By Daniel Ciccarone, Jeff Ondocsin, Sarah G. Mars

The US is experiencing an unprecedented opioid overdose epidemic fostered in recent years by regional contamination of the heroin supply with the fentanyl family of synthetic opioids. Since 2011 opioid-related overdose deaths in the East Coast state of Massachusetts have more than tripled, with 75% of the 1374 deaths with an available toxicology positive for fentanyl. Fentanyl is 30–50X more potent than heroin and its presence makes heroin use more unpredictable. A rapid ethnographic assessment was undertaken to understand the perceptions and experiences of people who inject drugs sold as ‘heroin’ and to observe the drugs and their use.

Methods: A team of ethnographers conducted research in northeast Massachusetts and Nashua, New Hampshire in June 2016, performing (n = 38) qualitative interviews with persons who use heroin. Results:(1) The composition and appearance of heroin changed in the last four years;(2) heroin is cheaper and more widely available than before; and (3) heroin ‘types’ have proliferated with several products being sold as ‘heroin’. These consisted of two types of heroin (alone), fentanyl (alone), and heroin– fentanyl combinations. In the absence of available toxicological information on retail-level heroin, our research noted a hierarchy of fentanyl discernment methods, with embodied effects considered most reliable in determining fentanyl’s presence, followed by taste, solution appearance and powder color. This paper presents a new ‘heroin’ typology based on users’ reports.

Heroin uncertainties: Exploring users’ perceptions of fentanyl-adulterated and -substituted 'heroin'

This short document aims to provide a summary of the main issues that people engaged in developing drug policy, or in commissioning evaluations of drug policy, strategies and interventions, need to consider. There are many sources of more detailed information and guidance on conducting evaluations. This guide seeks not to duplicate or replace them but instead to act as an introduction, providing links to the wider literature and presenting the key issues for those managing rather than undertaking drug policy evaluations. Further reading and sources of more detailed information are provided at the end of this guide. There is also no single correct way to undertake an evaluation, and the choice of approach depends on many factors, including timing, objectives and the availability of resources. This publication is designed to assist people in choosing the best approach to suit their circumstances and to maximise the value of any evaluation.

There is a lot written about evaluation and sometimes the same terms are used to mean different things, so before starting it is important to clarify the definitions and concepts that the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) uses in this guide. The box below provides the definitions that we use in this guide for certain core concepts.

Evaluating drug policy: a seven-step guide to support the commissioning and managing of evaluations

In September 2017 CGL and Volteface convened a ‘round table’ to discuss responses to the growing threat posed by fentanyl and its analogues (often referred to as ‘fentalogues’ or ‘fentanyls’). Fentanyl and its analogues range from highly valued medicines to highly dangerous synthetic opioid drugs with little or no legitimate use in humans. The round table followed reports of at least 60 deaths linked to fentanyls in England and Wales in the previous eight months and CGL’s direct experience of managing outbreaks of fentanyl-related overdose deaths in two areas in England.

The round table had support from a wide range of stakeholders: commissioners, police; academics; drug service managers; toxicologists; doctors; nurses; public health specialists; drug policy experts; ‘experts by experience’; and other stakeholders from the NHS and Voluntary Sector.

The aims and objectives of the round table were to:

Explore the causes and consequences related to the rise in fentanyl-related deaths.

Inform discussion on existing and new service provision models.

Help shape CGL’s internal response to fentanyls.

Inform the development of a multi-agency approach to help prevent future deaths where fentanyls were suspected to be implicated. While the round table focussed on the fentanyls, it was acknowledged at the outset that any subsequent recommendations would likely build on existing guidance on the wider goal of reducing all drug-related deaths as detailed in the following documents:

Understanding and preventing drug-related deaths: The report of a national expert working group to investigate drug-related deaths in England (Public Health England, September 2016).

Reducing opioid-related deaths (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, December 2016).

