There is no appetite in India for a serious conversation on drugs in India. The prime minister’s recent radio talk on the subject confirms that. Yet, drugs and laws to deal with them engage civil liberties, health and justice in a fundamental way that cannot be ignored. The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) is one of the harshest laws in the country. The minimum sentence for drug dealing is rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs 1 lakh. Contrast this with punishment for rape and human trafficking that, even after the recent enhancement, stands at seven years imprisonment. Bail is rejected at the mere mention that the case involves narcotic or psychotropic substances. The law bars suspension, remission or commutation of any sentence passed, foreclosing all relief. In prison, drug convicts are labelled a “dangerous breed” and treated more harshly than rapists and murderers.

The NDPS Act prescribes capital punishment for a repeat offence of drug trafficking, even though it does not involve violence or killing and, consequently, cannot be categorised as a “most serious crime”, for which the death penalty may be used. There is no persuasive evidence that the death penalty is a greater deterrent than other punishments in reducing drug crimes. When a second conviction for murder does not automatically qualify as a “rarest of rare” case deserving capital punishment, how could a subsequent drug crime justify a death sentence?

The government has defended capital punishment by saying that the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) is aware of India’s anti-narcotics programme and has never objected to penalties under the NDPS Act.

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

The Indian drugs legislation is too harsh to work

Restrictive policies that can sometimes prevent people from keeping their jobs could be compromising the effectiveness of Global Fund-supported opioid substitution therapy programs across Eastern Europe and Central Asia, civil society representatives from around the region told Aidspan.

Without improvements to the quality and effectiveness of these programs, they risk driving away the very people who are most in need of the services - and could undermine the sustainability of these programs once ownership transitions to national governments.

"We want to start talking about OST program challenges, which are not only coverage and finances that are mainly discussed by the donors and NGOs, but also the effectiveness and quality of these programs,” said Andrey Yarovoi, board member for Association of Substitution Treatment Advocates of Ukraine (ASTAU). They consider the fact that OST programs are still pilot, vertical programs that have yet to be integrated into the national health service one of the biggest impediments to their success.

Most doctors who work with people who inject drugs consider OST to be the same drug with different packaging, whereas drug users see it as medical treatment. This disconnect means that program participants are not often treated as patients, and are discriminated against by medical professionals.

Regionally, similar problems with OST therapy have been identified: those enrolled are restricted in their movements due to the need to check in daily to receive their dosage. This means they have a hard time getting or staying in jobs, due to the rigors of being part of the program.

Harm reduction programmes need more flexibility to work properly in Eastern Europe

Thousands of people die unnecessarily from opioid overdose every year. From this survey IDHDP hopes to understand more about where the life saving drug naloxone is and isn’t available as well as its level of accessibility.

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

Global naloxone accessibility survey

Draft legislation to introduce medical injection centres for users of opiates such as heroin may be put to Irish Government early next year, according to Ana Liffey Drug Project director Tony Duffin.

Addressing the audience at Ana Liffey’s 2015-2017 strategy launch in Dublin City Hall, Mr Duffin said that measures are needed to combat the “phenomenal” amount of public injecting going on around Dublin in particular. “We’re currently working with a voluntary assistance scheme of the Bar Council because it would be illegal to deliver a service like that at the moment,” he told The Irish Times prior to the event.

“They’re working on draft legislation, with a senior counsel heading that up. We hope to have draft legislation to bring to Government in the second quarter of next year,” added Mr Duffin, whose organisation is also recommending the implementation of naloxone use in Ireland- a drug that reverses the effects of drug overdoses.

“We’re working with the HSE at the moment on a naloxone pilot, that is part of our strategy. We want to reduce incidents of overdoses as a goal, but within that there’s actions, and one of those actions will be naloxone,” he said of the drug, which has successfully reduced the number of overdose deaths in Scotlandsince its introduction in 2010.

Call for medical injection centres for drug users in Ireland

On November 20, Uganda’s parliament passed the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Bill, also known as the Narcotics Law. A draconian piece of legislation, the law purports to deter drug abuse by imposing inhumanely long prison sentences—a conviction for simple possession can land a person in a cell for 25 years.

The Narcotics Law is the fourth in a disturbing series of laws passed in the last 12 months, all of which defy public health principles and show blatant disregard for dignity and human rights.

