Misunderstandings and misreporting of actual and proposed changes to Dutch cannabis policy in 2011 have led some opponents of cannabis reform to suggest the country is retreating from its longstanding and pragmatic policy of tolerating the possession, use and sale of cannabis.

In reality, most of the more regressive measures have either not been implemented, have been subsequently abandoned, or have had only marginal impacts. Additionally, there is growing public support for wider, progressive reform, including a system of legal cannabis regulation similar to that adopted in Uruguay, and efforts are underway by numerous municipalities to establish such models of production and supply.

This report by Transform shows that all signs point to there being broad popular and political support for continuing Netherlands’s historically progressive stance on cannabis.

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

Cannabis policy in the Netherlands: Moving forwards not backwards

Secondo il rapporto rilasciato oggi dal Transnational Institute e dal Global Drugs Policy Observatory “la domanda per la comunità internazionale oggi non è se vi è la necessità di rivedere il sistema di controllo della droga delle Nazioni Unite, ma piuttosto quando e come farlo”.

L'attuale processo internazionale verso una regolamentazione legale del mercato della cannabis è diventato irreversibile e richiede un dialogo urgente da parte degli Stati membri delle Nazioni Unite sui migliori modelli per la protezione della salute e della sicurezza delle persone. Lo sostiene il nuovo rapporto "

The Rise and Decline of Cannabis Prohibitio. The History of Cannabis in the UN Drug Control System and Options For Reform

" rilasciato dal Transnational Institute e dal Global Drugs Policy Observatory proprio il giorno prima della riunione a Vienna degli Stati membri dell'ONU nell'ambito della Commissione ONU sulle sostanze stupefacenti (CND). Secondo il rapporto "la domanda per la comunità internazionale oggi non è se vi è la necessità di rivedere il sistema di controllo della droga delle Nazioni Unite, ma piuttosto quando e come farlo".

Il rapporto svela la lunga e poco conosciuta storia della regolamentazione della cannabis dalla fine del 19esimo secolo, quando fu ampiamente utilizzata per scopi medici, cerimoniali e sociali al periodo post seconda guerra mondiale quando sotto la pressione degli Stati Uniti e di un potente mix di retorica moralistica e dati scientifici inaffidabili l'ONU ha classificato nella Convenzione unica sugli stupefacenti del 1961 la cannabis come una sostanza con proprietà 'particolarmente pericolose' alla pari dell'eroina. Sono ricostruiti anche gli sviluppi più recenti come il numero crescente di paesi hanno cercato di barcamenarsi all'interno delle Convenzioni attraverso "defezioni soft": dalla semplice depenalizzazione, alla politica olandese della tolleranza dei coffeeshop sino ai cannabis social club e ai regimi "generosi" di applicazione della marijuana a fini medici come in California.

Tom Blickman ricercatore del Transnational Institute e co-autore del rapporto ha detto: "gli organismi di controllo delle droghe dell'ONU, come l'INCB e UNODC, spesso trattano le tre convenzioni sulle droghe (1961, 1971 e 1988) come le tavole di pietra di Mosè: pilastri immutabili della verità che non possono essere messi in discussione, né riformati. La storia del controllo della cannabis, come indicato nella relazione, rivela tuttavia che le decisioni prese in passato erano spesso basate su negoziati politici, accuse infondate e atteggiamenti di stampo colonialista e razzista. Secondo Blickman: "l'inclusione della cannabis nel sistema di controllo delle droghe delle Nazioni Unite più di 50 anni fa è stato un errore storico e deve essere rivalutato."
Martin Jelsma del Transnational Institute e co-autore aggiunge: "è tempo per le Nazioni Unite e gli Stati membri di aprire gli occhi e riconoscere che, a causa di difetti sistemici e di disposizioni anacronistiche contenute nelle convenzioni, i paesi in cerca di alternative politiche sulla cannabis non hanno altra scelta che violare i trattati al fine di meglio tutelare la salute delle persone, la sicurezza e i diritti umani".

