The drug war as a failure!!

[Jimmy 952]

Leading world politicians urge 'paradigm shift' on drugs policy

Kofi Annan, George Shultz and Richard Branson among those urging public health approach

Afghans harvest opium in a poppy field. A conference this week could change the way the drugs trade is approached. Photograph: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Former presidents, prime ministers, eminent economists and leading members of the business community will unite behind a call for a shift in global drug policy. The Global Commission on Drug Policy will host a press conference at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York to launch a report that describes the drug war as a failure and calls for a "paradigm shift" in approaching the issue.

Those backing the call include Ernesto Zedillo, former president of Mexico; George Papandreou, former prime minister of Greece; César Gaviria, former president of Colombia; Kofi Annan, former UN secretary general; Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former president of Brazil; George Shultz, former US secretary of state; Javier Solana, former EU high representative; Virgin tycoon Richard Branson; and Paul Volcker, former chairman of the US Federal Reserve.

The commission will call for drug policy to move from being focused on criminal justice towards a public health approach. The global advocacy organisation Avaaz, which has nine million members, will present a petition in support of the commission's recommendations to UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon.

The commission is the most distinguished group to call for such far-reaching changes in the way society deals with illicit drugs. Danny Kushlick, head of external affairs at Transform, the drug policy foundation that has consultative status with the UN, said current events, such as the cartel-related violence in Mexico, President Barack Obama's comments that it was "perfectly legitimate" to question whether the war on drugs was working, and the wider global economic crisis, had given calls for a comprehensive overhaul of the world's drugs policy a fresh impetus.

Kushlick described this week's conference as hugely significant. "What we have here is the greatest collection thus far of ex-presidents and prime ministers calling very clearly for decriminalisation and experiments with legal regulation," he said. "It will be a watershed moment."

Transform believes the case for overhauling the prohibition approach to drugs is now overwhelming. It quotes Nicholas Green, chairman of the Bar Council, who observed that drug-related crime costs the UK economy around £13bn a year. "Decriminalising personal use can have positive consequences; it can free up huge amounts of police resources, reduce crime and recidivism and improve public health," he said.

But while politicians no longer in office are vocal in calling for a change, incumbents appear less likely to back the idea of any radical shift in policy. In its 2002 review of UK drug policy, the parliamentary home affairs select committee, which included the prime minister, David Cameron, called for the government to "initiate a discussion" into the possibility of legalising and regulating drugs.

Despite the calls successive ministers have declined to endorse them.

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/29/drugs-trade-drugs

Peace & Love

Jimmy

[Jimmy 952]

The full report!!!!!

WAR

ON DRUGS

REPORT OF THE

GLOBAL COMMISSION

ON DRUG POLICY

JUNE 2011

COMMISSIONERS

Asma Jahangir, human rights activist, former

UN Special Rapporteur on Arbitrary, Extrajudicial and

Summary Executions, Pakistan

Carlos Fuentes, writer and public intellectual, Mexico

César Gaviria, former President of Colombia

Ernesto Zedillo, former President of Mexico

Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former President of

Brazil (chair)

George Papandreou, Prime Minister of Greece

George P. Shultz, former Secretary of State, United States

(honorary chair)

Javier Solana, former European Union High Representative

for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Spain

John Whitehead, banker and civil servant, chair of the

World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, United States

Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the United

Nations, Ghana

Louise Arbour, former UN High Commissioner for Human

Rights, President of the International Crisis Group, Canada

Maria Cattaui, Petroplus Holdings Board member,

former Secretary-General of the International Chamber of

Commerce, Switzerland

Mario Vargas Llosa, writer and public intellectual, Peru

Marion Caspers-Merk, former State Secretary at the

German Federal Ministry of Health

Michel Kazatchkine, executive director of the Global Fund

to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, France

Paul Volcker, former Chairman of the United States

Federal Reserve and of the Economic Recovery Board

Richard Branson, entrepreneur, advocate for

social causes, founder of the Virgin Group, co-founder

of The Elders, United Kingdom

Ruth Dreifuss, former President of Switzerland and

Minister of Home Affairs

Thorvald Stoltenberg, former Minister of Foreign Affairs

and UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Norway

REPORT OF THE

GLOBAL COMMISSION

ON DRUG POLICY

To learn more about the Commission, visit:

www.globalcommissionondrugs.org

Or email: declaration@globalcommissionondrugs.org

Global Commission on Drug Policy

The global war on drugs has failed, with

devastating consequences for individuals

and societies around the world. Fifty years

after the initiation of the UN Single

Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and

40 years after President Nixon launched

the US government’s war on drugs,

fundamental reforms in national and global

drug control policies are urgently needed.

Vast expenditures on criminalization and

repressive measures directed at producers,

traffickers and consumers of illegal drugs

have clearly failed to effectively curtail

supply or consumption. Apparent victories

in eliminating one source or trafficking

organization are negated almost instantly

by the emergence of other sources and

traffickers. Repressive efforts directed at

consumers impede public health measures

to reduce HIV/AIDS, overdose fatalities

and other harmful consequences of

drug use. Government expenditures on

futile supply reduction strategies and

incarceration displace more cost-effective

and evidence-based investments in

demand and harm reduction.

Our principles and recommendations can

be summarized as follows:

End the criminalization, marginalization

and stigmatization of people who use drugs

but who do no harm to others. Challenge

rather than reinforce common misconceptions

about drug markets, drug use and

drug dependence.

Encourage experimentation by governments

with models of legal regulation of drugs to

undermine the power of organized crime

and safeguard the health and security of

their citizens. This recommendation applies

especially to cannabis, but we also encourage

other experiments in decriminalization and

legal regulation that can accomplish these

objectives and provide models for others.

Offer health and treatment services to those

in need. Ensure that a variety of treatment

modalities are available, including not just

methadone and buprenorphine treatment but

also the heroin-assisted treatment programs

that have proven successful in many European

countries and Canada. Implement syringe

access and other harm reduction measures

that have proven effective in reducing

transmission of HIV and other blood-borne

infections as well as fatal overdoses. Respect

the human rights of people who use drugs.

Abolish abusive practices carried out in the

name of treatment – such as forced detention,

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2

Global Commission on Drug Policy

forced labor, and physical or psychological

abuse – that contravene human rights

standards and norms or that remove the

right to self-determination.

Apply much the same principles and

policies stated above to people involved

in the lower ends of illegal drug markets,

such as farmers, couriers and petty sellers.

Many are themselves victims of violence

and intimidation or are drug dependent.

Arresting and incarcerating tens of millions

of these people in recent decades has filled

prisons and destroyed lives and families

without reducing the availability of illicit

drugs or the power of criminal organizations.

There appears to be almost no limit to

the number of people willing to engage in

such activities to better their lives, provide

for their families, or otherwise escape

poverty. Drug control resources are better

directed elsewhere.

Invest in activities that can both prevent

young people from taking drugs in the

first place and also prevent those who do

use drugs from developing more serious

problems. Eschew simplistic ‘just say no’

messages and ‘zero tolerance’ policies

in favor of educational efforts grounded

in credible information and prevention

programs that focus on social skills and peer

influences. The most successful prevention

efforts may be those targeted at specific

at-risk groups.

Focus repressive actions on violent

criminal organizations, but do so in ways

that undermine their power and reach

while prioritizing the reduction of violence

and intimidation. Law enforcement

efforts should focus not on reducing drug

markets per se but rather on reducing their

harms to individuals, communities and

national security.

