A few weeks ago, we were complaining here on Drugreporter about the draft UNGASS outcome document, especially the lack of any specific language on harm reduction. Unfortunately, our hopes that the next draft might be better went up in smoke. Actually, there is a paragraph on harm reduction programs (even if the term harm reduction does not appear in the text). The document calls on member states to scale up needle and syringe programs and opiate substitution treatment. The problem is that the context relativises this message by saying "where appropriate and in accordance with national legislation". That means that each member states has discretion to decide if scaling up these programs is appropriate or not. And in those countries where opiate substitution treatment is banned (for example, Russia) this paragraph does not apply at all.

The Civil Society Forum on Drugs, the expert group of the EU Commission, made a strong recommendation to UNGASS to produce a set of indicators to assess the human rights impact of drug control policies and to evaluate and report on this impact, including a chapter in the World Drug Report. The draft neutralised this recommendation by saying "Consider providing the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, when informing about national drug control policies, information on human rights aspects, and encourage UNODC to make such information available, including through the World Drug Report". Well, that was not exactly what we asked for, was it? "Considering" the inclusion of some information about "human rights aspects" is not enough.

What is even worse, the latest draft contains language reminiscent of the 1998 UNGASS, which was assembled under the slogan "A Drug-Free World: We Can Do It!". The text calls for a "society free of drug abuse" - a slogan that was already outdated twenty years ago. The concept of a drug-free world has been at the epicentre of repressive drug policies for the past two decades. The illusion that drug use is a disease which can be eliminated from the face of the world has led governments to introduce forced eradication campaigns, mass incarceration and labour camps. The quest for the Holy Grail of a drug-free world has legitimised human rights abuses in the name of drug control, and questioned harm reduction as something that endangers this mission. The current text is not the result of a "wide-ranging and open debate that considers all options", as requested by the Secretary General, but the reitaration of old clichés.

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

UNGASS and the drug-free world: Dream on!

Civil society groups from all over the world have released a statement condemning governments for failing to acknowledge the devastating consequences of punitive and repressive drug policies as they prepare for a UN summit on the issue next month.

In April 2016, world leaders will gather in New York to decide on the future of global drug policy, at the first UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on the topic in two decades. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called for this meeting to be a “wide-ranging and open debate that considers all options.” But as the preparations continue this week in Vienna at an annual meeting of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, it is becoming clear that the ‘once in a generation’ opportunity to rethink the failed ‘war on drugs’ is unlikely to deliver.

Civil society statement - The UNGASS outcome document: Diplomacy or denialism?

When national and local public safety personnel in Latin America want to turn away from “mano dura” approaches to the problem of alarmingly high rates of crime and violence, they frequently look to examples of apparently successful violence reduction strategies and policies from other countries in the region. Not surprisingly, successful policies cannot simply be transplanted. More often than not, those policies are successful in a specific social and political context. Whether or not security programs can be successfully adopted from one national context to another depends on a series of variables. These include the political will of the “adopting” authorities, the social and political factors that made the experience successful in the first place, and the capacity of the police to respond constructively to external evaluations as the program evolves. A current example of this process is the effort to expand the Police Pacification Units (

, UPPs), established in Rio de Janeiro in 2008 and inspired in part by violence reduction strategies in Medellín, to new communities.

When the UPPs were created in Rio, local, national, and international attention focused on their potential for violence reduction both inside and outside the city’s “favelas” (squatter settlements) and the creation of a new model of police-community relations. Clearly, the prospects of Brazil hosting the 2014 World Cup and Rio hosting the 2016 Olympic Games were not absent from the planners’ motivations. The original concept was to create special units of younger and specially-trained Military Police that would “occupy” specific favelas following massive police operations to secure the community and once the neighborhood’s drug kingpins had left, after either being arrested or fleeing to other favela areas. These special units would establish a 24-hour presence and attempt to provide a more social assistance-focused model, correcting the previous image of the police as violent, corrupt, and militaristic.

The first UPPs were established in small or medium-sized favelas where intergang conflict was less pronounced and thus easier to control. The idea from the beginning was not to eliminate all drugs from favelas with UPP presence–thought to be an unrealistic goal—but to eliminate the violence associated with drug trafficking and liberate those communities from heavily-armed and authoritarian drug bosses.

