Today, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the case brought by Nebraska and Oklahoma against Colorado over its marijuana legalization law. Oklahoma and Nebraska had claimed the Colorado law had created an increased law enforcement burden in neighboring states. The suit, filed by Nebraska Attorney General John Bruning and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, claimed that federal marijuana prohibition preempts the law that Colorado voters decisively adopted in 2012. The Federal Government filed a brief urging the high court to reject the case.

Statement from Tamar Todd, Director, Office of Legal Affairs of the Drug Policy Alliance:

“The Supreme Court’s rejection of this misguided effort to undo cautious and effective state-level regulation of marijuana is excellent news for the many other states looking to adopt similar reforms in 2016 and beyond. Other states are looking to what Colorado has accomplished: the drops in racially disparate arrests, the criminal justice dollars saved, and the tax revenue raised and want to adopt similar marijuana law reforms. The dismissal of this action means that the four states that have adopted ballot initiatives by decisive margins to tax and regulate marijuana for adults, as well as the many states that have adopted laws to regulate medical marijuana, can proceed without interference at this time.

“The Federal government itself filed a brief with the high court asking that it not hear this case. It has not challenged the regulatory law in Colorado nor did it choose to interfere with its implementation. To the contrary, the government has deprioritized enforcement of state-level marijuana reforms and acknowledged the interests that both states and the Federal government have in openly regulating marijuana.”

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

Supreme court rejects Nebraska and Oklahoma lawsuit over Colorado marijuana legalisation

The so-called War on Drugs has been lost. So what now?

That’s the vexing question United Nations member states have been grappling with over the past 10 weeks, as they have engaged in intense negotiations over the future of the international response to drugs, in preparation for a UN General Assembly special session in April.

Confronted with the fact that policies pursued over the last 50 years have failed to “eliminate or significantly reduce” illicit drugs, countries are drawing wildly differing conclusions. For some, it is time to try something new; for others, it’s to double down on the criminal law enforcement approach. On opposite sides of this debate are countries like Uruguay – open to legalization and regulation of marijuana – and Russia, which opposes even references to a previously agreed – and spectacularly missed – global goal to reduce drug-related HIV transmission.

Health and human rights are at the center of this polarized debate. The UN drug control conventions were established, along with the UN Office on Drugs and Crime and the International Narcotics Control Board, out of concern for the harms drugs can do to the “health and welfare of mankind.” But with a growing body of evidence highlighting the negative impacts on health and human rights of an over reliance on a criminal law enforcement-based response to drugs a critical question has arisen: What does more harm – drugs themselves or the response to them?

In the run-up to the April meeting, Human Rights Watch will publish a series of articles examining the range of serious human rights abuses – from torture and killings in the name of drug control to disproportionate and arbitrary imprisonment of drug users to denying cancer patients access to morphine for pain – the War on Drugs has caused. Ending these abuses need to be at the center of the deliberations at the UN General Assembly session on drugs.

The war on drugs – A cure worse than the disease

At around 23:00 delegations left informal negotiations agreeing on a final outcome document. Switzerland made a reservation, pending on approval of the government, on the preambular paragraph 7 mentioning a society free of drug abuse, wanting to include a mention on responding to the public health and social problems resulting from drug abuse. While the intention was to present a short and concise outcome document with operational recommendations, a 24 page document was presented at the Plenary.

The EU, supported by among others Turkey, Switzerland, Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, Colombia and Chile, gave a statement about the failure to include language opposing the death penalty, regretting that the document did not include language about the abolition of the death penalty and called on countries to adopt a moratorium on the execution of the death penalty. Brazil, New Zealand, Australia and Norway made a similar statement. Indonesia made a statement that there is no consensus on the abolition of the death penalty and that the issue is not part of the mandate of the CND, and is a criminal justice matter of sovereign states, supported by China, Pakistan, Egypt, Malaysia and almost all Arabic states.

Colombia, Mexico, Guatemala, Ecuador,Panama, Switzerland and others made a statement that although the outcome document is a step forward, because of the consensus process some issues were not included and called for a broad comprehensive approach towards 2019 and beyond, paying particular attention to the 2030 SDG targets. China pointed to the emerging challenges of NPS.
Reform minded delegations think there is sufficient progress to build on towards the evaluation of the 1998 UNGASS at the High Level Segment in 2019. The document mentions persistent, new and evolving challenges to be addressed in conformity with the three international drug conventions, which allow for sufficient flexibility to State parties to design and implement national drug policies. It does not mention harm reduction but there is mention of appropriate medication-assisted therapy and injecting equipment programmes, the new diplo-speak for opioid assisted therapy and needle and syringe exchange.

