The current state of drug policy debate

• Chinese version (PDF 446 KB)
• French version (PDF 183 KB)
• Russian version (PDF 332 KB)

Extract

The UNODC will try, throughout this period, to argue that encouraging progress has been achieved in relation to the objectives and goals of the UNGASS for 2008, as it did at the mid-term review in 2003. Now its line of defense is based on the fact that the world has achieved a market stabilization, thanks in its view, to all the measures which the member States have adopted in the context of the implementation of the Action Plans of the 1998 UNGASS. The vision they seek to promote is that without the strong commitment to the fight against drugs, agreed ten years ago, the world will suffer an illegal drugs epidemic comparable with the levels of consumption of alcohol and tobacco.

The lack of considerable advances by the 2008 deadline, in "eliminating or significantly reducing" the drug market, should cause a significant group of countries to question the current policies on drugs. These countries should bear in mind the fact that all the attempts to control this market by means of repressive measures have not managed to create a shortage of psychoactive substances or to stop the production of any of the substances (cocaine, ATS, cannabis) and in the case of opium/heroin, production has even doubled. Almost throughout the world it is easy to find these products, at lower prices than a decade ago. Furthermore, the anti-drug efforts have generated serous collateral damage in terms of the crisis in the prison system, and violations of human rights. It will be difficult to conclude that the world is on the right track and that there is no reason for a reformulation.

The real challenge in drug policy making is to find the optimal balance between protection of public health through certain controls, on one hand, and the negative consequences of overly repressive controls on the other. A growing group of countries – including some European ones – began, in the 1980s, to divert the focus away from the policy of zero tolerance, towards a better balance between repression and protection. Civil society began to organize itself in international networks – like the International Harm Reduction Association (IHRA) and the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC) – supporting a strategy of promoting a slow and gradual improvement in the current policies. The objective is to achieve a global system that can truly protect the well-being of humanity, which guarantees certain controls over potentially harmful substances, with sufficient flexibility, and which imposes limits on the level of repression meted out to users, farmers and small-scale drug traffickers. For this strategy of change, a series of principles emerged that could guide the policies in the right direction:

1) Evidence. The changes should be based on a thorough assessment of the policies, instead of being based on ideological principles. There are currently many studies on the policies which work and those which do not.

2) Differentiation. It is necessary to differentiate between substances, based on the damage they cause to health (the level of damage of cannabis is not the same as that of heroin), and between natural pants and their concentrated derivatives (coca in its natural form can be beneficial for health, while the consumption of its alkaloid - cocaine in concentrated form - can lead to problems), and thirdly, between predominantly recreational uses, and more problematic uses of drugs.

3) Harm reduction. A world without drugs will never exist. Little by little, the ideology of “zero tolerance” is being replaced by the principle of harm reduction, which offers a more pragmatic approach that favors policies capable of reducing drug associated damage as far as possible, for the consumer and for society in general.

4) Flexibility. Sociocultural differences also need to be taken into account. The norms that are established at global level should leave sufficient room for maneuver, enabling countries to adjust themselves to certain principles of national law, or to protect, for example, the rights of indigenous people to continue their traditional practices and customs.

5)Proportionality. Drug control should fully respect human rights, for which the sanctions should be in proportion to the crime. Imprisoning users for the mere fact of consumption, implementing criminal sanctions or forced eradication against farmers who have no other form of income, or issuing the death penalty for violation of the anti-drug laws, are all examples of disproportionality.

6) Participation. When formulating policies on drugs, there should be full participation by all the main players: farmers, users, health workers, etc.