"Do you feel that some drugs are inherently worse for the user than others?”

A man had approached the stage at the Horizons NYC 2019 psychedelic conference on Saturday, where Dr. Carl Hart, a Columbia University psychology professor and harm reduction expert, was taking questions after his keynote address.

“I have seen methamphetamine have very destructive consequences for a lot of people, and opioids even more so in my view,” the man continued.

“You should probably broaden your scope of people who use them,” Hart responded. “You’re looking at someone who uses all of those drugs.”

Hart’s closing address at New York’s largest annual psychedelic science event, held at The Cooper Union, was titled “Dispelling the Lies that the Psychedelic Community Believes About Drugs.” He explained to an audience of psychedelic researchers, advocates, and enthusiasts why the concept of “psychedelic exceptionalism” is so destructive (among other topics).

Psychedelic exceptionalism is an ideology that claims purportedly less-harmful or less-addictive drugs—such as cannabis, psilocybin mushrooms, or ayahuasca—to be inherently better, safer, or more desirable for people to use than other drugs.

Heroin, alcohol, or crack cocaine are treated as their contrast. When taken to its extremes, psychedelic exceptionalism stigmatizes not just certain drugs but also the people who use them.

How psychedelic exceptionalism harms drug users

Governments, businesses and philanthropists gathered in France pledged just over $14 billion on Thursday to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, tuberculosis (TB) and malaria, exceeding the targeted amount, its chief executive Peter Sands announced.

Beside French President Emmanuel Macron, who hosted the replenishment conference and had urged governments to open their wallets wide, Sands said the target was even slightly exceeded, reaching $14.02 billion (€12.07bn). The fund says the money will help save 16 million lives and avert 234 million infections by 2023.

A dozen heads of state and government, mostly from African countries, were attending the two-day conference.

Macron, who was hosting the conference in the city of Lyon, wanted the event to raise more than the $12.2 billion (€11.07bn) brought in at the last conference in 2016.

The French leader urged leaders to accelerate the donations in his opening speech. “If we meet our commitments in the next three years, 16 million lives can be saved,” Macron said. “We must reach $14 million in the next three hours.”

He said this morning that France had raised its pledge by 15 percent to €1.5 billion and later pledged an additional €60 million.

International donors meet target of $14 billion to fight AIDS, TB and malaria at conference in France

Five years later, Inez Feria still remembers the line snaking around the block outside the clinic in Cebu City. Men and women were smiling and laughing as they queued for clean hypodermic needles. For Feria, an advocate for the rights of drug users, it felt like a hopeful moment.

The needle exchange — part of an international push to slow the region’s skyrocketing HIV transmission rate — was the largest of its kind in the Philippines. When it started in 2014, about half the city’s drug-using population (approximately 6,000 people) was HIV-positive, and three-quarters of those people contracted the virus after sharing contaminated needles. By almost every metric, the pilot program exceeded its targets: fewer drug users reported sharing needles, more were being tested for HIV and all could access basic medical services.

But only months after the clinic was up and running, the Cebu City Anti-Drug Abuse Council filed an official letter demanding that it be shut down. In April 2015, five months into the planned two-year program, the clinic’s syringe distribution was suspended due to “political pressure,” according to the American medical non-profit Population Services International (PSI), which started the program.

A few weeks later, Philippine Senator Vicente Sotto gave a speech condemning the service. “Harm reduction strategy is, in reality, a pro-illegal drugs strategy,” he declared. “This nonsense must stop.” Needle distribution at the clinic permanently halted, and, according to a PSI review, “multiple clients were lost to follow up,” while new referrals slowed to a trickle.

“It was really sad,” Feria said. “It wasn’t just about providing syringes. It had a bunch of different services, HIV testing, counseling. People got connected to all these services that they otherwise wouldn’t have. It showed that people do want to take care of themselves.”

Fighting for compassion in the Philippines’ brutal drug war

One year ago, the newly elected government of Malaysia officially announced its intention to abolish the death penalty. This was an historic moment not only for Malaysia — where over 1200 people are currently on death row, overwhelmingly for drug-related offenses — but for the entire region.