TNI at CND 2016: Reports from Vienna

From April 19–21, global leaders will meet for the first time in 18 years to debate global drug policy at the U.N. General Assembly Special Session on the World Drug Problem in New York. As soon as this week, the 59th session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs will have the opportunity to decide whether the U.N. session will truly be “special” in achieving tangible results – or not.

 special in bringing strong outputs based on reality, the global regime will incorporate human rights and public health into current drug policies. Weak and blurred outputs would mean that the same regime has proved unable to adapt itself to the changing world and is doomed to collapse.

The special session on drugs is gathering at the request of three Latin American countries that are suffering from the war on drugs: In Mexico alone, the number of homicides related to the war on drugs exceeds the number of casualties of the wars in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan combined. And yet, all around the world, we see results of the dysfunctional drug control regime: “Illegal drugs” were never as available or cheap or used as much as they are today.

The war on drugs is not only a problem for developing countries. To rely on tough prohibition is far too expensive even for the wealthiest nations. As President Obama recently noted, the war on drugs has been “very unproductive.” Indeed, it is causing even more crime than it seeks to prevent and diverts limited law enforcement resources from urgent issues, no matter whether the country is wealthy or not. Looking back, we can see our current situation is promising: While President Nixon declared a “war on drugs” in 1969, and President Reagan further expanded drug control measures outside the US, the current U.S. commander-in-chief clearly understands that this war should have ended long ago. Now we need to see that this rhetoric is followed by energetic action.

So far, we have seen minimal amounts of progressive language in the working versions of the output document to be debated and adopted at the U.N. special session on drugs. Interestingly, those countries experimenting most intensively with different drug control regimes are silent on the conflict between their progress and the current structure and interpretations of the U.N. conventions on drugs.

This applies, first of all, to the U.S., with four of its states and even its capital city legalizing recreational marijuana – the most widespread illegal drug – and with another four to nine states expected to do so in 2016. Make no mistake: The global drug policy is the responsibility of the whole global community. However, the U.S. is the only superpower to have invented, promoted and globally exported the war on drugs.

A global cold war on drugs

By Vanda Felbab-Brown, Harold Trinkunas and Sultan Barakat

This April, the U.N. General Assembly will meet for a Special Session on the World Drug Problem. After decades of conformity with a hardline “war on drugs” formerly promoted by the United States, there is increasing dissensus within the international community about how to best address the costs and harms posed by drugs. For years, some European countries have quietly diverged from policies based on aggressive suppression of drug production and the criminalization of users. More recently, some key Latin American states have openly challenged the global counternarcotics regime and called for reforms.

Yet the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) states still cling to hardline drug policies, an approach that is also supported by Russia and many Asian countries.

On March 7 in Doha, we met with police and military officials, NGO representatives, and academics from across the Middle East to discuss the rising drug challenges in the region and the increasingly contested global regime. We found the Middle East and North Africa are grappling with intensifying drug problem—increased use, spread of drug-related communicable diseases, and widening linkages between drug production and smuggling and violent conflict and terrorism. And there is a growing sense that the repressive policies against illicit drugs long-applied in the region have not been effective in counteracting these negative trends.

Breaking bad in the Middle East and North Africa: Drugs, militants, and human rights 

The Psychoactive Substances Act, which was criticised for being so vague it could ban things as benign as scented pillows, does not proscribe alkyl nitrates, a drug particularly popular among gay men. But the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has told the Home Office poppers are not covered by the Act as they do not work by “stimulating or depressing the central nervous system”.

“The ACMD’s consensus view is that a psychoactive substance has a direct action on the brain and that substances having peripheral effects, such as those caused by alkyl nitrites, do not directly stimulate or depress the central nervous system,” the experts wrote in their advice.

Campaigners welcomed the news, which many had feared would unduly target the gay community.

Niamh Eastwood, Executive Director of Release, the UK centre of expertise on drugs and drug laws, told HuffPost UK she was not surprised at ACMD’s conclusions. She said Release’s legal experts believed no substance fell under the Act’s remit because of its poorly-worded definition. She said Home Office Minister Mike Penning had “repeatedly” told parliament that poppers would be banned under the Act and said the latest news showed it was “most likely unenforceable”. She added: “The ACMD’s advice today could not be any clearer, poppers are not psychoactive and do not fall within the Act. “This comes as no surprise, this legislation is badly drafted, most likely unenforceable and may result in greater harms as has happened in Ireland and Poland where similar law has been enacted.”

The Act enables the Home Secretary to declare certain substances exempt but the ACMD recommended this was not necessary as poppers were not psychoactive, according to the Act’s definition, to begin with.