These laws target individuals who are already marginalized by society and most in need of health services and support: people who sell sex to make ends meet for their families; LGBTI people living in fear of community violence; people hiding their HIV medication from their own families; and people struggling to manage drug dependence and other illnesses. Perhaps most harmful of all, parts of Ugandan society are interpreting these laws to justify violence and exclusion.

Taken together, these four laws amount to a full-fledged assault on public health and, if implemented, will result in rampant misuse of imprisonment.

Uganda’s latest legislative blow to public health, the Narcotics Law penalizes possession of illicit drugs with 10 to 25 years in prison. Trafficking—which encompasses everything from small sales to international export—is punishable with a life sentence. Even those who never come across an illicit substance can find themselves ensnared.

The law goes so far as to levy a five-year prison sentence for failure to disclose prior prescriptions for narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances (including those held for pets and farm animals) when receiving a new prescription. Punitive laws like this push people away from health and social services that are vital to managing drug dependence, preventing transmission of HIV, and supporting people to live full and productive lives.

“Drug use in Uganda is on the rise. We need an open environment in which we can share information and talk about addiction,” said a representative of the Uganda Harm Reduction Network. “By further criminalizing drug use, this law pushes people into the shadows. People are afraid to talk and afraid to seek much-needed medical help because the government has now definitively positioned drug use as a justice issue, rather than a health issue.”

Four laws that are devastating public health in Uganda

The United Nations agency charged with combating illicit drug trafficking should withdraw its support for counter-narcotics police operations in Iran until the death penalty for drug offenses is abolished, six rights groups said in a letter published today. The groups made the plea after Iran’s judiciary hanged 18 alleged drug traffickers within 24 hours on December 3, 2014, bringing the number of drug offenders executed in the country during 2014 to at least 318.

Reprieve, Human Rights Watch, Iran Human Rights, the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, Harm Reduction International and the Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation said the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) should follow its own human rights guidance and impose “a temporary freeze or withdrawal of support” if “following requests for guarantees and high-level political intervention, executions for drug related offenses continue.” The six organizations warned the UNODC of “the widening gulf between Iran’s rhetoric and the realities of its justice system,” and described the agency’s decision to continue funding supply-side counter-narcotics efforts in the country as “ineffective if not counterproductive.” “As Iran executes alleged drug offenders in ever-greater numbers, it beggars belief that the UN sees fit to continue funding Iranian anti-drug operations,” said Reprieve director Maya Foa. “How many more hangings will it take for the UN to open its eyes to the lethal consequences of its current approach, and make its counter-narcotics support conditional on an end to the death penalty for drug offenses?”

The UN agency’s records show it has given more than $15 million to “supply control” operations by Iran’s Anti-Narcotics Police, funding specialist training, intelligence, trucks, body scanners, night vision goggles, drug detection dogs, bases, and border patrol offices, the groups said. UNODC projects in Iran have come with performance indicators including “an increase in drug seizures and an improved capability of intercepting smugglers,” and an “increase of drug-related sentences.”

The United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark have all chosen to withdraw their support from Iranian counter-narcotics operations administered by the UNODC because of concerns that this funding was enabling the execution of alleged drug traffickers. When announcing its decision to do so, Denmark publically acknowledged that the donations are leading to executions.

UN: Freeze funding of Iran counter-narcotics efforts: Surge in executions for drug trafficking

Is an individual allowed to possess and consume cannabis? And how about the situation concerning the cultivation of cannabis? What constitutes a small quantity? What does German law stipulate about cannabis? The purpose of this article is to focus attention on the legal status of cannabis in Germany.

The consumption of narcotics is not illegal in Germany. Consumption itself is deemed to be a form of self-harm that is not subject to prosecution. An individual can consume drugs without having acquired them legally. This definition has a very practical significance since a positive drug test result cannot, therefore, amount to an inference of a criminal offence. Nevertheless, in the event of a positive test, an entry in the central register of driving licences cannot be circumvented.

According to the Narcotics Act (BtMG), the cultivation, production, trade, import, export, dispensing, sale, acquisition and possession of all parts of the cannabis plant constitute a punishable offence. According to the Narcotics Act, Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active chemical in cannabis, ranks amongst the list of substances that are not marketable. This excludes industrial hemp which contains just 0.2% THC. Cultivation of industrial hemp is however only authorised by growers who work with special permits and under very strict conditions.

Legal status of cannabis in Germany – an overview

Calls for renewed efforts to reduce the transmission of HIV and hepatitis C among people who inject drugs were heard at the thematic segment of the 35th meeting of the UNAIDS Programme Coordinating Board (PCB), which took place in Geneva, Switzerland, on 11 December.