Just a few months later, however, the same government started backtracking on its promise, citing a lack of public support for abolition as a key reason for this choice.

This deference to public opinion is not exceptional. Rather, public support is often used as a central justification for pursuing populist policies, including violent drug wars and the death penalty. While examples of populist anti-drug campaigns can be found around the world, in some extreme cases – such as Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the Philippines – these campaigns have triggered calls for the use or reintroduction of capital punishment as a tool of drug control. This stands in contrast with an established global trend of moving away from the death penalty for drug offenses, as recorded by Harm Reduction international.

A closer look at developments in these countries raises the question: what does the public 

think about the death penalty for drug offenses?

In an effort to better understand these phenomena, Harm Reduction International recently analyzed a selection of 39 valid public opinion surveys conducted in 5 key countries in Asia — a region that holds 16 of the 35 countries which still retain the death penalty for drug offenses. This included surveys from China, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, and the Philippines.

From this analysis, we learnt that public support for capital punishment, both in general and for drug offenses specifically, is much more complex and nuanced than often depicted.

Public support for the death penalty appears to be based on a belief in the deterrent potential of capital punishment, and in the conviction that the criminal justice system works perfectly. If and when the public learns otherwise, and especially when it learns of the many people who are wrongfully convicted or executed, support drops significantly.

Public support for the death penalty also appears to be “abstract”, almost a gut feeling: while most respondents claimed to support the death penalty in theory, people were much more measured in their views when presented with real-life scenarios. This suggests that when faced with the human cost of capital punishment, the public may exercise more caution and be more reluctant to support the death penalty.

The death penalty for drugs: What public opinion surveys in Asia teach us

Covering topics from crystal meth use to the unexplored world of Indonesian women in rehabilitation, this collection of articles provides a comprehensive overview of the drug policy field in Indonesia. The following articles highlights the impact of drug policy in dictating the experiences of individuals, as well as policies' disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups. Combining photography with case studies and historical analyses of how the country's drug policy came to be, this collection is an essential for anyone who wishes to learn about the experiences of people who use drugs in Indonesia.

Drugs and drug policy | By Claudia Stoicescu and Wayne Palmer

Crystal meth users in Indonesia | By Laura Nevendorff and Ignatius Praptoraharajo

Photo essay: Woman to woman | By Alexandra Radu

From drug control to harm reduction | By Emily Rowe

Drugs and the death penalty | By Puri Kecana Putri & Aghniadi

Populism versus justice | By Ricky Gunawan & Raynov T. Pamintori

Cannabis, for starters | By Dania Putri

Indonesia's drug policy

The chief of police in the Philippines has stepped down after facing historical accusations in the Senate that he protected officers who had resold confiscated drugs and received some of the profits.

It was a rapid fall from grace for Oscar Albayalde, the head of the Philippine National Police (PNP), who rose to fame as the enforcer of Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs in Manila before Duterte was appointed president. Albayalde has denied the allegations.

Thousands of people have been killed as part of Duterte’s campaign against illegal drugs. Amnesty International called it a “large-scale murdering enterprise”.

“After careful deliberation, I have come to the decision to relinquish my post as chief, PNP, effective today and go on a non-duty status. I have submitted my letter of intent to [interior secretary Eduardo Año] which he accepted and favourably endorsed to the president,” Albayalde said in an address to police on Monday morning. It comes weeks before his scheduled retirement on 8 November.

The shocking allegation stemmed from a 2013 anti-drug raid in Pampanga province in Central Luzon, when he was a provincial police chief. He allegedly sought to stop the dismissal of officers under him who were found to have taken and hidden more than 100kg of 

 or methamphetamine, as a bribe from a drug suspect so he could escape. A fall guy was arrested instead.

A retired police general made the revelation accidentally during a Senate inquiry on another topic. Benjamin Magalong, the retired head of the criminal investigation and detection group, testified that Albayalde made a call to intervene in the investigation of the raid. Senators pursued the matter and another retired general, who investigated the controversial raid, came forward to allege Albayalde told him he “got a little” from the profits.

The Senate probe established irregularities in the controversial raid and found the reports the police filed were inconsistent. It also found the police were slow in punishing corrupt personnel. Magalong claimed the officers involved in the raid were given desirable posts under Albayalde.