Poppers are popular as a muscle relaxant, often to facilitate sex.

During a reading on the Bill in the House of Commons, MP Crispin Blunt, who recently came out as gay, outed himself as a user of the drug.

Poppers can’t fall under legal highs ban as they’re not psychoactive, experts tell government

The ‘war on drugs’ has not only failed in its aim to rid the world of illicit drugs, it is fuelling poverty and violence, undermining access to health, and harming some of the poorest and most marginalised communities worldwide. It’s time to rethink.

We’re calling for a new approach to drug policy, which puts people’s health and rights first.

Rethink drug policy

Iran's government has been putting a lot of people to death.

The Islamic Republic executed nearly 1,000 prisoners last year, marking a high in the number of executions in the country in more than 20 years, and making it the country with the highest number of executions per capita in the world, according to a new UN report.

Issued by the UN's special rapporteur on human rights in Iran, the report said that the majority of those executed were put to death for drug-related offenses.

There was a "staggering surge in the execution of at least 966 prisoners last year — the highest rate in over two decades," UN Special Rapporteur Ahmed Shaheed said at a press conference on Thursday. A former foreign minister of the Maldives, Shaheed has never been allowed into Iran, but his report was based on 128 interviews with Iranians abroad and in the country.

"Under Iran's current drug laws, possession of 30 grams of heroin or cocaine would qualify for the death penalty," he said. "So there's a number of draconian laws."

People can be put to death for a range of 17 drug crimes, including armed smuggling, movement of drugs in prisons, or hiring people while conspiring to break anti-narcotics laws.

More than 500 people executed in 2015, or about 65 percent of those executed, were convicted of such crimes, many of them nonviolent.

At least four juveniles were among those executed, while 160 remain on death row, according to the report. Iranian law stipulates that girls as young as nine years old can be put to death, and boys as young as 15.

The Islamic Republic defended the executions by saying that "severe punishments meted out to large[-scale] drug traffickers have brought about considerable reduction in the harm resulting from the flow of drugs to Iran and beyond."

The report applauded the Iranian law that requires the country's Supreme Court to review all death sentences, but said it was concerned about the lack of due process and fair trial rights, including "long periods of incommunicado and pretrial detention, and lack of adequate access to a lawyer and/or to a proper defense."

It noted that drug offenders are often "subjected to beatings and coerced confessions which are later used in revolutionary courts to secure their death sentences. In some cases judges reportedly convicted and sentenced drug offenders to death based on their 'intuition,' and despite what appeared to be a lack of evidence."

The Iranian government was given the opportunity to review the rapporteur's findings and to have its replies included in the report. It refuted the assertions and said the reference to judges convicting suspects on "intuition" was "false and biased."

Iran executed more than 500 people last year for drug-related crimes

Globally, about 12.7 million people inject drugs and 1.7 million of them are living with HIV.

On average, one in 10 new HIV infections is caused by sharing injecting equipment, according to the World Health Organisation.

In 1998 and 2009 the UN declared its ambition to bring about a world free of drugs. Many countries continue to take a punitive approach to HIV and drugs, using arrests, incarceration, criminal penalties and compulsory detention to criminalise and punish users. Drug use is predicted to rise by 25% by 2050, with most of the increase in developing countries, and we understand better than ever the damage done by the war on drugs. So we hoped that last week’s 59th session of the UN’s Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) would drop the rhetoric of a drug-free world in favour of progressive approaches to global drug policy that would help us meet the UN target of ending Aids by 2030.

The evidence for the effectiveness of harm reduction interventions – reducing the negative consequences of drug use rather than focusing solely on reducing drug use – is described by UNAids as irrefutable (pdf) and all relevant UN agencies now endorse a harm reduction approach to HIV and drug use.

At the International HIV and Aids Alliance we know of epidemics being averted, or reduced, in settings as diverse as Australia, Vietnam, Ukraine, Malaysia, China, Portugal, Mauritius and Switzerland.

110,000 injecting drug users were diagnosed with HIV in 2014 alone. The need for evidence-based approaches to dealing with this public health emergency has never been more important.

Yet in Vienna last week, references to harm reduction, needle and syringe programmes and opioid substitution therapy (OST) were contested. The policy process has been widely criticised, and the negotiations heavily influenced by countries including Russia who are vetoing harm reduction in favour of a bald restatement of the decades-old illusion of a drug-free world.

About $100bn (£69bn) is spent annually on the war on drugs, and research by Harm Reduction International published in the Lancet this month estimated that a 7.5% redirection of that money towards damage mitigation programmes would practically end HIV among injecting drug users.

So why does harm reduction continue to be such a problem for global drug policy?