Begin the transformation of the global

drug prohibition regime. Replace drug

policies and strategies driven by ideology

and political convenience with fiscally

responsible policies and strategies

grounded in science, health, security and

human rights – and adopt appropriate

criteria for their evaluation. Review the

scheduling of drugs that has resulted

in obvious anomalies like the flawed

categorization of cannabis, coca leaf and

MDMA. Ensure that the international

conventions are interpreted and/or revised

to accommodate robust experimentation

with harm reduction, decriminalization and

legal regulatory policies.

Break the taboo on debate and reform.

The time for action is now.

3

The global war on drugs has failed. When the United

Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs came into

being 50 years ago, and when President Nixon launched the

US government’s war on drugs 40 years ago, policymakers

believed that harsh law enforcement action against those

involved in drug production, distribution and use would

lead to an ever-diminishing market in controlled drugs

such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis, and the eventual

achievement of a ‘drug free world’. In practice, the global

scale of illegal drug markets – largely controlled by

organized crime – has grown dramatically over this period.

While accurate estimates of global consumption across the

entire 50-year period are not available, an analysis of the

last 10 years alone1,2,3,4 shows a large and growing market.

(See chart above.)

In spite of the increasing evidence that current policies are

not achieving their objectives, most policymaking bodies

at the national and international level have tended to avoid

open scrutiny or debate on alternatives.

This lack of leadership on drug policy has prompted the

establishment of our Commission, and leads us to our view

that the time is now right for a serious, comprehensive

and wide-ranging review of strategies to respond to the

drug phenomenon. The starting point for this review is

the recognition of the global drug problem as a set of

interlinked health and social challenges to be managed,

rather than a war to be won.

Commission members have agreed on four core principles

that should guide national and international drug policies

and strategies, and have made eleven recommendations

for action.

INTRODUCTION

UNITED NATIONS ESTIMATES OF ANNUAL DRUG

CONSUMPTION, 1998 TO 2008

Cannabis

147.4 million

160 million

8.5%

Cocaine

13.4 million

17 million

27%

Opiates

12.9 million

17.35 million

34.5%

1998

2008

% Increase

4

1. Drug policies must be based on solid empirical and

scientific evidence. The primary measure of success

should be the reduction of harm to the health,

security and welfare of individuals and society.

In the 50 years since the United Nations initiated a truly

global drug prohibition system, we have learned much

about the nature and patterns of drug production,

distribution, use and dependence, and the effectiveness

of our attempts to reduce these problems. It might have

been understandable that the architects of the system

would place faith in the concept of eradicating drug

production and use (in the light of the limited evidence

available at the time). There is no excuse, however, for

ignoring the evidence and experience accumulated

since then. Drug policies and strategies at all levels too

often continue to be driven by ideological perspectives,

or political convenience, and pay too little attention

to the complexities of the drug market, drug use and

drug addiction.

Effective policymaking requires a clear articulation of the

policy’s objectives. The 1961 UN Single Convention on

Narcotic Drugs made it clear that the ultimate objective

of the system was the improvement of the ‘health and

welfare of mankind’.

This reminds us that drug policies were initially

developed and implemented in the hope of achieving

outcomes in terms of a reduction in harms to individuals

and society – less crime, better health, and more

economic and social development. However, we have

primarily been measuring our success in the war on

drugs by entirely different measures – those that report

on processes, such as the number of arrests, the

amounts seized, or the harshness of punishments. These

indicators may tell us how tough we are being, but they

do not tell us how successful we are in improving the

‘health and welfare of mankind’.

2. Drug policies must be based on human rights

and public health principles. We should end the

stigmatization and marginalization of people who

use certain drugs and those involved in the lower

levels of cultivation, production and distribution,

and treat people dependent on drugs as patients,

not criminals.

Certain fundamental principles underpin all aspects of

national and international policy. These are enshrined

in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and many

international treaties that have followed. Of particular

relevance to drug policy are the rights to life, to health,

to due process and a fair trial, to be free from torture

or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, from slavery,

and from discrimination. These rights are inalienable,

and commitment to them takes precedence over other

international agreements, including the drug control

conventions. As the UN High Commissioner for Human

Rights, Navanethem Pillay, has stated, “Individuals

who use drugs do not forfeit their human rights. Too

often, drug users suffer discrimination, are forced to

accept treatment, marginalized and often harmed by

approaches which over-emphasize criminalization and

punishment while under-emphasizing harm reduction

and respect for human rights.”5

A number of well-established and proven public

health measures6,7 (generally referred to as harm

reduction, an approach that includes syringe access and

treatment using the proven medications methadone or

buprenorphine) can minimize the risk of drug overdose

deaths and the transmission of HIV and other blood-

borne infections.8 However, governments often do not

fully implement these interventions, concerned that by

improving the health of people who use drugs, they

are undermining a ‘tough on drugs’ message. This is

illogical – sacrificing the health and welfare of one group

of citizens when effective health protection measures are

available is unacceptable, and increases the risks faced

by the wider community.

PRINCIPLES

5

Countries that implemented harm reduction and public

health strategies early have experienced consistently low

rates of HIV transmission among people who inject drugs.

Similarly, countries that responded to increasing HIV

prevalence among drug users by introducing harm reduction

programs have been successful in containing and reversing

the further spread of HIV. On the other hand, many countries

that have relied on repression and deterrence as a response

to increasing rates of drug-related HIV transmission are

experiencing the highest rates of HIV among drug using

populations.10,11,12

An indiscriminate approach to ‘drug trafficking’ is similarly

problematic. Many people taking part in the drug market are

themselves the victims of violence and intimidation, or are

dependent on drugs. An example of this phenomenon are

the drug ‘mules’ who take the most visible and risky roles in

the supply and delivery chain. Unlike those in charge of drug

trafficking organizations, these individuals do not usually have

an extensive and violent criminal history, and some engage

in the drug trade primarily to get money for their own drug

dependence. We should not treat all those arrested for

trafficking as equally culpable – many are coerced into their

actions, or are driven to desperate measures through their

own addiction or economic situation. It is not appropriate to

punish such individuals in the same way as the members of

violent organized crime groups who control the market.

Finally, many countries still react to people dependent on

drugs with punishment and stigmatization. In reality, drug

dependence is a complex health condition that has a mixture

of causes – social, psychological and physical (including, for

example, harsh living conditions, or a history of personal

trauma or emotional problems). Trying to manage this

complex condition through punishment is ineffective – much

greater success can be achieved by providing a range of

evidence-based drug treatment services. Countries that have

treated citizens dependent on drugs as patients in need of

treatment, instead of criminals deserving of punishment, have

demonstrated extremely positive results in crime reduction,

health improvement, and overcoming dependence.

PRINCIPLES

(Continued)

IMPACT OF DRUG POLICIES

ON RECENT HIV PREVALENCE

AMONG PEOPLE WHO

INJECT DRUGS9

Sample of countries that have consistently

implemented comprehensive harm reduction

strategies:

UK

Switzerland

Germany

Australia

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

% HIV prevalence among people who inject drugs

Sample of countries that have introduced harm

reduction strategies partially, or late in the

progress of the epidemic:

USA

Portugal

Malaysia

France

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

% HIV prevalence among people who inject drugs

Sample of countries that have consistently

resisted large scale implementation of harm

reduction strategies, despite the presence of

drug injecting and sharing:

Thailand

Russia

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

% HIV prevalence among people who inject drugs

6

PATIENTS NOT CRIMINALS:

A MORE HUMANE AND EFFECTIVE APPROACH

Case Study One: Switzerland13

In response to severe and highly visible drug

problems that developed across the country in

the 1980s, Switzerland implemented a new set of

policies and programs (including heroin substitution

programs) based on public health instead of

criminalization. The consistent implementation

of this policy has led to an overall reduction in

the number of people addicted to heroin as well

as a range of other benefits. A key study14

concluded that:

“Heroin substitution targeted hard-core

problematic users (heavy consumers) – assuming

that 3,000 addicts represent 10 percent to

15 percent of Switzerland’s heroin users that may

account for 30 percent to 60 percent of the demand

for heroin on illegal markets. Heavily engaged in

both drug dealing and other forms of crime, they

also served as a link between wholesalers and users.