Fentanyl Report

Problematic substance use (PSU) can negatively affect the outcomes of those involved with the criminal justice system: it can contribute to criminal behaviours, hinder progress within the justice system and create difficulties for those reintegrating into the community. This fact is concerning as approximately 75% of individuals arrive at Canadian federal institutions with a serious substance use problem (Correctional Service Canada [CSC], 2010). Further, those involved in the criminal justice system are more likely to have diverse physical and mental health conditions such as mental disorders, learning disabilities and infectious diseases (CSC, 2015a; CSC, 2010). These individuals are likely to have experienced substantial adverse events (e.g., witnessing family violence) and abuse, and to have a lower than average socioeconomic status (Kouyoumdjian, Schuler, Matheson, & Hwang, 2016), which varies based on diversity (e.g., Indigenous offenders).

Understanding how PSU plays a role in the success of an individual is key to improving the reintegration of those involved in the criminal justice system. PSU is a recognized criminogenic risk factor, meaning someone with a history of PSU is more likely to recidivate or commit future crimes (Harrison & Gfroerer, 1992). Addressing PSU and other risk factors can lead to a reduction in criminality, successful reintegration and a cost savings for corrections (Wooditch, Tang, & Taxman, 2014; Visher & MallikKane, 2007; CSC, 2009).

The primary goal of this environmental scan was to summarize evaluations of criminal justice interventions that aimed to reduce substance use and related behaviours, or recidivism or both. More specifically, the purpose of this environmental scan is:

To identify and summarize best practices in assessing and addressing PSU among those involved in the criminal justice system, with a focus on supporting the transition from the institution to the community; and

To develop a comprehensive picture of specialized initiatives or programs that have already been implemented in Canada.

The intended audience for the scan includes researchers in the field of criminology or substance use, practitioners involved in the criminal justice system or the treatment of PSU, and federal, provincial and territorial policy and decision makers responsible for health, justice or corrections.

Supporting reintegration in corrections by addressing problematic substance use

The UK government has published its 2017 drug strategy,12 and we are greatly concerned at the lack of focus on harm reduction—an evidence based response that protects people and saves lives—at a time when drug related deaths are the highest on record. The government acknowledges in the strategy that the rise in drug related deaths is dramatic.

Click here to read the full article (restricted access).

Is the UK’s 2017 drug strategy fit for purpose?

The Rights Reporter Foundation (RRF) is a non-profit organisation founded by Hungarian activists to advocate for the human rights of vulnerable populations. We use the power of video for community mobilisation and advocacy campaigning. Our vision is of a society where policies affecting vulnerable communities are evidence-informed and respect human rights, as well as developed and implemented with the meaningful involvement of these communities. The main focus of our work is on people who use drugs, sex workers, and people who live with HIV, but we are glad to work with other stigmatised communities, such as LGBTQ people, ethnic minorities, migrants, refugees, and homeless people. Our mission is to educate the public about the role of evidence in policy formulation, to provide a voice for vulnerable communities, and to improve the advocacy efforts of NGOs by providing technical assistance and training. The RRF team is based in Budapest, and most of our activities focus on Europe, but we have cooperated with a number of NGOs beyond Europe, from New Zealand to Canada, from Mexico to Indonesia.

Rights Reporter Foundation – Annual Report 2016

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a major global public health concern, with approximately 114.9 (91.9-148.7) million people having antibodies to HCV, 3-4 million people newly infected each year and 350,000 deaths occurring annually. People who inject drugs (PWID) are the key at risk group in most high income countries and in most countries over half of PWID have been infected with HCV.