Speakers at the thematic segment included former President of Switzerland Ruth Dreifuss, a member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, Efi Kokkini, the chair of the Greek Drug and Substitute Users Union, and representatives of United Nations Member States and organizations such as the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the World Health Organization and the World Bank.

Key issues associated with HIV and injecting drug use were raised, including opportunities for and barriers to implementing harm reduction strategies. Examples from several countries focused on partnerships between governments and civil society that have proved successful in reducing the transmission of HIV among people who inject drugs.

“We need to examine what has failed and what can be done differently,” said UNAIDS Executive Director Michel Sidibé. “Reaching the 90–90–90 targets will not be possible without reducing new HIV infections among people who inject drugs.”

People who inject drugs must not be left behind

In a landmark moment for cannabis law reform, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a measure late Thursday night to de-fund the federal war on medical marijuana. The provision passed the Senate Saturday and is expected to be signed by President Obama, bringing a halt to the three-year-long medi-pot crackdown in California and other states.

The Hinchey-Rohrabacher Amendment to the $1.1 trillion cromnibus spending bill blocks the use of Department of Justice funds to “prevent [medical marijuana states] from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.”

The vast majority of Americans (78 percent) support states’ right to allow access to medical cannabis.

The spending bill also contains a provision aimed at Washington DC legalization. The rider inserted by Republican Maryland Rep. Harris would prevent federal funds from being used to “enact or carry out any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) or any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative.”

District activists say they will litigate the Harris rider.

Victory: US Congress ends war on medical marijuana

The Commission on Narcotic Drugs wants your comments on lack of access to essential controlled medicines for UNGASS 2016. Katherine Pettus, Advocacy Officer, International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care (IAHPC), explains what UNGASS is, why it’s important to add your voice and how to do it.

The United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) needs your help. This is your chance to speak out so please read on and find out what you can do to make sure that all those who need it have access to essential medicines and palliative care services.

The CND is requesting civil society participation and comments for the UN General Assembly on Drugs to be held in 2016. This special assembly is called United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS). Civil society and non-governmental organisations (for our purposes) include the “affected populations” of physicians, nurses, medical associations, national and regional hospice and palliative care organisations, and patients’ groups, among others.

UNGASS and access to essential medicines

Civil society is preparing for the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on the world drug problem in 2016. On 3 December 2014, before an audience of Member States representatives, UN experts, fellow NGOs and students, the Civil Society Task Force - CSTF was launched.

The launch was co-sponsored by the Permanent Missions of Italy, Mexico, Norway, Sweden and the United States of America. The event was chaired by H.E. Ambassador Bente Angell-Hansen, Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of Norway to the International Organizations in Vienna, who welcomed the creation of the CSTF.

Building on the success of Beyond 2008, the CSTF is a joint initiative of the Vienna NGO Committee on Drugs - VNGOC and the New York Committee on Drugs - NYNGOC. The CSTF will act as official liaison between the United Nations and civil society in the preparatory process of and at the UNGASS 2016. The newly created body will seek to ensure a comprehensive, structured, meaningful and balanced participation of civil society during this process.
Mr. Esbjörn Hörnberg, Chairperson, VNGOC and Ms. Elisa Rubini, Vice-Chairperson, VNGOC elaborated on the added value of the CSTF, its structure and roadmap of activities until UNGASS 2016. Ms. Heather Haase, Chairperson, NYNGOC and Mr. Allan Clear, Treasurer, NYNGOC, drew attention to the role NGOs would play in the UNGASS 2016 preparatory process, as well as the framework for civil society engagement in this process.

Launch of the Civil Society Task Force

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria is allocating $12 billion from donors to address the three diseases. The tricky part? How to spend it wisely. The dynamics of HIV are changing, and our approach to financing the response must change with it. It’s important that we reflect and make adjustments in real time if our funding strategies aren’t keeping up.

In March, the Global Fund did something that, on the surface, sounds logical: it approved a new funding model that prioritizes the poorest countries with the highest levels of disease. Countries with little money but lots of people living with HIV would get the biggest share of the funding, while countries with higher income and fewer people living with HIV would get less.

Makes sense, right? Actually, there are two problems here.

The first is that the best way to turn the tide of HIV may not necessarily be as simple as targeting the largest number of people. And the second is that the poorest people on the planet do not necessarily live in the world’s poorest countries.

News