As these hard-core users found a steady, legal

means for their addiction, their illicit drug use was

reduced as well as their need to deal in heroin

and engage in other criminal activities.

The heroin substitution program had three effects

on the drug market:

• It substantially reduced the consumption among

the heaviest users, and this reduction in demand

affected the viability of the market. (For example,

the number of new addicts registered in Zurich

in 1990 was 850. By 2005, the number had

fallen to 150.)

• It reduced levels of other criminal activity

associated with the market. (For example, there

was a 90 percent reduction in property crimes

committed by participants in the program.)

• By removing local addicts and dealers, Swiss casual

users found it difficult to make contact with sellers.”

Case Study Two: United Kingdom15

Research carried out in the UK into the effects

of their policy of diversion from custody into

treatment programs clearly demonstrated a

reduction in offending following treatment

intervention. In addition to self-reports, the

researchers in this case also referred to police

criminal records data. The research shows

that the numbers of charges brought against

1,476 drug users in the years before and after

entering treatment reduced by 48 percent.

Case Study Three: The Netherlands16,17,18

Of all EU-15 countries, the percentage of people

who inject heroin is the lowest in the Netherlands

and there is no new influx of problematic users.

Heroin has lost its appeal to the mainstream youth

and is considered a ‘dead-end street drug’.

The number of problematic heroin users has

dropped significantly and the average age of users

has risen considerably. Large-scale, low-threshold

drug treatment and harm reduction services

include syringe access and the prescription of

methadone and heroin under strict conditions.

Medically prescribed heroin has been found

in the Netherlands to reduce petty crime and

public nuisance, and to have positive effects on

the health of people struggling with addiction.

In 2001, the estimated number of people in the

Netherlands dependent on heroin was 28-30,000.

By 2008, that number had fallen to 18,000.

The Dutch population of opiate users is in the

process of aging – the proportion of young

opiate users (aged 15-29) receiving treatment for

addiction has also declined.

9

3. The development and implementation of drug

policies should be a global shared responsibility,

but also needs to take into consideration diverse

political, social and cultural realities. Policies should

respect the rights and needs of people affected

by production, trafficking and consumption, as

explicitly acknowledged in the 1988 Convention

on Drug Trafficking.

The UN drug control system is built on the idea that

all governments should work together to tackle drug

markets and related problems. This is a reasonable

starting point, and there is certainly a responsibility to

be shared between producing, transit and consuming

countries (although the distinction is increasingly blurred,

as many countries now experience elements of all three).

However, the idea of shared responsibility has too often

become a straitjacket that inhibits policy development

and experimentation. The UN (through the International

Narcotics Control Board), and in particular the US

(notably through its ‘certification’ process), have worked

strenuously over the last 50 years to ensure that all

countries adopt the same rigid approach to drug policy

– the same laws, and the same tough approach to their

enforcement. As national governments have become

more aware of the complexities of the problems, and

options for policy responses in their own territories,

many have opted to use the flexibilities within the

Conventions to try new strategies and programs, such as

decriminalization initiatives or harm reduction programs.

When these involve a more tolerant approach to drug

use, governments have faced international diplomatic

pressure to ‘protect the integrity of the Conventions’,

even when the policy is legal, successful and supported

in the country.

A current example of this process (what may be described

as ‘drug control imperialism’), can be observed with the

proposal by the Bolivian government to remove the

practice of coca leaf chewing from the sections of the

1961 Convention that prohibit all non-medical uses.

Despite the fact that successive studies have shown19 that

the indigenous practice of coca leaf chewing is associated

with none of the harms of international cocaine markets,

and that a clear majority of the Bolivian population (and

neighboring countries) support this change, many of the

rich ‘cocaine consumer’ countries (led by the US) have

formally objected to the amendment.20

The idea that the international drug control system is

immutable, and that any amendment – however reasonable

or slight – is a threat to the integrity of the entire system,

is short-sighted. As with all multilateral agreements, the

drug conventions need to be subject to constant review

and modernization in light of changing and variable

circumstances. Specifically, national governments must

be enabled to exercise the freedom to experiment with

responses more suited to their circumstances. This analysis

and exchange of experiences is a crucial element of the

process of learning about the relative effectiveness of

different approaches, but the belief that we all need to have

exactly the same laws, restrictions and programs has been

an unhelpful restriction.

PRINCIPLES

(Continued)

8

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

The implementation of the war on drugs has generated

widespread negative consequences for societies in

producer, transit and consumer countries. These

negative consequences were well summarized by the

former Executive Director of the United Nations Office

on Drugs and Crime, Antonio Maria Costa, as falling into

five broad categories:

1. The growth of a ‘huge criminal black market’, financed

by the risk-escalated profits of supplying international

demand for illicit drugs.

2. Extensive policy displacement, the result of using scarce

resources to fund a vast law enforcement effort intended

to address this criminal market.

3. Geographical displacement, often known as ‘the balloon

effect’, whereby drug production shifts location to avoid

the attentions of law enforcement.

4. Substance displacement, or the movement of consumers

to new substances when their previous drug of choice

becomes difficult to obtain, for instance through law

enforcement pressure.

5. The perception and treatment of drug users, who are

stigmatized, marginalized and excluded.21

4. Drug policies must be pursued in a comprehensive

manner, involving families, schools, public health

specialists, development practitioners and civil society

leaders, in partnership with law enforcement agencies

and other relevant governmental bodies.

With their strong focus on law enforcement and

punishment, it is not surprising that the leading

institutions in the implementation of the drug control

system have been the police, border control and military

authorities directed by Ministries of Justice, Security

or Interior. At the multilateral level, regional or United

Nations structures are also dominated by these interests.

Although governments have increasingly recognized that

law enforcement strategies for drug control need to be

integrated into a broader approach with social and public

health programs, the structures for policymaking, budget

allocation, and implementation have not modernized at

the same pace.

These institutional dynamics obstruct objective and

evidence-based policymaking. This is more than

a theoretical problem – repeated studies22,23 have

demonstrated that governments achieve much greater

financial and social benefit for their communities by

investing in health and social programs, rather than

investing in supply reduction and law enforcement activities.

However, in most countries, the vast majority of available

resources are spent on the enforcement of drug laws and

the punishment of people who use drugs.24

The lack of coherence is even more marked at the

United Nations. The development of the global drug

control regime involved the creation of three bodies to

oversee the implementation of the conventions – the UN

Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the International

Narcotics Control Board (INCB), and the Commission on

Narcotic Drugs (CND). This structure is premised on the

notion that international drug control is primarily a fight

against crime and criminals. Unsurprisingly, there is a

built-in vested interest in maintaining the law enforcement

focus and the senior decisionmakers in these bodies have

traditionally been most familiar with this framework.

Now that the nature of the drug policy challenge has

changed, the institutions must follow. Global drug policy

should be created from the shared strategies of all

interested multilateral agencies – UNODC of course, but

also UNAIDS, WHO, UNDP, UNICEF, UN Women, the

World Bank, and the Office of the High Commissioner on

Human Rights. The marginalization of the World Health

Organization is particularly worrisome given the fact that

it has been given a specific mandate under the drug

control treaties.

9

1. Break the taboo. Pursue an open debate

and promote policies that effectively reduce

consumption, and that prevent and reduce harms

related to drug use and drug control policies.