Evidence shows that injecting with needle/syringes previously used by someone else is the main risk factor for infection with HIV and HCV among PWID. Additional risks for HCV acquisition in this population include sharing drug preparation containers, filters, rinse water and backloading (a method of sharing drugs by transferring them from the needle of one syringe into the barrel of another). The provision of sterile injecting equipment through needle and syringe programmes (NSP) and enrolment in opioid substitution treatment (OST) are among the primary interventions for reducing HCV and HIV transmission among PWID. NSPs provide sterile needles/syringes and other injecting equipment to PWID, via fixed-sites, outreach, peer networks, vending machines, and pharmacies. By maximising the amount of sterile injecting equipment (including syringes, cookers, cottons) in circulation, the time infected equipment remains in circulation decreases and the proportion of unsafe injections or the need to share equipment to prepare drugs reduces. OST is prescribed to dependent opioid users to diminish the use and effects of illicitly acquired opioids and reduce the frequency of injection and exposure to unsafe injecting practices. The most commonly prescribed forms of OST are opiate agonist treatments - methadone maintenance therapy and buprenorphine maintenance treatment. NSPs and OST are often the first point of service contact for PWID and so they provide referrals and support to other social and welfare services.

There is good evidence that NSP and OST in combination reduce injecting risk behaviours and some evidence of an impact on HIV incidence. However, evidence for their impact on HCV incidence among PWID is limited.Recent reviews have estimated a moderate effect of NSPs in reducing HIV transmission by 48% (95% confidence interval (CI) 3-72%) and strong evidence for OST reducing HIV transmission by 54% (95% CI 33-68%). Previous evidence syntheses for use of NSPs has focussed primarily on HIV as the main outcome and, as a consequence, failed to include all the available evidence on HCV. Another review that measured the effect of NSP use did not include a metaanalysis due to heterogeneity in the measurement of NSP exposure and focussed on evidence from North America, limiting the generalisability of findings to othersettings including Europe. An analysis of pooled data examined the effect of NSP coverage on HCV incidence showed that high coverage of NSP (≥100% of injections with a sterile syringe) or receipt of OST either currently or within the past 6 months can each reduce HCV infection risk by 50%; and in combination by 80%. The small number of incident HCV cases meant that the efficacy estimate for 100% NSP among those not on OST was weak.

Needle syringe programmes and opiod substitution therary for preventing HCV transmission among people who inject drugs: findings from Cochrane Review and meta-analysis

North America is facing an epidemic of opioid addiction and opioid overdose with an unprecedented level of mortality. The crisis was spurred by a broad expansion of medical use of opioids, which began in the 1990s as a legitimate response to the under-treatment of pain, but which was soon exploited by the unethical behavior of pharmaceutical companies eager to increase their revenue. The rise in supply fed high levels of diversion among an economically stressed and vulnerable population. The present wave of opioid dependence differs from the heroin crises of the 1980s and 1990s, both in the sheer extent and in the social backgrounds of a large part of the affected populations. In Canada, which is second only in per capita opioid consumption to the United States, the rise in fatal overdoses is more linked to higher potency or ad-mixing of other drugs in areas where there was already a relatively high incidence of heroin use.

Initial reactions were to limit prescriptions and to introduce pills that were harder to manipulate. The reduced supply of prescription opioids, however, drove an important minority of people with addiction to less expensive and more accessible street heroin. Under what has become known as the “iron law of prohibition”, cheaper and more potent opioids—including fentanyl and its derivatives— increasingly appeared on the market. This has even further accelerated the rate of fatal overdoses.

Media and government attention has primarily focused on the supply through doctors. The fact that most addictions start with diverted supplies rather than among pain patients has been largely ignored. Policymakers have also failed to address the role of economic upheaval, unemployment, inequality, and other systemic sources of despair in increasing the risk for addiction and decreasing the odds of recovery. Health systems were completely unprepared and treatment is still dominated by abstinence-focused programs, where no regulatory standards have to be met. Furthermore, among other factors, prejudice against the most effective treatments for opioid addiction—opioid substitution therapy (OST)—has translated into lack of treatment for those in need. Opioid substitution therapy has proven effective in treating addictions to heroin and should be offered to those dependent on or addicted to prescription opioids.

The opioid crisis in North America

An update to this paper is available here.