Il rapporto delinea le opzioni per la riforma e la regolamentazione legale e valuta il loro potenziale di successo. Queste opzioni includono la revisione della classificazione della cannabis da parte dell'OMS, la modifica dei trattati anche solo per alcuni stati, o l'uscita dal trattato e il successivo rientro con riserva come recentemente avvenuto per la Bolivia (al fine di difendere i diritti degli indigeni e l'uso della foglia di coca nella sua forma naturale).
Dave Bewley-Taylor, co-autore del rapporto e direttore della Global Drug Policy Observatory ha commentato: "la via da seguire è riunire un gruppo di paesi che la pensano allo stesso modo e lavorare insieme per valutare le diverse opzioni giuridiche e stabilire una tabella di marcia per l'aggiornamento delle politiche e delle convenzioni. Questo potrebbe portare alla sostituzione dei trattati sul controllo della droga esistenti con un nuovo quadro normativo internazionale, più coerente con gli altri trattati delle Nazioni Unite sui diritti dell'uomo e in linea con le più recenti evidenze scientifiche sui modelli migliori per ridurre i danni associati al consumo di droga."

Gli incontri a Vienna di questa e della prossima settimana, che esaminano la dichiarazione politica 2009 e il Piano d'azione sul 'problema mondiale della droga', e cercano di delineare i piani per la sessione speciale dell'Assemblea generale delle Nazioni Unite sulle droghe nel 2016, sono il momento ideale per iniziare questo dialogo.

Tienitiaggiornato congli sviluppi politicidi drogamediante la sottoscrizione diAlertIDPCmensile.

Ascesa e declino della proibizione della cannabis

This paper was created by young professionals and activists working in the fields of harm reduction, drug treatment, public health, social policy and human rights in various European countries: United Kingdom, Italy, Poland, Montenegro, Serbia, Albania and Romania. We are all members of Youth Organisations for Drug Action, a network that connects and supports young people who are working to reform drug policies in Europe, towards a model based on the principles of scientific evidence, human rights and cost-effectiveness. All contributors have both some educational background and work experience in areas related to the topic of this paper.

In this paper we aim to discuss the current situation regarding drug use in Europe among young people (aged 15-30, with variation in definition across countries) and the availability of services aimed at young drug users or potential users. We will also compare approaches adopted in examined countries to show which has proven to be to be most effective at reducing overall drug prevalence among young people as well as related risky behaviours and harms. Regional differences in drug culture, historical context and developing trends will also be taken into account.

Drugs, harms and youth: The state of drug use and harm reduction amongst youth in European countries

The cannabis plant has been used for spiritual, medicinal and recreational purposes since the early days of civilization. In this report the Transnational Institute and the Global Drug Policy Observatory describe in detail the history of international control and how cannabis was included in the current UN drug control system.

Cannabis was condemned by the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs as a psychoactive drug with “particularly dangerous properties” and hardly any therapeutic value. Ever since, an increasing number of countries have shown discomfort with the treaty regime’s strictures through soft defections, stretching its legal flexibility to sometimes questionable limits.

Today’s political reality of regulated cannabis markets in Uruguay, Washington and Colorado operating at odds with the UN conventions puts the discussion about options for reform of the global drug control regime on the table. Now that the cracks in the Vienna consensus have reached the point of treaty breach, this discussion is no longer a reformist fantasy. Easy options, however, do not exist; they all entail procedural complications and political obstacles. A coordinated initiative by a group of like-minded countries agreeing to assess possible routes and deciding on a road map for the future seems the most likely scenario for moving forward.

There are good reasons to question the treaty-imposed prohibition model for cannabis control. Not only is the original inclusion of cannabis within the current framework the result of dubious procedures, but the understanding of the drug itself, the dynamics of illicit markets, and the unintended consequences of repressive drug control strategies has increased enormously. The prohibitive model has failed to have any sustained impact in reducing the market, while imposing heavy burdens upon criminal justice systems; producing profoundly negative social and public health impacts; and creating criminal markets supporting organised crime, violence and corruption.

