw in the Philippines resides, even prior to the pandemic, the eleven detention centers that spanned three of their islands were only covered by one lone doctor. As of the webinar, more than 300 people in detention in Cebu have tested positive for COVID-19.

In Myanmar, almost 25,000 people were pardoned and released from prison following the largest ever presidential amnesty granted, during local new year celebrations. In Indonesia, about 50,000 people will be freed through an early release process. The Philippines has begun this process as well with 10,000 people released from detention so far and hearings of further cases ongoing. The Philippines has also taken steps to lower the threshold for release through reducing bail amounts, with advocates aiming to have it reduced even more, and to conduct hearings through video conferencing. These initiatives are brave and important steps for countries in protecting the health of their people, but more needs to be done.

In the Philippines, although the Board of Pardons and Parole have recommended vulnerable populations in detention (such as the elderly) to be granted executive clemency, this also excludes those charged with drug offenses as they’re classified as “high-risk.” And despite having one of the highest number of releases, Indonesia’s director-general has emphasized that most people imprisoned for drug crimes are excluded (only people imprisoned for less than a 5-year term and who have completed at least ⅔ of that term are eligible for release, and due to the high level of penalties for possession any quantity of drugs, most people in prison for drug offences have greater than a 5 year sentence. Typically only people charged or convicted of consumption alone will be sentenced with less than 5 years in prison). Those who have been released have been met with hostility and discrimination in their communities, with community members still wary of those who have come out of prison and jails.

As countries navigate the COVID-19 crisis, we’re faced with the impact of our overreliance in the criminal justice system in dealing with drug-related issues. Systems that had been left behind prior to the pandemic might just be the gap that exacerbates the outbreak. We need to strengthen our health and justice institutions now to ensure that we’re not faced with the same crisis in the future.

At the same time, the stigma against people who use drugs continues to blind the justice sector from seeing just how important it is to include people involved with drugs in our emergency release responses. We cannot leave them behind. The need to advocate for better drug laws has always been urgent, but now it’s even more apparent as a matter of life and death for our communities.

Leave no one behind bars in the time of Covid-19

If you or someone you know is struggling, please consider contacting support. This list inventories suicide crisis lines around the world.

The COVID-19 pandemic is prompting extraordinary, unexpected and even contradictory responses by the health and criminal justice systems. On the one hand, some States are releasing thousands of prisoners in order to prevent the outbreak of infection. On the other, they are also expanding their repressive arsenal in the name of protecting public health.

In India, which has been under a lockdown since 24 March 2020, Police officers are arresting people for not wearing masks, for walking the streets in search of food or for trying to make their way back home from cities, where they’re facing destitution. These normal, rational human acts have suddenly become ‘wrongs’ to warrant a response from the criminal justice system.

In relation to drugs, Police action has also become absolutely baffling, as reported in a recent news article.

On 17 April 2020, a young man believed to have been living with drug dependence, died by suicide in his home in the North Indian city of Gurugram. The substance involved or the state of his health condition is not known. The reporter covering the story, however, noted:

According to the police complaint, the man was under stress for some time after three men did not give him anything despite taking his money after promising to supply him some narcotics. The police have booked the three men for abetment to suicide.’

A careful review of the facts shows that:

The young man was dependent on illicit drugs. The lockdown prevented him from procuring the substance from his regular supply-chain. Desperate and struggling with withdrawal syndrome, he reached out to some suppliers, who took money, but did not deliver the drug. Without recourse to help or treatment, the man ended his life. The Police filed a criminal case against unknown persons for 

The young man in Gurugram and others like him, who live with dependence, are undergoing terrible suffering under the lockdown. According to the National Survey on Extent and Pattern of Substance Use in India, the findings of which were released in February 2019, around 

people in the country live with dependence to opioid substances and another 

 need medical assistance for cannabis use.

Depending on the drug and the length of use, the lack of access can lead to the onset of painful and agonising withdrawal. If untreated, this stressor can trigger dangerous consequences, including death by suicide.

