Recent cannabis debates have thrust the issue of cannabis potency back into the limelight. From UK calls to put cannabis in Class A because of rising potency and health harms, to leaked proposals from Germany to cap retail cannabis potency at 15% THC in their soon to be legalised market - the issue remains clouded with misunderstandings. Below is an edited excerpt from Transform's newly updated 3rd edition of 'How To Regulate Cannabis: A Practical Guide' that explores the potency issue; what does potency actually mean, how does it impact on cannabis related risks, and how can it be sensibly regulated?

There is a certain amount of confusion around the concept of cannabis potency­ — both ­what ­it ­means­ in ­technical ­terms,­ and ­what ­its ­implications­ are for the risks associated with the use of different cannabis products consumed in different ways. People are familiar with the concept of alcohol strength, expressed in percentage of alcohol content, and how this relates directly to the effects and risks of how much they consume. Standardised alcohol units are a good example. Key to their utility is that they can be readily translated between different alcohol products. However, the situation is less straightforward with cannabis, and cannot be directly compared for a number of reasons.

Cannabis potency is usually measured in terms of the percentage of its key psychoactive ingredient, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC or simply­ THC),­ but ­THC­ is ­only­ one ­of ­over­ 80 ­different ­cannabinoids­ found­ in ­the ­cannabis ­plant, ­key ­among ­these ­being ­cannabidiol ­(CBD).­ Because ­CBD­ interacts ­with ­and­ modifies ­the ­effects ­of ­THC,­ the ­ratio­ of the two is important not only as it shapes the nature of the subjective cannabis­ experience ­(CBD­ is­ thought­ to ­have ­a ­more­ sedative/calming ­effect), ­but­ also­ because­ CBD­ is­ thought­ to­ have ­anti-psychotic­ properties, ­potentially­ reducing the risks of psychotic episodes or psychotic illness related to cannabis use. The many other cannabinoids present in cannabis are less well understood but their relative proportions may also have subtle influences on the variable effects (and possibly risks) of different strains.

Lower-strength,­ outdoor-grown ­cannabis­ tends­ to­ be ­less­ than­ 10%­ THC,­ while (more commonly) indoor-grown, ‘premium’ cannabis varieties are predominantly in the­ 10-25% ­range.­ The­ potency ­of­ lower-quality ­and ­premium-grade­ resin has historically been roughly the same as this in European markets (but notably rising in recent years), although newer techniques such as solvent or carbon dioxide extractions have­ produced ­oils ­and­ other­ concentrates­, such ­as ­butane ­hash ­oil ­(BHO,­ the semi-solid forms sometimes known as ‘wax’ or ‘glass’)­, that­ have­ extremely ­high­ potencies,­ some­ reaching ­concentrations ­of­ over ­80%­ THC.

Another factor that complicates our understanding of cannabis potency is­ that­ the­ level­ of ­intoxication­ and­ the­ speed­ of­ onset ­of­ effects­, which­ will­ determine ­the ­subjective­ experience,­ depend ­in ­large­ part­ on­ the­ particular preparation, method of consumption, and using behaviours.

A ­given­ amount ­of­ cannabis ­can ­be­ smoked (or vaporised) ­in ­different­ ways­, in ­terms­ of how many inhalations the user takes, how deep the inhalations are and ­how ­long­ they ­are ­held ­in­ the ­lungs­, so ­the ­amount ­of ­active ­content­ that different individuals actually absorb can vary quite considerably. With smoked or vaporised cannabis, the onset of the effects is very rapid, meaning that individuals are able to dose control relatively easily. If they have not reached the desired effect, they will continue. If they have reached it, they can stop. On this basis, potency would seem to be less of a concern for­ inhaled ­cannabis ­use­, indeed ­higher-potency ­cannabis­ could­ mean­ fewer inhalations to achieve the same effect, thereby reducing respiratory risks. However, while such ‘auto-titration’ dose control behaviour is the norm, higher-potency cannabis can still potentially lead to higher total consumption and correspondingly pose greater risks. With more potent varieties a large dose of active content can be received in a single inhalation, and the larger such individual doses are, the harder it becomes to fine tune dosage control, meaning the potential to consume more than planned or desired is increased. This is particularly the case for novice users.

This risk of consuming more than planned (with potentially negative or undesirable effects) will be amplified when the potency of the cannabis being consumed is unknown. However, this problem can be reduced or effectively eliminated in a properly regulated system in which:

Buyers ­are­ able­ to­ choose ­from ­a ­range­ of­ clearly ­labelled ­products­ of­ different potencies

Buyers­ are­ able­ to ­take­ guidance­ from ­licensed, ­trained ­vendors

There ­is ­relevant ­information ­on ­dosage,­ effects ­and ­safer ­use­ at­ point­ of sale and on all packaging

In many parts of the world, notably in Europe, smoked cannabis is also often mixed with varying proportions of tobacco, effectively diluting its potency to levels below those that would be experienced if it were smoked pure, much in the same way that alcoholic spirits can be diluted with mixers to various degrees. While this may reduce some of the above risks relating to high-potency cannabis, any benefits are probably more than outweighed by the risks associated with smoked tobacco.

