Documento di quasi 200 ong internazionali: i leader mondiali si stanno dirigendo verso un monumentale fallimento nell’affrontare il problema globale della droga al prossimo vertice ONU.

ROMA (14 marzo 2016) – Quasi 200 gruppi e organizzazioni della società civile provenienti da tutto il mondo hanno rilasciato oggi una dichiarazione che condanna i governi che si preparano per il vertice di UNGASS 2016 (il vertice delle Nazioni Unite sulla questione droghe previsto il mese prossimo) per non aver ancora riconosciuto le conseguenze devastanti delle politiche sulle droghe punitive e repressive.

Il documento, promosso dall’International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC) e sottoscritto in Italia da Associazione Antigone Onlus, Associazione Insieme Onlus, Associazione La Società della Ragione ONLUS, Associazione Luca Coscioni, CGIL Nazionale, Coordinamento Nazionale Comunità di Accoglienza (CNCA), Forum Droghe, ITARDD (Rete italiana per la Riduzione del Danno), L’ Isola di Arran, Lega Italiana Lotta Aids (LILA), Legacoopsociali, Presidenza onoraria del Gruppo Abele, Radicali Italiani è stato diffuso oggi dal sito di IDPC ed è disponibile on line nello speciale UNGASS 2016 di fuoriluogo.it.

Nel mese di aprile 2016 infatti, i leader mondiali si riuniranno a New York per decidere sul futuro della politica sulle droghe globale, in occasione della prima Assemblea Generale delle Nazioni Unite Sessione Speciale (UNGASS 2016) [1] sul tema in due decenni. Il Segretario generale delle Nazioni Unite Ban Ki-moon ha chiesto che questo incontro sia caratterizzato da un “dibattito ampio e aperto che consideri tutte le opzioni”. Ma, come i lavori preparatori stanno dimostrando, anche con la riunione annuale della Commissione sulle sostanze stupefacenti, questa settimana a Vienna, sta diventando chiaro che l’occasione di ripensare alla “Guerra alla droga”, quella che capita “una volta in una generazione”, sta per essere sprecata.

“La comunità globale ha riposto grandi speranze in questa importante occasione per un ripensamento su come controllare la droga, ma negando la realtà dei fatti e non riuscendo ad ammettere che un nuovo approccio è necessario, i governi stanno rischiando di sperperare questo raro momento “, avverte Ann Fordham, direttore esecutivo dell’International Drug Policy Consortium. “C’è ancora tempo per salvare il processo prima del vertice finale a New York il mese prossimo, ma i governi devono essere onesti circa le sfide e consentire nuove riflessioni e nuove idee”.

“Questo è un problema urgente. Incentrare su interventi di polizia e azioni militari le politiche volte a combattere il traffico di droga ha avuto un impatto durissimo molte comunità, raggiungendo livelli di violenza in alcuni casi equivalenti a una guerra civile”, ha detto Luciana Pol, Responsabile per la politica sulla sicurezza e sui diritti umani presso il Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS). “Questa sessione di UNGASS 2016 non può ripetere le stesse vecchie formule. Questo è il momento per il sistema delle Nazioni Unite di mostrare il suo solido impegno per la pace, i diritti umani e la salute pubblica “.

“Purtroppo le notizie che arrivano da Vienna non sono confortanti – aggiunge Maria Stagnitta, Presidente di Forum Droghe – ed insieme a quasi 200 associazioni abbiamo sottoscritto il documento che pubblichiamo sul nostro sito www.fuoriluogo.it. Riteniamo che la prospettiva che le trattative si concludano anzitempo con un accordo preso nella sede di Vienna sia assolutamente da rifiutare: chiediamo con froza che l’Italia faccia quanto in suo potere per scongiurare questa evenienza. La sede della discussione finale deve rimanere l’assemblea generale dove tutti i paesi possono esprimere la propria opinione alla pari. UNGASS 2016 è stata convocata per rimarcare l’incapacità che le convenzioni internazionali ad affrontare le questioni relative alla droga, e solo l’Assemblea ha la possibilità di garantire quel dibattito ampio e aperto necessario per un deciso cambio di passo.”