International human rights norms go to the extent of characterising the denial of medical care during withdrawal and the suffering inflicted on people who are drug dependent as acts of torture or ill-treatment.

While announcing the COVID-19 lockdown, the Government was under an obligation to make drug dependence treatment widely available and accessible. While health authorities issued an advisory on managing alcohol dependence, there was none for managing drug dependence.

The only guidance provided by the National AIDS Control Organisation was to allow take-home doses of Opioid Substitution Therapy (OST) for a week for clients who are already enrolled in the HIV prevention programme. While accurate estimates are hard to come by, research suggests that OST coverage remains woeful in India.

The Government seems to have forgotten about the millions of people who are dependent on drugs but are not in treatment. Bereft of medical support, the restrictive measures of the lockdown can be a death sentence; like it seems to have been the case for the young man in Gurugram.

The other paradox in the case is that the Police have blamed alleged drug suppliers for 

 providing drugs! The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) criminalises, among other things, unauthorised sale and purchase of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Surely, a person who does not supply illicit drugs is complying with the law and not violating it? Even if a supplier has taken money, an agreement to commit an unlawful act 

The Police seems to have forgotten that the drug market has been made illegal by public authorities. In this state of affairs, buyers and sellers are under no obligation to keep their ‘promise’.

For someone to be charged for abetting suicide, the prosecution must show that they instigated the victim to commit suicide or intentionally aided the commission of suicide through an act or illegal omission. The facts do not disclose any such thing. On the contrary, if the narcotic substance had indeed been supplied, both the dealer and the young man would be in jail for offences under the NDPS Act. All this is lost on the Police, who have done a quick fix by registering a case against the drug suppliers.

Addiction-related suicides in times of corona cannot be wished away, nor can they be blamed on people who supply drugs.

The unfortunate death of the young man in Gurugram calls for a reorientation of our health and criminal justice policies. The Government must become serious about securing effective, evidence-based treatment for people who use drugs, which is its constitutional and legal responsibility.

Authorities must also reassess the legal status of the drug market, before it can hold suppliers accountable for 

 people who use drugs in the country, policy shifts that prioritise health are long due.

Fixing responsibility or shifting blame? Drug policy and suicide in the time of corona

As the international community grappled with the first major outbreaks of COVID-19, and before the whole world turned upside down as a result of the pandemic’s escalation, the 63rd Session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) went ahead as planned in the first week of March in Vienna.

It was a quieter event than usual, partly because some government delegations stayed away due to the risk of spreading coronavirus, and partly because the vote on the recommendations on cannabis from the WHO’s Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD) did not go ahead as planned. Seemingly in anticipation of the contentious cannabis vote, only five resolutions had been tabled, which is about half the usual number.

At the time of the CND, only a few countries had gone into lockdown and the guidance from the UN Office in Vienna was that it was fine to travel but to adhere to cough etiquette and public health measures, such as avoiding shaking hands and regular hand washing. This gave confidence to the many civil society representatives to attend the CND in force as usual.

Side events: Compelling cases for reform and accountability

The relatively slow cadence of the main proceedings stood in sharp contrast to more than 100 side events, many organised by civil society, covering an increasingly diverse range of issues that continue to push the envelope in Vienna.

From a progressive perspective, the most heartening side event this year showcased the moves in Norway towards the decriminalisation of drug use and possession for personal use. Health Minister, Bent Høie, presented the findings of the government-mandated committee tasked with assessing how Norway could shift away from criminalising people who use drugs. The committee’s report ‘From punishment to support’ recommends that Norway remove criminal sanctions for drug use and possession for personal use and transfers the corresponding oversight from the justice to the health sector. While police referral to drug counselling is part of the proposed model, the committee has recommended that no sanctions be imposed on those who do not wish to accept the referral.

From the floor, Arild Knutsen, a prominent and tireless Norwegian drug user activist, expressed his joy at the proposal after decades of advocacy to challenge punitive drug laws. In response, Minister Høie made an unprecedented and brave admission noting that after twenty years of debate and disagreement, Arild was right and he had been wrong. A rare and genuinely touching moment in the often polarised setting of the CND – and in an overall worrying context of shrinking civil society space.