The increasing average potency of illegal cannabis is a genuine observed phenomenon in the US, and to a lesser extent in Europe, although what appears to be a long-term incremental rise in average potency has provoked many exaggerated ‘reefer madness’-style claims that have little basis in reality. In Western markets at least, the increasing market dominance of indoor-grown ‘premium’ cannabis, combined with likely actual increases in its potency (through selective breeding and developments in intensive growing technologies), has probably pushed average potency up to between two to three times what it was in­ the­ 60s­ and­ 70s.­ Such­ averages­ do,­ however, disguise a great deal of variety within markets and between different localities. There was of course very potent cannabis (particularly in resin form)­ available­ in ­the ­60s­ and­ 70s, ­so ­the­ suggestion that what is being consumed today is a ‘completely different drug’ is misleading: the observed trend is primarily due to there being a greater proportion of more potent varieties on the market.

The emergence of high potency concentrates like BHO is a comparatively recent phenomenon, so relatively little is known about their prevalence and impacts, particularly outside more established medical, and now non-medical markets in North America. But aside from these concentrates, if there is some truth in the 

‘it’s not what we smoked in the 60s’

 claims, it is due to the trend towards higher ratios ­of ­THC ­to­ CBD ­in ­intensively ­farmed­ higher-potency ­cannabis — with CBD­ content ­often ­falling ­to ­near ­zero ­as ­THC­ levels ­have steadily ­crept­ up. ­This ­change ­in ­the­ THC:CBD­ ratio­ ­results ­both ­from­ selective breeding that prioritises high THC content (which commands a higher price), as well some of the newer intensive growing techniques deployed to maximise turnover from a given grow space that can reduce CBD content.

The data on increasing potency is not especially reliable (based primarily on seizures which may not necessarily be a representative sample of markets) and conclusions are widely disputed. It is certainly the case, however, that both the general trend towards increasing potency of herbal cannabis and the ­parallel­ trend ­towards­ increasing­ THC ­to ­CBD ­ratios ­are ­not ­merely­ demand-driven, but are primarily manifestations of illegal market economics. There is an echo here of how, under US alcohol prohibition, the market shifted towards stronger spirits that provided significantly higher profits per unit weight for bootleggers. When alcohol prohibition ended, the market naturally shifted back towards sales of beers and wines. In many US and European markets it is now becoming hard to obtain ­anything ­except­ the­ more­ potent­ varieties­, even­ when individuals would prefer something milder if given the choice. The same shift has yet to be shown for legal markets in North America, suggesting that economic dynamics in more commercial jurisdictions may similarly be more concerned with profit opportunities than public health concerns. This highlights the important role for regulation to play to curb these interests and ensure a careful balance, while protecting public health.

Ensuring the THC and CBD content of all retail cannabis products is routinely tested

Although potency testing and monitoring of cannabis products can be relatively expensive, a reasonable level is not an excessive burden. It is important to acknowledge that technical challenges of accurate testing have often been flagged — noting that potency can vary widely within a crop, batch or even plant (or differing challenges for testing of edibles and other preparations). But such challenges are hardly insurmountable given rapid developments in sampling and testing methodology, and realistic error margins can be built into monitoring systems and regulations.

Routine testing should be built into any regulatory framework, supported by random test purchasing, and be undertaken or commissioned independently by the regulating authorities — with cost burden covered by taxation and producer and vendor licensing fees. The intensity of testing required will become clear from levels of compliance but should err on the side of more rather than less at the outset, in order to establish clear norms and expectations for market actors. The production and in particular sale of products that diverge significantly from their stated potency should be considered a serious licence violation. Allowable error margins and penalties for violations should be clearly established. For instance, Canadian regulations establish variability limits of 15-25% above or below the stated levels of THC and CBD depending on the type of cannabis product, and in some cases the stated potency.

Ensuring consumers are aware of the potency of all retail cannabis products — and their related risks

All retail products should be clearly labelled with potency information covering­ THC ­and ­CBD­ content.­ This ­should ­be ­supported­ with ­related­ information ­on ­risks, potentially­ with ­a­ simplified­ numerical­ (e.g.­1-5)­ strength guide. More detailed standardised information on cannabis potency and related risks should also be made prominently available at point of sale in all retail outlets. Vendors should be trained to give advice on potency and related risk issues.

Controlling the potency of retail products

Having an upper limit on the THC content of retail herbal or resin/oil cannabis for non-medical use could be seen as a sensible precautionary measure, but is problematic for a number of reasons, particularly in a more ­open ­market­ model. ­Beyond ­what­ many­ consumers ­may ­view ­as­ an unfair or unnecessary imposition, the obvious practical issues are exactly where such a threshold would be set and how it could be enforced.