“Va segnalata una piccola luce nel buio di questa trattativa per quel che riguarda il percorso italiano verso UNGASS 2016. Nonostante perduri una incredibile assenza di guida politica del Governo sul tema droghe – commenta invece Leonardo Fiorentini, Direttore di Fuoriluogo, il sito italiano sulle politiche sulle droghe edito da Forum Droghe che segue da vicino il processo di UNGASS 2016 [2] – il Dipartimento antidroga ha saputo interloquire positivamente con le ong italiane che da tempo chiedevano un confronto su UNGASS. L’incontro del 4 marzo scorso è stato un esempio più unico che raro in Europa (ci risulta che solo la Norvegia abbia fatto altrettanto) di ascolto da parte di Governo e Amministrazioni centrali delle istanze della società civile. Ci auguriamo che questo spirito possa portare ad una posizione propositiva e aperta al confronto da parte della delegazione italiana, sia in occasione della riunione della CND di questa settimana che nell’ormai prossimo appuntamento di New York”.

Il documento della società civile dal titolo “Diplomazia o negazionismo?”, condanna i preparativi condotti finora, mettendo in evidenza i seguenti problemi:

La mancanza di progressi compiuti dalle politiche di droga nel corso degli ultimi 50 anni non è ancora stata riconosciuta con onestà. L’ultima UNGASS sulle droghe nel 1998, si è svolta sotto lo slogan “Un mondo libero dalla droga: possiamo farlo!,” ancora quasi venti anni più tardi, le droghe sono ampiamente disponibili e accessibili più che mai, il mercato della droga è dinamico e diversificato, e le organizzazioni criminali sono sempre più innovative e potenti.

Le prove schiaccianti delle conseguenze devastanti delle politiche punitive e repressive sulle droghe non sono state finora considerate nei negoziati delle Nazioni Unite fino ad oggi. Queste vanno dalle violazioni sistematiche dei diritti umani commesse in nome del controllo delle droghe all’esacerbazione delle infezioni da HIV ed epatite C a causa della trasmissione tra le persone che si iniettano droghe sino alla catastroficamente scarsa disponibilità di farmaci come la morfina per alleviare il dolore. Ed ancora dalla violenza e la corruzione perpetuate dalla diffusione dei mercati della droga criminali, alla distruzione dei mezzi di sussistenza degli agricoltori a causa dell’eradicazione forzata delle colture sino al continuo uso della pena di morte per reati di droga. Senza contare i miliardi di dollari di denaro pubblico sprecato per far rispettare norme che, semplicemente, non funzionano.

I governi nazionali e le Nazioni Unite non sono riusciti a garantire un processo preparatorio inclusivo e trasparente [3] verso UNGASS 2016, e invece gli interessi acquisiti e un piccolo gruppo di stati membri conservatori hanno dominato i negoziati. Le proposte per smuovere lo status quo, anche lanciate dagli Stati membri e da molte agenzie delle Nazioni Unite, sono state emarginate e il dissenso soffocato.

UNGASS 2016 doveva essere destinata ad essere una valutazione onesta e attesa da tempo di ciò che sta funzionando e non funzionando rispetto alle politiche globali sulle droghe. I governi saranno riuniti questa settimana a Vienna, per continuare i loro lunghi negoziati sul documento finale di UNGASS 2016 [4]. Fino ad oggi, questi negoziati sono stati non-inclusivi e non trasparenti, e la bozza di documento attualmente in discussione ignora le raccomandazioni cruciali e gli input provenute in questi mesi da un considerevole numero di governi, agenzie delle Nazioni Unite, accademici e organizzazioni della società civile.

Mantenere up-to-date con gli sviluppi politici droga iscrivendoti al IDPC mensile Alert.

Ungass 2016: diplomazia o negazionismo?