Another important side event organised during the week advanced the discussion on gender and drug policy. This issue has received increasing, and well overdue, attention in recent years, catalysed by the UNGASS Outcome Document, which gave greater consideration to women’s specific vulnerabilities and needs.

‘“Were you really raped or did you just not get paid?” Addressing stigma and violence against women who use drugs’ was organised under the auspices of the UNODC Regional Office for Southern Africa, with the participation of the South African Network of People who Use Drugs (SANPUD). The event launched a sobering report with the same name, which documents the pervasive violence, control and extortion faced by women in the community. Speakers highlighted the intersecting forms of oppression that target women who use drugs and compound their situations of vulnerability. But also experiences of sisterhood, empowerment and resistance that signal the way forward.

This event highlighted an important topic that deserves to receive much greater attention and demonstrates how the burden of punitive drug policies and brutal law enforcement practices falls on some of the most vulnerable in society. This issue also strongly came to light at another event commemorating the 10-year anniversary of the UN Bangkok Rules.

In coherence? Countries on the fringes hold on to the outdated Vienna silo

The negotiations of resolutions this year were not as contentious as in previous years. The European Union (EU) tabled two resolutions, one on improving scientific data collection efforts and a second on ensuring access to controlled medicines,with a focus on palliative care. Russia tabled a resolution on the involvement of youth in drug prevention efforts, the US on involving the private sector in drug control efforts and the usual resolution on alternative development was presented by Thailand and Peru.

The issue that sparked most debate this year, both in the negotiations on resolutions and in the plenary, was the push to formally recognise the work of the UN system coordination Task Team on the Implementation of the UN System Common Position on drug-related matters, set up by the UN Secretary-General. Specific wording on this was in the initial draft of the EU’s resolution on data but received pushback from some member states and in the end the final draft referred to ‘effective UN inter-agency coordination’ but not explicitly to the Task Team.

However, in the plenary, many countries expressed their support for the UN Task Team, recognising that the CND and the General Assembly have long sought to strengthen coordination across the UN on drug policy. In the closing session, thirty-four countries expressed their support for the work of the Task Team, with Switzerland requesting a standing agenda item for future CND meetings for updates on their work.

IDPC also made an intervention during the plenary to highlight the critical relevance of Task Team and the need for system-wide coherence to ensure greater human rights oversight in drug control, building on the 2016 UNGASS.

Improving data collection: Steps, not strides, in the right direction

Another event of note at this year’s CND was the adoption of the revised Annual Report Questionnaire (ARQ), the key data collection tool used by UNODC to collect information on the global drug market each year.

After more than two years of negotiations, the revised ARQ was surprisingly adopted in seconds at the Plenary without discussion. Although significantly improved compared to its predecessor, there remain many gaps in the new iteration of the ARQ.

Now the key challenge will be to push for a mechanism that will enable other UN agencies – especially those focusing on human rights and development – to submit additional data on drugs to complement the information submitted through the ARQ. An area of work where the Task Team could make a valuable contribution in the years to come.

Cannabis scheduling recommendations: Yet another delay

Many civil society advocates had hoped that the CND would vote on at least some of the WHO Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD) recommendations to reschedule cannabis at this session after a delay of 12 months.

The ECDD’s long-overdue critical review of cannabis was undertaken after many years of advocacy that questioned where cannabis had been placed in the international scheduling system. This was the first-ever WHO review of cannabis in the long history of international drug control.

Unfortunately, following many intense behind-closed-doors discussions in the weeks leading up to the CND, a decision was reached to, once again, delay the vote until December 2020.

As became clear at the CND intersessionals last year, the complex interrelated set of recommendations to change the current scheduling of cannabis and cannabinoids under the 1961 and 1971 Conventions, has raised lots of valid questions and legitimate concerns among member states and civil society that merit further clarification and debate.