In­ 2012 ­the ­Dutch­ government­ proposed­ a ­prohibition ­on ­sales ­of ­herbal­ cannabis ­over ­15%­ THC, ­although ­this­ move was not approved ­and­ was opposed by almost every government office (including the police, prosecution, and forensic service) that would be involved in enforcing the limit. Research into the proposal suggested that, while the measure could “in theory [provide] a slight health benefit for specific groups of cannabis users (i.e., frequent users preferring strong cannabis…)” in practice it reflected a “political choice and based on thin evidence”. The New Zealand 2020 draft Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill proposed similar potency limits, promoted as a key way that regulation could take back control of the market and facilitate harm reduction aims. This highlights how such measures continue to be politically useful, even in lieu of evidence as to their practical impact.

Even if most consumers are unlikely to be concerned by an upper limit at or near this level (which would still be considered at least adequately strong herbal cannabis by most) the fact is that any such limit is inevitably quite arbitrary, and as such could lead to arbitrary enforcement outcomes. This is especially the case given the improving but still imperfect nature of both potency control among growers (even with the most carefully cultivated cannabis there will be a certain amount of potency variation between crops, and even within any given crop or sample) and potency testing technology.

If the aim is to encourage the use of lower-potency products as a way of moderating risks, then a more sensible approach would appear to be a combination of:

Strict product testing and labelling requirements that ensure buyers know exactly what they are consuming, enabling them to make informed choices

Consumer­ education­ about­ potency-related­ issues/risks,­ supported ­by­ packaging and point of sale info, and training requirements for vendors

Responsible ­retailing, ­which ­could ­be­ encouraged­ through ­licensing­ requirements for vendor training in how to provide potency and risk advice to purchasers

Variable ­tax ­rates (or other price controls), ­which ­could­ be ­employed ­in­ order ­to­ encourage­ the­ use of less potent products, as is done with alcohol in many countries

If limiting the potency of retail cannabis under a relatively open market model is problematic, under a more regulated market model such as that found in Uruguay it is less of a challenge, as the regulatory authorities license producers to provide the specified products that will be available for sale. Even in this more restricted scenario, cannabis ‘connoisseurs’, or those who desire higher-potency strains, can still be catered for either by provisions on home growing or cannabis social clubs.

Restrictions on sales of high-potency concentrates are a more reasonable proposition if such products are shown to be associated with significantly increased risks, but again such restrictions face the challenges of where any potency threshold should be drawn and how it would be enforced. Such decisions will be significantly shaped by the nature of existing demand and patterns of use. Certainly if there is little or no existing demand for high-potency concentrates, establishing a new framework for making them legally available is likely to be something regulators will naturally want to avoid (advocates for medical cannabis access have made the case that concentrates may have specific medical utility - but such availability is lilely to be via a different regulatory medical channel).

However, given the fast-rising popularity of concentrates in certain regions (particularly North America), prohibiting options for retail access where demand is already established would likely push many consumers back to the illegal market. In US states without regulated non-medical markets, 15% of cannabis consumers report using concentrates within the past 12 months (compared to 22% in legalising states). Legal access to concentrates could be provided instead through membership-based cannabis social clubs, although this could lead to difficulties regulating safe production practices. Some of the newer production techniques for concentrates (such as CO2 and butane extractions) are quite dangerous in inexperienced hands, so licensed production and availability is probably preferable if the alternative is risky home production. For these reasons, the Canadian Cannabis Act and Regulations prohibit at-home butane extraction, instead reserving the right to licensed cultivators, processors, testers and researchers.

If potency threshold limits are adopted for herbal cannabis and/or resin/concentrates­, and ­it ­seems ­inevitable­ that­ some­ jurisdictions­ will ­choose­ to­ do­ so­, it­ will ­be ­important ­to ­make ­sure­ they ­are set ­high­ enough­ to­ cater­ for the large majority of existing demand in a given jurisdiction. If they are set too low it will simply create an opportunity for unlicensed producers to meet the unsatisfied demand. There will need to be constant monitoring of impacts, and the flexibility to adjust (or abandon) such thresholds in response to evidence of their impacts and effectiveness.

Enforcement of any limits will also require a reasonable amount of tolerance, to allow for the imprecision of growers, and testing technology­, as discussed above. Any ­sanctions ­for threshold violations will ­also need ­to­ be ­proportionate.­ Such­ limits­ would sensibly be regarded more as a good practice guide for retailers or as a moderating influence on the potency of the products they sell. The aim should be to curb certain risky behaviours and prevent potency levels creeping up further, rather than to create a new form of prohibition that will needlessly penalise existing users or vendors in the future.

A ­different ­approach­ would­ be ­needed ­for­ edibles,­ with­ THC ­and­ CBD­ content by weight (and by standardised units if such a system is adopted) being clearly labelled on discrete single servings of any given edible product. What constitutes a single edible serving for an individual should ­be­ clearly­ defined­ and­ an­ upper­ limit ­on ­THC ­­content­ per serving (by weight or standardised units) should also be established.