In October 2015 – January 2016, the European Court of Human Rights received the latest documents for the case Kurmanayevskiy, Abdyusheva and Anoshkin vs Russia. These are statements by Russian NGOs involved in drug rehabilitation – the Independent Narcological Guild, the Rehabilitation Centres Association of the Northern Caucasus, ROO “Zdorovoye Stavropolye”, as well as the St. Ioann of Kronshtadt Metropolitan Rehabilitation Centre “Voskreseniye”. All these organizations made statements against substitution therapy and spoke about its ineffectiveness, including through references to the Crimean experience. Aside from the Independent Drug Treatment Guild, the rest of these NGOs represent faith-based rehabilitation programs that they were informing the ECHR about. The statement from the St. Ioann of Kronshtadt Rehabilitation Centre contained multiple quotes from the Testament. The Russian Federation expressed its full support of the statement by these third parties. Specifically, according to the Russian Federation, “The vision of drug addiction as a destructive sinful passion allows explaining to a drug addict (and doing so clearly and from a special, spiritual perspective) undeniable scientific truth that “addiction to narcotic drugs constitutes a serious evil for the individual and is fraught with social and economic danger to mankind”, which is stated in the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961.”

Earlier, eight international organizations and officials had supported the plaintiffs and substitution therapy in general. The list of supporters included the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy on HIV/AIDS in Eastern Europe and Central Asia; the Joint UN AIDS Programme; International Doctors for Healthier Drug Policies; Human Rights Watch; the International Harm Reduction Association; the Eurasian Harm Reduction Network and the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. Statements by these organizations and officials were based on evidence of substitution therapy’s effectiveness and the need to remove the ban on OST based on international guidelines as well as the norms and principles of human rights.

Therefore, today we can draw a line under this communication process and note that the ECHR faces a difficult task of deciding whether the OST ban goes beyond the discretion of Russian authorities.

The plaintiffs believe that definitely goes beyond Russian authorities’ discretion. They justify their position by referring to multiple examples of scientific research and to the positions of international organizations including the UN and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction....

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

 Faith-based rehabilitation vs. substitution therapy in Russia: What will the ECHR decide?

Producers of prohibited plants face conflict from authorites and the drug market itself. Their communities are stigmatized, criminalized and incarcerated. UN Global drug policy can change this by listening to their demands. Watch our video of the third Global Forum where producers shared experiences and knowledge and ultimately drafted the 'Heemskerk Declaration'.

Growers of prohibited plants in Heemskerk - Video 

Three former presidents of Latin American nations have urged the world to end the “unmitigated disaster” of the war on drugs, and denounced the United Nations for secrecy and shortsightedness ahead of the first special assembly on drugs in 18 years.

“Outdated drug policies around the world have resulted in soaring drug-related violence, overstretched criminal justice systems, runaway corruption and mangled democratic institutions,” wrote Fernando Henrique Cardoso, César Gaviria and Ernesto Zedillo, respectively the former presidents of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico, in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times.

The former presidents said that experts, statistics and a review of their “own failures on this front while in office” led them to “an unavoidable conclusion: the ‘war on drugs’ is an unmitigated disaster”.

While in office in the 1990s, the three leaders fought the drug trade by the usual, often violent, methods. Cardoso tried to eradicate marijuana production in Brazil, Zedillo began war against Mexican cartels that exploded in the second half of the decade, and Gaviria fought Pablo Escobar’s cocaine empire.

Escobar tried to assassinate Gaviria in a plane bombing, and the president’s administration killed the drug lord in 1993, a killing that Gaviria called “a step toward the end of drug trafficking” and proof “it is possible to defeat evil”.

But the three ex-presidents have spent the 2000s calling for decriminalization and regulation of drugs, and in 2009 Cardoso wrote for the Observer that decriminalization “breaks the silence about the drug problem”. Drugs are “not first and foremost a matter for the criminal justice system”, he wrote. “Repressive policies towards drug users are firmly rooted in prejudice, fear and ideological visions, rather than in cold and hard assessment of the realities of drug abuse.”

