The recent publication of two single pieces of legislation - the amended 1993 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Law and the first National Drug Control Policy - is likely to form the basis of Myanmar’s drug policy for several years to come. What does it mean for the country’s transition towards an evidence-based approach to drug control, and how can the gaps between the two documents be addressed?

Myanmar has moved a step closer to completing the first reform in decades of its legal framework relating to drugs. Indeed, the recent publication of two single pieces of legislation is likely to form the basis of the country’s approach to drug control for at least several years to come. The first piece is the amended version of the 1993 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Law (hereafter referred to as “the Law” or “the Drug Law”), which was enacted by the Union Parliament (“Pyidaungsu Hluttaw”) on 14 February 2018. The second, released less than a week later, is the country’s first National Drug Control Policy (hereafter “the Policy”), developed by the Central Committee for Drug Abuse Control (CCDAC) with support from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). This evolving legal and policy framework is a clear sign that the Government has acknowledged the shortcomings of the previous strategy, which was primarily based on the use of repressive measures. The military-appointed Minister for Home Affairs, Lieutenant General Kyaw Swe, thus recognised that “the past approach was very focused on supply reduction and less on other issues, and as a result did not achieve everything we had planned”.

The almost simultaneous release of these two key documents - the National Drug Control Policy and the amended 1993 Drug Law - would suggest that they were developed in the framework of a coordinated reform process aiming at aligning their contents and defining a comprehensive strategy towards the achievement of similar objectives. However, the Law and the Policy differ significantly, and even establish contradictory or incompatible priorities. While the National Drug Control Policy clearly places the focus on public health and development, the amended Drug Law continues to heavily lean on criminal justice and still prescribes extremely harsh prison penalties for both drug users (when caught with small quantities of drugs for their own use) and small-scale subsistence poppy farmers.

These differing choices are symptomatic of tensions between two different models of drug control: one based on repression, effectively a continuation of the current mainstream policies, and one that promotes a change of paradigm and is based on public health, human rights and development. This situation also highlights how different governmental bodies across the executive and the legislative branches can have significantly different stances on drug policy, and how this can impact the overall coherence of the government’s approach.

Myanmar National Drug Control Policy: a key strategic document

The Government of Myanmar released, on 20 February 2018, its very first National Drug Control Policy. The Policy was developed by the CCDAC, with support from UNODC. An extensive consultation process enabled the participation of various Ministries and other Governmental bodies, civil society organisations, UN Agencies, and representatives from affected communities. This collaborative effort resulted in a document that defines the key features and priorities of the Government’s new strategy to tackle drug-related problems in the country. Undoubtedly, the new Policy constitutes a major shift towards a more comprehensive and evidence-based approach. In fact, large sections emphasise the urgent need to develop public health interventions for drug users and rural development programmes in opium growing areas, but also to ensure respect for human rights and to refocus law enforcement and criminal justice efforts towards combating organised crime and corruption.

Will Myanmar complete its transition towards an evidence-based approach to drug control?

Several countries and states have taken the first steps to decriminalize possession and/or personal cultivation of cannabis, and some have even gone as far as to regulate the recreational cannabis market. In other countries, the debate on how an alternative cannabis market might look like has gained momentum. We hope to contribute to that debate by mapping the Cannabis Social Club landscape in Europe.

The Cannabis Social Club is an interesting model as it may offer a safe and feasible option for policy-makers to move a meaningful distance along the spectrum towards legally regulated cannabis markets without crossing over to full commercial availability. For some years now, we have been documenting and analysing the Cannabis Social Club model and have published several academic papers about this topic.

However, in most European countries, the existence and activities of Cannabis Social Clubs have not been described in detail. With our study, we want to inform other academics, policy-makers and the general public about this model. In order to do so, we kindly invite you to participate in our study.

This study aims to map the Cannabis Social Club phenomenon in the 28 European Union Member States.

Participation in our study entails the completion of a 30-item questionnaire. This will take approximately 30 minutes of your time. Please remember that it is important for us that the questions are answered honestly, and that only fully completed questionnaires can be used in our study: Survey

We are aware that this remains a sensitive topic, and that in some countries Cannabis Social Clubs have been the target of police raids or prosecution. Participants in this study are guaranteed anonymity and will not be identifiable in any of our subsequent publications or communications about the findings of the study.

The general community typically has an unrealistic view about people who use or grow cannabis. We want you to help provide a more informed picture by completing this questionnaire. We look forward to being able to provide a fuller picture of cannabis clubs, cannabis growing and cannabis consumers in Europe.

