The war on drugs is dead. The only remnants of the once dominant paradigm exist in the form of three United Nations treaties controlling drugs. As the UN begins the Special Session on the World Drug Problem (UNGASS) on Tuesday, it is time for Canada to exercise the often ignored flexibility contained within these treaties, and move forward with the legalization and regulation of cannabis.

Though international drug control treaties have been around since 1907, it was not until the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs that the world coalesced around one set of rules to prevent distribution and use of narcotic drugs except for medical and scientific purposes. While the “drug war” as we knew it claimed its legitimacy from this treaty (and its companions passed in 1971 and 1988), such heavy-handed responses were not necessarily the intention. Countries were only required to make possession of cannabis illegal in the 1988 Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs. But even then, at the height of the crack epidemics, no one could have imagined the self-inflicted brutality that would emerge to combat drugs in the final decades of the 20th century.

It is now time for the international community to acknowledge the beginning of a new era, and provide support for countries trying new ways to regulate drugs in a safe and responsible manner.

Keep up-to-date with drug policy developments by subscribing to the IDPC Monthly Alert.

The war on drugs is dead: Canada can help lead the peace

By Magdy Martínez-Solimán - The Guardian

When the world’s nations committed to the sustainable development goals (SDGs) last year, they probably weren’t thinking about drugs. But they should have been. Without effective drug control strategies, marginalisation, poverty and inequality will persist in societies. Evidence shows that prohibitionist approaches have not worked – from 1998 to 2008 the number of people using illicit drugs did not change significantly and neither did the area used for opium poppy cultivation. Conventional policies have failed in reducing addiction and production.

Drug policy is connected to core areas of sustainable development: health and wellbeing, gender equality, justice and strong institutions. The population ofwomen imprisoned for drug-related offences is on the rise (pdf). Prison sentences for women may result in the incarceration of their infants and young children, who stay with them for all or part of their sentence.

Thumbnail: Flickr US Embassy Kabul Afghanistan's

The war on drugs has failed: Time to stop fighting and start thinking

The United Nations General Assembly Special Session on The World Drug Problem (UNGASS) will be held in New York next week. Diplomats in Vienna have negotiated the text of the Outcome Document to be recommended for adoption at this meeting.

Although it is good to see the inclusion of a stand alone section on access to controlled medications, the draft reveals a limited understanding of the negative impact of the international drug control conventions on public health.

The document’s subtitle: ‘Our joint commitment in effectively addressing and countering the world drug problem’ contains language that is biased towards a law-enforcement approach to controlled substances.

Systemic human rights violations in the War on Drugs

In this article, I will focus on access to medicines controlled under the three UN Drug Control Conventions, but first, I will refer to a guest editorial by Damon Barret, Director of the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy.

He describes the evolution of his thinking on the relation between human rights violations and the War on Drugs.

Initially, he saw these violations as collateral damage, but now he considers them to be a systemic problem.

What states are legally required to do under the UN drug control treaties can be exceptionally risky from a human rights perspective.

For example, he points out that the application of the death penalty for drugs increased after the 1988 drug trafficking convention was adopted.

Today, Barret considers human rights violations in the War on Drugs as institutional violations caused by the conventions.

Institutional barriers in access to opioid analgesics

April 15, 2016 — As a coalition of interveners* in the Supreme Court of Canada case, R. v. Lloyd, we applaud the Court for recognizing that a mandatory minimum sentence (MMS) for certain drug offences is not only harsh and damaging, but also unconstitutional. We hope that this decision is one more step towards ending Canada’s harmful, punitive approach to drugs, and promoting instead an approach based on public health and human rights.

Under the previous federal government, Canada’s Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was amended to mandate a minimum one-year sentence for certain drug offences. This change was pushed through despite objections from opposition lawmakers and legal and medical experts, and despite overwhelming evidence about the harmfulness and ineffectiveness of MMS laws.

As we argued in Lloyd, and as the Court concurred, the MMS before the Court unjustifiably violates the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, per section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are pleased that the Court recognized the fact that individuals caught by the MMS law may be drug-dependent, and sentencing them to a one-year MMS could be grossly disproportionate, including because it may undermine treatment for their drug dependency.

However, it is also important to note, as the coalition did in our argument, that many such individuals might also be living with HIV and/or hepatitis C virus (HCV). Mandating prison time for these individuals can mean disruptions in treatment because of inadequate health care in prisons. Furthermore, prolonging incarceration puts people who use drugs at increased risk of returning to their communities with HIV or HCV, and of suffering fatal overdose because of lack of adequate prison-based harm reduction services. Not only do MMS laws cause these negative health consequences, they completely fail to deter drug-related crimes or protect public health.

