In this report, the International Drug Policy Consortium offers recommendations based on evidence and examples of good practice to inform a shift in policy responses to drug use in Asia away from criminalisation and punishment, and towards public health and harm reduction. It describes effective approaches to the decriminalisation of drug use. It also discusses approaches implemented in Asia that have proven ineffective, such as the detention of people who use drugs in compulsory centres as a form of ‘rehabilitation’.

The report is intended as a resource for policy makers, legislators, communities of people who use drugs and civil society organisations in Asia. The overall goal of the report is to offer guidance on steps that countries can undertake to develop drug policies that achieve better public health outcomes, by shifting away from the criminalisation and punishment of people who use drugs. It also describes legal and policy responses to drugs that are not effective, such as the detention of people who use drugs in compulsory centres for drug users, forced urine testing, compulsory registration and other punitive measures.

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

A public health approach to drug use in Asia: Principles and practices for decriminalisation

On 24 November 2015, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) announced its final decision to place “naloxone when used for the treatment of opioid overdose” on Schedule 3, thereby allowing over-the-counter (OTC) purchase. This measure came into effect on 1 February 2016, making Australia the second country, after Italy (in 1995), to have naloxone formally available OTC.

With much recent media focus on problems due to crystalline methamphetamine use in Australia, few may be aware that deaths from opioid overdose have been increasing over recent years.Following the “heroin drought” of late 2000, accidental deaths from heroin and other opioids among Australians aged 15–54 years dropped from 1116 deaths in 1999 (10.19 deaths per 100 000 population) to 386 deaths in 2001 (3.46 deaths per 100 000 population). However, opioid-related deaths have been rising steadily since 2007 — the most recent confirmed data indicate that 617 Australians aged 15–54 years died in 2011 (4.95 deaths per 100 000 population). Estimates for 2012 and 2013 suggest that this trend continues.

Take-home naloxone (THN) programs are designed to help manage opioid overdose events in the pre-hospital setting.These programs involve training potential overdose witnesses (typically opioid users, and their friends and families) in overdose response (including naloxone administration) and then prescribing and distributing naloxone to potential overdose victims for later use in an overdose situation. Training typically includes education on risk factors for opioid overdose, signs of opioid overdose, basic life support and overdose response, including resuscitation techniques, calling for an ambulance, administration of naloxone, and post-naloxone management. Training addresses the possibility of rebound opioid toxicity due to the relatively short half-life of naloxone (mean, 60 min; range, 30–80 min)compared with many opioids and the need to monitor the person and administer another dose of naloxone if required. However, the evidence indicates that rebound toxicity is rare. To date, naloxone kits provided to trainees in Australian THN programs have typically comprised between 2 and 5 minijets of naloxone 400 μg/mL plus intramuscular needles, swabs, gloves and instructional materials.

Australia reschedules naloxone for opioid overdose

The General Assembly decided in its Resolution 69/200, that the UNGASS 2016 would have an inclusive preparatory process that includes extensive substantive consultations, allowing organs, entities and specialized agencies of the United Nations system, relevant international and regional organizations, civil society and other relevant stakeholders to fully contribute to the process, in accordance with relevant rules of procedure and established practice.

To that end, an Informal Interactive Stakeholder Consultation for the UNGASS 2016 was held on 10 February 2016 at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. The Consultation was an opportunity for all relevant stakeholders to contribute further to the ongoing preparatory process for UNGASS 2016 by sharing practical expertise and experiences from their work on the ground as an input for consideration by Member States in the negotiations of the outcome document. It also presented an opportunity for stakeholders to prepare for their contributions to the interactive multi-stakeholder round tables at UNGASS.

This report by the President of the General Assembly is a summary of key themes from the Informal Interactive Stakeholder Consultation in Support of the Preparatory Process for the UNGASS.


Summary of the President of the General Assembly on the informal Interactive Stakeholder Consultation in Support of the Preparatory Process for the UNGASS

HIV-related deaths and new HIV infections among people who inject drugs could be almost entirely eliminated by 2030 with just a tiny shift in global drug control spending. This is one finding of our report The Case for a Harm Reduction Decade.

The study uses data we have collected over the last 10 years for our biennial Global State of Harm Reduction reports to assess progress and reflect on challenges faced around the world. Using mathematical modelling, it then outlines the potential impact of increased investment in harm reduction on avoidable health-related harms associated with injecting drug use over the next decade and beyond.

It shows that the redirection of just 7.5% of current drug control spending by 2020 would achieve a 94% cut in new HIV infections among people who use drugs by 2030, and a 93% drop in HIV-related deaths. An estimated US$100 billion is currently spent on global drug enforcement and control, while only US$160 million is spent on harm reduction.

Over the last decade, harm reduction has proved to be an approach to drugs that saves lives, saves money, and helps respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of people who use drugs. If commitments can be made to the tiny shift in funding suggested by our report, this year’s United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs could mark the start of a Harm Reduction Decade, and by 2030 we could have seen HIV/AIDS virtually wiped out among people who inject drugs.

Click here to access the page and learn more about the 10 by 20 campaign.