Increase investment in research and analysis into

the impact of different policies and programs.25

Political leaders and public figures should have the

courage to articulate publicly what many of them

acknowledge privately: that the evidence

overwhelmingly demonstrates that repressive

strategies will not solve the drug problem, and

that the war on drugs has not, and cannot, be won.

Governments do have the power to pursue a mix of

policies that are appropriate to their own situation,

and manage the problems caused by drug markets

and drug use in a way that has a much more positive

impact on the level of related crime, as well as social

and health harms.

2. Replace the criminalization and punishment of

people who use drugs with the offer of health and

treatment services to those who need them.

A key idea behind the ‘war on drugs’ approach

was that the threat of arrest and harsh punishment

would deter people from using drugs. In practice,

this hypothesis has been disproved – many countries

that have enacted harsh laws and implemented

widespread arrest and imprisonment of drug users and

low-level dealers have higher levels of drug use and

related problems than countries with more tolerant

approaches. Similarly, countries that have introduced

decriminalization, or other forms of reduction in arrest

or punishment, have not seen the rises in drug use or

dependence rates that had been feared.

DECRIMINALIZATION INITIATIVES

DO NOT RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT

INCREASES IN DRUG USE

Portugal

In July 2001, Portugal became the first European country

to decriminalize the use and possession of all illicit drugs.

Many observers were critical of the policy, believing that

it would lead to increases in drug use and associated

problems. Dr. Caitlin Hughes of the University of New

South Wales and Professor Alex Stevens of the University

of Kent have undertaken detailed research into the effects

of decriminalization in Portugal. Their recently published

findings26 have shown that this was not the case, replicating

the conclusions of their earlier study27 and that of the

CATO Institute28.

Hughes and Stevens’ 2010 report detects a slight increase

in overall rates of drug use in Portugal in the 10 years since

decriminalization, but at a level consistent with other similar

countries where drug use remained criminalized. Within this

general trend, there has also been a specific decline in the

use of heroin, which was in 2001 the main concern of the

Portuguese government. Their overall conclusion is that

the removal of criminal penalties, combined with the use

of alternative therapeutic responses to people struggling

with drug dependence, has reduced the burden of drug law

enforcement on the criminal justice system and the overall

level of problematic drug use.

Comparing Dutch and US Cities

A study by Reinarman, et. al. compared the very

different regulatory environments of Amsterdam, whose

liberal “cannabis cafe” policies (a form of de facto

decriminalization) go back to the 1970s, and San Francisco,

in the US, which criminalizes cannabis users. The researchers

wished to examine whether the more repressive policy

environment of San Francisco deterred citizens from

smoking cannabis or delayed the onset of use. They found

that it did not, concluding that:

“Our findings do not support claims that criminalization

reduces cannabis use and that decriminalization increases

cannabis use... With the exception of higher drug use in

San Francisco, we found strong similarities across both cities.

We found no evidence to support claims that criminalization

reduces use or that decriminalization increases use.”29

RECOMMENDATIONS

10

Australia

The state of Western Australia introduced a

decriminalization scheme for cannabis in 2004, and

researchers evaluated its impact by comparing prevalence

trends in that state with trends in the rest of the country.

The study was complicated by the fact that it took place in

a period when the use of cannabis was in general decline

across the country. However, the researchers found that

this downward trend was the same in Western Australia,

which had replaced criminal sanctions for the use or

possession of cannabis with administrative penalties,

typically the receipt of a police warning called a ‘notice

of infringement’. The authors state:

“The cannabis use data in this study suggest that,

unlike the predictions of those public commentators

who were critical of the scheme, cannabis use in

Western Australia appears to have continued to decline

despite the introduction of the Cannabis Infringement

Notice Scheme.”30

Comparisons Between Different States in the US

Although cannabis possession is a criminal offense under

US federal laws, individual states have varying policies

toward possession of the drug. In the 2008 Report of

the Cannabis Commission convened by the Beckley

Foundation, the authors reviewed research that had been

undertaken to compare cannabis prevalence in those

states that had decriminalized with those that maintained

criminal punishments for possession. They concluded that:

“Taken together, these four studies indicated that states

which introduced reforms did not experience greater

increases in cannabis use among adults or adolescents.

Nor did surveys in these states show more favorable

attitudes towards cannabis use than those states which

maintained strict prohibition with criminal penalties.”31

In the light of these experiences, it is clear that the

policy of harsh criminalization and punishment of drug

use has been an expensive mistake, and governments

should take steps to refocus their efforts and resources

on diverting drug users into health and social care

services. Of course, this does not necessarily mean that

sanctions should be removed altogether – many drug

users will also commit other crimes for which they need

to be held responsible – but the primary reaction to drug

possession and use should be the offer of appropriate

advice, treatment and health services to individuals who

need them, rather than expensive and counterproductive

criminal punishments.

3. Encourage experimentation by governments

with models of legal regulation of drugs (with

cannabis, for example) that are designed to

undermine the power of organized crime and

safeguard the health and security of their citizens.

The debate on alternative models of drug market

regulation has too often been constrained by false

dichotomies – tough or soft, repressive or liberal. In fact,

we are all seeking the same objective – a set of drug

policies and programs that minimize health and social

harms, and maximize individual and national security.

It is unhelpful to ignore those who argue for a taxed and

regulated market for currently illicit drugs. This is a

policy option that should be explored with the same

rigor as any other.32

If national governments or local administrations feel that

decriminalization policies will save money and deliver

better health and social outcomes for their communities,

or that the creation of a regulated market may reduce

the power of organized crime and improve the security

of their citizens, then the international community should

support and facilitate such policy experiments and learn

from their application.

Similarly, national authorities and the UN need to review

the scheduling of different substances. The current

schedules, designed to represent the relative risks and

harms of various drugs, were set in place 50 years ago

when there was little scientific evidence on which to

base these decisions. This has resulted in some obvious

anomalies – cannabis and coca leaf, in particular, now

seem to be incorrectly scheduled and this needs to

be addressed.

11

In a report published by The Lancet in 2007, a team of

scientists33 attempted to rank a range of psychoactive

drugs according to the actual and potential harms they

could cause to society. The graph at right summarizes

their findings and contrasts them with the seriousness

with which the drugs are treated within the global

drug control system.

While these are crude assessments, they clearly

show that the categories of seriousness ascribed to

various substances in international treaties need to be

reviewed in the light of current scientific knowledge.

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN

LEVELS OF CONTROL AND LEVELS OF HARM

INDEPENDENT EXPERT

ASSESSMENTS OF RISK

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Heroin

Cocaine

Barbiturates

Alcohol

Ketamine

Benzodiazepines

Amphetamine

Tobacco

Buprenorphine

Cannabis

Solvents

LSD

Ritalin

Anabolic Steroids

GHB

Ecstasy

Khat

UN CLASSIFICATION

Most Dangerous

Moderate Risk

Low Risk

Not Subject to International Control

10

4. Establish better metrics, indicators and goals to

measure progress.

The current system of measuring success in the drug

policy field is fundamentally flawed.34 The impact of

most drug strategies are currently assessed by the level

of crops eradicated, arrests, seizures and punishments

applied to users, growers and dealers. In fact, arresting

and punishing drug users does little to reduce levels

of drug use, taking out low-level dealers simply creates

a market opportunity for others, and even the largest

and most successful operations against organized

criminals (that take years to plan and implement) have

been shown to have, at best, a marginal and short-

lived impact on drug prices and availability. Similarly,

eradication of opium, cannabis or coca crops merely

displaces illicit cultivation to other areas.

A new set of indicators is needed to truly show the

outcomes of drug policies, according to their harms or

benefits for individuals and communities – for example,

the number of victims of drug market-related violence

and intimidation; the level of corruption generated

by drug markets; the level of petty crime committed

by dependent users; levels of social and economic

development in communities where drug production,

selling or consumption are concentrated; the level of

drug dependence in communities; the level of overdose

deaths; and the level of HIV or hepatitis C infection

among drug users. Policymakers can and should

articulate and measure the outcome of these objectives.