What can be learned from Brazil’s “pacification” police model?

Outdated drug policies around the world have resulted in soaring drug-related violence, overstretched criminal justice systems, runaway corruption and mangled democratic institutions. After reviewing the evidence, consulting drug policy experts and examining our own failures on this front while in office, we came to an unavoidable conclusion: The “war on drugs” is an unmitigated disaster.

For nearly a decade, we have urged governments and international bodies to promote a more humane, informed and effective approach to dealing with “illegal” drugs. We saw a major breakthrough a few years ago, when the United Nations agreed to convene a special session of the General Assembly to review global drug policy. It is scheduled to begin April 19.

Unfortunately, this historic event — the first of its kind in 18 years — appears to be foundering even before it gets off the ground. What was supposed to be an open, honest and data-driven debate about drug policies has turned into a narrowly conceived closed-door affair.

In the lead-up to next month's session, the U.N. Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna held a series of preparatory meetings with its 53 member countries. The commission took responsibility for crafting a declaration to be adopted by all 193 U.N. members of the General Assembly, and should finish next week.

But most of these commission-led negotiations have been neither transparent nor inclusive. Input from key U.N. agencies working on health, gender, human rights and development — and the majority of U.N. member states — was excluded. Likewise, dozens of civil society groups from around the world were shut out of the meetings.

Three leaders from Latin America call for decriminalizing drug use 

Just over two decades ago, South Africa underwent a massive political shift. The oppressive laws of the apartheid government were dismantled, and a new constitution was created and praised as one of the most progressive and inclusive in the world. One area in which South Africa continues to lag behind, however, is drug policy.

In South Africa, drug use is criminalized and often incorrectly blamed for an array of social ills, a simplistic conventional wisdom that doesn’t give due consideration to the multiple and complex drivers of poverty, crime, and drug use itself. At the 58th Commission on Narcotic Drugs, for instance, South African officials inaccurately described drug dependence as one of the “root causes of crime.” This misunderstanding of drug use has led to high levels of stigmatization and exclusion. When it comes to the “drug problem,” apartheid-style policing is seen as justified and remains the norm.

In South Africa, the war on drugs is waged daily in communities that have been oppressed for decades. These communities are now so criminalized they are essentially police states. The costs of this—social exclusion, mass incarceration, strain on the justice system—have been ignored. Instead, officials focus solely on the politically expedient target of eradication. Even with this focus on drugs, however, evidence-based treatment options are lacking and barriers to entry are high. The increase in injecting drug use is also a concern, especially considering the notable lack of harm reduction services and state-funded opioid substitution therapies in a country already suffering an HIV epidemic.

Across the globe, societies are abandoning their old-school methods of dealing with drugs. Treating drug users as criminals is increasingly recognized as a failed approach. The upcoming UN General Assembly Special Session on drugs (UNGASS) has provided further momentum for countries and regions to consider health- and human rights-based drug policies instead. Yet in South Africa, debate around the UNGASS process has been almost non-existent at both the government and the civil society levels.

It is against this backdrop that the TB/HIV Care Association organized RUN2016 SA Drug Policy Week, an opportunity to discuss drug use and progressive drug policies openly and freely. Much common ground was found at the event. For instance, delegates were perhaps surprised to hear members of the South African Police Services express their frustration at the ineffectiveness of arresting drug users—a view shared by members of the drug-using community, who were able to describe first-hand the futility of these arrests.

The event was the first of its kind in South Africa and enjoyed the support of organizations as diverse as the South African Medical Research Council, UNAIDS, U.S. Centers for Disease Control, and the International Drug Policy Network. Many of the presentations highlighted the unintended consequences of current drug policy and introduced participants to the need for a new human rights- and health-based approach.

It will take a fundamental shift in attitude, but drug users in South Africa must be seen as people who deserve the same rights as everyone else. This shift may be starting to occur. At the event, someone sent me a grainy cell phone photo that showed the deputy chair of South Africa’s Central Drug Authority deep in conversation with a member of South Africa’s first drug user network. If we can foster conversations like these, we’ll be one step closer to a South Africa that promotes equality, social justice, and respect for human rights.