The case for a harm reduction decade

This groundbreaking report has been published by an independent panel of experts set up by the Liberal Democrats. This report sets out how the legal production and supply of cannabis could work in the UK. It was established in the autumn by Liberal Democrat Health spokesperson Norman Lamb MP. The expert panel was chaired by Steve Rolles, Senior Policy Analyst from Transform Drug Policy Foundation.

A framework for a regulated market for cannabis in the UK: Recommendations from an expert panel

The sharing of injecting equipment is driving HIV and hepatitis C (HCV) transmission in many parts of the world. Roughly one third of new HIV infections outside sub-Saharan Africa are the result of unsafe injecting. In 2014 alone, an estimated 110,000 people who inject drugs were newly infected with HIV.

The evidence for the effectiveness of harm reduction interventions is described by UNAIDS as irrefutable and all relevant UN agencies now endorse a harm reduction approach to HIV and drug use. Cost-effective harm reduction programmes that use peer-based outreach and feature clean needle and syringe programmes, opiate substitution therapy and HIV testing and treatment are proven to be effective in reducing HIV transmission and other harms such as hepatitis C transmission, crime rates and overdose deaths.

Ending the HIV and hepatitis C epidemics among people who inject drugs

This time line draws on The Rise and Decline of Cannabis Prohibition that described the history of international control, how cannabis was included in the current UN drug control system and the subsequent defections by countries and states that have brought the international treaties to breaking point. As the UN gathers for a special session on drug policy in 2016, TNI is calling for a revision of the treaties to be based on scientific evidence and embodying principles of harm reduction and human rights.

Here some interesting facts that you can find on the time line

Cannabis was first described in a medical context by the Chinese emperor Shen-Nung in 2700 BC to treat "beri-beri, constipation, female weakness, gout, malaria, rheumatism and absent mindedness."

In 1378 AD Emir Soudom Sheikhouni of Joneima ordered all cannabis plants in his territory destroyed in an attempt to end the use of cannabis among poorer classes. Anyone caught eating cannabis would have their teeth pulled out. 15 years after this decree use of cannabis had only increased.

The Indian Hemp Drugs Comission report concluded in 1894 that cannabis "produces no injurious effects on the mind"; did not lead "to crime and violence"; and that "moderate use produces practically no ill effects." The report and its conclusions that "total prohibition of the cultivation of the hemp plant [...] is neither necessary nor expedient" were largely ignored by the international community.

In 1911 cannabis was raised as an issue at the International Opium Conference in The Hague. Many delegates were bewildered by its introduction in the discussions. However, the US supported the Italian delegation and a resolution was added to the Convention:"the Conference considers it desirable to study the question of Indian hemp from the statistical and scientific point of view, with the object of regulating its abuses, should the necessity thereof be felt, by international legislation or by an international agreement."

In 1976, Koos Zwart, the son of the Dutch minister of Public Health, broadcasted the prices per gram of the different cannabis varieties in prime radio time of the National Dutch VARA Radio in his weekly 'beursberichten'(stock news).

In December 2013 Uruguay becomes the first country in the world to legally regulate the cannabis market from seed to sale and is immediately denounced by the International Narcotics Board. Uruguay calls for an open and honest debate about international drug control policy.

Read these and many more interesting facts on the full time line »

This interactive timeline is based on TNI and the Global Drug Policy Observatory report, The Rise and Decline of Cannabis Prohibition.

The rise and decline of cannabis prohibition - Timeline 

UK and international evidence suggests that the prevalence of drug use, relative to that in the general population, is high among young adults, ‘clubbers’ (those who frequently use the night-time economy and dance venues/nightclubs) and lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) populations, and men who have sex with men (MSM*) in particular. This document focuses on LGBT populations and is intended to guide improved service and treatment planning. It describes patterns of club drug use among these sub-populations, as reported in the literature. It looks at the factors that may impact on the use of substances in LGBT populations and discusses drug-related and other harms associated with drug use among these populations, including high-risk sexual behaviours.

Why should service planning and development address the specific needs of LGBT populations? Given the impact of socio-economic and cultural determinants of the levels and patterns of substance use, it is no surprise that factors such as membership of minority socio-demographic groups are associated with unique patterns of substance use. Different sub-groups of the overall population often show unique patterns across a number of behaviours; substance use is no exception. These patterns provide an important context for the research evidence and for the delivery of appropriate and effective treatment.

It is also extremely important to avoid using this information to stigmatise, stereotype or pathologise LGBT populations, or to sensationalise the issue. While rates of drug use among LGBT people are higher than they are in the general population, just like general population the majority of LGBT and MSM do not use substances. Among those who do use substances, the majority do so in ways which are not associated with significant harm.

Discrimination and stigma experienced by minority groups are a key context to understand the lived experiences of such groups. The experience of health inequalities, including barriers to accessing health care, is often related to membership of particular socio-cultural groups. LGBT people are less likely than the general population to seek help from health or social care services, and are not likely to reveal their sexual identity to those providing their care.