The expenditure of public resources should therefore

be focused on activities that can be shown to have

a positive impact on these objectives. In the current

circumstances in most countries, this would mean

increased investment in health and social programs,

and improved targeting of law enforcement resources

to address the violence and corruption associated with

drug markets.35 In a time of fiscal austerity, we can no

longer afford to maintain multibillion dollar investments

that have largely symbolic value.

5. Challenge, rather than reinforce, common

misconceptions about drug markets, drug use

and drug dependence.

Currently, too many policymakers reinforce the idea

that all people who use drugs are ‘amoral addicts’, and

all those involved in drug markets are ruthless criminal

masterminds. The reality is much more complex.

The United Nations makes a conservative estimate

that there are currently 250 million illicit drug users in

the world, and that there are millions more involved

in cultivation, production and distribution. We simply

cannot treat them all as criminals.

To some extent, policymakers’ reluctance to

acknowledge this complexity is rooted in their

understanding of public opinion on these issues.

Many ordinary citizens do have genuine fears about the

negative impacts of illegal drug markets, or the behavior

of people dependent on, or under the influence of,

illicit drugs. These fears are grounded in some general

assumptions about people who use drugs and drug

markets, that government and civil society experts need

to address by increasing awareness of some established

(but largely unrecognized) facts. For example:

• The majority of people who use drugs do not fit the

stereotype of the ‘amoral and pitiful addict’. Of the

estimated 250 million drug users worldwide, the United

Nations estimates that less than 10 percent can be

classified as dependent, or ‘problem drug users’.36

• Most people involved in the illicit cultivation of coca,

opium poppy, or cannabis are small farmers struggling

to make a living for their families. Alternative livelihood

opportunities are better investments than destroying

their only available means of survival.

• The factors that influence an individual’s decision to

start using drugs have more to do with fashion, peer

influence, and social and economic context, than with

the drug’s legal status, risk of detection, or government

prevention messages.37, 38

• The factors that contribute to the development of

problematic or dependent patterns of use have more

to do with childhood trauma or neglect, harsh living

conditions, social marginalization, and emotional

problems, rather than moral weakness or hedonism.39

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Continued)

13

• It is not possible to frighten or punish someone out of drug

dependence, but with the right sort of evidence-based

treatment, dependent users can change their behavior and

be active and productive members of the community.40

• Most people involved in drug trafficking are petty dealers

and not the stereotyped gangsters from the movies – the

vast majority of people imprisoned for drug dealing or

trafficking are ‘small fish’ in the operation (often coerced

into carrying or selling drugs), who can easily be replaced

without disruption to the supply.41,42

A more mature and balanced political and media discourse

can help to increase public awareness and understanding.

Specifically, providing a voice to representatives of farmers,

users, families and other communities affected by drug

use and dependence can help to counter myths and

misunderstandings.

6. Countries that continue to invest mostly in a law

enforcement approach (despite the evidence) should

focus their repressive actions on violent organized

crime and drug traffickers, in order to reduce the

harms associated with the illicit drug market.

The resources of law enforcement agencies can be much

more effectively targeted at battling the organized crime

groups that have expanded their power and reach on the

back of drug market profits. In many parts of the world,

the violence, intimidation and corruption perpetrated

by these groups is a significant threat to individual and

national security and to democratic institutions, so efforts

by governments and law enforcement agencies to curtail

their activities remain essential.

However, there is a need to review our tactics in this fight.

There is a plausible theory put forward by MacCoun and

Reuter43 that suggests that supply reduction efforts are

most effective in a new and undeveloped market, where

the sources of supply are controlled by a small number

of trafficking organizations. Where these conditions exist,

appropriately designed and targeted law enforcement

operations have the potential to stifle the emergence of

new markets. We face such a situation now in West Africa.

On the other hand, where drug markets are diverse and

well-established, preventing drug use by stopping supply

is not a realistic objective.

DRUGS IN WEST AFRICA:

RESPONDING TO THE GROWING

CHALLENGE OF NARCOTRAFFIC

AND ORGANIZED CRIME

In just a few years, West Africa has become a major transit

and re-packaging hub for cocaine following a strategic shift

of Latin American drug syndicates toward the European

market. Profiting from weak governance, endemic poverty,

instability and ill-equipped police and judicial institutions,

and bolstered by the enormous value of the drug trade,

criminal networks have infiltrated governments, state

institutions and the military. Corruption and money

laundering, driven by the drug trade, pervert local politics

and skew local economies.

A dangerous scenario is emerging as narco-traffic threatens

to metastasize into broader political and security challenges.

Initial international responses to support regional and

national action have not been able to reverse this trend.

New evidence44 suggests that criminal networks are

expanding operations and strengthening their positions

through new alliances, notably with armed groups. Current

responses need to be urgently scaled up and coordinated

under West African leadership, with international financial

and technical support. Responses should integrate

law enforcement and judicial approaches with social,

development and conflict prevention policies – and they

should involve governments and civil society alike.

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Continued)

14

We also need to recognize that it is the illicit nature of the

market that creates much of the market-related violence

– legal and regulated commodity markets, while not

without problems, do not provide the same opportunities

for organized crime to make vast profits, challenge the

legitimacy of sovereign governments, and, in some cases,

fund insurgency and terrorism.

This does not necessarily mean that creating a legal

market is the only way to undermine the power and

reach of drug trafficking organizations. Law enforcement

strategies can explicitly attempt to manage and shape

the illicit market by, for example, creating the conditions

where small-scale and private ‘friendship network’ types

of supply can thrive, but cracking down on larger-scale

operations that involve violence or inconvenience to the

general public. Similarly, the demand for drugs from those

dependent on some substances (for example, heroin)

can be met through medical prescription programs that

automatically reduce demand for the street alternative.

Such strategies can be much more effective in reducing

market-related violence and harms than futile attempts

to eradicate the market entirely.

On the other hand, poorly designed drug law enforcement

practices can actually increase the level of violence,

intimidation and corruption associated with drug

markets. Law enforcement agencies and drug trafficking

organizations can become embroiled in a kind of ‘arms

race’, in which greater enforcement efforts lead to a similar

increase in the strength and violence of the traffickers.

In this scenario, the conditions are created in which the

most ruthless and violent trafficking organizations thrive.

Unfortunately, this seems to be what we are currently

witnessing in Mexico and many other parts of the world.

LAW ENFORCEMENT AND

THE ESCALATION OF VIOLENCE

A group of academics and public health experts based

in British Columbia have conducted a systematic review

of evidence45 relating to the impact of increased law

enforcement on drug market-related violence (for example,

armed gangs fighting for control of the drug trade, or

homicide and robberies connected to the drug trade).

In multiple US locations, as well as in Sydney, Australia,

the researchers found that increased arrests and law

enforcement pressures on drug markets were strongly

associated with increased homicide rates and other

violent crimes. Of all the studies examining the effect of

increased law enforcement on drug market violence,

91 percent concluded that increased law enforcement

actually increased drug market violence. The researchers

concluded that:

“The available scientific evidence suggests that

increasing the intensity of law enforcement interventions

to disrupt drug markets is unlikely to reduce drug gang

violence. Instead, the existing evidence suggests that

drug-related violence and high homicide rates are likely

a natural consequence of drug prohibition and that

increasingly sophisticated and well-resourced methods of

disrupting drug distribution networks may unintentionally

increase violence.”46

In the UK also, researchers have examined the effects of

policing on drug markets, noting that:

“Law enforcement efforts can have a significant negative

impact on the nature and extent of harms associated with

drugs by (unintentionally) increasing threats to public

health and public safety, and by altering both the behavior

of individual drug users and the stability and operation of

drug markets (e.g. by displacing dealers and related activity

elsewhere or increasing the incidence of violence

as displaced dealers clash with established ones).”47

15

7. Promote alternative sentences for small-scale and

first-time drug dealers.