Click here to access the South African Drug Policy Facebook page.

South Africa is still fighting an apartheid-like drug war

On the 8th and 9th of March 2016, South Africa hosted the 

 at the ICC in Durban. Here are some examples of press coverage: The Citizen, Independent On Line, TASS Russian News agency and the one intelligent piece of reporting on the dialogue by Kevin Bloom for the Daily Maverick.

Russia has some of the most harmful and punitive of all drug policies. Despite their “no tolerance” approach they have more injecting drug users than any other population, have some of the highest drug-user statistics in the world, have a totally ineffective substance use disorder treatment system that is in violation of basic human rights and have massive rates of HIV infection, all as a result of a refusal to implement evidence based policies. Why would Africa want to share experiences with Russia, and why would they even consider issuing a joint declaration of recommendations on international drug policy?

It should also be noted that while this event was made 'public' on the SAPS website, attempts by researchers and journalists to participate or observe this event were met with strong exclusionary processes including a complex accreditation process for registration.

I briefly describe the context of the event and then provide the evidence that shows that almost all of the 16 recommendations made in the draft declaration are counter-productive, ignore international evidence, ignore current drug policy evidence and if implemented would significantly increase the harms caused by drug use.

Click here to access the South African Drug Policy Facebook page.


Thumbnail: Flickr CIDSE - together for global justice

 Russia-Africa anti-drug dialogue: Recipe for death?

A young man, 26 years old and white, stood and spoke. His back to the panel of experts, he addressed the crowded room of community members in Ithaca, New York, who had gathered to hear about the launch of a new municipal-level drug strategy. He was casually dressed, gaunt, and had a nervous quiver in his voice. “Four hours ago,” he said, “I was lying on the floor, unconscious, overdosing on a bad bag of heroin.”

His left wrist was wrapped in a hospital bracelet, and a mound of gauze was taped to his right forearm where an IV had recently been withdrawn. After his overdose, his girlfriend found him, dragged him to the hospital, and saved his life. He had been using off and on for 10 years—attempts at detox and medication-assisted treatment had so far failed.

He had spent time in jail for his drug use and still struggled to manage his addiction. While in the hospital just a few hours before, a friend encouraged him to show up at a public event where a new drug policy for the city was being discussed.

Ithaca has launched a bold and innovative plan to address drug consumption. Structured around the four pillars of prevention, treatment, harm reduction, and public safety, the “Ithaca Plan” is a pragmatic approach to managing the challenges of drug use in the city. It envisions fact-based drug education, meaningful youth engagement, and economic development for at-risk communities.

It also seeks to improve access to low-threshold and harm reduction services for current drug users, including a nurse-monitored safe consumption room and a 24-hour crisis center. It promotes expanded treatment options and greater availability of medication-assisted therapies. It also allows police to divert drug users to social support services without arresting them. In short, the Ithaca Plan is built on evidence-based, public health–oriented drug policies.

Crucially, the Ithaca Plan is not built on the false hopes of one day living in a drug-free community. It’s not reliant on the unrealistic demand that all drug users kick the habit, nor does it attempt to arrest its way out of the problem. The plan is aware that, despite decades of coercive suppression efforts, drugs will continue to find their way to the city and into the bodies of those who desire them.

Could the “Ithaca Plan” become a model for harm reduction in America?

NEW YORK – When I was growing up in communist Poland, International Women’s Day was viewed as an opportunity to celebrate women’s contributions and accomplishments. But it was a hollow token. The following day, women went back to their lives of limited opportunity. No one-day holiday can do much to redress generations of discrimination.

The impact of the international drug-policy regime reflects this reality. In the drug supply chain, women are most commonly found at the bottom, often acting as “mules.” When a woman is caught, although she is often a non-violent first time offender, she faces a harsh mandatory minimum sentence.

To the traffickers, these women are expendable. Bail is rarely put up for them, or a lawyer hired, because they hold no value to the trafficking structures. And, left on their own, these women lack the knowledge and resources to navigate the criminal justice system. Nor are they likely to have the right kind of information to trade with authorities in exchange for a lighter sentence.