The approach taken in Canada has been to establish an upper limit on THC content per 

 (i.e. the outermost package), albeit with no corresponding limit on CBD. In practical terms, this means that where there is only one discrete edible unit in a product container, that unit is limited to 10mg of THC. However, where there are four discrete units in a product container, each unit must be no more than 2.5mg of THC (and the potency of each unit must be the same, in any event). In practice, research has highlighted that consumers find it difficult to understand cannabis labelling that merely provides potency information in terms of milligrams of THC, with similar issues in relation to percentages. Effectively communicating potency information to consumers may therefore require developing an easily understandable numerical, colour-coded or traffic light-type scale as well as a standardised THC unit (see above).

There ­is ­a­ parallel ­issue­ around­ possible­ regulation­ of­ CBD content, and THC:CBD­ ratios.­ Attempting to establish an enforceable ratio limit would be even more problematic than THC content thresholds, not least as the scientific basis­ for­ judgements­ about­ the­ risks­ of­ any­ given­ THC:CBD­ ratio­ is­ not well established. For more restrictive regulatory models, it makes sense­ to ­ensure ­that ­licensed­ herbal or resin cannabis ­products­ all­ include ­a ­CBD­ ‘buffer’ — ranges of between 1-4% CBD, or a minimum 10:1 THC:CBD ratio, have been suggested as a starting point (albeit based on the limited available research). For less restrictive market models this will primarily need to be dealt with through clear product labelling, consumer education, and responsible retailing, all informed by the emerging body of knowledge on this particular question.

How to regulate cannabis potency?

A new report released today says Māori are three times more likey to die from a drug and alcohol overdose and highlights the need for a by Māori for Māori policy approach.

The New Zealand Drug Foundation report charts the non-intentional overdose deaths in Aotearoa between 2017 and 2021.

The analysis of coronial data shows an increase in fatal overdoses, which is not accounted for by the population growth over this period.

Māori Public Health organisation Hāpai Te Hauora says the NZ Drug Foundation report highlights concerning outcomes for Māori that must be proactively addressed in any policy response or risk worsening inequities.

"We commend the NZ Drug Foundation for raising awareness of these issues and reporting on key ethnicity data which show our people are three times more likely to die of an overdose than non-Māori," Hapai CEO Selah Hart said.

Aotearoa / New Zealand: Māori three times more likely to die from drug overdose, report reveals

The first three measures by the new Meloni government, the right-centre coalition which won the 25 September elections, have been a) to block the reform promoted by the Parliament to mitigate the harsher norms which regulate life prison sentences and other juridical innovations b) to block NGOs ships which save migrants in the Mediterranean sea, preventing disembarkation in a safe Italian harbour and c) to introduce a new norm in the penal code which 

On the 29th October more than 3.000 people met near Modena (northern Italy, Emilia Romagna region), coming from all over the country and also from other European countries, for the 

, the Halloween free party self-organized (without formal authorization by the local public authorities) for the third year by some Italian crews. The location was an industrial shed abandoned for years, in the open countryside, out of the city, with no real impact on local residents or the environment (the only inconveniences for people were some roadblocks by the police). People wished as usual to listen to music and to dance and, yes, also use drugs, up until the 1st November, thanks to free access to the event and self-organization. Some Harm reduction teams coming from different regions were on the spot to make the setting safer, through information, chill out, drug checking and first aid if necessary, in collaboration with the Public Health emergency units. No violence nor any type of incident occurred. Everything was proceeding in a safe and peaceful way.

Nevertheless, on the 30th October the new Interior Minister, Matteo Piantedosi, decided that the event had to be immediately blocked, participants dispersed and the building cleared out, sending hundreds of policemen in riot gear to the scene. Simultaneously with this order, Piantedosi announced the immediate proposal of introducing a new article of the Penal Code to “fill a regulatory gap” in order to be more effective in repressing free parties. In just 24 hours, on the 31st October, the new article was ready to be discussed at the Ministers Council, as an absolute political priority.

Fortunately, Piantedosi’s order was not implemented: the city Mayor and the local police decided to take time and negotiated for a peaceful evacuation without breaking into the shed, and the crews and the participants were willing to negotiate too, to avoid any risk of violence by the police and a hard conflict. The evacuation occured without any incident. Participants renounced the last night of music and dance, collected rubbish, cleaned the shed, then left Modena in dribs and drabs.

Nevertheless, they paid a high price: 1,380 people and 337 cars were identified and registered by the police, 25 Dutch people expelled, 14 organizers reported to the judicial authority, 14 sound systems seized for a total amount of 150,000 euros.

It is not the first time that in Italy the crews that organize free parties have been sanctioned: notwithstanding raves would be primarily considered as cultural and social events self-organized outside of a commercial dimension, and not as crimes, promoters have often had to deal with the penal code, mostly with regard to offences against private property, when they occupy private buildings or lands, and with other administrative norms which regulate public events. None of these norms, have ever been able to stop or prevent rave parties: the lesson learned over so many years is that repression is not effective against events which are so deeply rooted in peoples’ culture and social rituals, and the effects of repression could be only to increase the clandestine nature of the event and subsequent risks for participants’ health and safety.