Albayalde’s resignation comes after a weekend conversation with Año, whom Duterte ordered to investigate allegations against him.

Philippines police chief and Duterte drug war enforcer resigns in meth scandal

It’s time for a grown-up conversation about the racialization of antidrug policies. Ethnic and racial minorities are incarcerated, policed, shot, and killed at growing rates across the globe. The UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent called for drug laws to be amended in light of racial injustice. The reasons for this injustice are not rooted in any problem with these communities, but rather because of problems with the criminal justice systems that disproportionately punish them. Indeed, the war on drugs was designed specifically for this purpose.

The first step in trying to address this challenge is for countries to collect data on drug crimes; tracking data (on race, ethnicity, gender, nationality, etc.) of those arrested and prosecuted for such offenses is particularly needed. Lax data collection can have serious pitfalls, and distort our understanding of what’s actually happening in countries in ways that carry problematic consequences.

Consider the case of Portugal, a country lauded for leading the world in progressive drug policy reform. As a 2016 study shows, there is a sharp difference between the number of men and women incarcerated on drug offenses in Portugal; women made up 76 percent of the total number of people imprisoned on drug offenses, while men accounted for 40 percent. To put those figures in context, the disparity between women and men in 2005 was 60 percent to 25 percent; in 2000, it was 47 percent to 19 percent.

Why had the number of women incarcerated on drug charges climbed so high?

The uncounted victims of the war on drugs

By Marilou Gagnon / Journal of Mental Health and Addiction Nursing

: Supervised consumption sites (SCS) have been implemented in Europe, North America and Australia, reaching a total of 158 sites worldwide. In addition to reducing harms and preventing overdoses and overdose deaths, SCS act as a point of service for people who use drugs to access much needed health care services. Registered nurses who work in SCS provide care, support, education, and resources to reduce health risks and improve health. It has been clearly established that these interventions fall within the legislated scope of practice of registered nurses but the actual role of nurses in SCS remains poorly defined and understood, especially by decision-makers, employers, health care providers, and the broader community.

: To address this significant practice, policy and research gap, a consensus statement was developed based on information generated by 17 content experts from 10 countries namely, Canada, Spain, Australia, France, Denmark, Norway, Ireland, Switzerland, Germany, and Scotland. The statement was developed from “the ground up” by gathering information on three content areas: nursing practice in SCS, training, and needs. This information was summarized, and then submitted to two rounds of voting using a modified Delphi method to build consensus.

: The final content of the consensus statement is comprised of five sections: 1) Philosophy of care, 2) Framework, 3) Nursing role, 4) Training requirements, and 5) Needs of nurses.

: This consensus statement is a first step toward a better understanding of the role of nurses in SCS. There is an immense responsibility on nurses in this setting, as the majority of people who access SCS face many barriers in accessing other health and social services, even when their need for those services may be critical. For these reasons, it is essential to better prepare nurses for these realities. It is our hope that this first international consensus statement can serve as a foundation to guide practice, policy, research, and operational decisions in SCS.

International consensus statement on the role of nurses in supervised consumption sites

The 2018 Cannabis Act transformed Canada into 

 financial and legal jurisdiction for cannabis entrepreneurs and investors looking to do business internationally. Today, Canadian weed companies have their eye on a massive prize: the lucrative medical and adult cannabis markets that are emerging around the world.

Much of the hype around corporate cannabis is linked to the acquisition of lands and smaller growing operations internationally. The selling point is that cannabis can be grown overseas and exported to meet demand in Canada (and eventually the US), but also that Canadian companies position themselves as suppliers in emerging local markets.

Legal bud is a new gold rush, and some of the practices of the corporate cannabis giants are reminiscent of the

 that tarnished the reputation of Canadian mining companies abroad. Lobbying to impact national legislation, supporting criminalization of traditional producers, and moving into remote territories with plans to implement plantation style economies are just some of the critiqued practices of Canada’s emerging cannabis sector.