While the three hailed the UN for holding an assembly on drug abuse on 19 April, they excoriated its methods in Friday’s op-ed. “What was supposed to be an open, honest and data-driven debate about drug policies has turned into a narrowly conceived closed-door affair,” they wrote.

The UN has blocked the majority of member states and various health and human rights groups from participating, according to the leaders, and the drafted declaration “perpetuates the criminalization of producers and consumers” rather than moving toward treatment for addicts.

Cardoso, Gaviria and Zedillo instead call for all UN nations to “end the criminalization and incarceration of drug users”, and to abolish capital punishment for related offenses: “It is a medieval practice that should be stamped out once and for all.”

Former Latin American leaders urge world to end war on drugs 'disaster' 

In April 2016, the UN will dedicate, for the third time in its history, a United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) to discuss global drug policy. The UNGASS has the potential to be a ground-breaking moment that could change the course of the international drug control system. However, political divisions and entrenched institutional dynamics have dampened hopesthat it will go down in history as the beginning of the end of the war on drugs.

At the joint request of Mexico, Colombia and Guatemala, the General Assembly decided to bring forward the convention of a special session to assess “the achievements and challenges in countering the world drug problem”, originally foreseen for 2019 or 2020. The three countries stated at the time that “revising the approach on drugs maintained so far by the international community can no longer be postponed”, and the UN needed to exercise leadership to "conduct an in-depth review analyzing all available options, including regulatory or market measures, in order to establish a new paradigm that would impede the flow of resources to organized crime groups". An international meeting had to be convened, “capable of taking the decisions necessary to increase the effectiveness of the strategies and instruments with which the global community addresses the challenges of drugs and their consequences”.

Conventional drug control wisdom has put forward the view that stopping the supply of drugs at the source would solve the ‘world drug problem’, but Latin American countries bear witness to the failure of this approach. Stirred into action by the futility of spending billions of dollars to fight an unwinnable and increasingly violent war on drugs, it is no surprise that political leaders from Latin America have been at the forefront of the drug policy debate. From their perspective, the high human cost in terms of violence, insecurity, mass incarceration and the exacerbation of the social and economic vulnerability of some of society’s most marginalised groups – can no longer be justified as necessary collateral damage in pursuit of eradicating drug markets.

A growing group of Latin American and Caribbean countries are calling for a real discussion on alternative policies. In the meantime, Uruguay has moved to create the world's first national legally regulated cannabis market for recreational use, and similar initiatives have happened in the US at the state level. This opening up of the long entrenched and seemingly immovable discussion on prohibitionist drug control principles is unprecedented and has implications for global policy.

In this context, the UNGASS in April represents a critical juncture, an opportunity for an honest evaluation of global drug policy and how to address the most pressing challenges going forward. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, in recognition of this rare and important opportunity, has urged member states to use the 2016 UNGASS “to conduct a wide-ranging and open debate that considers all options.”

The initial discussions to prepare for the UNGASS were fraught with disagreements over many procedural aspects. These included difficult negotiations over the extent to which the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) in Vienna would lead the process; how to strike the right balance between the UN capitals of Vienna, Geneva and New York in the preparations; how to ensure meaningful involvement of all relevant UN agencies, academia and civil society; and – last but not least – how open the debate should be: should it be restricted to a discussion of how to improve the implementation of the 2009 Political Declaration and the achievement of its targets for 2019, or should the UNGASS be an opportunity to challenge the current global drug control strategy, possibly even questioning its foundation of the three UN drug conventions?

These difficult negotiations, which on the surface often appeared to be arguments over procedure, reflected the deep political divisions within the international drug policy debate. The much-revered ‘Vienna Consensus’ continues to weaken as the divide between some governments becomes increasingly irreconcilable. A growing number of countries now believe that the traditional repressive drug control approach, based on zero-tolerance, has not worked and has led to disastrous consequences for human rights, public health, citizen security and sustainable development, and as a result it has to be modernised.