 Cannabis social clubs in Europe - A survey

A Bill on the implementation of Supervised Drug Consumption Facilities has passed its first reading at Westminster.
Alison Thewliss, MP for Glasgow Central, presented her ten minute rule Bill to the Main Chamber on the 14th of March, asking the UK Government to allow for the piloting of a Supervised Drug Consumption Facility (SDCF) in Glasgow city centre.
The MP has been a long-standing advocate for an alternative approach to addressing public drug-injecting, and the associated public health concerns.
The Bill has drawn support from all political parties, with many supporters recognising that the status quo was failing to adequately respond to the issue.
The proposed SDCF in Glasgow would be the first in the UK, where medically trained staff would supervise people using heroin in order to prevent fatal overdoses, and also to provide sterile equipment to minimise the spread of HIV and hepatitis C through contaminated needles.
During her speech, Thewlis referred to the increase in drug-related deaths in Scotland, and also to the estimated 500 people who publicly inject in the city centre.

Supervised drug consumption facilities bill passes first reading at Westminster

Director, Centre for Research and Information on Substance Abuse, Professor Isiodore Obot had said that Nigeria had failed in its drug war considering the increasing number of youths into drug use and its attendant health and social challenges.
Professor Obot, who spoke at the Youthrise Nigeria Drug Policy Training for media practitioners in Abuja, stated that despite criminalising drug use for many years, this had not achieved its goal of eliminating drug production and use.
According to him, the nation’s perspective about drugs from a criminal justice system perspective needs to be changed to healthcare system perspectives.
Obot, a psychologist, declared that drug use was much more than a criminal issue, but one with many health and social implications, including fighting, violence, and problems in the family.
He said drug use cuts across all social classes and gender, adding that what may be different is what type of drug they are using.

Why Nigeria has failed in its drug war?

Speaking before the country’s parliament, Singapore’s minister for home affairs, K Shanmugam, extolled the country’s success in fighting drugs. He attributed these results to Singapore’s harsh drug laws, which include the use of capital punishment.

It may seem surprising to the uninitiated that Singapore has the death penalty for drug crimes. But, as the minister said: “Our penalties are severe because we want to deter such offences”.

Singapore is one of a tiny number of countries classified by Harm Reduction International (HRI) as “high application” states in the use of capital punishment for drugs. This means that death sentences and executions are a regular part of the criminal justice system. Indeed, there have been two executions for drug offences just this month, killings which were condemned by UN human rights officials.

The idea that harsh drug laws such as the death penalty are effective is one actively promoted by Singapore. And it is a belief now allegedly being adopted by US president Donald Trump. Given Trump’s notorious concern with what he considers “fake news”, it is somewhat surprising he has embraced one of the more dubious claims in global drug control – the myth that Singapore’s harsh penalties have nearly eliminated drug use and drug crime.

Trump take note – why Singapore’s claim that the death penalty works for drug offences is fake news

There is a lot to learn from the Dutch example when it comes to preventing overdoses and infections. DU News, member of the Drugreporter video network visits a complex drop-in centre in Amsterdam. Watch the video!
The Dutch tend to treat life easier, and a result it often turns out better, and easier, and safer. Perhaps because of this pragmatic attitude, as well as because they accept the world as it is, everything in the Netherlands is so good when it comes to harm reduction services.

(Turn on English subtitles by clicking on the CC button at the right bottom of the video.)

In the Netherlands, four meters below pain level

Dutch ministers have outlined plans to regulate cannabis cultivation in certain parts of the Netherlands for a trial period.

In a letter to the Dutch Parliament published on 9 March, two senior ministers - justice minister, Ferdinand Grapperhaus, and medical care minister, Bruno Bruins - outlined plans to allow the legal cultivation of cannabis for recreational purposes in several municipalities for four years. The document outlines that a specially-appointed commission will consider how the cultivation should be carried out and overseen, and report back to the government by the end of May. Following this, Grapperhaus and Bruins will decide how the scheme should be implemented, and select 10 municipalities in the country in which it will be trialled.

No municipalities will be required to trial the scheme, but several local leaders have already expressed interest. The mayor of Rotterdam is among dozens of local authority leaders who have asked for their area to take part in the trials, Dutch News reports.

The ministers’ letter denotes that the trial will take place in three phases:

Ministers will designate up to 10 municipalities which may legally regulate cannabis cultivation.