More women are sent to jail for drug offences than for any other crime. In Latin America alone, they account for 70% of women in prison. The impact on the drug trade of incarcerating a drug mule for a decade is minuscule; but the effect on the women and their families is devastating and irreversible.

I first noticed the effects of drug policy on women when I traveled to Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the Kyrgyz mountains, there were entire villages with not a man in sight; they had become migrant workers in Russia.

Within two years of Kyrgyzstan’s independence, prisons filled with women held on drug-trafficking charges. These were ordinary women, some of them “babushkas” wearing headscarves. When speaking to senior law enforcement officials, I was told that the women were smuggling drugs from Afghanistan to pay for shoes and schoolbooks. To the Tajik and Kyrgyz criminal justice system, they were the lowest-hanging fruit in the newly launched war on drugs.

Women in such circumstances face a double punishment: loss of liberty and family. To be convicted of a drug-related crime often means losing custody of one’s children. If the woman sent to jail is the head of a single-parent household and her children are placed in foster care, or if she is pregnant when entering prison, it is likely that she will never see them again.

The drug war on women

The Global Commission on Drug Policy insists on changing the paradigm: from the repressive paradigm to the priority of healthcare, he said at the Drugpolicy Talk held in Kyiv on March 3.

This could be a good signal to international society that the Health Ministry controls drugs turnover in Ukraine and the change of the paradigm should not be only on paper, this should mean redirecting of a large sum of funds spent on the ineffective repressive machine to the creation of the treatment and care system, he said.

Kazatchkine pointed at the inefficiency of fighting drug traffic, as well as transmission of HIV/AIDS based on repressions and restricting access to drug containing products. Most of the countries recognize this. He said that at the special session of the United Nations General Assembly on the World Drug Problem in April the matters of easing access to painkillers, mitigating the prosecution of people who use drugs and minor offenders who sold drugs and toughening the prosecution of 'big fishes' in drug trafficking, as well as the matters of the transfer of the drug market to the control of the state.

Acting Chair of the State Service of Ukraine for Drug Control Oleh Dzysiak said that supervision over illegal and legal drug turnover should be divided in the country.

He also said that the state should conduct the balanced policy towards stimulation of the recovery of the cannabis and poppy planting sector. "Our farmers cannot use the potential and opportunities of the ratified international conventions that allow growing these plants for the scientific and medical purposes. I hear the problems with law enforcement agencies from Ukrainian scientists," he said.

He said that it is impossible to transfer issues linked to narcotic drug turnover to the field of Health Ministry's responsibility.

UN secretary general’s special envoy says Ukraine should change paradigm of drug policy

The last year has seen Ireland make huge strides in how we think about drug policy. As we face into an uncertain political future in Ireland, it is important that we maintain this momentum and keep driving towards policies that work.

This is particularly true in 2016 as our own National Drug Strategy only runs to the end of the year, and as global drug policy is considered at the United Nations General Assembly Special Session. Regardless of the composition of the incoming government, there are a few key messages we can keep focused on.

The way that we have historically addressed drugs and drug use globally has been an expensive failure. It is now widely recognised that drugs and drug use are not discrete issues to be ‘solved’ by criminal justice mechanisms. Rather, much more benefit and value can be accrued from having a health focus, which is why the London School of Economics have called for a massive global shift from criminal justice spending to health spending.

The simple reality is that the primary reason we spend money on the criminal justice side is supply control. We want dealers off the street, which means that there are less drugs available for sale, price will go up and demand will go down, shrinking the size of the market. The problem is that it doesn’t work like that.

The UNODC estimates that only 3% of pure heroin that is imported into Ireland is seized. Our best efforts have only a temporary impact on price and availability, and consequently do not significantly affect either supply or demand in the market.

This is not to say we shouldn’t try to control supply or have sanctions for those that deal in illegal substances, merely that the way we are currently addressing these issues is ineffective and expensive.

As an example, in our zeal to criminalise dealing so we can control supply, we have also criminalised those who use drugs. It is not only an offence to possess for the purposes of supply, but also just to possess for personal use.

Criminalising possession in this way does not really discourage use – rates of problematic drug use in societies are largely independent of a simple criminalise / decriminalise variable – but it does have repercussions.

