In October 2012, the governments of Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico issued a joint declaration calling for a UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) to be held on the urgent issue of drug policy. The conference – the 30th Special Session, and the third focused on drugs – took place in New York from 19th to 21st April 2016. The meeting comprised a Plenary – at which a pre-negotiated Outcome Document was adopted at the very start, followed by a varied and long list of country statements – and a series of five thematic “roundtable” debates.

The preparations for this Special Session were led from 6,700 km away in Vienna, Austria, by the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) and guided by a specially appointed ‘UNGASS Board’. The scope of the UNGASS debate was promptly restricted to be ‘within the framework of the three international drug control conventions’. The UNGASS Outcome Document was also negotiated entirely in Vienna, in a rushed series of ‘informal informals’, which are closed meetings with a large number of UN member states absent and from which civil society observers are excluded. The lack of transparency and accountability in this process led a large group of civil society organisations to raise serious reservations in a joint public statement.

By the time the show moved to New York in April, the Outcome Document was already finalised and a number of barriers were in place to hinder civil society participation. This all served to ensure that the UNGASS was not the drug policy revolution that some stakeholders seemed to be expecting. In spite of these challenges, the UNGASS created much needed momentum and mobilisation for reform among civil society, UN agencies, the media and several member states. It also provided the clearest indication to date that the global consensus on drug policy is fundamentally broken.

While many people came away with mixed emotions, the UNGASS has undoubtedly ploughed fertile ground for ongoing efforts to reform and improve the global response to drugs.

This IDPC report offers an overview and analysis of the UNGASS, covering the adoption of the UNGASS outcome document, the plenary, roundtables and side events, as well as civil society engagement in and outside the UN building.

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

Previous reports in our CND proceedings series

IDPC report of proceedings: The 2016 Commission on Narcotic Drugs and its special segment on preparations for the UNGASS on the world drug problem

IDPC report of proceedings: The 2015 Commission on Narcotic Drugs and its special segment on preparations for the UNGASS on the world drug problem

IDPC report of proceedings: The 2014 Commission on Narcotic Drugs and its High Level Segment

IDPC report of proceedings: The 2013 Commission on Narcotic Drugs

IDPC report of proceedings: The 2012 Commission on Narcotic Drugs

IDPC report of proceedings: The 2011 Commission on Narcotic Drugs

IDPC report of proceedings: The 2010 Commission on Narcotic Drugs

The UNGASS on the world drug problem: Report of proceedings

August 29, 1986, the Supreme Court of the Nation declared the unconstitutionality of the persecution of crimes for possession of narcotics for personal consumption.

The cased about about the raiding of the home of guitarist Gustavo Bazterrica, member of the band Grandfathers of Nothing and musician Charly García, which occurred in 1981, whom the police seized a few grams of substances for personal consumption and which the lower courts had sentenced a prison sentence and fine.

The Supreme Court held that the sentence should be invalid, since the persecution of the crime for possession of narcotics for personal consumption was in violation of article 19 of the Constitution, in so far as it violates personal freedom, exempt from the authority of State entities.

Despite the forcefulness of the ruling, the country sustained identical criminalization in the legislative reform of 1989 (Law 23.737), penalizing the crime of possession for personal consumption.

Twenty years later, the Corte returned to declare the unconstitutionality of the persecution of users with the law (ruling “Arriola” of 2009), returning to the precedent of “Bazterrica”.

Thirty years have passed since the highest court of the Republic has set the foundations of jurisprudence on respect for freedom, individual autonomy, privacy, and self-determination of people using prohibited substances.

Three decades without that which would advance legislative reform that would clearly prevent unconstitutional persecution of drug users, preventing their criminalization and stigmatization, despite the presentation of scores of draft legislation before the National Congress with this framework.

The debate over drug policy has advanced in quality and contains more beyond the claim by the delayed decriminalization of behaviors related to consumption, addressing matters such as harm reduction, medicinal use of controlled substances, and strategic legalization and regulation, the humanitarian treatment for people who use drugs, the proportionality of penalties and alternatives to incarceration, among others.