While the idea of decriminalization has mainly been

discussed in terms of its application to people who use

drugs or who are struggling with drug dependence,

we propose that the same approach be considered

for those at the bottom of the drug selling chain.

The majority of people arrested for small-scale drug

selling are not gangsters or organized criminals.

They are young people who are exploited to do the

risky work of street selling, dependent drug users trying

to raise money for their own supply, or couriers coerced

or intimidated into taking drugs across borders. These

people are generally prosecuted under the same legal

provisions as the violent and organized criminals who

control the market, resulting in the indiscriminate

application of severe penalties.

Around the world, the vast majority of arrests are of

these nonviolent and low-ranking ‘little fish’ in the drug

market. They are most visible and easy to catch, and do

not have the means to pay their way out of trouble.48

The result is that governments are filling prisons with

minor offenders serving long sentences, at great cost,

and with no impact on the scale or profitability of

the market.

In some countries, these offenders are even subject to

the death penalty, in clear contravention of international

human rights law. To show their commitment to

fighting the drug war, many countries implement laws

and punishments that are out of proportion to the

seriousness of the crime, and that still do not have a

significant deterrent effect. The challenge now is for

governments to look at diversion options for the ‘little

fish’, or to amend their laws to make a clearer and more

proportionate distinction between the different types of

actors in the drug market.

8. Invest more resources in evidence-based prevention,

with a special focus on youth.

Clearly, the most valuable investment would be in

activities that stop young people from using drugs in

the first place, and that prevent experimental users

from becoming problematic or dependent users.

Prevention of initiation or escalation is clearly preferable

to responding to the problems after they occur.

Unfortunately, most early attempts at reducing overall

rates of drug use through mass prevention campaigns

were poorly planned and implemented. While the

presentation of good (and credible) information on

the risks of drug use is worthwhile, the experience of

universal prevention (such as media campaigns, or

school-based drug prevention programs) has been

mixed. Simplistic ‘just say no’ messages do not seem

to have a significant impact.49

There have been some carefully planned and targeted

prevention programs, however, that focus on social skills

and peer influences that have had a positive impact on

the age of initiation or the harms associated with drug

use. The energy, creativity and expertise of civil society

and community groups are of particular importance

in the design and delivery of these programs. Young

people are less likely to trust prevention messages

coming from state agencies.

Successful models of prevention have tended to target

particular groups at risk – gang members, children in

care, or in trouble at school or with the police – with

mixed programs of education and social support that

prevent a proportion of them from developing into

regular or dependent drug users. Implemented to a

sufficient scale, these programs have the potential

to reduce the overall numbers of young people who

become drug dependent or who get involved in

petty dealing.

9. Offer a wide and easily accessible range of options

for treatment and care for drug dependence,

including substitution and heroin-assisted treatment,

with special attention to those most at risk, including

those in prisons and other custodial settings.

In all societies and cultures, a proportion of individuals

will develop problematic or dependent patterns of

drug use, regardless of the preferred substances in that

society or their legal status. Drug dependence can be

a tragic loss of potential for the individual involved,

but is also extremely damaging for their family, their

community, and, in aggregate, for the entire society.

Preventing and treating drug dependence is therefore

a key responsibility of governments – and a valuable

investment, since effective treatment can deliver

significant savings in terms of reductions in crime and

improvements in health and social functioning.

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Continued)

16

Many successful treatment models – using a mix of

substitution treatment and psycho-social methods

– have been implemented and proven in a range of

socio-economic and cultural settings. However, in

most countries, the availability of these treatments is

limited to single models, is only sufficient to meet a

small fraction of demand, or is poorly targeted and fails

to focus resources on the most severely dependent

individuals. National governments should therefore

develop comprehensive, strategic plans to scale

up a menu of evidence-based drug dependence

treatment services.

At the same time, abusive practices carried out in the

name of treatment – such as forced detention, forced

labor, physical or psychological abuse – that contravene

human rights standards by subjecting people to cruel,

inhuman and degrading treatment, or by removing

the right to self-determination, should be abolished.

Governments should ensure that their drug dependence

treatment facilities are evidence-based and comply with

international human rights standards.

10.The United Nations system must provide leadership

in the reform of global drug policy. This means

promoting an effective approach based on evidence,

supporting countries to develop drug policies

that suit their context and meet their needs, and

ensuring coherence among various UN agencies,

policies and conventions.

While national governments have considerable

discretion to move away from repressive policies,

the UN drug control system continues to act largely

as a straitjacket, limiting the proper review and

modernization of policy. For most of the last century,

it has been the US government that has led calls for

the development and maintenance of repressive drug

policies. We therefore welcome the change of tone

emerging from the current administration50 – with

President Obama himself acknowledging the futility

of a ‘war on drugs’ and the validity of a debate on

alternatives.51 It will be necessary, though, for the US to

follow up this new rhetoric with real reform, by reducing

its reliance on incarceration and punishment of drug

users, and by using its considerable diplomatic influence

to foster reform in other countries.

UN drug control institutions have largely acted as

defenders of traditional policies and strategies. In the

face of growing evidence of the failure of these strategies,

reforms are necessary. There has been some encouraging

recognition by UNODC that there is a need to balance

and modernize the system, but there is also strong

institutional resistance to these ideas.

Countries look to the UN for support and guidance.

The UN can, and must, provide the necessary leadership

to help national governments find a way out of the current

policy impasse. We call on UN Secretary General Ban

Ki-moon and UNODC Executive Director Yury Fedotov

to take concrete steps toward a truly coordinated and

coherent global drug strategy that balances the need

to stifle drug supply and fight organized crime with the

need to provide health services, social care, and economic

development to affected individuals and communities.

There are a number of ways to make progress on this

objective. For a start, the UN could initiate a wide-

ranging commission to develop a new approach; UN

agencies could create new and stronger structures for

policy coordination; and the UNODC could foster more

meaningful program coordination with other UN agencies

such as the WHO, UNAIDS, UNDP, or the Office of the

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

11. Act urgently: the war on drugs has failed, and

policies need to change now.

There are signs of inertia in the drug policy debate in

some parts of the world, as policymakers understand

that current policies and strategies are failing but do not

know what to do instead. There is a temptation to avoid

the issue. This is an abdication of policy responsibility –

for every year we continue with the current approach,

billions of dollars are wasted on ineffective programs,

millions of citizens are sent to prison unnecessarily,

millions more suffer from the drug dependence of

loved ones who cannot access health and social care

services, and hundreds of thousands of people die from

preventable overdoses and diseases contracted through

unsafe drug use.

There are other approaches that have been proven to

tackle these problems that countries can pursue now.

Getting drug policy right is not a matter for theoretical or

intellectual debate – it is one of the key policy challenges

of our time.