However, the key recommendation to remove cannabis from Schedule IV of the 1961 Convention, reserved for the substances deemed most dangerous, with little or no medical or therapeutic usefulness, is quite straightforward and cannot be questioned from a scientific point of view, and has been strongly welcomed by civil society.

Given the growing evidence and acceptance of cannabis’ important medical properties, the removal from this schedule is simply a recognition of the current state of evidence and practice, as amply documented in the ECDD critical review reports.

The fact that this straightforward recommendation has triggered so much controversy, demonstrates the highly politicised nature of the Vienna diplomatic arena.

For those championing evidence-based drug policy decisions at the CND, defending the role and mandate of the WHO’s ECDD in making science-based scheduling recommendations is of utmost importance.

Inconsistencies in the treaty system itself, and the contentious nature of the CND debate around cannabis, especially following Canada’s legal regulation initiative, may have been taken into consideration in some of the other ECDD recommendations – a question that we have raised before.

In particular, the recommendation to keep cannabis in Schedule I of the 1961 Convention, alongside heroin and cocaine – in spite of the technical reports which make it clear that cannabis is associated with lesser risks – appears to reflect a concern not to further inflame an already divisive debate.

More intersessional meetings will take place in the fall to further clarify these issues, hopefully resulting in a productive preparation for a vote at the reconvened CND session in early December. Postponing the vote again would show disrespect for the WHO’s treaty mandate and the important work of the ECDD.

New Director, new directions? CND welcomes UNODC’s incoming ED

Finally, it was the first CND for the incoming UNODC Executive Director, Ghada Waly, from Egypt, who in her opening statement focused more on supply-reduction priorities, mentioning law enforcement’s lives lost but concerningly not the serious public health and human rights crises resulting from punitive drug control measures.

In advance of the CND, IDPC had sent a welcome message to Ms Waly, including an advocacy note enumerating the key priorities for her from the network’s perspective and called strongly for her to promote health and human rights in drug policy.

As is now customary, the Executive Director holds an informal dialogue with civil society during the week and this year the event was highly anticipated. Sadly, Ms Waly was unwell and unable to meet with civil society at the informal dialogue this year. We very much look forward to having the opportunity to meet with her either later this year, travel restrictions permitting, or at the next CND.

In the context of the global pandemic of COVID-19, some governments have been releasing a substantial number of inmates from overcrowded prisons to reduce infection risk in these settings. These are urgent and welcome developments and the UN should continue to call on governments to consider these measures.

However, in parallel, many governments are ramping up draconian and stringent measures to criminalise transmission, as well as non-compliance with public health measures, which is deeply concerning.

What we know from drug policy is that the burden of repression and punishment is borne by the most marginalised, and that the use of criminal law is not appropriate nor effective in advancing public health goals.

We must now broaden our advocacy efforts, increase solidarity across social movements and ensure that governments do not justify eroding human rights commitments in the name of disease control.

In the heartbeat before global lockdown: Business as usual in Vienna drugs debate

On Friday 3 April, the INCB announced that it would be postponing the 128th session of the Board’s meeting, which was scheduled from 4 to 15 May 2020, in view of the COIVD-19 pandemic. The new dates for the postponed session are yet to be decided.

The INCB holds three sessions a year, typically in February, May, and November of each year. The dates and agenda of each session can be consulted here.

The open call for civil society to apply for a slot in the thematic INCB hearing on the use of drugs among older persons, which was meant to take place during the postponed session, will be kept open for the moment. It will also be relaunched once the new date is released.

On other COVID-19 related actions, in a 17 March press release the INCB called on governments to ensure that measures put in place to counter the pandemic do not disrupt the international supply chain of controlled medicines for pain relief, palliative care, and mental health and neurological conditions.

INCB postpones its 128th session, originally scheduled for May 2020

On Friday, 20th March, the Parliament of Ghana passed the Narcotics Control Commission Bill into law. This brought great excitement to many who have been following the legislative process since 2015, when the Bill was first introduced. Many civil society organizations (CSOs) in Ghana laud the Government for this significant moment in the history of drug policy reform in the country. The new law makes huge inroads towards more humane drug policy, and will pave way for other good examples to emerge in the sub-region.