Cannabis cultivation will begin in the designated areas, with the produce being delivered to cannabis coffeeshops. Only coffeeshops within the designated areas will be able to receive and sell the legally produced cannabis.

After four years, the trial period will be discontinued over a period of six months, and an assessment of its success will take place.

Contrary to common belief, the cultivation and distribution of recreational cannabis are not legal in the Netherlands. The sale of small quantities of cannabis in coffeeshops around the country is tolerated, and such businesses are permitted to store up to 500 grams of the drug at any one time. Individuals who use the drug are also unlikely to face criminalisation, as policy guidelines instruct that no one should be prosecuted for possessing up to five grams of cannabis for personal use, and adults may grow up to five plants in their home.

In EU first, Netherlands to trial recreational cannabis cultivation

The Justice and Home Affairs Council has adopted today Council conclusions on alternatives to coercive sanctions for drug using offenders.

This agreement represents the political will of the 28 EU Member States to apply, in each legal system, alternative measures to coercive sanctions in order to: prevent crime; reduce recidivism; enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system and look at reducing health-related harms and minimising social risks.

Alternative measures can include: education; suspension of investigation or prosecution; suspension of sentence with treatment; rehabilitation and recovery, aftercare and social reintegration.

This initiative, started under the Maltese Presidency in 2017, was promoted by the Estonian Presidency and concluded under the current Bulgarian Presidency of the Council. It responds to Action 22 of the EU Action Plan on Drugs 2017–2020 which requests Member States and working parties of the Council to provide and apply alternatives to coercive sanctions for drug using offenders (where appropriate, and in accordance with their legal frameworks). The Action Plan also requests concerned parties to increase monitoring, implementation and evaluation of alternatives to coercive sanctions.

This political agreement calls on the EU Member States to: implement effectively alternative measures and monitor and evaluate their implementation; develop and share best practice in the field; and raise awareness (e.g. through training among national policy makers, law enforcement, criminal justice, public health, social and education professionals and persons providing support to drug-using offenders).

The text: ‘Invites the EMCDDA to continue to monitor the measures and to exchange information and best practices on implementation, development of these measures, their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness’. It also: ‘Invites the European Commission ‘to support this work’.

European Council adopts conclusions on alternatives to coercive sanctions for drug using offenders 

Social workers operating in Sydney’s inner city public housing estates have slammed a new policy that denies homes to those with a history of serious drug offences, saying it sets a “troubling precedent” that further marginalises people trying to leave their past behind them.

The New South Wales government announced this week it would bar anyone either recently charged or convicted of drug supply or drug manufacture offences from accessing public housing in Sydney’s inner suburbs.

Letters were sent to staff and clients at the Community Restorative Centre, the city’s largest non-government organisation working with recently released prisoners, warning them of impending criminal checks for those on public housing waiting lists in Glebe, Waterloo, Redfern and Surry Hills.

The government says public housing towers in the suburbs have become unsafe, and the policy is designed to crackdown on drug-related harm.

But Community Restorative Centre program director, Mindy Sotiri, said the policy does nothing but shift the problem elsewhere, without addressing the complex root causes that drive drug offending.

Sotiri’s organisation works with former prisoners with complex backgrounds before and after release, helping them to reintegrate, rebuild their lives, and avoid further offending.

She said she was stunned to see the letter last week.

It was “clearly discriminatory”, she said, and would disproportionately affect Indigenous Australians, who make up 25% of all people released from prison in this area.

Sotiri fears the policy sets a dangerous precedent of further punishing and marginalising people already dealt with by the courts.

“The key thing for me is that this is a really troubling precedent that extends punishment beyond the judicial system, which really has not worked anywhere,” Sotiri told Guardian Australia.

Banning drug offenders from accessing public housing sets 'troubling precedent'

The International Network of People who use Drugs, along with 188 drug user organisations and working at the national, regional and international level on issues related to drug use, drug treatment, harm reduction and drug policies urge the WHO and the UNODC to revise their guidelines on International Standards for the Treatment of Drug Use Disorders. In brief:

The paper contains many assertions not supported evidentiarily or cited.

The phrase ‘harm reduction’ is entirely missing from the document.

The paper contains crude generalisations and many stigmatising and pathologising assertions.

Notably, the paper contains numerous implications that people who use drugs and have drug dependencies are dangerous; cannot exercise agency and self-determination; are sick; are unreliable; are bad family members; are bad employees. Needless to say, such crude generalisations are deeply stigmatising and offensive, not to mention unempirical.