Russia is thought to have been active behind the scenes at the CND, blocking attempts at putting a more progressive approach on the agenda. The country is notable for its failure to control the spread of HIV, in particular among drug users. It is one of the few countries where the HIV epidemic continues to grow quickly. Among members of the Council of Europe, it has the highest number of newly diagnosed HIV infections. More than 93,000 were diagnosed last year and 54% were attributable to unsafe drug injection, according to the Moscow-based Andrey Rylkov Foundation for Health and Social Justice.

To end HIV in drug users, stop chasing the dream of a drug-free world 

1. The General Assembly will convene a special session on the world drug problem from 19 to 21 April 2016 at UN Headquarters in New York, in accordance with its resolutions 67/193 of 20 December 2012, 69/200 of 18 December 2014 and 70/181 of 17 December 2015.

2. The General Assembly, in paragraph 3 (f) of resolution 70/181, decided that the special session shall consist of a general debate and interactive multi-stakeholder round tables conducted in parallel with the plenary.

3. Participation in the special session will be in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 of resolution 69/200 and paragraphs 3, 7 and 8 of resolution 70/181.

4. The special session will be attended by several Heads of State and Government and will have a significant level of ministerial participation. Convocation letters for the special session have been sent by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to Member States, Observer States, Observers, heads of the principal organs of the United Nations and the heads of the specialized agencies of the United Nations.

5. In accordance with paragraph 3(d) of resolution 70/181, the list of non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, who pre-registered to participate in the special session, will be circulated to Member States for their information.

6. In accordance with paragraph 3(e) of resolution 70/181, the list of representatives of relevant non-governmental organizations, representatives of civil society and the scientific community, academia, youth groups and other relevant stakeholders that may participate in the special session, will be submitted to Member States for their consideration. The final list will then be transmitted to Member States.

7. Pursuant to the provisions mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 6, registration is now open for representatives of organizations actively working on drug-related matters from non-governmental organizations, civil society, the scientific and academic communities, youth groups and other relevant stakeholders. Organizations wishing to attend the special session have been informed of the need to register by applying through the following website: http://bit.ly/UNGASS-2016. Applications for general registration are being accepted from 1 February – 28 March 2016.

8. In addition, pursuant to paragraph 8 of resolution 70/181, Member States, Observer States and Observers are encouraged to consider the possible participation of youth representatives at the special session.

9. The special session will comprise plenary meetings and five interactive multi-stakeholder round tables. Additional explanatory details are provided below.

10. In accordance with paragraph 3(b) of resolution 70/181, the opening plenary meeting of the special session scheduled on 19 April 2016 at 10 a.m. will feature statements by the President of the General Assembly, the Secretary-General, the Chair of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the President of the International Narcotics Control Board and the Director-General of the World Health Organization.

11. The formal plenary meetings are scheduled on 19, 20 and 21 April 2016 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 3 to 6 p.m. To enable maximum participation within the limited time available, statements in the plenary meetings should not exceed three minutes when speaking in the national capacity and five minutes when speaking on behalf of a group. A list of speakers is open for inscription at the General Assembly Affairs Branch (room S-3082. tel. (212) 963-5063; fax. (212) 963-3783; or email: poliakova[at]un.org).

12. Speaking order will follow the customary protocol order. Accordingly, precedence will be accorded to representatives at the Heads of State or Government and Ministerial levels.

13. The closing plenary meeting in the afternoon of 21 April 2016 will feature the Co-chairs’ summaries of the salient points of the interactive multi-stakeholder round tables and concluding remarks by the President of the General Assembly.

Documentation, statements and interpretation

14. At the special session of the General Assembly, hard copies of documents will be available at the documents distribution counters located inside the General Assembly Hall. For the roundtables taking place in conference room 4, hard copies of documents will be available at the documents booth in the conference room.

15. Delegations are requested to provide 30 copies of their statements, to be submitted by a delegation representative to the receiving area at the documentation desk located at the rear of the General Assembly Hall between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. for distribution to the various conference services. The delegation representative should be in possession of a valid United Nations grounds pass. Access will be at the 46th Street gate, through the screening area, utilizing the West side elevators in the lobby of the General Assembly Building to the second floor, where a representative of the Secretariat will accept the texts at a designated counter. The texts of the speeches will be accepted only on the day they are to be given.

