In June 2013, IDPC co-organised an experts roundtable with the Thailand Ministry of Justice Rights and Liberties Protection Department (RLPD). The meeting focused on how Thailand’s sentencing framework might be reformed to include a distinct category for people who use drugs and also engage in low level dealing to fund their drug use (often referred to as ‘user-dealers’, eg. refer to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction). The roundtable follows on from a seminar held in September2012, co-organised by IDPC, RLPD and the Transnational Institute, to discuss and review effective legal frameworks for managing drug-related problems. For more background, see the IDPC blogpost on the seminar.

Thailand imposes a harsh regime for people who use or are dependent on drugs. Where an individual receives a positive urine test for use of a controlled drug, a court may sentence him or her to a minimum sentence of 6 months in a compulsory centre for drug users (CCDU) or as an outpatient in a community hospital. Their record with police is only deleted when they are deemed to have ‘passed’ the rehabilitation programme. Where an individual has not passed, they are required to go through the court sentencing process again which can lead to a term of imprisonment, or another term of ‘rehabilitation’ in a CCDU or community hospital. But where an individual tests positive for drug use and is also charged with another offence, including possession and supply of any quantity of drug, criminal penalties (involving a fine and/or term in prison) will apply for both drug use and any other offence.

The imposition of criminal penalties for the use and possession of drugs—whether for the ultimate purpose of personal use or commercial gain—conflicts with the principles of proportionality of sentencing for drug offences. Such drug “offences” are often committed because of occasional drug use, drug dependency or to meet basic economic needs. In these circumstances, services such as treatment, education, aftercare, rehabilitation or social integration should be offered as more humane, effective and proportionate alternatives to conviction and imprisonment. A proportionate sentencing framework would also incorporate these elements:

Distinctions between supply offences by referring to the type of drug involved, scale of the illicit activity, and role and motivation of the offender, eg. a distinction would be implemented between serious or organised traffickers, and micro-traffickers (low-level dealers or smugglers).

For micro-trafficking offences, reduced or provisional sentences, as well as alternatives to imprisonment, should be promoted.

The quantity of the drug involved should not be the only or major factor in determining the sentence for a drug offence. The socioeconomic circumstances in which an offence was committed and the financial gains of the offender should be considered as important mitigating factors. In circumstances where a person dependent on drugs is imprisoned, the provision of evidence-based drug treatment and services, along with HIV prevention services, should be ensured.

In response to the discussion of proportionality of sentencing, some roundtable participants were of the view that the problem with Thailand’s sentencing frameworks for people who use drugs was not the drug control laws but its implementation, which led to drug users being sent to prison instead of rehabilitation programmes. Government officials with responsibility for implementing Thailand’s rehabilitation programmes acknowledged that although compulsory centres remained a feature of the country’s treatment programme, more voluntary options were being introduced. One official commented that one key way that Thailand distinguished between different types of drug supply offences was through imprisoning large-scale traffickers in one facility, and low-scale traffickers in another facility—but acknowledged that Thai laws do not currently recognise user-dealers as requiring a different response such as alternatives to imprisonment.

A representative of the 12D network—the Thai coalition of civil society organisations advocating for harm reduction—urged policy officials to accept that it is common for people dependent on drugs to relapse in their drug use, even after participating in rehabilitation programmes, and not to impose punitive measures for relapses. She recommended that the government evaluate its investments in law enforcement and health interventions, to assess the benefits of investing more in measures aimed at addressing the health impacts of drug use. She also highlighted the need for the government to provide welfare services to meet the needs of communities, especially children, associated with people who use drugs, eg. where a mother or father has been imprisoned or detained in a CCDU and is not able to ensure the welfare of their children.

Researchers from the Chiangmai University Research Institute for Health Sciences presented the findings of their study on the experiences of people who use amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) within the criminal justice system in Thailand. Their findings concluded that the majority of people in prison for drug offences are for offences related to ATS and amongst whom rates of HIV and tuberculosis are increasing. The study identified problems as including the implementation of arrest quotas for police which provides incentives for police to arrest people who use drugs (although police have also been known to refer users to treatment services), the detention of people suspected of using drugs while awaiting a urine test which exposes them to a range of police abuses, the lack of spaces in voluntary drug treatment centres which can increase the chances of people who use drugs ending up in prison or compulsory centres, and ATS users charged with criminal offences, such as possession and supply of drugs, not being eligible for rehabilitation programmes. Some of the key recommendations resulting from the study were:

alternatives to imprisonment should be implemented for people who use or are dependent on drugs and commit other low-level offences

people who use drugs should be diverted away from the criminal justice system and into voluntary community and/or drug treatment services, and

arrest quotas for police should be eliminated.

A representative of the Law Reform Commission ended the experts roundtable on a positive note by saying that both Thai drug laws and their implementation need to be reviewed, including police practices towards people who use drugs, with the aim of reforming drug policies away from the theme of ‘war on drugs’. He noted that a key part of reform involved changing public perceptions, or misperceptions, about what constitutes good drug policy. The Law Reform Commission is currently reviewing Thailand’s drug laws and may be able to include proportionality of sentencing on its agenda.

Please keep watching this space for updates on the review of Thai drug laws. A summary report of discussions at the experts roundtable will be published soon on the IDPC website, and an IDPC briefing paper on drug policy in Thailand is planned for publication at the end of 2013.