The “Asociación Pensamiento Penal (APP)” has redacted a document titled “the Declaration of Argentine Judges, Prosecutors and Public Defenders for Drug Policy that respects Human Rights”, which has been signed by more than 260 from around the country. There it presents the reasons for which there are recommended new approaches that lead to drug policies which are more effective and humane.

Keep up-to-date with drug policy developments by subscribing to the

Declaration of Argentine judges, prosecutors and	 public defenders for drug policy that respects human rights

Over the past four decades, there has been a nearly five-fold increase in the number of people in U.S. jails: the approximately 3,000 county or municipality-run detention facilities that primarily hold people arrested but not yet convicted of a crime.

From just 157,000 people held on any given day in 1970, the jail population rose to 745,000 people by 2014.

Intended to house those deemed to be a danger to society or a flight risk before trial, jails have become massive warehouses primarily for those too poor to post even low amounts of bail or too sick for existing community resources to manage. With more than 11 million admissions annually, the role jails play as a principal driver of mass incarceration is receiving increasing attention from policymakers and the public.

Despite this scrutiny, one aspect of this growth has received little attention: the precipitous rise in the number of women in jail. Although they generally fare better than men in pretrial decisions, the number of women incarcerated in jails is growing at a faster rate than any other correctional population.

Since 1970, the number of women in jail nationwide has increased 14-fold—from under 8,000 to nearly 110,000— and now accounts for approximately half of all women behind bars in the United States.

Once a rarity, women are now held in jails in nearly every county—a stark contrast to 1970, when almost three-quarters of counties held not a single woman in jail.

Surprisingly, small counties (those with 250,000 people or fewer in 2014) have been the main engine of this growth, with the number of women in small county jails increasing 31-fold from 1970 to 2014.

Since 2000, jail incarceration rates for women in small counties have increased from 79 per 100,000 women to 140 per 100,000 women. In contrast, mid-sized counties’ jail incarceration rates for women only grew from 80 to 88 per 100,000 women, while rates in large counties actually decreased from 76 to 71 per 100,000 women within that same timeframe. Today, nearly half of all jailed In 1970, 73 percent of counties across the U.S. reported zero women in their jails.

Overlooked: Women and jails in an era of reform 

Although individual cryptomarkets tend to have a relatively short life span, the sector as a whole has survived various challenges, such as exit scams and law enforcement take downs. At the same time, although the size of the drugs trade via cryptomarkets is still very small compared to offl ine trade, transactions have tripled since the take-down of Silk Road and revenues have doubled.

The Internet has offered opportunities for drug entrepreneurs to create new business models and tap into a new consumer base, while reducing many of the risks associated with offl ine markets (e.g. violence), and introducing new risks (e.g. postal interception, scams). The full impact of the Internet-facilitated drugs trade on the global market for illicit drugs remains inconclusive and unclear.

There is evidence to suggest that cryptomarkets are fuelling offl ine markets for illicit drugs, but more work is required to fully understand the extent to which buyers of drugs online are distributing them offl ine.

Finally, there are different arguments about the societal impacts of cryptomarkets. Some have argued that they actually reduce violence from the drug supply chain, which could be seen as a positive benefit. However, others believe that, by offering a new, often young, consumer base easy access to drug markets, cryptomarkets have largely negative consequences.

The role of the 'dark web' in the trade of illicit drugs 

A special session of the General Assembly took place in April revealing a growing divergence in the global drug policy landscape. Difficult negotiations resulted in a disappointing outcome document, perpetuating a siloed approach to drugs at the UN level. There is a clear need to realign international drug policies with the overarching 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, embedding the drugs issue comprehensively within the UN’s three pillars: development, human rights, and peace and security. The UNGASS process has helped to set the stage for more substantial changes in the near future, towards the next UN review in 2019.

