By Brandon D.L. Marshall and Abdullah Shihipar, The New York Times

In September 2018, the rapper Mac Miller died of a drug overdose — a toxic combination of fentanyl, cocaine and alcohol. Three men were charged with distributing the drugs that allegedly led to his death. In July, Tyler Skaggs, a pitcher for the Los Angeles Angels, died from asphyxia. Fentanyl, oxycodone and alcohol were found in his system, and federal authorities are working to determine who provided the drugs that killed him.

Mac Miller (whose real name was Malcolm James McCormick) and Mr. Skaggs are among the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have lost their lives to drug overdoses. One way the authorities have responded to this crisis is by promoting the use of naloxone — a medication used to revive people who have overdosed on opioids — and expanding access to medications for opioid use disorder.

But despite the recognition of drug use as a public health issue, some states have also introduced “drug-induced homicide” laws that put the responsibility of an overdose at the feet of the drug suppliers. In Rhode Island, for example, under “Kristen’s Law” a person who supplies drugs to someone who overdoses can be punished with a life sentence.

These laws have been enacted in at least 25 states, while a few more are considering adopting them. They represent a return to the outdated “war on drugs” approach, which decades of research has shown to be unsuccessful. It instead increases risks for those who use drugs, particularly minority populations and people of color.

The latest failure in the war on drugs

Full-time position based in Bangkok, Thailand

11 months fixed term contract (with possibility of extension, budget allowing)

The International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC) is a global network of NGOs and professional networks that aims to promote objective and open debate on the effectiveness, direction and content of drug policies at national and international level, and supports evidence-based policies that are effective in reducing drug-related harm. We have over 180 member organisations worldwide, and extensive communication and contacts with a range of experts in the field. The IDPC Secretariat is based in London with a smaller presence in Bangkok.

The IDPC office in Bangkok is looking to appoint a Programme Officer to provide support to the IDPC regional work programme in Asia.

The successful candidate will report to IDPC’s Regional Director: Asia and support financial management and reporting to donors, communications, administration, networking amongst IDPC members in the region with the potential to take on policy research and analysis work.

The successful candidate will be highly motivated, flexible, capable of working both independently and as part of a team, and will possess a willingness to combine financial management and administrative work with communications, networking and other tasks requiring more autonomy and creativity.

Demonstrable experience and/or interest of issues relating to human rights, public health, HIV/AIDS and harm reduction, criminal justice and law reform as it relates to drug policy in Asia

Demonstrable project and financial management skills with experience of managing budgets, expenditures and project and financial reporting to donors

Excellent interpersonal, representational and communications skills, especially in developing and sustaining relationships with a wide range of stakeholders in a professional and courteous manner at all times

Excellent organisational skills with attention to detail

Strong problem-solving skills along with the ability to work independently

Ability to multi-task and manage competing priorities, including those that arise on an ad hoc and urgent basis

Excellent spoken and written English and Thai language skills

Strong capabilities in policy research, analysis, and writing

Experience working on strategic social media communications

Please note that we can only accept applications from individuals who already have the right to live and work in Thailand

If you wish to apply for this post, please complete the application form and send it to Ms. Daisy Bowdery (dbowdery@idpc.net) by 5:00 pm (Bangkok time) on Monday 3 February 2020.

It is expected that interviews will be held from 10 February 2020, with a commencement date as soon as possible afterward.

IDPC recruits Programme Officer in Bangkok!

Speaking before the country’s parliament, Singapore’s minister for home affairs, K Shanmugam (

), extolled the country’s success in fighting drugs. He attributed these results to Singapore’s harsh drug laws, which include the use of capital punishment.

It may seem surprising to the uninitiated that Singapore has the death penalty for drug crimes. But, as the minister said: “Our penalties are severe because we want to deter such offences”.

Singapore is one of a tiny number of countries classified by Harm Reduction International (HRI) as “high application” states in the use of capital punishment for drugs. This means that death sentences and executions are a regular part of the criminal justice system. Indeed, there have been two executions for drug offences just this month, killings which were condemned by UN human rights officials.

The idea that harsh drug laws such as the death penalty are effective is one actively promoted by Singapore. And it is a belief now allegedly being adopted by US president Donald Trump. Given Trump’s notorious concern with what he considers “fake news”, it is somewhat surprising he has embraced one of the more dubious claims in global drug control – the myth that Singapore’s harsh penalties have nearly eliminated drug use and drug crime.

Singapore’s claim that the death penalty deters drug use is wrong, here’s why

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — When the ostensible murder victim showed up at a family funeral, Gunalakshmi Karupaya thought her prayers had been answered. Here was living evidence that could overturn her husband's death sentence.