It disproportionately impacts on people from poorer areas, it acts as a barrier to future employment for people convicted, and permits negative stereotyping of drug users. It’s easy to label someone a criminal in this way, but this doesn’t solve anything.

This is why grassroots community organisations like Citywide have been outspoken in their calls for the decriminalisation of possession. It is also why a Joint Oireachtas Committee – with cross party and cross house membership – also concluded that possession for personal use was best dealt with outside the ambit of the criminal law.

However, not only have we criminalised those who use drugs, but also potentially those who work with people who use drugs. Our current laws contain a range of permissive offences – so for example, not only is it a crime to possess drugs, but it is a crime to permit someone else to possess or use drugs on your premises.

Criminalising possession doesn’t discourage use – We need real solutions

After almost a year of debate since its initial proposal, the Psychoactive Substances Bill reached Royal Assent on the 28th of January 2016, and will become law on the 6th of April 2016.

It is essential that all staff at drug services, services supporting people who use unbanned new pyschoactive substances, and people who use drugs are aware of the law and what this new Act potentially means for them.

The Act will make it an offence to produce, supply or offer to supply any psychoactive substance if the substance is likely to be used for its psychoactive effects, regardless of its potential for harm. The only exemption from the Act are those substances already controlled by the Misuse of Drugs Act, nicotine, alcohol, caffeine and medicinal products.

The Act doesn’t replace the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) so laws around existing illegal (controlled) drugs will remain the same. Temporary Class Drug Orders (TCDOs), which are rapidly implemented temporary bans, can still be applied and the Human Medicines Regulations (2012) will remain the same.

The Intoxicating Substances Supply Act (1985) will be scrapped, which made it an offence to sell volatile substances (e.g. glues, gases) to under 18s if it was believed they would be inhaled to cause intoxication.

At present a substance causing concern must be reviewed by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) to assess any potential harm. The ACMD then advise the government on a course of action. The government do not have to take this advice, but are bound to consult with the ACMD first. The ACMD will still have a role and a ‘new’ or emerging psychoactive substance can still be brought under the Misuse of Drugs Act, but this Act was introduced without fully consulting the ACMD and will fundamentally change drug legislation.

Is it a criminal offence to possess a banned psychoactive substance?

Possession of a psychoactive substance will not be an offence, except in a ‘custodial institution’ (prison, young offender centre, removal centre etc.). Possession with intent to supply, importing or exporting a psychoactive substance will all become offences.

Are you ready for the Psychoactive Substances Act to become law in April 2016?

In April 2016, the member states of the United Nations will gather in New York for the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on the World Drug Problem. This will be close to 18 years since the last UNGASS on drugs took place in 1998.

For over 50 years, we have never had this much momentum being created by governments who express utter displeasure in the current approach to addressing the global drug problem. These current approaches – often referred to as the “war in drugs” – havenot only stigmatized people who use drugs, but have also led to misguided and bad policy making in Africa and around the world.The UNGASS provides an opportunity to rethink what Ghana, as a nation, has been doing for the past 24 years. Contemporary global circumstances have changed, and the world drug policy also has to change to address current and newly emerging issues. As a result, the UNGASS has been described by Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary-General, as “an excellent opportunity for a wide range of open debate that considers all options”.In the last UNGASS on drugs in 1998, world leaders pledged to have a drug free world by 2009: a goal that is, to put it politelty, unrealistic, but one that has also contributed enormously to the criminalization of people who use drugs. This has contributed to HIV and hepatitis epidemics and the gross violations of fundamental human rights.The prohibition-led regime has not only a marginalized the majority of our citizens, but it has also left many without access to essential pain relief medications such as morphine and other opiates which have been tagged as harmful drugs.Today, countries must regard the UNGASS as an opportunity to have an open debate to extensively discuss policy issues as they pertain to the current drug problems we face in the world. We need to acknowledge and make visible the negative economic and social consequences of the “war on drugs”.

UNGASS offers us an opportunity to discuss whether it is still relevant to tackle the global drug problem from one perspective – punishment and the punitive approach –rather than from a comprehensive approach that takes into account development, public health, justice, human rights and all other relevant human and social factors.