Some countries calling for an open and inclusive debate at the UNGASS questioned whether this could be truly achieved with a process led by the Vienna-based drug control apparatus, given that the CND, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) have all gained quite a conservative reputation over the decades. Conducting all the preparations in Vienna led to a further problem for inclusivity, given that at least 70 member states do not have permanent representation there and would therefore struggle to fully participate in the process. The point of convening an UNGASS, is that by definition all UN member states and the whole UN system should be included on a equal basis, but limiting the political negotiations on the outcomes exclusively to Vienna, means that in practice the countries and UN agencies not represented in Vienna have much less influence on the process.

Will UNGASS 2016 be the beginning of the end for the ‘war on drugs’? 

The space is a place where people can self-inject their own drugs in a safe, supervised environment using clean equipment. There is no threat of being arrested, and the people who work there are trained to respond in case of an overdose. Staff also help people access primary care, detox services, addiction treatment, housing, employment, and legal services. As the first supervised injection facility on the continent, it embodies the highest ideals of harm reduction.

Insite joins the nearly one hundred injection sites around the world that treat drug dependence as an issue of public health rather than criminal justice. Liz Evans, founder and former director of PHS Community Services Society, has seen firsthand the lives saved by this kind of pragmatic approach. It’s a people-first solution that she hopes will be featured this April at the UN General Assembly Special Session on drugs, an event that could help turn the tide against punitive drug policies.

By accepting drug use as a global reality rather than something to be wished away, facilities like Insite are serving as a model for what harm reduction can achieve.

Vancouver has pioneered a people-first approach to drug issues

The Liberal government used its first foray into the global anti-narcotics arena this week to signal a clear shift from the war on drugs philosophy, promising more safe-injection sites, promoting “harm reduction” and touting its plan to legalize marijuana.

The speech by Hilary Geller, an assistant deputy minister of health, caused a stir at the generally staid Commission on Narcotic Drugs conference in Vienna, observers said.

The audience of government and non-governmental organization officials from around the world “erupted in applause” mid-way through the address and gave a prolonged ovation at the end, said Jason Nickerson, an Ottawa-based researcher who is attending the meeting.

The talk not only contrasted with the Harper government’s international stance on drugs, but stood out from the cautious pronouncements most other nations made, said the Bruyère Research Institute scientist, who favours more liberal policies. “There are some countries here that are coming out and saying important, progressive things,” he said. “But it’s certainly not as explicit as what Canada is saying.”

A Conservative opposition critic had a different reaction, sounding the alarm about Geller’s prediction of more government-sanctioned injection sites – where opioid users can use illicit intravenous drugs under a nurse’s supervision.

While the Supreme Court of Canada ruled such sites legal, the Conservatives passed legislation requiring extensive public consultations and other measures before they could be set up, said Rob Nicholson, the party’s justice critic. “Drugs that are used at these injection sites, mostly heroin, are dangerous and addictive and they kill Canadians,” said the former justice minister. “I disagree with the idea they are safe. There’s nothing safe about taking heroin.”

Nicholson also stressed that the Conservatives invested hundreds of millions of dollars in drug-abuse treatment and prevention.

Still, the Harper government was generally tough on the issue, implementing mandatory-minimum jail sentences for some trafficking offences and beefing up police narcotics enforcement.

On the world stage, it opposed having international conventions embrace harm reduction, programs that focus on preventing the side effects of illegal drug use — like HIV infection — rather than prosecution.

That put the Conservative government in league with some of the world’s most authoritarian states, said Richard Elliott, head of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.

Under Harper, Canada also failed to condemn the death penalty for drug offences, enforced regularly by nations like Iran and Indonesia, he said.

Geller stressed this week her government opposes capital punishment “in all cases.”

Canadian official causes stir with ‘progressive’ speech at UN narcotics conference

1. The General Assembly will convene a special session on the world drug problem from 19 to 21 April 2016 at UN Headquarters in New York, in accordance with its resolutions 67/193 of 20 December 2012, 69/200 of 18 December 2014 and 70/181 of 17 December 2015.