Yet more than two years later, Mainthan Arumugam remains in prison, one of nearly 1,300 inmates facing execution in Malaysia. It may be the largest death row in Southeast Asia — and one that, like Mainthan, has become a rallying point in a country on the cusp of a potentially historic legal shift.

After an upset election in 2018 that ended the ruling coalition’s six-decade run, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad’s government issued an immediate moratorium on executions. It also promised to abolish capital punishment, a legacy of British rule and a mandatory penalty for almost a dozen offenses. The subject has been intensely debated ever since.

Any change would have significance beyond Malaysia’s borders. Nearly half of the prisoners on death row here are foreign nationals, and more than 100 are women, Amnesty International reported this past fall.

The report found that 73 percent of death row inmates had been sentenced for drug trafficking, with most convicted of transporting small amounts of drugs. It also documented the use of torture for “confessions,” restricted access to legal counsel and a pattern of unfair trials.

The circumstances that entangled Mainthan, a father of four who worked as a scrap metal trader in the capital, represent “the most preposterous case,” the executive director of Amnesty International Malaysia told a public forum in November. “Mainthan was sentenced to death for a murder,” Shamini Darshni Kaliemuthu recounted. “There was indeed a body. But the person who he supposedly killed is still alive.”

He and three other men were arrested in August 2004, a few days after police found charred body parts in a Kuala Lumpur neighborhood. They were charged with the murder of a man who had eloped with the sister-in-law of a friend of Mainthan’s. During the trial, Mainthan said he had only helped find the couple, who were brought to his house before the friend took them away.

Malaysia, a country with a growing death row reconsiders its future with capital punishment

South-East Asia is notorious for its brutal approach to policing drug use and production. But in Thailand change is afoot, as authorities seek to develop a homegrown medical marijuana industry.

It has approved use of cannabis extracts for treatment of a range of illnesses and conditions, including cancer, epilepsy, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease and anxiety.

The Government has promised to open more clinics in greater Bangkok, with patients able to book appointments via a specialised smartphone app.

Front and centre of the Thai Government's campaign to promote medicinal marijuana is its mascot Dr Ganja, an approachable, leaf-headed scientist.

Thailand's strongman Prime Minister, former military general Prayut Chan-o-cha, has personally promoted legal cannabis, recently appearing enjoying a cannabis inhaler alongside Dr Ganja.

So where did this push towards developing Thailand's legal cannabis industry come from, and could it signal further liberalisation of drug use in South-East Asia?

When did the push towards medical marijuana start?

First outlawed in 1935, marijuana has reportedly been a part of traditional Thai medicine and cooking for centuries, mainly used as a versatile form of pain relief.

Thailand legalised medical marijuana in December 2018, making it the first country in South-East Asia to do so.

The military-dominated parliament voted to amend the 1979 Narcotic Act to approve the use of marijuana for medical use and research, calling it a "New Year's gift" to the Thai people.

A dedicated Health Ministry website now provides information to the Thai public about cannabis cultivation, medical research and the legal status of marijuana in the country.

Government agencies, higher education institutions, agricultural producers, social enterprises and medical professionals are now permitted to grow marijuana for medical purposes.

In April last year, Rangsit University in Bangkok launched the country's first medical cannabis research institution.

It is reportedly home to Asia's first "ganja studies" program, which the university says has attracted significant interest.

Possession and trafficking of the drug still attract harsh penalties.

But further slated legal changes could allow people to bring medical cannabis into Thailand and foreigners to hold stakes in commercial cannabis producers of up to 33 per cent.

Foreign cannabis producers are already eyeing the Thai market.

US firm Rafarma Pharmaceuticals recently employed a Thai corporate officer in order to run its "upcoming" Thai operations and create "the most synergy between the company's European and Thai cannabis cultivation operations", it said in a statement.

Why is medical marijuana a high ranking priority for Thailand's military?

MANILA, Philippines — With a score of just one percent, the Duterte administration’s war on drugs is a “massive failure,” Vice President Leni Robredo said yesterday.

This is the gist of Robredo’s 40-page report on her 18-day stint as co-chairperson of the Inter-agency Committee on Anti-Illegal Drugs (ICAD), which she made public yesterday.

Robredo said the failure was due to law enforcers focusing on neutralizing low-level pushers rather than cutting main sources of supply.

She said the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) was able to seize only one percent of the total methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu supply in the past three years.

“If you liken it to an exam, the government’s score is one out of 100,” Robredo said at a press conference.