Against any evidence, Piantedosi’s perspective is to increase repression, fulfilling the so called “regulatory gap” through a norm specifically addressed to raves.

The d.l. (decree law) n. 162/22 of 31.10.22 introduces a new article (art. 434-bis Penal Code, 

https://www.fuoriluogo.it/speciali/rave/norme-contro-i-rave-il-testo-del-decreto-legge/

invasion of lands or buildings to hold events dangerous for public order, or public safety or public health

This shifts the supposed offences related to raves from the Penal Code section dealing with 

 to the one dealing with major crimes such as 

slaughter, fire, flood, train wreck, explosive manufacture

The sanctions provided to organizers are 

Also, participants can be sanctioned with 

Furthermore, the proposal establishes a change in the Anti-Mafia law, in order to extend 

The consequence of this measure by the government on a juridical level is to exclude rave organizers from some extenuating circumstances and alternatives to prison related to minor crimes, due to the very high maximum penalty. Also, the very generic formulation of 

events dangerous for public order, or public safety or public health

 carries a high risk of criminalizing not only every kind of free party but also many other kinds of social events. Finally, it is most likely to be anti-constitutional (art 17, freedom of assembly), as there are many circumstances in which previous permission for public events by the local authorities is not required.

From a social, political and symbolic perspective, this new crime asserts that a rave party is anyway and always and primarily a danger for participants and for the community. This orients public opinion in supporting the repressive choice, also thanks to a strong and persuasive mass media campaign based on fake and manipulated communication. The use of drugs during these events is emphasised, showed as incontrollable and represented in a distorted way.

In presenting his law, Minister Piantedosi said that in many European countries rave parties are sanctioned, even if, on the contrary, it is really difficult to find such harsh measures in any other European legal regulation.

The Decree law is in force since 1st November. It must be discussed, possibly emended and approved by the Parliament by the end of December. If it is not approved it will expire. The government itself is working on some changes, considering the numerous criticisms from a juridical perspective, which may lead to its rejection by the Parliament.

A broad and plural movement is opposed to the new ‘rave crime’.

Many CSOs, professionals, PWUDs organizations, harm reduction teams, people from the world of culture and policy are taking a position against it and asking for the new law to be annulled.

Many jurists support the hypothesis of the anti-constitutionalist basis of this proposed law and many others contest the violation of the fundamental principle of proportionality of penalties.

CSOs and harm reduction professionals are going to inform and sensitize policy makers who will have the responsibility to vote for or against the new law in Parliament, about what a free party is, the possibility to promote participants health and wellbeing during such events thanks to an effective harm reduction and risks limitation system of interventions, the evidence-based failure of the repressive approach, the rights to assembly and associations and the fight against stigma. Also, a widespread information campaign with the media is going on, considering the impressive amount of fake news concerning free parties.

Great attention is also being paid to the risk that such a norm may include many other public events, such as social demonstrations and political protests, thus limiting the freedom of all citizens. This is of course a crucial point, but CSOs, PWUDs and Harm reduction professionals will need to be on guard that in defending other kinds of public events and freedom, rave parties do not become the ‘sacrificial victim’ of an unacceptable mediation.

Follow the ‘rave crime’ developments on Forum Droghe website,

Italian government moves to criminalise rave parties

Chemsex is on the rise in Asia despite the risks of harsh punishment and getting HIV, according to a new report.

 published on Tuesday by Harm Reduction International, a global drug health organisation, said that chemsex – where gay men take a mix of potent drugs to enhance group sex – and wider sex-related drug use among gay men is increasing in countries including Thailand, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Hong Kong, China, and Japan.

It said a rising number of gay men, especially young men living in cities in the region, known for its 

, have been involved in either chemsex or other types of sexualised drug use among men who have sex with each other. Experts believe the rise is due to an increase in the use of dating apps and social media communities, as well as wider drug supply in Asia.

Although the double stigma of being gay and taking illegal drugs in Asia makes it hard for researchers to get accurate figures, estimates from nine countries in the region suggest chemsex is more common than previously thought. For example, in Hong Kong and Malaysia more than one in 10 gay men interviewed had experienced chemsex in the last six months, while in Indonesia, China and Japan more than one in five had been involved in more general sexualised drug use.

Chemsex is on the rise in Asia despite harsh drug laws and massive stigma

Germany’s current interpretative approach puts the fate of the entire project for cannabis regulation on very thin ice. But there is still time to change course, and legally sound and politically viable alternative options are available.