Struggling to present an image of unity, the UNGASS on drugs in April 2016 failed to hide the increasing diversity among Member States. This undeniable reality, earlier described by the Executive Director of UNODC as ‘a very b-r-o-a-d consensus’, was reflected in a weak outcome document.

Although the timing of the UNGASS was prompted by ongoing and disproportionate suffering and violence from the ‘war on drugs’ in Latin America, as on previous occasions, the event did little to address underlying structural problems, including arms trafficking and money laundering.

Despite constructive inputs from a range of UN bodies, Member States and civil society organisations, the Vienna-dominated UNGASS preparatory process suppressed discussion that questioned the existing architecture of the UN drug control system. While containing some positive attributes in relation to access to controlled medicines, health-oriented interventions and proportional sentencing, the outcome document in the main supports the status quo and fails to refer explicitly to harm reduction, decriminalization or the abolition of the death penalty for drug offences.

An increasing point of tension within the drug control treaty framework, the issue of regulated cannabis markets, remained very much the ‘elephant in the room’ with efforts within the outcome document to dissipate pressure resulting in denial and confusion.

In spite of a growing need to address the fragmentary UN approach and the recent adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the outcome document did much to sustain a siloed approach to the drug issue.

The UNGASS process as a whole has set the stage for more substantial changes at the next high-level meeting in 2019, in relation to human rights, the Sustainable Development Goals, regulated cannabis markets and the creation of an expert advisory group to improve the functioning and coherence of the global drug control system.

UNGASS 2016: A broken or b-r-o-a-d consensus?

There is much research to suggest a considerable overlap between people experiencing precarious housing, and drug and alcohol misuse.

Linking client data from specialist homelessness services and alcohol and other drug treatment services, this report provides a picture of the intersection of these two issues on a national scale.

It reveals a vulnerable population, in which Indigenous Australians and experiences of domestic and family violence and mental health issues were all over-represented.

Their poorer drug treatment and housing outcomes highlight the level of difficulty faced in assisting these people to achieve long-term outcomes.

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

Exploring drug treatment and homelessness in Australia

“There are no drugs “in nature”,” Jacques Derrida once declared, “the concept of drugs is not a scientific concept, but is rather instituted on the basis of moral or political evaluation.”

In other words, to label a substance a “drug” is an evaluative rather than descriptive act, a form of decree which is usually “of a prohibitive nature”. Prior to, or outside of, these evaluations, there exist simply plants and chemicals whether naturally-occurring, processed or entirely synthetic which have a variety of properties when ingested by humans (poison, stimulant, sedative, nourishment, analgesic, hallucinogen, and so on).

The different labels we attach to them are human constructions, some of which are legal in character, some not. Contrary to much public and political discourse on the matter, these labels are not settled or universal but, rather, are historically and culturally contingent, that is, they change over time and vary from place to place. It is the historical contingency of the “drug” label that is the focus of this article.

The puzzle that is explored is highlighted by this observation from the late historian, Roy Porter: If you'd talked about the “drugs problem” two hundred years ago, no one would have known what you meant.

There was no notion then of “drugs”, in the sense of a small group of substances scientifically believed to be harmful because addictive or personality destroying, the availability of which is restricted by law.

The term “drugs” as a shorthand for a bunch of assorted narcotics is in fact a twentieth-century coinage: if you'd mentioned “drugs” to anyone in George III's time or in the Victorian era, they'd have thought you were referring to the remedies physicians prescribed and apothecaries made up.”

Inventing drugs: A genealogy of a regulatory concept

Over the last two decades South Africa has undergone a massive transformation. We have moved from being one of the most oppressive countries in the world ruled by the infamous apartheid regime, to having one of the world’s most progressive constitutions, recognising the human rights of all our people. Unfortunately we have lagged behind in the area of drug policy. Drug use is often featured in our headlines, and “substance abuse” is seen as one of the major causes of broken communities and increasing levels of crime and gangsterism. South African drug policy is guided by the National Drug Master Plan.