“(The drug war) is really a failure. The campaign against illegal drugs has many aspects, but almost the entire funds were poured into neutralizing small-time pushers and users. They forgot to look into the aspect on where the bulk of drugs that victimize the youth and our citizens are coming from,” she added.

Citing data from the Philippine National Police-Drug Enforcement Group, the Vice President said approximately 3,000 kilograms of shabu worth P25 billion are consumed per week, but the PDEA was only able to haul in 1,344.87 kilograms last year.

She added that the figures were even lower in 2017 and 2018 at 1,053.91 kilograms and 785.31 kilograms, respectively.

‘Duterte’s war on drugs in the Philippines a massive failure’

MEXICO CITY — More than 61,000 people have disappeared in Mexico, authorities announced Monday, sharply raising their estimate of those who have vanished in more than a decade of extreme violence by and among organized-crime groups.

The government of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador released the new figure after an exhaustive analysis of data from state prosecutors. The previous official estimate, released in April 2018, put the number at 40,000.

While hundreds of cases date to the 1960s, over 97 percent have been reported since 2006, when Mexico launched an all-out offensive targeting drug trafficking and criminal organizations.

Karla Quintana, head of Mexico’s National Search Commission, which coordinates the effort to find the missing, said that at least 61,637 people had been reported disappeared and not been found. “These are data of horror, and behind them are stories and narratives of great pain for families,” she said at a news conference.

The numbers confirm that Mexico is suffering one of the worst crises of “the disappeared” in Latin American history.

In the 1970s and 1980s, forced disappearances in the region became a global human rights concern as governments systematically detained and killed opponents — most suspected of involvement in leftist insurgencies.

Around 40,000 people went missing in Guatemala’s 36-year civil war, which ended in 1996. An estimated 30,000 disappeared during Argentina’s “dirty war,” which lasted from 1976 to 1983.

Unlike those countries, though, Mexico has not been at war — at least, not officially. And while militaries were behind most of the Cold War disappearances, narco-traffickers and other criminals are the likely culprits in the majority of the Mexican cases. Authorities suspect many of them worked with corrupt police and politicians.

More than 60,000 Mexicans have disappeared amid drug war, officials say

By Damon Barrett, Julie Hannah, and Rick Lines, Health and Human Rights Journal

 comes at an interesting time in international drug policy. Not long ago, references to human rights could be, and were, easily vetoed from draft UN drug policy resolutions. At best, human rights were included in declaratory preambles of omnibus resolutions, and largely forgotten in any substantive sense. Drug policy NGOs, for the most part, did not tend to foreground human rights, while human rights NGOs all but ignored drugs.

The past decade, however, has seen changes. Human rights are now central to international drug policy debates and are causing considerable controversy. Drug policy NGOs have made significant progress in highlighting the human rights dimensions of the field, while human rights NGOs have more and more come to see the issue as one warranting close attention. Indeed, it has become something of a cliché to say that a ‘human rights-based approach to drug policy’ should be adopted. The fact that this is so frequently heard, from NGOs and some governments, is a major step forward. But while much of the work to date has involved identifying rights violations in drug control, we still have not unpacked what adopting a human rights-based approach might mean.

Reconceptualising drugs issues as human rights issues

Over the years we have heard a good deal of scepticism about human rights in drug policy. Usually this has to do with the political palatability of human rights language when trying to achieve a certain goal. There is merit to that worry. No sensible human rights advocate claims your best foot forward is always human rights

. But if human rights are reduced to simply a functional strategy to some other end, then they can be used or discarded at will. This does not do justice to so fundamental an idea.

A human rights approach to any issue foregrounds the relationship between the individual and State power; this is especially the case with drug control. At present the burden falls on those opposing certain drug laws, such as criminalising personal possession, to explain why they don’t work. A human rights approach reverses that burden, placing it instead on the government to justify the limitations on rights and freedoms that such laws entail, and to be accountable for their decisions. Few governments have ever done this. But when these laws have been challenged on human rights grounds in constitutional courts, Governments have lost, as they did with regard to cannabis possession and the right to privacy in South Africa.

What does it mean to adopt a human rights-based approach to drug policy?

“Il reato di coltivazione di stupefacenti è configurabile indipendentemente dalla quantità di principio attivo ricavabile nell’immediatezza, essendo sufficienti la conformità della pianta al tipo botanico previsto e la sua attitudine, anche per le modalità di coltivazione, a giungere a maturazione e a produrre sostanza stupefacente; devono però ritenersi escluse, in quanto non riconducibili all’ambito di applicazione della norma penale, le attività di coltivazione di minime dimensioni svolte in forma domestica, che, per le rudimentali tecniche utilizzate, lo scarso numero di piante, il modestissimo quantitativo di prodotto ricavabile, la mancanza di ulteriori indici di un loro inserimento nell’ambito del mercato degli stupefacenti, appaiono destinate in via esclusiva all’uso personale del coltivatore.”