It is also important to remember that LGBT people are not a homogeneous population. LGBT people in the UK are diverse, with some coming from black, Asian and other minority ethnic populations and some from other minority groups, such as people with disabilities. Such intersectionality is, in itself, a complex and under-researched area and therefore beyond the scope of this document. More research is needed to inform a treatment response.

Club drug use among lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) people

The Human Rights Council, in its resolution 28/28, decided to convene a panel discussion at its thirtieth session on the impact of the world drug problem on the enjoyment of human rights, informed by the findings contained in the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the study on the impact of the world drug problem on the enjoyment of human rights (A/HRC/30/65), and to have a constructive and inclusive dialogue on the issue with relevant stakeholders, including specialized United Nations agencies and civil society, and with the participation of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. The Council held the panel discussion on 28 September 2015, at its thirtieth session.

In its resolution 28/28, the Human Rights Council requested the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to prepare a report on the panel discussion in the form of a summary. The present report was prepared pursuant to that request.

The Deputy High Commissioner opened the panel discussion, which was moderated by the former President of Switzerland, Ruth Dreifuss. The panellists were Javier Andres Florez, Director of Drug Policy at the Ministry of Justice of Colombia; Ann Fordham, Executive Director of the International Drug Policy Consortium; Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou, Deputy Director of the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, Professor at the Graduate Institute in Geneva and Commissioner on the West Africa Commission on Drugs; Shekhar Saxena, Director of the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse of the World Health Organization; and Aldo Lale-Demoz, Deputy Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). In addition, Arthayudh Srisamoot, Ambassador of Thailand to the United Nations Office at Vienna and Chair of the fifty-eighth session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, participated in the panel discussion.

The present report is submitted pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 28/28, and provides a summary of the panel discussion on the impact of the world drug problem on the enjoyment of human rights, held on 28 September 2015, during the thirtieth session of the Council.

Outcome of the panel discussion on the impact of the world drug problem on the enjoyment of human rights - Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

This is the International Network of People who Use Drugs’ (INPUD) Consensus Statement on Drug Use Under Prohibition. It focusses on human rights, health, and the law in relation to people who use drugs. The document is informed by the perspective of those who are so catastrophically impacted by global prohibition and by the so-called ‘war on drugs’: people who use drugs themselves. It stems from four regional consultations conducted by the INPUD Secretariat in 2015 with representatives of 24 drug user organisations from 28 countries. Consultations took place in Dar es Salaam, Bangkok, London, and in Tbilisi, and we also conducted a virtual consultation.

This document highlights the outcomes of the war on drugs. It makes clear that the war on drugs is, in reality, a war on people who use drugs, and a war on the communities in which they live. It is a war that has had appalling impacts upon health, welfare, and human rights. Instead of laws and policies designed to prioritise health and safeguard wellbeing, people who use drugs are criminalised, and the drugs they use are criminalised and controlled. These have resulted in substantially creating and exacerbating the harms and risks associated with drug use. Though different contexts and regions are marked by varying legislation, policy, and understanding, there are considerable commonalities the world over in criminalising legislation, endemic stigma, and discrimination.

This Consensus Statement not only establishes the context of oppression and human rights violations in which people who use drugs live, but also sets out the imperative changes necessary to mitigate the harms and human rights violations to which they are subject. In short, therefore, each section of this document:

1. Sets out the current situation of people who use drugs in relation to a specific human right, and
2. Sets out requirements for this human right to be protected and realised, and for the health and wellbeing of people who use drugs to be prioritised.

This document asserts that people who use drugs are entitled to the recognition of their human rights.

This document asserts that the lives of people who use drugs are as valuable as the lives of all others, that their wellbeing and health is as important as that of all others.

This is a statement of essential demands. These demands must be met if the harms experienced by people who use drugs are to be ended.

Find below a video made by Drug Reporter for the launch of the Consensus Statement:

INPUD Consensus Statement on drug use under prohibition - Human rights, health, and the law

The global war on drugs has been fought for 50 years, without preventing the long-term trend of increasing drug production, supply and use. But beyond this failure to achieve its own stated aims, the drug war has also produced a range of serious, negative costs. Many of these costs have been identified by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) – the very UN agency that oversees the system responsible for them – and are described as the ‘unintended consequences’ of the war on drugs.1 They may have been unintended, but after more than 50 years, they can no longer be seen as unanticipated. These costs are also distinct from those relating to drug use, stemming as they do from the choice of a punitive enforcement-led approach.

This Count the Costs briefing explores how the UN seeks to promote the security of its member states through implementing a drug control system that treats the use of certain drugs as an ‘existential threat’ to society. The briefing will demonstrate, however, that this approach is fatally undermining international peace and security.

There is naturally overlap with other areas of the Count the Costs project, including: development, human rights, health, crime and economics.

For the full range of thematic briefings and the Alternative World Drug Report, please click here.

The war on drugs: Undermining peace and security

Based on its activities, INCB publishes an annual report that is submitted to ECOSOC through the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. The report provides a comprehensive overview of the drug control situation in various parts of the world. As an impartial body, INCB tries to identify and predict dangerous trends and suggests necessary measures to be taken. In its Annual Report, the Board makes recommendations to Governments and international organizations for improving the global drug control situation.

Publications