There is an undue emphasis on supply reduction and policing strategies to address demand reduction by targeting end users. These policies have resulted in significant harms to our communities in general and drug users specifically. Large portions of our most vulnerable populations are criminalised by their drug use and the stigma and discrimination entrenched by these policies limits access to health and other services. Despite the obvious harms and rights violations caused by our policies and associated drug-control measures, with the exception of the cannabis lobby, there was no credible civil society voice or initiatives motivating for progressive drug policy.

There have been no organised, sustained or collaborative efforts to advocate for the health and human rights of drug users. The popular narrative that drugs were the cause of the breakdown of communities, and by extension drug users should be criminalised, remained largely unchallenged in the mainstream. Internationally the imperative to limit the spread of HIV/AIDS has motivated services for drug users, and particularly injecting drug users. However, in South Africa people who inject drugs (PWID) where considered to be an insignificant minority and despite a commitment to Step Up Overview The Step Up Project, run by TB/HIV Care Association (THCA) and OUT Wellbeing, with support from CDC, PEPFAR and Mainline, aims to provide a package of mobile outreach HIV prevention and linkage to care services to PWID in selected areas of Cape Town, Durban and Pretoria.

This package of services is recommended by PEPFAR, WHO, UNODC and UNAIDS. It includes: HIV Counselling and testing; referrals and successful linkages to antiretroviral treatment; needle and syringe programmes, condom programs and IEC materials; screening and referral for the management of TB and STIs and where possible viral hepatitis and peer based outreach services. One of the major barriers has been the policy framework, hence the need for policy & advocacy initiatives. Page 6 of 52 achieve the goals of the Political Declaration on HIV, including the 90-90-90 target, there were no sustainable services for PWID.

With funding from PEPFAR/CDC, in 2014 TB/HIV Care Association launched the Step Up Project aimed at delivering the WHO/UNODC/UNAIDS recommended “comprehensive” package of HIV prevention services for PWID. The funding provided was limited to programme delivery and excluded funding for policy and advocacy work. The project has utilised a variety of consultative processes and continues to do so. Academic, experts, civil society and members of drug using communities have been, and continue to be included, in this process.

A number of intervention gaps have been identified. Some of the key gaps identified by the process were:

The high level of stigma, exclusion and human rights abuses that have significant effect on the rights and well-being of drug users in South Africa.

The contradictory policy legal frameworks that hinder the implementation of evidence based interventions for drug users.

Lack of evidence based harm reduction within the policy framework.

The lack of advocacy efforts around drug user rights and the development of effective drug policy.

The lack of drug user representative groups who could take part in advocacy efforts and policy debate. Mainline provided initial funding for human rights and advocacy work.

Policy advocacy and human rights report July 2015 – July 2016

This report by International Alert unpacks the nexus between conflict, drugs, crime and violence in three crucial contexts: Afghanistan, the border between Colombia and Peru, and Nigeria. Building on the political momentum in each country, this research aimed at clarifying the role that drug production and trafficking play in the political economy of the three contexts and at understanding whether a peacebuilding approach could bring new avenues and ideas to the conversation.

The findings point in the direction of a shift towards community-based and locally owned solutions, as well as towards more holistic approaches that fully understand the connections between poor government performance, corruption and drug trafficking, and the impact that existing policies have on those more vulnerable.

Rethinking drug policy from a peacebuilding perspective 

The National Drug Observatory (NDO) is a new institution comprising officers of the Ministry of Health and Quality of Life, other Ministries and NGOs as well as other stakeholders.

Given the general public interest in up to date data on the prevalence of drugs and drug issues, the NDO has taken all precautions in presenting data and information available as at 30th June 2016. This Report also makes reference to the drug situation in 2015.

Since no standard questionnaire or recording schedule has been specifically designed in the data collection exercise, the core of this report contains secondary data (i.e data already collected by organizations other than the NDO working group).

Care should be taken in the interpretation of indicators (except those based on previous surveys) as they are essentially of a “reported” nature.