17

1 For detailed analysis of illicit drug markets over the decade, see: Reuter,

P. and Trautmann, F. (2009) A Report on Global Illicit Drug Markets

1998-2007. European Commission http://www.exundhopp.at/www1/'>http://www.exundhopp.at/www1/

drogenbericht.pdf Accessed 04.19.11

2 UNODC (2008) 2008 World Drug Report Vienna: United Nations

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/WDR-2008.html'>http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/WDR-2008.html

Accessed 04.19.11

3 European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction (2010) Annual

Report of the State of the Drugs Problem in Europe http://www.emcdda.'>http://www.emcdda.

europa.eu/publications/annual-report/2010 Accessed 04.19.11

4 National Drug Intelligence Centre (2010) National Drug Threat

Assessment Washington: US Department of Justice http://www.justice.'>http://www.justice.

gov/ndic/pubs38/38661/index.htm Accessed 04.18.11

5 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2009)

High Commissioner calls for focus on human rights and harm reduction in

international drug policy Geneva: United Nations http://www.ohchr.org/'>http://www.ohchr.org/

documents/Press/HC_human_rights_and_harm_reduction_drug_policy.

pdf Accessed 04.18.11

6 World Health Organization, UN Office on Drugs and Crime, and Joint UN

Program on HIV and AIDS (2009) WHO, UNODC, UNAIDS technical guide

for countries to set targets for universal access to HIV prevention, treatment

and care for injecting drug users http://www.unodc.org/documents/'>http://www.unodc.org/documents/

hiv-aids/idu_target_setting_guide.pdf Accessed 04.18.11

7 European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2010)

Harm reduction: evidence, impacts and challenges. Lisbon: EMCDDA

http://www.emcdda.'>http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/monographs/harm-reduction

Accessed 05.13.11

8 See the European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction

resources page on harm reduction: http://www.emcdda.'>http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/

themes/harm-reduction Accessed 04.19.11

9 Mathers, B., Degenhardt, L., Phillips, B., Wiessing, L., Hickman, M.,

Strathdee, S., Wodak, A., Panda, S., Tyndall, M., Toufik, A., and Mattick, R.

for the 2007 Reference Group to the UN on HIV and Injecting drug use

(2008) “Global epidemiology of injecting drug use and HIV among people

who inject drugs: a systematic review” The Lancet, Volume 372, Issue

9651, pp.1733–1745. Data available at: http://www.idurefgroup.unsw.edu.'>http://www.idurefgroup.unsw.edu.

au//IDURGWeb.nsf/page/IDUepi Accessed 04.16.11

10 UNAIDS (2010) UNAIDS Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic 2010

http://www.unaids.org/globalreport/Global_report.htm'>http://www.unaids.org/globalreport/Global_report.htm Accessed 04.18.11

11 WHO (2006) Treatment of Injecting Drug Users with HIV/AIDS:

Promoting Access and Optimizing Service Delivery Geneva: World

Health Organization http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/'>http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/

treatment/en/index.html Accessed 04.16.11

12 US Institute of Medicine (2006) Preventing HIV Infection among

Injecting Drug Users in High Risk Countries: An Assessment of the

Evidence Washington: National Academies Press http://www.nap.edu/'>http://www.nap.edu/

catalog.php?record_id=11731 Accessed 04.16.11

13 Aebi, M. F., Ribeaud D., and Killias, M. (1999) ”Prescription médicale de

stupéfiants et délinquance. Résultats des essais Suisses.” Criminologie,

vol. 32, n.2

14 Killias, M. and Aebi, M.F. (2000) “The impact of heroin prescription on

heroin markets in Switzerland,” Crime Prevention Studies, volume 11,

2000 http://www.popcenter.org/library/crimeprevention/volume_11/'>http://www.popcenter.org/library/crimeprevention/volume_11/

04-Killias.pdf Accessed 05.08.11

15 Millar, T., Jones, A., Donmall, M. and Roxburgh, M. (2008) Changes in

offending following prescribing treatment for drug misuse National

Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse http://www.nta.nhs.uk/uploads/'>http://www.nta.nhs.uk/uploads/

nta_changes_in_offending_rb35.pdf Accessed 05.08.11

16 National Drug Monitor (2009) NDM Annual Report, 2009 WODC/Trimbos

Instituut http://english.wodc.nl/images/1730_full_text_tcm45-296585.pdf

Accessed 05.08.11

17 van Laar, M. and van Ooyen-Houben, M. (eds.) (2009) Evaluatie van het

Nederlandse drugsbeleid WODC/Trimbos Instituut http://www.trimbos.'>http://www.trimbos.

nl/~/media/Files/Gratis percent20downloads/AF0884 percent20Evaluatie

percent20van percent20het percent20Nederlands percent20drugsbeleid.

ashx Accessed 05.08.11

18 E. Schatz, K. Schiffer and J.P. Kools (2011) The Dutch treatment and social

support system for drug users IDPC Briefing Paper, January 2011

http://www.idpc.net/publications/idpc-paper-dutch-drug-treatment-'>http://www.idpc.net/publications/idpc-paper-dutch-drug-treatment-

program Accessed 05.08.11

19 Henman, A. and Metaal, P. (2009) Coca Myths Transnational Institute Drugs

and Democracy Program http://www.tni.org/archives/reports_drugs_'>http://www.tni.org/archives/reports_drugs_

debate13 Accessed 04.21.11

20 Jelsma, M. (2011) Lifting the Ban on Coca Chewing: Bolivia’s proposal to

amend the 1961 Single Convention Series on Legislative Reform of Drug

Policies, No.11. Transnational Institute http://www.tni.org/briefing/lifting-'>http://www.tni.org/briefing/lifting-

ban-coca-chewing Accessed 05.08.11

21 Costa, A.M. (2008) Making drug control ‘fit for purpose’: Building on the

UNGASS Decade E/CN.7/2008/CRP.17 http://www.unodc.org/documents/'>http://www.unodc.org/documents/

commissions/CND-Session51/CND-UNGASS-CRPs/ECN72008CRP17E.pdf

Accessed 04.20.11

22 Godfrey C., Stewart D., and Gossop, M. (2004) “Economic analysis of

costs and consequences of the treatment of drug misuse: 2-year outcome

data from the National Treatment Outcome Research Study (NTORS)”

Addiction 99 (6) pp.697-707

23 Reuter, P. and Pollack, H. (2006) “How much can treatment reduce national

drug problems?” Addiction 101 (3) pp. 341-347

24 Carnevale, J. (2009) Restoring the Integrity of the Office of National

Drug Control Policy Written Testimony to the Domestic Policy

Subcommitee of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

http://www.idpc.net/publications/john-carnevale-testimony-ONDCP-'>http://www.idpc.net/publications/john-carnevale-testimony-ONDCP-

congress Accessed 04.21.11

25 Bühringer, G., Farrell, M., Kraus, L., Marsden, J., Pfeiffer-Gerschel, T.,

Piontek, D., Karachaliou, K., Künzel, J. and Stillwell, G. (2009) Comparative

analysis of research into illicit drugs in the European Union Luxembourg:

European Commission, Directorate-General Justice, Freedom and

Security http://www.emcdda.'>http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_118348_

EN_report-EN.pdf Accessed 05.13.11

ENDNOTES

18

26 Hughes, C.E. and Stevens, A. (2010) “What Can We Learn from the

Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs?” British Journal of

Criminology Volume 50, Issue 6, pp.999-1022

27 Hughes, C.E. and Stevens, A. (2007) The Effects of Decriminalization

of Drug Use in Portugal Oxford: Beckley Foundation http://www.

beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/bf/2007_Caitlin_211672_1.pdf

Accessed 04.20.11

28 Greenwald, G. (2009) Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for

Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies Cato Institute http://www.cato.

org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080 Accessed 05.07.11

29 Reinarman, C., Cohen, P. and Kaal, H. (2004) “The Limited Relevance of

Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco” American

Journal of Public Health vol. 94 pp.836–842

30 Fetherston, J. and Lenton, S. (2007) Effects of the Western Australian

Cannabis Infringement Notification Scheme on Public Attitudes,

Knowledge and Use: Comparison of Pre- and Post Change Data Perth:

National Drug Research Institute http://ndri.curtin.edu.au/local/docs/pdf/

publications/T177.pdf Accessed 04.20.11

31 Room, R., Fischer, B., Hall, W., Lenton, S. and Reuter, P. (2008) The Global

Cannabis Commission Report Oxford: Beckley Foundation http://www.

beckleyfoundation.org/pdf/BF_Cannabis_Commission_Report.pdf

Accessed 04.20.11

32 Becker, G.S., Murphy, K.M. and Grossman, M. (2004) The Economic

Theory of Illegal Goods: The Case of Drugs National Bureau of Economic

Research, Working Paper 10976 http://www.nber.org/papers/w10976

Accessed 05.13.11

33 Nutt, D., King, L.A., Saulsbury, W. and Blakemore, C. (2007) “Development

of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse” Lancet

Vol. 369 (9566) pp.1047-53

34 Hallam, C. and Bewley-Taylor, D. (2010) “Mapping the World Drug

Problem: Science and Politics in the United Nations Drug Control

System,” International Journal of Drug Policy, Volume 21, (1), 2010, pp. 1-3

35 Caulkins, J., Reuter, P. Iguchi, M.Y. and Chiesa, J. (2005) How Goes the

“War on drugs”? An Assessment of US Problems and Policy Santa Monica,

California: RAND http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/2005/

RAND_OP121.pdf Accessed 04.20.11

36 UNODC (2008) 2008 World Drug Report Vienna: United Nations

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/WDR-2008.html'>http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/WDR-2008.html

Accessed 04.19.11

37 Lalander, P. and Salasuo, M. (Eds.) (2005) “Drugs and Youth Cultures:

Global and Local Expressions” Helsinki: Nordic Council for Alcohol and

Drug Research

38 Manning, P. (Ed.) (2007) Drugs and Popular Culture: Drugs, Media and

Identity in Contemporary Society Devon: Willan Publishing

39 Buchanan, J. (2004) “Missing Links? Problem drug use and social

exclusion” Probation Journal vol. 51 no. 4 pp. 387-397

40 UNODC/WHO (2008) Principles of Drug Dependence Treatment

http://www.unodc.org/documents/'>http://www.unodc.org/documents/drug-treatment/UNODC-WHO-

Principles-of-Drug-Dependence-Treatment-March08.pdf

Accessed 04.16.11

41 Bewley-Taylor, D., Hallam, C. and Allen, R. The Incarceration of Drug

Offenders: An Overview Beckley Foundation/International Centre for

Prison Studies http://www.idpc.net/php-bin/documents/Beckley_

Report_16_2_FINAL_EN.pdf Accessed 04.19.11

42 Sevigny, E. and Caulkins, J.P. (2004) “Kingpins or Mules? An Analysis of

Drug Offenders Incarcerated in Federal and State Prisons” Criminology

and Public Policy 3:3, 401-434

43 MacCoun, R.J. and and Reuter, P. (2001) Drug War Heresies: Learning from

Other Vices, Times and Places Cambridge University Press

44 UNODC (2008) Drug trafficking as a security threat to West Africa Vienna:

United Nations http://www.unodc.org/documents/'>http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/

Studies/Drug-Trafficking-WestAfrica-English.pdf Accessed 05.08.11

45 Werb, D., Rowell, G., Guyatt, G., Kerr, T., Montaner, J. and Wood, E. (2011)

“Effect of drug law enforcement on drug market violence: A systematic

review” International Journal of Drug Policy vol. 22 pp. 87–94

46 Werb, D., Rowell, G., Guyatt, G., Kerr, T. Montaner, J. and Wood, E. (2010)

Effect of Drug Law Enforcement on Drug-related Violence: Evidence from

a Scientific Review Urban Health Research Initiative, British Colombia

Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS http://www.icsdp.org/Libraries/doc1/

ICSDP-1_-_FINAL_1.sflb.ashx Accessed 04.19.11

47 McSweeney, T., Turnbull, P.J. and Hough, M (2008) Tackling Drug Markets

& Distribution Networks in the UK London: UK Drug Policy Commission

http://www.ukdpc.org.uk/resources/Drug_Markets_Full_Report.pdf

Accessed 04.19.11

48 Metaal, P. and Youngers, C. eds. (2011) Systems Overload: Drug Laws and

Prisons in Latin America Transnational Institute/Washington Office on

Latin America http://www.druglawreform.info/images/stories/documents/

Systems_Overload/TNI-Systems_Overload-def.pdf Accessed 05.16.11

49 Perry, C. L., Komro, K. A., Veblen-Mortenson, S., Bosma, L. M., Farbakhsh,

K., Munson, K. A., et al. (2003) “A randomized controlled trial of the

middle and junior high school D.A.R.E. and D.A.R.E. Plus programs”

Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 157(2), pp. 178-184

50 Office of National Drug Control Policy (2010) National Drug Control

Strategy 2010 http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/strategy/index.html

Accessed 05.13.11

51 “Obama: Drugs Should be Treated as a Public Health Problem”

Interview with Barack Obama on CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.

com/8301-503544_162-20029831-503544.html Accessed 05.13.11

19

SECRETARIAT

Bernardo Sorj

Ilona Szabó de Carvalho

Miguel Darcy de Oliveira

ADVISORS

Dr. Alex Wodak, Australian Drug Law

Reform Foundation

www.adlrf.org.au

Ethan Nadelmann, Drug Policy Alliance

www.drugpolicy.org

Martin Jelsma, Transnational Institute

www.tni.org/drugs

Mike Trace, International Drug Policy Consortium

www.idpc.net

SUPPORT

Centro Edelstein de Pesquisas Sociais

Instituto Fernando Henrique Cardoso

Open Society Foundations

Sir Richard Branson, founder and chairman of

Virgin Group (Support provided through

Virgin Unite)

BACKGROUND PAPERS

(available at www.globalcommissionondrugs.org)

Demand reduction and harm reduction

Dr. Alex Wodak

Drug policy, criminal justice and mass imprisonment

Bryan Stevenson

Assessing supply-side policy and practice: eradication

and alternative development

David Mansfield

The development of international drug control: lessons

learned and strategic challenges for the future

Martin Jelsma

Drug policy: lessons learned and options for the future

Mike Trace

The drug trade: the politicization of criminals and

the criminalization of politicians

Moisés Naím

FOR ADDITIONAL RESOURCES, SEE:

www.unodc.org

www.idpc.net

www.drugpolicy.org

www.talkingdrugs.org

www.tni.org/drugs

www.ihra.net

www.countthecosts.org

www.intercambios.org.ar

www.cupihd.org

www.wola.org/program/drug_policy

www.beckleyfoundation.org

www.comunidadesegura.org

20

GLOBAL COMMISSION ON

DRUG POLICY

The purpose of the Global Commission on Drug Policy

is to bring to the international level an informed,

science-based discussion about humane and effective

ways to reduce the harm caused by drugs to people

and societies.

GOALS

• Review the basic assumptions, effectiveness and

consequences of the ‘war on drugs’ approach

• Evaluate the risks and benefits of different national

responses to the drug problem

• Develop actionable, evidence-based recommendations

for constructive legal and policy reform

www.globalcommissionondrugs.org

22

www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/Report

Peace Jimmy

[indicando 2]

Thanks Jymmy

In italy, the judges already let one guy get away with a small plant

they said: if there is no harm to others, cannot be punished.

@drunkknuckleahead, we should stand up and ask the polititians, if they don't ear extra money from corruption and 'black money budget' . Then they should't have problem saving their nations billions of dollars from national taxes. Right?

[ipuljamms 7]

in my country, if u have 5 seed, u can go in jail for 4 years.

it's so hard get a good weed to. and the prison the most inmates are due to weed abuse. it's all just a big conspiracy to get a lot of money from drugs war. a corrupt goverment.