By Jamie Bridge (IDPC), Christopher Hallam (IDPC), Marie Nougier (IDPC), Miguel Herrero Cangas (IDPC), Martin Jelsma (TNI), Tom Blickman (TNI) & David Bewley-Taylor (GDPO)

Diplomatic processes at the United Nations are notoriously slow and difficult, perhaps increasingly so in a modern world of multi-polar geopolitics and tensions. This is certainly no different for the highly charged and provocative issue of international drug control. After the latest high-level UN meeting on drug control – the UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on the ‘world drug problem’ in New York in April 2016 – many stakeholders came away with mixed feelings at best. Despite acknowledgements of the progress made in certain areas of the debate, and the rich content of some of the country and civil society statements, the UNGASS failed to deliver the ‘wide-ranging and open debate that considers all options’ that had been called for by the UN Secretary-General at the time, Ban Ki-Moon.

In order to help digest and contextualise the UNGASS Outcome Document, it is useful to take a broader look at how the agreed UN language on drug control has evolved and developed over the last quarter of a century. To this end, this IDPC briefing paper explores a selection of key themes by analysing the consensus-based language agreed by UN member states. The briefing studies the evolution in agreed language on: the success/failure of drug control, harm reduction, human rights, development, civil society engagement, criminal justice responses and fexibilities in the conventions, access to controlled medicines and UN system-wide coherence.

This briefing paper was launched in September at the UN in Vienna at the occasion of a round of CND Intersessional Meetings on the Post-UNGASS process. For more information, click here.

Edging forward: How the UN’s language on drugs has advanced since 1990

The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB or Board) Annual Report for 2016 is, as usual, a mixed bag of high quality data and sometimes doubtful political views. It is the final Report of the Presidency of Mr. Werner Sipp, and as such represents a comparatively progressive text, in contrast to many previous Reports. Despite this, the general – if ambivalent – acceptance of medical uses of internationally controlled drugs is contrasted by the Board’s continuing defence of the conventions in their current form and their opposition to any non-medical use.

The INCB Annual Report for 2016 is contextualised by that year’s United Nations Special Session of the General Assembly (UNGASS) on the ‘world drug problem’. As such, 2016 represents an unprecedented period of flux, as the drug control consensus that has lasted several decades continues to crack at the seams, and to reach new depths despite the surface unity.

There are some important new or recent positions included in the Report. Amongst the most significant is the continuation of the INCB to encourage states that retain the death penalty for drug-related offences to abolish the practice.

The Board also condemns outright the government of the Philippines for its implication in the extrajudicial killings of those involved in the country’s drugs trade, or those suspected of being so involved.

This year’s thematic chapter features a discussion on the issue of women and drugs, an important issue that has long received little of the attention it requires. The chapter explores issues including the growing incarceration of women for drug offences, which is increasing more rapidly than that of men.

The Annual Report is characterised by reticence when it comes to positive and progressive developments, a continuing trend in the INCB’ reports. For example, the concerns of the Board that controlled medicines are prone to diversion, rather than their vital therapeutic properties, tend to be given priority in terms of attention. Similarly, those countries having developed or scaled up harm reduction interventions are neither encouraged nor highlighted as models to be followed.

A similar tendency may be discerned with respect to cannabis. Whether real or imagined, the negative elements of cannabis are emphasised at the expense of the possible benefits of the substance. Moreover, the potential contravention of the international treaties is stressed alongside the harmful health effects – ironic since public health is the driving force behind many countries’ movement toward regulated markets.

For the first time, the INCB acknowledges that drug consumption rooms can be lawful under the international conventions, though to do so they must aim at effectively reducing the negative compact of drug use and lead to treatment and rehabilitation. Moreover, they must not condone or encourage drug use or trafficking.