16. Additionally, delegations are invited to submit PDF formatted versions of their statements via e-mail to papersmart[at]un.org. Delegations wishing to circulate their statements electronically through the PaperSmart portal should provide them not later than two hours in advance of delivery to papersmart[at]un.org. Alternatively, delegations can bring a hard copy (unstapled and printed single-sided), for scanning and uploading, to the PaperSmart portal at the documents distribution counter located inside the General Assembly Hall or at the conference officers’ desk in conference room 4. The name of the meeting and the agenda item should be indicated in the subject line of the e‑mail and in the heading of the statement. The statements will remain embargoed until their delivery and then posted. Only statements presented during the course of the meeting will be posted.

17. Statements made in any of the six official languages of the General Assembly are interpreted into the other official languages. Any speaker may also make a statement in a language other than the official languages. In such cases, in accordance with rule 53 of the rules of procedure of the Assembly, the delegation in question must provide either an interpreter from the non-official language into an official language, or a written text of the statement in one of the official languages to be read out by a United Nations interpreter. On the basis of this interpretation or the written text which is accepted by the Secretariat as representing the official text of the statement, it will be interpreted into the other official languages by United Nations interpreters. When a written text is provided, the delegation concerned should make available to the interpreter someone who knows the language in which the statement is to be delivered and the official language into which it has been translated, to guide the interpreter through the translated text and to ensure synchronization between the speaker and the interpreter. Detailed arrangements for interpretation from non-official languages, including access by non-United Nations interpreters to the interpreter booths in the General Assembly Hall, must be made in advance through the Meetings Management Section (telephone: 212 963 8114; e‑mail: emeetsm[at]un.org). The interpreter or the guide provided by the delegation should be brought by the delegation to the conference officers’ desk in front of the General Assembly Hall 30 minutes prior to the delivery of the statement.

Organisational arrangements for the Special Session of the General Assembly on the world drug problem

The Liberal government used its first foray into the global anti-narcotics arena this week to signal a clear shift from the war on drugs philosophy, promising more safe-injection sites, promoting “harm reduction” and touting its plan to legalize marijuana.

The speech by Hilary Geller, an assistant deputy minister of health, caused a stir at the generally staid Commission on Narcotic Drugs conference in Vienna, observers said.

The audience of government and non-governmental organization officials from around the world “erupted in applause” mid-way through the address and gave a prolonged ovation at the end, said Jason Nickerson, an Ottawa-based researcher who is attending the meeting.

The talk not only contrasted with the Harper government’s international stance on drugs, but stood out from the cautious pronouncements most other nations made, said the Bruyère Research Institute scientist, who favours more liberal policies. “There are some countries here that are coming out and saying important, progressive things,” he said. “But it’s certainly not as explicit as what Canada is saying.”

A Conservative opposition critic had a different reaction, sounding the alarm about Geller’s prediction of more government-sanctioned injection sites – where opioid users can use illicit intravenous drugs under a nurse’s supervision.

While the Supreme Court of Canada ruled such sites legal, the Conservatives passed legislation requiring extensive public consultations and other measures before they could be set up, said Rob Nicholson, the party’s justice critic. “Drugs that are used at these injection sites, mostly heroin, are dangerous and addictive and they kill Canadians,” said the former justice minister. “I disagree with the idea they are safe. There’s nothing safe about taking heroin.”

Nicholson also stressed that the Conservatives invested hundreds of millions of dollars in drug-abuse treatment and prevention.

Still, the Harper government was generally tough on the issue, implementing mandatory-minimum jail sentences for some trafficking offences and beefing up police narcotics enforcement.

On the world stage, it opposed having international conventions embrace harm reduction, programs that focus on preventing the side effects of illegal drug use — like HIV infection — rather than prosecution.

That put the Conservative government in league with some of the world’s most authoritarian states, said Richard Elliott, head of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.

Under Harper, Canada also failed to condemn the death penalty for drug offences, enforced regularly by nations like Iran and Indonesia, he said.

Geller stressed this week her government opposes capital punishment “in all cases.”

Canadian official causes stir with ‘progressive’ speech at UN narcotics conference

The space is a place where people can self-inject their own drugs in a safe, supervised environment using clean equipment. There is no threat of being arrested, and the people who work there are trained to respond in case of an overdose. Staff also help people access primary care, detox services, addiction treatment, housing, employment, and legal services. As the first supervised injection facility on the continent, it embodies the highest ideals of harm reduction.

Insite joins the nearly one hundred injection sites around the world that treat drug dependence as an issue of public health rather than criminal justice. Liz Evans, founder and former director of PHS Community Services Society, has seen firsthand the lives saved by this kind of pragmatic approach. It’s a people-first solution that she hopes will be featured this April at the UN General Assembly Special Session on drugs, an event that could help turn the tide against punitive drug policies.

By accepting drug use as a global reality rather than something to be wished away, facilities like Insite are serving as a model for what harm reduction can achieve.

News