Questo il testo della decisione delle Sezioni Unite della Corte di Cassazione depositata nei giorni scorsi. La questione rimessa all’attenzione delle Sezioni Unite era se fosse sufficiente che la pianta fosse idonea, per grado di maturazione, a produrre sostanza per il consumo, non rilevando la quantità di principio attivo ricavabile nell’immediatezza, ovvero se fosse necessario verificare anche che l’attività sia concretamente idonea a ledere la salute pubblica ed a favorire la circolazione della droga alimentandone il mercato.

Su quest’ultima opzione sembra essersi orientato il massimo collegio di decisione della Suprema Corte, escludendo la punibilità penale per coltivazioni che per quantità e tipologia possano ritenersi in via esclusiva per uso personale. Questo significa che comunque andranno applicate le sanzioni amministrative di cui all’art. 75 del DPR 309/90 al reo, ma che la coltivazione ad uso personale non debba venire automaticamente assimilata allo spaccio e quindi punita con una pena dai 2 ai 6 anni di carcere, anche se spesso veniva considerata fatto di lieve entità (da 6 mesi a 4 anni). La Corte ha quindi fatto sua una interpretazione della norma ampiamente diffusa nei collegi giudicanti italiani, che assolvevano il coltivatore per uso personale laddove questo fosse in qualche evidente o provato dalla difesa.

La decisione della cassazione sulla coltivazione della cannabis e l'imbarazzo della politica

“The crime of drug cultivation can be defined regardless of the quantity of active compound that could be obtained immediately, being sufficient the conformity of the plant to the botanical type as legally allowed and its capacity to reach maturity and produce narcotic substances, also in relation with the cultivation methods. However the small-scale cultivation carried out at home should to be considered out of the scope (excluded from the application) of the criminal law, as far as it appears to be intended exclusively for personal use, due to the rudimentary techniques used, the small number of plants, the modest quantity of product obtainable, the lack of any further indicator of any collusion with the illegal drug market.”

This is the recent rule issued by the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione). The question brought to the attention of the court was whether was sufficient, to configure the cultivation crime, that a cannabis plant was able, given its ripening growth, to produce narcotic substance for consumption, even if in quantity not immediately detectable, or if it was necessary to verify that the cultivation was actually suited to harm public health and to further promote drug circulation in the black market.

The Supreme Court seems to have supported (the court’s complete reasoning will be published in the next weeks) the second option but excluding the criminal punishment for plants exclusively aimed at personal use, based on their quantity and basic cultivation procedures. While administrative sanctions provided for consumption of narcotic drugs can still to applied according to current drug law (art. 75 of Presidential Decree 309/1990), cultivation for personal use should not automatically defined as a trafficking crime and therefore liable to a sentence from 2 to 6 years of imprisonment (even if it was often considered as minor crime sentenced from 6 months to 4 years). The Supreme Court therefore confirms a common judgment widely used in Italian lower courts: defendants were acquitted when it was obvious or proven by their defense that the cultivation was intended exclusively for personal use.

Italy: Supreme Court rule on cannabis cultivation and the shame of politicians

The film is directed by Ko Si Thu Aung, who shot the film in the extremely remote Township Mawlaik. Situated at the Chindwin River near the Indian border, the township is known for its spectacular views, running through deep jungles and lofty mountains, as well as for its lumber mills, and close proximity to coal and gold mines, and hydro power plants.

Myanmar is confronted with a unique HIV, HCV, TB, and drug use syndemic in most remote, hard-to-reach mining, border, and conflict areas. Drug use in Myanmar is closely related to subsistence day labor (in rural areas) and drug-using migrant workers in logging, gold, ruby, and jade mines. Most clients of the Asian Harm Reduction Network (AHRN), people who use or inject drugs, and sex workers are in the lowest economic strata, experiencing endemic poverty coupled with the socio-economic consequences of drug use. The intense markers of marginalisation are key drivers of the challenge of reaching these people, complicating prevention, impacting health seeking behaviour, obstructing enrolment into treatment and care, as well as compliance and adherence, compounded by contextual barriers such as proximity to clinics and travel costs, among others.