The German government has released its ‘

’, a concept note laying out the key points to shape the regulation of the recreational cannabis market. Presenting the key points at a press conference this week, 

 that it had not been easy to reach agreement within the ‘Ampel’ coalition and between the involved ministries. Clearly one of the trickiest issues has been how to deal with the legal hurdles of the UN drug treaties and EU law. The Minister presented what he called the ‘

’ as the government’s Plan A, which will be submitted to the European Commission in hopes of a green light that would allow the legislation to proceed. But if the EC rejects Germany’s ‘interpretative solution’, there will be no legal regulation unless another legal accommodation can be negotiated. Regarding a Plan B, the 

 vaguely mention the possibility that the proposed legislation 

“can be accompanied by Germany's advocacy for certain amendments/updates at EU and international law level”

Unfortunately, Germany’s Plan A approach risks bringing the whole regulation project onto legally very thin ice, for several reasons. Let’s make clear from the outset that TNI fully supports the intention to legally regulate the cannabis market, as we have done in the case of Uruguay, Canada, Mexico, Malta and now also Colombia. TNI has been working for several years now with a group of international lawyers, treaty experts and government officials to explore the most viable options to accommodate the legal regulation of cannabis markets under international law. With due respect for basic principles of international law, and staying within the realm of faithful treaty interpretation, we have laid out in detail 

the legal tensions and the available compliance options

’ now proposed by Germany, does not appear on the menu of viable solutions elaborated by the group of treaty experts we convened, as it can be easily contested and dismissed on legal grounds.

German cannabis regulation on thin ice - The government’s risky approach to international legal obstacles puts the entire project in jeopardy

Featuring interviews with our policy analysts along with people working farther afield, Not a Crime will highlight the impact of criminalization on people living with HIV and people who use drugs over the coming months.

In the premiere English language episode, HIV Legal Network policy analyst India Annamanthadoo talks to senior policy analyst Mikhail Golichenko about drug policy in Russia and the Eastern Europe and Central Asia region. Learn more about how repressive laws and policies in the region frustrate the response to HIV and undermine the human rights of people who use drugs, and how advocates there and around the world are mobilizing for change.

Our first French episode, also released today, features HIV Legal Network senior policy analyst Cécile Kazatchkine in conversation with Modeste Mambo Amisi, epidemiologist and executive director of HODSAS, about how he came to be an activist for HIV and human rights and how the laws in the Democratic Republic of Congo affect non-disclosure.

Stay tuned for future English episodes as we delve deeper into HIV criminalization to examine how criminal laws target communities at the margin, while our next French episode takes us to Morocco for a conversation with Moulay Ahmed Douraidi, a well-known activist, about HIV non-disclosure in a country that doesn’t have specific laws governing disclosure and how people living with HIV are targeted all the same.

Listen to an introduction from HIV Legal Network Executive Director Janet Butler-McPhee.

Podcast: Not a crime

 Malaysia announced on June 10 that it will abolish the mandatory death sentence for drug offences and murder among others, and leave the sentencing to the judge. 

The response has been immediate. Although a moratorium has been in place for executions since 2018, for the most part, the news has been hailed locally and internationally as a much-needed progressive move to address the disparity in sentencing, especially for drug offences.

It also signifies a major step back from the policies brought about by the United States-inspired War on Drugs. This comes on top of months of chatter on legalising marijuana for medical purposes, another move that shows Malaysia is adopting a more nuanced take on drugs. More importantly, human rights activists hope that the abolishment of the mandatory death sentence will address some of the damage ensuing from the country's harsh zero-tolerance drug trafficking policies from the 1980s.

Samantha Chong, a lawyer who deals with drug cases, told Bernama via Zoom that the death penalty was a "band-aid" in dealing with the drug problem in the country.

"If you just have the death penalty — the punish, punish, punish (mentality) for people who use drugs — it actually doesn't solve the problem. It might look like the government has done something, but that is not (true): she said.

Address damage from Malaysia's harsh zero-tolerance drug policies: Advocates

 executed one person, bringing the total number of people executed in the city-state between March–October 2022 to 11. While the details of the reported 11th execution have not been made public, the 10 people who were executed earlier in the year were all sentenced to death after being convicted of drug trafficking. They were mostly of an 

ethnic minority background or Malaysian citizens

All but one of the death sentences was related to heroin trafficking, with one person executed for trafficking cannabis. At a time when an increasing number of jurisdictions around the world are revising their drug laws, such as Thailand 

 the sale and use of cannabis, executing a person for carrying cannabis highlights the extreme nature of death penalty sentences.

Singapore’s concurrent Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law Kasiviswanathan Shanmugam justifies his insistence on retaining the death penalty by arguing that if he ‘removed the death penalty, the flow of drugs into Singapore would be 

The available data on the supply of illicit drugs in Singapore only shows the quantities of drugs seized by law enforcement agencies. Data on the quantities of seized drugs cannot accurately portray the size of drug markets given the clandestine nature of production and distribution.

The best available data on drugs in the region is published by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. In its most recent 

 on synthetic drugs in East and Southeast Asia, the Office recorded a 10 per cent increase in the amount of methamphetamine seized in Singapore from 2020–2021. Every single Southeast Asian country identified methamphetamine as their primary drug of concern.