2. The General Assembly, in paragraph 3 (f) of resolution 70/181, decided that the special session shall consist of a general debate and interactive multi-stakeholder round tables conducted in parallel with the plenary.

3. Participation in the special session will be in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 of resolution 69/200 and paragraphs 3, 7 and 8 of resolution 70/181.

4. The special session will be attended by several Heads of State and Government and will have a significant level of ministerial participation. Convocation letters for the special session have been sent by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to Member States, Observer States, Observers, heads of the principal organs of the United Nations and the heads of the specialized agencies of the United Nations.

5. In accordance with paragraph 3(d) of resolution 70/181, the list of non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, who pre-registered to participate in the special session, will be circulated to Member States for their information.

6. In accordance with paragraph 3(e) of resolution 70/181, the list of representatives of relevant non-governmental organizations, representatives of civil society and the scientific community, academia, youth groups and other relevant stakeholders that may participate in the special session, will be submitted to Member States for their consideration. The final list will then be transmitted to Member States.

7. Pursuant to the provisions mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 6, registration is now open for representatives of organizations actively working on drug-related matters from non-governmental organizations, civil society, the scientific and academic communities, youth groups and other relevant stakeholders. Organizations wishing to attend the special session have been informed of the need to register by applying through the following website: http://bit.ly/UNGASS-2016. Applications for general registration are being accepted from 1 February – 28 March 2016.

8. In addition, pursuant to paragraph 8 of resolution 70/181, Member States, Observer States and Observers are encouraged to consider the possible participation of youth representatives at the special session.

9. The special session will comprise plenary meetings and five interactive multi-stakeholder round tables. Additional explanatory details are provided below.

10. In accordance with paragraph 3(b) of resolution 70/181, the opening plenary meeting of the special session scheduled on 19 April 2016 at 10 a.m. will feature statements by the President of the General Assembly, the Secretary-General, the Chair of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the President of the International Narcotics Control Board and the Director-General of the World Health Organization.

11. The formal plenary meetings are scheduled on 19, 20 and 21 April 2016 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 3 to 6 p.m. To enable maximum participation within the limited time available, statements in the plenary meetings should not exceed three minutes when speaking in the national capacity and five minutes when speaking on behalf of a group. A list of speakers is open for inscription at the General Assembly Affairs Branch (room S-3082. tel. (212) 963-5063; fax. (212) 963-3783; or email: poliakova[at]un.org).

12. Speaking order will follow the customary protocol order. Accordingly, precedence will be accorded to representatives at the Heads of State or Government and Ministerial levels.

13. The closing plenary meeting in the afternoon of 21 April 2016 will feature the Co-chairs’ summaries of the salient points of the interactive multi-stakeholder round tables and concluding remarks by the President of the General Assembly.

Documentation, statements and interpretation

14. At the special session of the General Assembly, hard copies of documents will be available at the documents distribution counters located inside the General Assembly Hall. For the roundtables taking place in conference room 4, hard copies of documents will be available at the documents booth in the conference room.

15. Delegations are requested to provide 30 copies of their statements, to be submitted by a delegation representative to the receiving area at the documentation desk located at the rear of the General Assembly Hall between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. for distribution to the various conference services. The delegation representative should be in possession of a valid United Nations grounds pass. Access will be at the 46th Street gate, through the screening area, utilizing the West side elevators in the lobby of the General Assembly Building to the second floor, where a representative of the Secretariat will accept the texts at a designated counter. The texts of the speeches will be accepted only on the day they are to be given.

16. Additionally, delegations are invited to submit PDF formatted versions of their statements via e-mail to papersmart[at]un.org. Delegations wishing to circulate their statements electronically through the PaperSmart portal should provide them not later than two hours in advance of delivery to papersmart[at]un.org. Alternatively, delegations can bring a hard copy (unstapled and printed single-sided), for scanning and uploading, to the PaperSmart portal at the documents distribution counter located inside the General Assembly Hall or at the conference officers’ desk in conference room 4. The name of the meeting and the agenda item should be indicated in the subject line of the e‑mail and in the heading of the statement. The statements will remain embargoed until their delivery and then posted. Only statements presented during the course of the meeting will be posted.