IDPC response to the 2015 INCB Annual Report

IDPC response to the 2014 INCB Annual Report

IDPC response to the 2013 INCB Annual Report

IDPC response to the 2012 INCB Annual Report

IDPC response to the 2011 INCB Annual Report

IDPC response to the 2010 INCB Annual Report

IDPC response to the 2009 INCB Annual Report

IDPC response to the 2008 INCB Annual Report

IDPC response to the 2007 INCB Annual Report

IDPC response to the INCB Annual Report for 2016

A abordagem predominante de controle de drogas usada no mundo foi baseada em respostas punitivas da justiça penal, em detrimento aos direitos humanos e à saúde – nunca os gastos foram tão grandes com polícia, juízes, promotores e prisões como atualmente. Nunca se prendeu tanto por produção, tráfico, venda ou uso de drogas como agora, e os problemas ainda continuam sem solução: hoje no mundo há um número sem precedentes de produtores e consumidores de drogas. O Escritório das Nações Unidas sobre Drogas e Crime identificou abertamente um certo número de consequências negativas indesejáveis’ da chamada ‘guerra às drogas’, incluindo graves violações de direitos humanos diretamente relacionadas à criminalização e estigmatização de pessoas que usam drogas e pessoas vulneráveis envolvidas na produção ilícita e tráfico de drogas.

Essa situação levou Paul Hunt (Relator Especial das Nações Unidas sobre o direito à saúde entre 2002 e 2008) a concluir que o sistema de direitos humanos da ONU e o regime global de controle de drogas se comportaram ‘como se existissem em universos paralelos’. O controle global de drogas está baseado em três convenções internacionais de 1961, 1971 e 1988, que iniciam com o compromisso de promover a ‘saúde e o bem estar da humanidade’. Ainda que as Convenções de 1961 e 1971 não façam referências sobre os direitos humanos, e o termo apareça uma vez na Convenção de 1988 no contexto de erradicação de cultivos. No sistema de direitos humanos da ONU, o termo foi mencionado na Carta da das Nações Unidas de 1945, a qual foi realizada com base em três pilares: direitos humanos, paz, e segurança e desenvolvimento. Nos Artigos 55 e 56, as Nações Unidas e os países-membros se comprometem a promover o desenvolvimento social e o respeito universal pelos direitos humanos e pelas liberdades fundamentais para todos, bem como a observância deles. Três anos depois da adoção da Carta, a Declaração Universal dos Direitos Humanos também foi aprovada, descrevendo 30 direitos universais que estabelecem ‘um padrão comum de conquista para todos os povos e nações’. Décadas mais tarde, em 1981, a Carta Africana dos Direitos Humanos e dos Povos’ (também conhecida como Carta de Banjul) foi aprovada, e ratificada por todos os países africanos, exceto pelo Sudão do Sul. A carta de Banjul descreve mais de 20 direitos – diversos dos quais são abordados neste relatório.

Esta nota para advocacia pretende dar uma visão geral não exaustiva de como as políticas de droga violam os direitos humanos universais e o que é, na prática, uma abordagem de direitos, com base na Carta de Banjul. Esta nota para advocacia deve ser lida em paralelo a sua publicação correspondente: ´Política de Drogas na África: O que é uma abordagem baseada em saúde?’.

Registe-se para recever as Alertas mensais do IDPC e obter informação sobre questões relacionadas com as políticas de drogas.

Política de Drogas na África: Rumo a uma abordagem baseada em direitos humanos

"It always seems impossible until it’s done.” One of the most famous quotes attributed to Nelson Mandela (1918-2013) perfectly fits the increasingly forceful and persuasive debate that is questioning prohibitionist drug policies all around the world. Among the list of issues informing the debate, one deserves special attention: why should human rights organisations participate in this debate and in what way?

In 1971, then United States President Richard Nixon announced that “America’s public enemy number one is drug abuse.”1 This moment marked the beginning of the so-called “war on drugs”. Today, however, a young resident of Denver, Colorado can go to the corner and legally purchase up to 28 grams of marijuana per month for recreational use. If the same youth were in San Francisco, California, he would have been able to use medical marihuana to fight chronic pain since 1996.

Why are so many things changing at a relatively fast pace not only in the US, but also in countries as diverse as Portugal, the Netherlands, Finland, Spain and Uruguay? These countries have approved drug policies that move – some more than others – in the opposite direction of prohibitionism.

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

Publications