An alternative to incarceration for people who use drugs

One of the stated purposes of Ghana’s new drug law is to treat drug use and dependence as a public health issue. The new law has converted the prison term for drug possession for personal use into a fine of between 200-500 penalty units (translating to GHC 2,400 – 6,000). This does not mean that drug use has been legalised, as portrayed by some media outlets. It means that instead of sending people to prison for up to 10 years for simple possession of drugs for personal use, they will offer alternatives to incarceration. This is in line with current programs and policies to decongest our prisons, notably the Justice for All program, instituted in 2007.

Under the old law, too many people were being put behind bars simply for possession of 1 or 2 rolls of marijuana or any other drug for personal use – yet the consumption of all kinds of drugs appeared to continue increasing. The evidence is that disproportionately repressive approaches to drug control, and particularly to drug use, have not succeeded in eradicating drug markets and related harms. Instead, these policies ‘have led to serious unintended consequences and often disproportionately impact upon the poor and marginalised, while creating a rich and powerful criminal market that undermines the security of states.’

The fundamental goal of drug policies, therefore, ‘should be to improve the health, safety, security and socio-economic well-being of people by reducing drug use, drug-related harms, illicit trafficking and associated crimes.’ In line with this, there has been a global shift towards evidenced-based policies instead of focusing on the failed 'war on drugs'.

As a country, these pragmatic steps are also completely in line with our obligations under the three international drug control conventions, as well as other UN resolutions and commitments to address drug use and possession, including the UNGASS Outcome Document, agreed to by the international community in 2016.

The Bill gives hope back to people who have been neglected by society, and have been continually punished and demonised instead of provided support as needed.

Since the passage of the law, there have been a lot of misconceptions in the media and civil society circles that drug use has now been legalized. This is definitely not the case! Drug use, as well as supply, production and trafficking, remain offences under the new Bill; same as before. The difference in approach is rather on how authorities respond to drug use: fines, rather than imprisonment.

Ghana is not alone in this move. Numerous countries have adopted this approach, and indeed gone further into less punitive responses to all drug use, with a great deal of success.

The new law will also allow, for the first time, the implementation of lifesaving harm reduction services for people who use drugs, which will help curb the transmission of bloodborne viruses (such as HIV and hepatitis B and C), overdose deaths and drug dependence.

These steps are clearly in line with Sustainable Development Goal 3: Health and well-being for all, which won’t be achieved if we continue to leave people who use drugs behind when they may need health services.

By offering alternatives to incarceration for people who use drugs, Ghana’s criminal justice system will be less congested, our prisons will be less overcrowded and our law enforcement agencies will be able to focus on those at the helm of the drugs trade, rather than predominantly young, poor and vulnerable groups.

Changes in relation to cannabis and hemp for industrial, medical and research purposes

Another key area that has been of great interest, and that has also led to confusion in the media, is the incorporation of some special provisions relating to cannabis. The new Bill will regulate the production of cannabis products that contain very small amounts (less than 0.3%) of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) —a key compound associated with the cannabis “high”— for industrial, medical and research purposes.

This step mirrors current global discussions. In 2019, the World Health Organization’s Expert Committee on Drugs Dependence (ECDD) delivered the results of a detailed review of the evidence around cannabis. One of the recommendations is about removing cannabis from ‘Schedule IV’ of the 1961 UN Convention on Narcotic Drugs, a move that acknowledges that the drug has ‘substantial therapeutic advantages’ for the treatment of pain and other medical conditions, such as epilepsy and spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis.

Those who fear that this will open a floodgate for illicit drug use are catastrophising, ignoring the evidence from over 30 countries where thousands of patients benefit from medical access.