Reaching the unreached in Myanmar

When you're stuck at the bottom of the world, you take what you can get. For Claire*, that's cocaine and ketamine, occasionally MDMA. Or at least that's what she hopes she's getting. She knows she's not, not all the time. There's a difference from bag to bag, dealer to dealer, "especially with things like 'cocaine', which is probably just methamphetamine and washing powder". Since returning from Berlin, where quality drugs were cheap and plentiful, the 34-year-old Aucklander doesn't take drugs as often; they're "s…" here. But that doesn't stop a lot of Kiwis. It's that "she'll be right" attitude, Claire says.

It's a mentality Wendy Allison knows too well. The director of drug testing service KnowYourStuffNZ, her last five summers have been spent on the festival circuit, picking out pesticides and bath salts before they slip past the lips and nostrils of unsuspecting festival-goers. Last year they tested 805 samples across 13 events – more than double the previous year.

She's seen some worrying things: cathinones, or bath salts, are the big one. If someone thinks they've got MDMA and they haven't, bath salts are the likely imposter – and while some of the effects are similar, users may also experience anxiety attacks, heart arrhythmia and fits. Overdosing is more likely because people don't get the high they're expecting, so they go back for more. Deaths overseas and hospitalisations in New Zealand have cathinones to blame.

Super-strength MDMA is another concern. Four years ago, the pills started showing up in Europe and the UK, linked to hospitalisations and deaths; two summers later they were here. Allison is expecting to see more of the pills this season, with some containing up to four times the average dose of MDMA.

But it's the Kiwi attitude to drugs that worries her most. Drugs in New Zealand have historically been of low and fluctuating quality. Without any way of finding out what's in them, Kiwis have been "trained to take things without knowing what they are", she said. "There's a resigned attitude that in order to have a good time, you've got to go through this risk of having a not-so-good time – and as long as you don't die, that's fine."

But give people information and they will use it: 87 per cent of clients surveyed by KnowYourStuff last summer said their behaviour had changed as a result of using the service. Sixty-two per cent of people whose drugs weren't what they thought said they wouldn't take them.

KnowYourStuff does more than test people's drugs and send them on their way. For starters, they don't give any substances back after testing; they are destroyed in the process. The first thing they tell people is that taking any drugs is risky. The next is what the specific risks are, and what users can do to reduce them, discussing dosages, symptoms, what could go wrong, what not to mix.

Testing one person's drugs might prevent one death, but changing how people approach drug use will have the biggest effect on harm, Allison said. The shift from "she'll be right" is starting, with people more aware of risks and less willing to accept dodgy drugs as normal.

It's not just that there's no legal imperative to offer harm reduction facilities for drug users – it's difficult, bordering on illegal. Section 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act makes it a crime to knowingly permit a venue to be used for drug use, which means festival testing operates in a legal grey area.

No-one has been charged for having it on-site, but the threat looms large. It's hard to get past councils, insurers, police and stakeholders, even when the promoters themselves are keen. And they are: they don't want a death on their hands.

Mitch Lowe has had some success getting drug-testing across the line, but only at smaller events such as Raglan and Timaru Soundsplash. At the major festivals he puts on – Bay Dreams, One Love – it's been a "flat no". He can't see the sense in that - the more people, the greater the risk, the more potential there is for reducing harm.

"It's frustrating to have something that's right there, that has evidence that shows it's something that reduces risk, and for us to not be able to put that into effect," Simon Wallace says. He's one of the people behind Friendly Potential, an Auckland club night that has spawned two festivals. Organisers weren't dealing with situations where people might take drugs, he said – they did.

With the number of people taking drugs on the rise, we're starting to see some movement on festival testing. Earlier this month, the Government announced a $59,000 study that will take place this summer, looking at the effectiveness of drug testing as a harm reduction tool.

A Victoria University of Wellington criminology team will be going to events, conducting interviews and sifting through data provided by KnowYourStuff. The evidence they come back with will be used to shape any potential next steps by the Government.

At the moment, National opposes drug testing. NZ First only recently came around to it after a heated debate from its youth wing at its annual conference. Allison hopes the evidence to come out of this summer will be enough to secure a law change. But right now they're going headfirst into festival season with Section 12 as it is, and that worries her.

"If we are unable to attend a particular event because of the Government's lack of action on this and somebody dies at that event, I will be blaming the Government for that," she said.

Sometimes it takes a tragedy to prompt action, Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick said, pointing to the pastoral care laws passed in the wake of the death of University of Canterbury student Mason Pendrous, who lay dead in his room for weeks. She has been leading the charge for drug law reform, and said she welcomed this summer's research project as a way of strengthening the case for legal drug checking.

When politicians consider whether to change the law, Allison said they would be dealing with one fundamental question: "Should we or should we not try to save the lives of people who have broken the law?"

"For us the bad thing is that they die – not that they take drugs."

News