The paper fails to identify criminalisation and prohibition as being responsible for driving much drug related harm and harm associated with drug dependency; instead, it myopically asserts that because drugs are harmful, they are criminalised, without noting that it is due to the fact that they are criminalised that they are so harmful.

The paper’s active promotion Naltrexone is very concerning, given its lack of evidentiary support: Naltrexone is promoted in the document as of equal value to interventions that are (in contrast to Naltrexone) empirically justified and greatly beneficial; this is arguably used to eclipse interventions with proven efficacy, such as methadone, buprenorphine, and diamorphine/morphine prescribing, due to the document’s clear advocation of abstinence-based recovery.

The guidelines in their current form are not aligned with current UN guidance on harm reduction, nor grounded in evidence. We are concerned that the treatment guidelines in their current state will promote stigma and discrimination against people who use drugs. We call on the WHO and the UNODC to postpone the release or future dissemination of the document until these shortcomings are appropriately addressed. For the full open letter, follow the below link...

Call for WHO & UNODC to revise guidelines on International Standards for the Treatment of Drug Use Disorders

By Dania Putri, of The Transnational Institute.

In Myanmar’s Kachin State, a women’s drop-in centre has transformed into more than just a harm reduction facility. Leading up to International Women’s Day, we spoke with Thinzar Tun (AHRN Myanmar) about what makes this centre special.

For decades, the war on drugs has negatively impacted millions of lives. It has led to damaging forms of marginalisation, alarming rates of incarceration, and a wide array of ‘unintended consequences’ of drug control policies, from corruption and injustice to violence in illicit markets. In most parts of the world, for reasons related to broader gender inequality, women are disproportionately affected by these policy impacts at varying levels. It is only recently that this issue has begun to receive particular attention within the world of drug policy activism.

The more we dig in, the more we learn about - and are sometimes enraged by – the various harsh repercussions of drug control policies on the lives of both men and women worldwide. Nevertheless, as thousands have been empowered by the blossoming of the #MeToo movement, it is important to acknowledge that change is possible, and that concrete efforts can lead to progress that is worth celebrating.

Women and drugs in Myanmar: Beyond harm reduction

Since my last update to this Council I have conducted missions to Libya, Peru, Uruguay, El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Fiji. Recognising that not all States will accept a visit, I express my deep appreciation for these invitations, which demonstrate commendable openness to discussing human rights issues. In my statement to the Council in June, I will be addressing the issue of refusals of access to international human rights mechanisms, and to my Office. In every instance, I encourage the concerned States to embark on deeper dialogue and cooperation with my Office and the human rights mechanisms. Before I begin what will sadly prove to be a very long list of human rights violations and abuses, I would like to highlight a sample of advances which are underway in several countries.

In the Philippines, following the International Criminal Court’s announcement of plans to open an investigation, the authorities announced their willingness to work with the UN on drug-related challenges. I deplore the President Duterte’s statement last week to élite police units that they should not cooperate “when it comes to human rights, or whoever rapporteur it is” and the continued vilification of this Council’s Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial killings by the authorities. The Government has a duty to uphold human rights and to engage with persons appointed by this Council. I am concerned by deepening repression and increasing threats to individuals and groups with independent or dissenting views, including opposition Senators, current and former public officials, the Commission on Human Rights, human rights defenders and journalists. Several cases for impeachment or dismissal have been launched against members of the Supreme Court, the Office of the Ombudsman and other institutions representing democratic safeguards. Senator de Lima has now been arbitrarily detained for over a year, without clear charges. This authoritarian approach to governance threatens to irreparably damage 30 years of commendable efforts by the Philippines to strengthen the rule of law and respect for the human rights of the people. I further deplore President Duterte's encouragement to troops to violate fundamental rules of international humanitarian law, including his statement that they should shoot women fighters in their genitals because this would render them "useless".

More broadly, I urge all States to examine the effectiveness and human rights impact of their current approaches to the so-called “War on Drugs”. I urge more comprehensive implementation of the Outcome Document of the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on the World Drug Problem of 2016, including its 15 operational recommendations on human rights and related issues. The cross-cutting UNGASS 2016 approach constitutes a new and better linkage of the objective of drug-control – protection of the health and welfare of humanity – with the key priorities of the UN system, including the SDGs. I encourage the continuation of this structure for future UN drug policy debates. In this context, I note and commend the International Narcotics Control Board's recent call to all States to implement international drug control conventions in accordance with their commitments to human rights treaties and the rule of law.