Singapore executes its war on drugs

On International Drug Users’ Day, UNAIDS calls for action against the criminalization of people who use drugs and for community-led harm reduction programmes

On International Drug Users’ Day, UNAIDS is calling for urgent action against the criminalization of people who use drugs, for the redress of criminalization’s negative effects on HIV, viral hepatitis and other health issues, for the respect of human rights and for more funding for community-led harm reduction programmes.

“UNAIDS is committed to supporting countries in their journey towards the decriminalization of drug possession and to full-scale implementation of harm reduction programmes,” said UNAIDS Executive Director, Winnie Byanyima. “UNAIDS calls for the full involvement of communities of people who use drugs in achieving legal reform aimed at decriminalization and in the organization of harm reduction programmes at the country level. This will help us to end inequalities and end AIDS.”

People who use and inject drugs are among the groups at highest risk of acquiring HIV but remain marginalized and often blocked from accessing health and social services. In 2020, 9% of all new HIV infections were among people who inject drugs. Outside of sub-Saharan Africa this rises to 20%. Although women represent less than 30% of the number of people who use drugs, women who use drugs are more likely to be living with HIV than their male counterparts.

Timely introduction and full-scale implementation of accessible harm reduction programmes can prevent HIV infections, as well as many cases of viral hepatitis B and C, tuberculosis and drug overdose. The United Nations system is united in promoting harm reduction services and decriminalization of personal possession of drugs, based on the evidence that harm reduction and decriminalization provide substantial public and personal health benefits and do not increase the number of people with drug dependency. Despite this position, reflected in the 

United Nations system common position supporting the implementation of the international drug control policy through effective inter-agency collaboration

, in reality less than 1% of people who inject drugs live in countries with the United Nations-recommended levels of coverage of needles, syringes and opioid substitution therapy, and the funding gap for harm reduction in low- and middle-income countries sits at a dismal 95%.

Even where harm reduction services are available, they are not necessarily accessible. Punitive drug control laws, policies and law enforcement practices have been shown to be among the largest obstacles to health care in many countries. Criminalization of drug use and harsh punishments (such as incarceration, high fines or removal of children from their parents) discourage the uptake of HIV services, drive people underground and lead to unsafe injecting practices, and increase the risk of overdose. Women who use drugs face higher rates of conviction and incarceration than men who use drugs, contributing to the increased levels of stigma and discrimination they face in health-care settings. In effect, criminalization of drug use and possession for personal use significantly and negatively impact the realization of the right to health.

Earlier this year, United Nations Member States set bold global targets on decriminalization of drug possession for personal use and on elimination of stigma and discrimination against people who use drugs and other key populations. To reach these targets by 2025, strategic actions at the country level need to start today.

GLOBAL AIDS SOCIETAL ENABLER TARGETS 2025

Less than 10% of countries criminalize drug use and possession of small amounts of drugs.

Less than 10% of people who use drugs report experiencing stigma and discrimination.

Less than 10% of people who use drugs lack mechanisms for people living with HIV and key populations to report abuse and discrimination and seek redress.

Less than 10% of people who use drugs lack access to legal services.

Less than 10% of health workers and law enforcement officers report negative attitudes towards people who use drugs.

Less than 10% of people who use drugs experience physical or sexual violence.

90% of people who inject drugs have access to comprehensive harm reduction services integrating or linked to hepatitis C, HIV and mental health services

80% of service delivery for HIV prevention programmes for people who use drugs to be delivered by organizations led by people who use drugs

1 November is International Drug Users’ Day, when the global community of people who use drugs comes together to celebrate its history and affirm the rights of people who use drugs. The 

International Network of People who Use Drugs (INPUD) marks this day

 with a celebration of its diverse, vibrant communities’ accomplishments, while also acknowledging their work is more critical than ever.

The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) leads and inspires the world to achieve its shared vision of zero new HIV infections, zero discrimination and zero AIDS-related deaths. UNAIDS unites the efforts of 11 UN organizations—UNHCR, UNICEF, WFP, UNDP, UNFPA, UNODC, UN Women, ILO, UNESCO, WHO and the World Bank—and works closely with global and national partners towards ending the AIDS epidemic by 2030 as part of the Sustainable Development Goals. Learn more at 

On International Drug Users’ Day, UNAIDS calls for action against the criminalisation of people who use drugs and for community-led harm reduction programmes

Continuing a collaboration with Proyecto Soma, TalkingDrugs has had privileged access to high figures within the Latin American drug policy world.

She mentioned that she regretted studying law in her university life. That she felt trapped in a cage due to the strict and conservative perspective of the law. But today, Paula Aguirre is the director, in Colombia, of 

), a multidisciplinary and feminist team focused on “the creation of viable legal scenarios” and political advocacy to strengthen human rights in processes of truth and reparation and, particularly, in drug policies.

It was precisely human rights that kept her in the world of law. But perhaps, above all, in a world of change, transformation and correction of laws. “Human rights allow us to play with a world of rules that are not limited only to the national,” explains Aguirre. “In our countries, we usually have legislative systems that can be strict on certain issues, but when we start working with international human rights, instruments, ways, doors, options, and alternatives appear.”