The Supreme Court’s decision presents an opportunity for the federal government to undo Canada’s punitive arsenal of harmful drug laws. The federal government has already expressed support for a new approach to drug policy based on human rights and public health. This approach should include eliminating all MMS laws for drug-related offences, ensuring access to comprehensive harm reduction services and medical treatment for drug dependence and infection with HIV and HCV, both inside prisons and out, and decriminalizing possession of all drugs for personal use.

HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario
Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network
British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS
Prisoners with HIV/AIDS Support Action Network (PASAN)
Canadian Association of People Who Use Drugs


Communications and Outreach Officer
Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network
lkronick@aidslaw.ca


Communications Coordinator
British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS
cdobuzin@cfenet.ubc.ca

Supreme Court of Canada decision on mandatory minimums

The Ministry of Public Health officially urges all Lebanese hospitals to refrain from their usual practice of reporting drug users to the police upon their arrival to the Emergency Department.

This practice discourages many young individuals from seeking treatment and in many cases leads to tragic consequences.

As stated in the memo below, the law mandates treating individuals suffering from drug addiction as any patient who has the right to quality care and respect of his/her privacy, without any stigma or discrimination. The law is also designed to encourage drug users to seek treatment and rehabilitation, rather than be criminalized or punished.

Lebanese ministry of public health urges Lebanese hospitals to refrain from reporting drug users to the police

Canada’s statement read like a checklist of progressive drug policy positions.

The applause persisted until the chair of the session eventually gavelled it to an end. The occasion? Canada’s statement last month at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) in Vienna, where countries were negotiating the text of a declaration to be adopted next week at the UN General Assembly’s Special Session on drugs (UNGASS) in New York.

The last time the General Assembly met on this issue was in 1998, when it absurdly declared it would pursue the goal of a “drug-free world,” largely through yet more drug law enforcement. The reality, of course, is that we cannot end drug use, whether problematic or otherwise, through prosecution and punishment. Indeed, a growing number of states are starting to openly question the orthodoxy of drug prohibition and calling for reform, while some countries are simply moving ahead with sensible, evidence-based reforms to their domestic laws in order to better protect both public health and safety.

Canada on drugs at the UN: Standing up for a long-overdue policy shift

Drug use can be dangerous but prohibition makes them more dangerous even deadly. We’ve had 60 years of prohibitionist drug policies in Australia in yet drug use is at an all-time high. Surely it’s time to try alternative approaches to drug policy that reduces the damage that prohibition does to our young people.

Drug prohibition isn’t saving our children, it’s killing them

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein appealed to Iran to halt executions for drug offences until Parliament debates a new law that would remove the mandatory death penalty for drug crimes.

Five men were hanged last weekend, three of them on charges of narcotics trafficking. The other two men were convicted of murder. In at least one of the cases, that of Rashid Kouhi, there were serious concerns about the fairness of the trial and the denial of his right to appeal. Kouhi was sentenced to death in 2012 after he was found in possession of 800 grams of crystal meth. He was executed on Saturday, 9 April in Gilan province in northern Iran.

Last year, at least 966 people were executed in Iran – the highest rate in more than two decades – the majority for drug offences. At least four of those executed in 2015 were juveniles.

However, in December last year, 70 Members of Parliament presented a bill to amend the existing mandatory death penalty for drug offences. The bill, which was introduced in Parliament in January this year, provides for life imprisonment in such cases. It remains to be seen whether it will be taken forward in the new Parliament.

Zeid calls for an end to executions for drug offences in Iran

Governments across the world have invested in the war on drugs for decades. The complete eradication of drug crops and prohibition of their consumption has been the only goal. In this process, terrible pain and suffering has been inflicted around the world in the name of pursuing the fantasy of a drug-free world.

The United Nations has been the primary international mechanism upholding the prohibitionist approach for the past several decades, but this month they are convening a Special Session on drugs (UNGASS) in New York – the first such worldwide meeting since 1998. While many such gatherings have rubber stamped the status quo, the drugs UNGASS is an opportunity to reconsider current policy and to give space to voices who urge a new approach that prioritises health, social inclusion, development and human rights over interdiction, prohibition and punishment.

The clamour for change is growing louder, from former heads of state in South America and Western Europe to rural farmers in Southeast Asia and Afghanistan. Rather than demanding drug crops be destroyed, attempts are being made to manage production. Instead of insisting people quit using drugs entirely, ways are being sought to reduce the harm drugs can cause. In place of using criminal justice as an ineffective deterrent, information and social support is offered.