17. Statements made in any of the six official languages of the General Assembly are interpreted into the other official languages. Any speaker may also make a statement in a language other than the official languages. In such cases, in accordance with rule 53 of the rules of procedure of the Assembly, the delegation in question must provide either an interpreter from the non-official language into an official language, or a written text of the statement in one of the official languages to be read out by a United Nations interpreter. On the basis of this interpretation or the written text which is accepted by the Secretariat as representing the official text of the statement, it will be interpreted into the other official languages by United Nations interpreters. When a written text is provided, the delegation concerned should make available to the interpreter someone who knows the language in which the statement is to be delivered and the official language into which it has been translated, to guide the interpreter through the translated text and to ensure synchronization between the speaker and the interpreter. Detailed arrangements for interpretation from non-official languages, including access by non-United Nations interpreters to the interpreter booths in the General Assembly Hall, must be made in advance through the Meetings Management Section (telephone: 212 963 8114; e‑mail: emeetsm[at]un.org). The interpreter or the guide provided by the delegation should be brought by the delegation to the conference officers’ desk in front of the General Assembly Hall 30 minutes prior to the delivery of the statement.

Organisational arrangements for the Special Session of the General Assembly on the world drug problem

Globally, about 12.7 million people inject drugs and 1.7 million of them are living with HIV.

On average, one in 10 new HIV infections is caused by sharing injecting equipment, according to the World Health Organisation.

In 1998 and 2009 the UN declared its ambition to bring about a world free of drugs. Many countries continue to take a punitive approach to HIV and drugs, using arrests, incarceration, criminal penalties and compulsory detention to criminalise and punish users. Drug use is predicted to rise by 25% by 2050, with most of the increase in developing countries, and we understand better than ever the damage done by the war on drugs. So we hoped that last week’s 59th session of the UN’s Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) would drop the rhetoric of a drug-free world in favour of progressive approaches to global drug policy that would help us meet the UN target of ending Aids by 2030.

The evidence for the effectiveness of harm reduction interventions – reducing the negative consequences of drug use rather than focusing solely on reducing drug use – is described by UNAids as irrefutable (pdf) and all relevant UN agencies now endorse a harm reduction approach to HIV and drug use.

At the International HIV and Aids Alliance we know of epidemics being averted, or reduced, in settings as diverse as Australia, Vietnam, Ukraine, Malaysia, China, Portugal, Mauritius and Switzerland.

110,000 injecting drug users were diagnosed with HIV in 2014 alone. The need for evidence-based approaches to dealing with this public health emergency has never been more important.

Yet in Vienna last week, references to harm reduction, needle and syringe programmes and opioid substitution therapy (OST) were contested. The policy process has been widely criticised, and the negotiations heavily influenced by countries including Russia who are vetoing harm reduction in favour of a bald restatement of the decades-old illusion of a drug-free world.

About $100bn (£69bn) is spent annually on the war on drugs, and research by Harm Reduction International published in the Lancet this month estimated that a 7.5% redirection of that money towards damage mitigation programmes would practically end HIV among injecting drug users.

So why does harm reduction continue to be such a problem for global drug policy?

Russia is thought to have been active behind the scenes at the CND, blocking attempts at putting a more progressive approach on the agenda. The country is notable for its failure to control the spread of HIV, in particular among drug users. It is one of the few countries where the HIV epidemic continues to grow quickly. Among members of the Council of Europe, it has the highest number of newly diagnosed HIV infections. More than 93,000 were diagnosed last year and 54% were attributable to unsafe drug injection, according to the Moscow-based Andrey Rylkov Foundation for Health and Social Justice.

To end HIV in drug users, stop chasing the dream of a drug-free world 

Iran's government has been putting a lot of people to death.