This report covers drug-related issues like the trends and patterns of illicit drugs use and trafficking, legislation and strategies, enforcement of drug control law, injecting-drug use, drug and imprisonment, drug-related health problems, suspected drug use in educational institutions, drug dependence treatment, rehabilitation and prevention programmes amongst others.

In view of the novelty of the task of the NDO, capacity building has been conducted by Consultants from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes (UNODC).

National drug observatory report of the Republic of Mauritius

Decriminalisation of personal drug use and possession not only saves public money, it has significant public health benefits, according to a report prepared by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at UNSW.

The report, which is being issued by the Centre’s Drug Policy Modelling Program in advance of Thursday’s NSW Cross Party Harm Minimisation Summit, also finds that there is strong public support for decriminalisation approaches, such as directing users into treatment.

Co-author of the report, Dr Caitlin Hughes (pictured), a criminologist and drug policy specialist at the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, says that decriminalisation should not be confused with legalisation.

“Decriminalisation removes criminal penalties for use and possession by law or in practice. It does not provide a legal avenue to obtain drugs,” says Dr Hughes. “It is a sound and pragmatic policy, supported by research evidence, that can save public money and offer a more effective and humane response to drug use.”

Australia operates decriminalisation schemes in many states and territories and there has been strong public support for such schemes. Australia already has a mixture of de jure (in law) or de facto (in practice) schemes, yet many people continue to be arrested and sent to court for possessing only minor quantities of drugs, according to the report.

However Dr Hughes says: “There is a clear opportunity to expand decriminalisation of drug use in Australia and this would be sound evidence-informed drug policy supported by public opinion.”

The 2013 National Drug Strategy Household Survey found that a majority of Australians supported a variety of decriminalisation measures for people found in possession of small quantities of cannabis, ecstasy, heroin or methamphetamine. Just over 88 per cent of respondents supported decriminalisation of possession of cannabis for personal use, with 42 per cent believing cannabis users should be cautioned or no action taken. Around 65 per cent of Australians also favoured a decriminalisation approach to use and possession of small quantities of heroin or methamphetamine but were more likely to support users of these drugs being diverted into treatment programs.

“There is clearly a strong public health benefit to people who use drugs being diverted away from the criminal justice system and this is not a radical idea – it is already happening,” says Dr Hughes. “The research evidence also indicates that decriminalisation reduces costs to the criminal justice system and improves social outcomes, such as increasing the likelihood that people who use drugs remain in or enter the paid workforce.

“In contrast, there is no evidence that decriminalisation increases drug use or crime,” she adds.

Decriminalisation of drug use a sound and pragmatic public health policy, says National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre 

By Kristy Kruithof, Judith Aldridge, David Décary Hétu, Megan Sim, Elma Dujso, Stijn Hoorens

The potential role of the Internet in facilitating drugs trade first gained mass attention with the rise and fall of Silk Road; the first major online market place for illegal goods on the hidden web. After Silk Road was taken down by the FBI in October 2013, it was only a matter of weeks before copycats filled the void.

Today, there are around 50 so-called cryptomarkets and vendor shops where anonymous sellers and buyers find each other to trade illegal drugs, new psychoactive substances, prescription drugs and other goods and services. But it is not just the obscure parts of the Internet where drugs are on offer. There are numerous web shops, easily found by search engines, which offer new psychoactive substances, often labelled as 'research chemicals'.

The Netherlands occupies a crucial position in European illicit drug markets. Data from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction suggested it is the main producer of MDMA, ecstasy and herbal cannabis and a key distribution hub for cannabis resin and cocaine. Whether the pivotal role of the Netherlands also extends online, has yet been unclear.

The Netherlands Ministry of Security and Justice commissioned RAND Europe to provide a firmer evidence base to this phenomenon and, in particular, the role of the Netherlands. This report analyses the size and scope of Internet-facilitated drugs trade both on the so-called clear and hidden web, paying special attention to the Netherlands, and delineates potential avenues for law enforcement for detection and intervention.