International drug policy: an engine for social injustice

In the year of our 10th anniversary the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC) is seeking ‘expressions of interest’ from individuals to join our Board of Directors. These are voluntary, non-executive positions. We are seeking to recruit two to three new Board members to join us from July 2016. As part of this recruitment process, we are looking to ensure robust succession planning for the positions of Chair and Vice Chair.

IDPC is a global network of over 140 civil society organisations from over 60 countries. We come together to promote objective and open debate on the effectiveness, direction and content of drug policies at the national and international level, and we support evidence-based policies that are effective at reducing drug-related harm. Our advocacy positions are based five core policy principles that prioritise human rights, civil society engagement and reducing the harmful consequences of the illicit drug market, rather than on reducing its scale.

The Board is responsible for the oversight of finances, management and performance of IDPC’s small but dynamic secretariat (based in London and Bangkok). The IDPC secretariat is a UK-based non-profit company limited by guarantee and the Board of Directors retain the financial and legal liability as per our Articles of Association. The Board is supported by a Members’ Advisory Council made up of representatives from the network.

In return for these responsibilities, new Directors would be joining the Board of a highly visible, diverse and growing network with a motivated, effective and committed staff team at the secretariat. IDPC has developed strong financial and administrative systems and processes since it became an independent legal entity in 2011. New Board members will be instrumental in further supporting IDPC as it moves into its next stage of organisational maturity and delivers on the new 5-year strategy that runs to December 2020.

The Board meets quarterly, with three out of four meetings being held by conference call and one annual face-to-face meeting which also serves as the Annual General Meeting. All meetings and documentation are in English only. Successful applicants will be expected to attend the next face-to-face Board meeting in London from the 6th to 8th July 2016. Meetings of the Directors, and all documentation and communication, are in English. Directors need to be available for the annual two-day face-to-face meeting each year in London. Good telephone and internet access is essential. Directors are also expected to be available to provide advice and comments between meetings. Board members will be appointed for one three-year term, with the ability to renew for one further three-year term.

We are particularly seeking individuals with the following skills and experience:

Experience of advocacy and/or campaigning work

Experience of advocacy engagement towards governmental and/or multi-lateral agencies

Successful track record of fundraising and ability to support resource mobilisation for IDPC

Experience from outside of the drug policy ‘field’, ideally in a related field such as health, human rights, development

Experience of working within government settings

Experience of financial oversight and management of organisations like IDPC

Experience of human resource oversight and management

Interested individuals should send a CV and a short cover letter outlining why they are interested in joining the Board of IDPC, and highlighting their relevant skills and experience for the Board position. These expressions of interest must be sent to Juan Fernandez (jfernandez@idpc.net) by no later than Friday 20th May 2016.

Call for expressions of interest for new members for IDPC’s Board of Directors

A French junior minister has sparked controversy by calling for renewed debate over the decriminalisation of cannabis.

"Prohibition is not effective", Jean-Marie Le Guen told France's BFMTV.

Other lawmakers - including fellow Socialists - dismissed the call, and a government spokesman said there were no plans for decriminalisation.

A recent WHO report found more French 15-year-olds smoked cannabis than in 41 other developed nations.

The study cautioned that "cannabis is a dangerous and harmful substance, especially for children and young people who use it regularly... Cannabis use is a risk factor for mental disorders and may trigger psychosis".

Mr Le Guen, who is secretary of state for relations with parliament as well as a medical doctor by training, said he opposed cannabis use and was a public health advocate who had always "fought against consumption of cannabis among the young".

But he said that approach had failed. Young people needed to be reached out to and taught that cannabis was dangerous, he said: "It is a health-based approach that I propose, not a moral or legal one."

French minister Le Guen reignites cannabis debate

At about two o'clock in the morning on March 23rd, after tense negotiations in Vienna, the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) reached a disappointing compromise. The hard-bargained draft of the outcome document of the UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on drugs taking place in New York from 19-21 April was adopted by ‘consensus’. Although its key features are by no means a surprise the draft is disappointing nonetheless.

A statement in the name of some 200 civil society organisations on the opening day of the CND warned that “the UNGASS is now perilously close to representing a serious systemic failure of the UN system … an expensive restatement of previous agreements and conventions”. Will the UNGASS 2016 go down in history as another wasted opportunity or have the debates leading to it laid a solid groundwork for systemic changes in the near future?

News