Ways, doors, options and alternatives. That is what Elementa DD.HH seeks to build to replace the failed drug policies that, in Colombia, have had 

, the paradigm of the war on drugs in that country has not only been incapable of having “effective results in dismantling drug trafficking as a political and economic system”. But also, it has added “an enormous number of victims in the frame of the internal armed conflict” and “activated narratives of criminalisation of populations and territories that justified violent operations.” This diagnosis could be applied to the entire Latin American region.

'Let's stop strategies that don't work!': Interview with Paula Aguirre, Director of Elementa

 The words we choose when we talk about people who use drugs can serve to shame and blame, and frequently reinforce negative stereotypes.

Words such as ‘druggie’, ‘crackhead’, and ‘junkie’ overlook a person’s humanity and strip people of their dignity. 

But labels are just one of the many ways people who use drugs experience stigma.

Stigma around drug use and the people who use them – which can result from, and be a driver of, the criminalisation of drug use – leads to discriminatory treatment in healthcare settings, including the denial of basic services that can protect someone from HIV.

People who use drugs also receive unfair treatment when it comes to housing, employment, and the criminal justice system. 

This further marginalises people who use drugs and discourages people from seeking support when they need it.

As a result of the stigma and barriers that people who use drugs experience, 1 in 10 new HIV transmissions occur among people who inject drugs, and this figure rises to 20% outside of Africa.

Around the world people who use drugs – particularly those who inject, who are 35 times more likely to be living with HIV than someone from the general population – are being left behind. People who use drugs lack services that can keep them safe from HIV, with just 1% of people who inject drugs worldwide having access to appropriate harm reduction services.

At the Elton John AIDS Foundation, we are committed to ensuring that people who use drugs are free from violence and criminalization, have access to relevant and effective harm reduction strategies and can rely on continued political commitment, funding, and investment to meet their health needs.

We must change damaging narratives around drug use – away from punishment and towards a public health and rights approach, reinforced with love and compassion. – Tom Brigden, People Who Use Drugs Portfolio Lead

'Change how you see people who use drugs' - A short film to end stigma

By Central Asian Union of PLHIV, Charitable Organization Positive Women (Ukraine). Drug Policy Network South East Europe (DPNSEE), Eurasian Coalition on Health, Rights, Gender and Sexual Diversity (ECOM), Eurasian Harm Reduction Association (EHRA), Eurasian Movement for the Right to Health in Prisons, Eurasian Network of People Who Use Drugs (ENPUD), Eurasian Women’s Network on AIDS (EWNA), Global Network of People living with HIV (GNP+), Health Advocacy Coalition (HAC), International Budget Advocacy Hub (IBAH), International Treatment Preparedness Coalition (ITPC), Positiva Initiativa, Regional Expert Group on Migration and Health, Sex Workers’ Rights Advocacy Network (SWAN), TB Europe Coalition (TBEC), Teenergizer

The purpose of this communique is to build a common vision among communities, civil society, donors and other national and international stakeholders about the role of community-led initiatives in the face of the war and about what is needed for their sustainability.The large-scale aggression of the Russian Federation against the sovereignty of the Ukrainian government and people that started on February 24 has caused devastating loss of life, displacement of people, massive human rights violations, trauma, disruption of access to treatment and basic medical and social services and a myriad of harms which heighten vulnerability to HIV, TB and other infectious diseases and challenge care.

From June 29 to July 1, 2022, fifty representatives of: regional networks of people affected by HIV & TB and key populations (KP) (including: people who use drugs; sex workers; men who have sex with men; and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people as well as prisoners and migrants); civil society networks, UNAIDS, The Global Fund, experts from fields of HIV, TB, human rights and security attended the Regional Consultation, “During and after the war: rethinking the role of community networks of PLHIV and key groups and other civil society organizations,” in Vilnius, Lithuania to facilitate regional unity and preserve the influence of communities of people affected by HIV and TB, key populations (KP), community-led networks, and civil society organizations (CS). This communique, finalized in September 2022, reflects the outcomes of that meeting and is signed onto by the organizers and participants in the meeting listed at the end of the document. (signatures at the end).

The war is a harbinger of tectonic change for Ukraine and neighbouring countries, accelerating changes that had started before the war and also catalysing new changes. The region saw itself (and was seen by others (including the donors, international organizations, and policy makers) as united, but it is currently fragmenting rapidly - breaking into sub-regions with varied geopolitical interests. Each of these subregions is faced with unique challenges and tasks related to: the humanitarian crisis; HIV, TB and responses; human rights; economics and funding. Groups led by people affected by HIV & TB, key populations and civil society organizations are uniquely positioned to respond to these challenges and have rapidly evolving needs.

Surviving war and growing authoritarianism: How to ensure sustainability of civil society and community-led responses by people affected by HIV & TB and key populations