After long accommodating various forms of deviance from its prohibitive ethos, like turning a blind eye to illicit cannabis markets, decriminalisation of possession for personal use, coffeeshops, cannabis social clubs and generous medical marijuana schemes, the regime has now reached a moment of truth. The current policy trend towards legal regulation of the cannabis market as a more promising model for protecting people’s health and safety has changed the drug policy landscape and the terms of the debate. The question facing the international community today is no longer whether or not there is a need to reassess and modernize the UN drug control system, but rather when and how to do it.

The rise and decline of cannabis prohibition

By taking cues from users’ self-regulation strategies, it is possible to design innovative operational models for drug services as well as drug policies, strengthening Harm Reduction as an alternative approach to the disease model.

A significant body of research on cocaine users recruited outside captive populations – that is, studies based on samples of users who have not been enrolled through drug addiction services – has been carried out in many European countries and outside Europe. These studies show a variety of patterns and trajectories of use other than “addictive” use.

This paper illustrates the aim of encouraging users’ informal controls while reducing the harm caused by punitive laws and policies.

Cocaine: towards a self-regulation model

Portugal enacted one of the most extensive drug law reforms in the world when it decriminalized low-level possession and use of all illicit drugs more than a decade ago. Results of the Portuguese experience demonstrate that drug decriminalization – alongside a serious investment in treatment and harm reduction services – can significantly improve public safety and health.

Drug decriminalization in portugal: A health-centered approach

Personal sovereignty informs both the LGBT liberation and drug policy reform movements. Police surveillance and repression, along with stigma and moral panic, have been used to great effect against both LGBT individuals and people who use drugs.

We need drug policies that move away from the criminal justice system, and address drug overdose, dependence, and use through a health-oriented framework.

 LGBT communities and drug policy reform

The current system for classifying illegal (and most legal) drugs is flawed, outdated and unscientific. Marijuana should be reclassified in order to facilitate research, ensure patient access, and permit its legal regulation. Established by the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970, this system erroneously places marijuana in the most restrictive class, Schedule I, reserved for drugs with a "high potential for abuse”, "no currently accepted medical use" and a “lack of accepted safety."

Marijuana reclassification: Removing marijuana from the controlled substances Act

On October 21-23, 2013, the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) and the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) hosted in Denver, Colorado, the workshop “Launching Legal Marijuana: Regulatory Challenges and Options.

The overall goal of this workshop was to create a forum to learn from the unfolding experiences in the U.S. states of Colorado and Washington in implementing the legislation recently passed to regulate marijuana, as well as to debate ideas, lessons learned and best practices on this issue. The workshop was attended by delegations from Brazil, Mexico, Canada, the United States, and Uruguay involved in the regulation processes in their respective countries.

What follows is a summary of the meetings and discussions during those days. This document aims at providing an overview of the perpsectives shared during the meeting, as well as pointing out the questions and challenges identified by the participants regarding regulation of the marijuana market. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the individual views included in this document do not necessarily represent the general opinion of the meeting’s participants.

Launching legal marijuana: Regulatory challenges and options

Map of all states with broadened naloxone access laws and links to the text of the various laws.Unintentional drug overdose is now considered to be a leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Administering naloxone hydrochloride (“naloxone”) can reverse an opioid overdose and prevent these unintentional deaths. To explore these laws use the query box below. This page has been updated through February 2014.

Please click here to have access to the map and the explanations.

Map of State laws regulating naloxone

Many U.S. cities are taking steps to reduce the role of criminalization in their local drug policies. Seattle, Washington has been at the forefront of this effort, pioneering a novel pre-booking diversion program for minor drug law violations known as Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD). Santa Fe, New Mexico and several other cities have begun exploring this promising new strategy to improve public safety and health.

 Law enforcement assisted diversion (LEAD): Reducing the role of criminalization in local drug control

These bills are illegal and unconstitutional. Prior to 2011, the only state to pass such a law was Michigan. That law was struck down in 2003 by a federal appeals court. The court upheld a 2000 decision by a U.S. District Court judge that mandatory, suspicionless drug testing for public assistance violates the 4th Amendment’s protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and is unnecessary, given the existence of more effective and less invasive means of detecting drug abuse.

Publications from IDPC Members