Many are also questioning if Ghana is not breaching its international obligations by taking such steps, but let me be clear that the international conventions are designed at their core to ensure the availability of controlled drugs for medical and scientific purposes, while preventing their diversion for illicit purposes.

Further to this, the new law also permits the cultivation of non-psychoactive cannabis plants (hemp) for industrial purposes. This is a great step in the right direction as many of us have argued that we cannot achieve SDG 1 to ‘end poverty in all its forms everywhere’ by 2030 if we do not provide our people, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, with means to access economic resources, basic services, land ownership, etc.

In this regard, the law offers an opportunity to respond to the needs for sustainable livelihoods of our rural farmers, particularly young people who have relied on cannabis farming to survive. In implementing the law, authorities must favour the transition towards formality of those historically pushed to the margins.

Recalibrating the role of the Narcotics Control Board

The new Bill also seeks to make the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) an autonomous body that can oversee all drug-related issues.

The Board is currently under the auspices of the Ministry of Defence and Interior, and heavily relies on the Prosecuting Unit of the Ghana Police Service and the Attorney General Department to prosecute cases on drugs.

The Bill gives NACOB the status of a Commission, equipping the Board with a legal department to carry out prosecutions and granting the Board with powers to formulate policies to flesh out the bill.

The expectation is that the Narcotics Control Commission will be more autonomous, preventing interference by the governing political power. This remains to be seen.

A West African approach to drug policy [reform]

This new Bill represents an important example for drug policy reform advocacy in West Africa. Historically, drug policies have been imported to our region. And it is under these imported rules that we have seen drug production and trafficking skyrocket; which offers further evidence that ‘tough-on-drugs’ laws do not work.

Ghana’s example shows civil society and government can engage in dialogue to realign our countries’ priorities, to ensure participation, to advance sustainable development and to seek a brighter future for our youth.

Ghanaians should be enthusiastic and optimistic about this new drug law. It is not perfect; and results from complex debates and compromise. But our Parliament has shown leadership in getting this reform over the line.

I call on other West African governments to demonstrate the political will to follow on Ghana’s footsteps and do all within their power to break the cycles of poverty, vulnerability and criminalisation.

The “war on drug” revealed itself to be a war on people, creating obstacles for the realisation of the Sustainable Development Goals, violating human rights, undermining public health. And I am so glad that Ghana has turned its back on it and begun to move away from this failed approach.

Parliament of Ghana passes historic new drug law, paving the way for a West African approach

In February 2020 the INCB launched its Annual Report, which provides an analysis of the functioning of the international drug control system during 2019, and makes recommendations to UN member states.

In this year’s report, the INCB continues to decry the growing number of member states that are regulating cannabis for adult use, citing its controversial status regarding the prohibitionist stance of the drug control conventions, and its alleged consequences for health and well-being.

On a more welcome note, the INCB also makes clear that states that violate international human rights standards are also violating the drug control conventions, and calls on all member states put a halt on extrajudicial executions and on the death penalty for any drug-related activity. Beyond these salient issues, the thematic chapter in this year’s report concerns drug prevention and treatment for young people.

As we have been doing in previous years, in the following months IDPC will publish a response to the INCB Annual Report 2019, which will provide a detailed summary and analysis of its content.

INCB launches its Annual Report 2019

The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) will host the third civil society hearing for the INCB board members on the margins of this years INCB board meeting. The hearing will be on the topic of "The Use of Drugs Among Older Persons" and is planned for May 13, 2020, 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. in Vienna, Austria. Due to the rapidly changing situation in regards to COVID-19 the hearing might be held in another format, postponed or even cancelled.

At the event, up to 12 NGOs will have the possibility to present their work and positioning on the issue of the use of drugs among older persons. The hearing will last two hours. Each speaker will have 7-10 minutes to present their work.

In order to apply, civil societies need to fill out the provided form by 08 April 2020 at 11:55 p.m. (CEST, Vienna local time). The form requires:

Name of the representative who will give the presentation

Confirm that the presentation will be submitted before 05 May 2020 and that it will comply with the title and abstract submitted

Blog