The Islamic Republic executed nearly 1,000 prisoners last year, marking a high in the number of executions in the country in more than 20 years, and making it the country with the highest number of executions per capita in the world, according to a new UN report.

Issued by the UN's special rapporteur on human rights in Iran, the report said that the majority of those executed were put to death for drug-related offenses.

There was a "staggering surge in the execution of at least 966 prisoners last year — the highest rate in over two decades," UN Special Rapporteur Ahmed Shaheed said at a press conference on Thursday. A former foreign minister of the Maldives, Shaheed has never been allowed into Iran, but his report was based on 128 interviews with Iranians abroad and in the country.

"Under Iran's current drug laws, possession of 30 grams of heroin or cocaine would qualify for the death penalty," he said. "So there's a number of draconian laws."

People can be put to death for a range of 17 drug crimes, including armed smuggling, movement of drugs in prisons, or hiring people while conspiring to break anti-narcotics laws.

More than 500 people executed in 2015, or about 65 percent of those executed, were convicted of such crimes, many of them nonviolent.

At least four juveniles were among those executed, while 160 remain on death row, according to the report. Iranian law stipulates that girls as young as nine years old can be put to death, and boys as young as 15.

The Islamic Republic defended the executions by saying that "severe punishments meted out to large[-scale] drug traffickers have brought about considerable reduction in the harm resulting from the flow of drugs to Iran and beyond."

The report applauded the Iranian law that requires the country's Supreme Court to review all death sentences, but said it was concerned about the lack of due process and fair trial rights, including "long periods of incommunicado and pretrial detention, and lack of adequate access to a lawyer and/or to a proper defense."

It noted that drug offenders are often "subjected to beatings and coerced confessions which are later used in revolutionary courts to secure their death sentences. In some cases judges reportedly convicted and sentenced drug offenders to death based on their 'intuition,' and despite what appeared to be a lack of evidence."

The Iranian government was given the opportunity to review the rapporteur's findings and to have its replies included in the report. It refuted the assertions and said the reference to judges convicting suspects on "intuition" was "false and biased."

Iran executed more than 500 people last year for drug-related crimes

The ‘war on drugs’ has not only failed in its aim to rid the world of illicit drugs, it is fuelling poverty and violence, undermining access to health, and harming some of the poorest and most marginalised communities worldwide. It’s time to rethink.

We’re calling for a new approach to drug policy, which puts people’s health and rights first.

Rethink drug policy

The Psychoactive Substances Act, which was criticised for being so vague it could ban things as benign as scented pillows, does not proscribe alkyl nitrates, a drug particularly popular among gay men. But the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has told the Home Office poppers are not covered by the Act as they do not work by “stimulating or depressing the central nervous system”.

“The ACMD’s consensus view is that a psychoactive substance has a direct action on the brain and that substances having peripheral effects, such as those caused by alkyl nitrites, do not directly stimulate or depress the central nervous system,” the experts wrote in their advice.

Campaigners welcomed the news, which many had feared would unduly target the gay community.

Niamh Eastwood, Executive Director of Release, the UK centre of expertise on drugs and drug laws, told HuffPost UK she was not surprised at ACMD’s conclusions. She said Release’s legal experts believed no substance fell under the Act’s remit because of its poorly-worded definition. She said Home Office Minister Mike Penning had “repeatedly” told parliament that poppers would be banned under the Act and said the latest news showed it was “most likely unenforceable”. She added: “The ACMD’s advice today could not be any clearer, poppers are not psychoactive and do not fall within the Act. “This comes as no surprise, this legislation is badly drafted, most likely unenforceable and may result in greater harms as has happened in Ireland and Poland where similar law has been enacted.”

The Act enables the Home Secretary to declare certain substances exempt but the ACMD recommended this was not necessary as poppers were not psychoactive, according to the Act’s definition, to begin with.

Poppers are popular as a muscle relaxant, often to facilitate sex.

During a reading on the Bill in the House of Commons, MP Crispin Blunt, who recently came out as gay, outed himself as a user of the drug.

News