By far the biggest name in cannabis today is Ontario’s Canopy Growth, with operations in 14 countries and shares outstanding worth nearly $8 billion. Then comes Tilray, a pharmaceutical and cannabis company headquartered on Vancouver Island; Ontario’s Aphria, with operations in 10 countries; and Aurora Cannabis, with sales and production in 25 countries. There are dozens of smaller companies across Canada, many of which are start-ups looking to do big business on the legal cannabis boom.

Canadian cannabis companies are active in Europe, in Asia and Africa and especially in Latin America. Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Jamaica, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Mexico have all passed medical marijuana laws, Uruguay fully legalized cannabis for adult and medical uses in 2012, and in other countries herb is effectively decriminalized.

Canada’s cannabis colonialism

Drug consumption rooms provide hygienic and supervised spaces for people to inject or otherwise consume illicit drugs. When counted at the end of 2018, there were 117 sanctioned drug consumption rooms in 11 countries around the world, generating an evidence base of ‘real world’ trials for scrutinising their biggest appeals and detractors’ greatest fears.

Evidence of their effectiveness is one motivation for introducing drug consumption rooms; another is that they provide a common sense solution to the suffering and risks associated with public injecting.

The Scottish Government has recognised mounting harms to the health, wellbeing, and dignity of people who use drugs, and supports trialling drug consumption rooms as part of an approach to substance use based on public health objectives and human rights principles. However, the UK Government based in Westminster (London) has repeatedly blocked any such action. This stalemate provides the backdrop for a hot topic exploring the following questions:

In communities dealing with the consequences of public injecting, could drug consumption rooms be part of the solution?

Knowing the human cost of unsafe public injecting practices, would it be negligent for governments 

Time for safer injecting spaces in Britain?

Marina Sachek, Director of the State Institution “Republican Scientific and Practical Center for Medical Technologies, Information, Management and Health Economics” (RSPC MT) of the Republic of Belarus

Tatiana Makarevich, Head of the Grant Management Department for Global Fund projects, RSPC MT

Vladimir Karanik, Minister of Health of the Republic of Belarus

Peter Sands, Executive Director, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

Valeria Grishechkina, Grant Portfolio Manager, Secretariat of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

With this letter, we, the representatives of civil society, communities affected by HIV and tuberculosis, as well as professional communities working in the field of combating the three diseases in different countries of the world, express our profound concern as to the actions of the leadership team and employees of the Republican Scientific and Practical Center for Medical Technologies, Information, Management and Health Economics (RSPC MT) - the organization that is the Principal Recipient of Global Fund grants in the Republic of Belarus - in relation to Yekaterina Parfenyuk, a current member of the Country Coordinating Mechanism (CCM) of the Republic of Belarus for collaboration with the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, in representing the interests of the community of people who inject drugs and people living with HIV1 . We condemn the prosecution of Yekaterina Parfenyuk by the RPTC MT and the accusation that she has damaged the business reputation of the RPTC MT owing to her open letter addressed to the RSPC MT and the Global Fund in which she expressed the assumption that the situation related to the provision of medicines in Belarus is problematic and that there are interruptions in the supply of the anti-TB drug ‘Bedaquiline’.

Open letter to support the case of Yekaterina Parfenyuk

The Australian Capital Territory took the next step towards regulation of the illicit drug market yesterday with new legislation passing through parliament.

The legislation, which won’t come into effect until January 31, 2020, allows cultivation and possession of small amounts of cannabis for personal use for anyone over 18 years.

However, the sale or supply of cannabis is still a criminal offence.

The ACT has historically been one of the more liberal jurisdictions when it comes to cannabis.

The territory removed criminal penalties for possessing small quantities of cannabis in 1992 and broadened this in 2013. Currently, anyone found in possession of less than 50g of dried cannabis receives a “simple cannabis offence notice”, essentially a fine.

The new legislation allows adults to grow cannabis plants at home, with limits of two plants per person and four per household, or to possess 50g of dried cannabis.

Cannabis plants can only be cultivated in parts of someone’s home not generally accessible by the public, and only by people who usually live there.

There is a 150g limit for fresh (or “wet”) cannabis to account for cannabis that has been harvested but not yet dried.

The law allows adults to possess cannabis within these limits without the need for a cannabis offence notice to be issued.

News