For further analysis and briefing on proportionality of sentencing for drug offences, you can check the briefing papers, which form part of the Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies published jointly by the Transnational Institute and IDPC:

Conviction by Numbers: Threshold Quantities for Drug Policy

Drugs, Crime and Punishment: Proportionality of Sentencing for Drug Offences

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

Towards more proportionate sentencing laws in Thailand 

During the US presidential elections last year, voters in the states of Colorado and Washington passed ballot initiatives to allow for regulated recreational cannabis markets for those aged 21 or over – a bold move contrary to both US federal law and the international drug conventions. The results followed a highly successful, sustained campaign in favour of the initiatives and, last week, IDPC attended a roundtable discussion with Rick Ridder and Joannie Braden from RBI Strategies and Research – a leading international campaign management firm that played a pivotal role in both states. The discussion focused on the campaign strategies that were developed, and to how these might be adapted for broader campaigning use elsewhere in the world.

The Washington and Colorado campaigns had similarities and differences. Crucially, both had already passed laws allowing for the medical use of marijuana, and its supply through a network of licensed dispensaries – meaning that much of the taboo and stigma around the drug had already been broken down. However, while the campaign for regulated markets in Washington had the support of former elected officials, law enforcement officers and some of the main media outlets – the Colorado campaign received no government support. Instead, it worked in a much more “bottom-up” way, supported by community groups, young voters and civil society groups. Opposition to the bills came from right wing voters, but also from some left wing voters (either those who feared the involvement of big corporations and the tobacco industry, or those opposed to any level of regulation for the drug). Also, many medical marijuana dispensaries stood against the bills, concerned about the possible impact on their own businesses. Yet there was no well-coordinated opposition campaign in either case.

When planning the Washington and Colorado campaigns, lessons were learned from an unsuccessful bill in California a few years previous. In California, where one key demographic seemed to change their mind as the voting neared, swinging the overall vote against the regulation of cannabis – women aged 30-50. Therefore, a large investment was made in Washington and Colorado to reach these voters in particular. In order to identify the most successful messages, the campaign team conducted web tests, focus groups, poll surveys, etc.



The key messages that emerged highlighted the failure of current prohibition, the need “to have a conversation” about the issue, and the socio-economic benefits of the regulation (such as reduced prison overcrowding, the freeing up of law enforcement resources, and tax revenue – with profits going on public investments rather than to Mexican drug cartels. In Colorado, specific focus was put on the tax income being invested in building new schools – language that made it into the final amendment itself in order to tap into a key local political issue and a widely acknowledged need (to the extent that some referred to the ballot initiative as the “education bill”).

The campaigns themselves included internet advertising targeted at the key demographics, email communications, well-researched advertisements on TV and radio, and discussions in public forums and local events. Interestingly, the design and branding of the campaigns steered clear of images such as marijuana leaves, joints, cannabis smokers – and even avoided the colour green! Instead, the campaign materials featured middle-age mothers in coffee shops, health workers and law enforcement officials.

Some of the main campaigning lessons that can be learned from Washington and Colorado include:

the need for careful planning and research before agreeing on target groups and language (for example, many activists wanted to emphasise that cannabis is less harmful than alcohol, but it soon became clear that this message did not work with the target populations)

the need to provide a clear exchange – what benefits can you offer in return for someone’s vote or support (in Colorado, for example, the trade-off was a vote in return for funding for new schools)

the need to relate campaign language to the local context, needs and “emotional chords” – touching on the issues and debates that generate the most interest and support (in Colorado, the issue of the lack of investment in schools)

The future of regulated cannabis markets in the USA has just begun – much is still undecided and many issues remain to be resolved (following the votes in 2012, even the models being developed by Washington and Colorado differ in many ways). Other states are considering similar moves, most likely at the next presidential elections in 2016, and other countries are watching closely to see how Washington and Colorado proceed.

How to run a campaign: Lessons from Washington and Colorado

VNGOC Chair Michel Perron used his podium time at the launch of the 2013 World Drug Report in Vienna last week to make a compelling case to CND member states about the value of their partnering with NGOs in preparation for the 2014 High Level Review of the 2009 Political Declaration and Plan of Action and 2016 UNGASS. Saying they could expect a “high return on investment of effective partnerships with NGOs,” and citing VNGOC’s recent track record supporting overdose prevention and HIV/AIDS resolutions, Perron assured delegates that “our members represent a significant and tangible strategic asset for your government to partner with.” The clear and concise but conceptually dense remarks contained a request that member states earmark a portion of their annual contributions to UNODC to support the VNGOC efforts to provide technical support and advice to member states on specific areas of concern through 2016.

The VNGOC membership meeting focused on presentation of the new Strategic Plan, which takes into account what Mr. Perron called an “explosion of interest” in VNGOC both by UN member states as well as new NGO affiliates. This interest is only expected to grow as member states’ attention focuses on demand and supply control strategies under global austerity, shifts to different substances and trafficking routes, and compelling regional initiatives such as the OAS Report. The highly publicized Global Commission on Drug Policy statements as well as effective NGO participation in the 56th CND have slightly shifted member states’ perspectives on the need for relevant and compelling information to assist in development of national and regional drug policies.

With Executive Officer David Turner undergoing treatment for lymphoma, Daniel Quittan, a Vienna insider, has been hired as part-time Project Officer to implement the stringent governance requirements and financial opportunities (which include qualifying for EU funds) that come with being an officially registered Austrian NGO. Since the Committee is asking member states to invest in VNGOC – to have a financial stake in it – in order to provide technical support and give NGOs an effective voice in the run up to the 2014 High Level Review and 2016 UNGASS, its ability to both be and 

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

Vienna NGOs: Taking responsibility for the future of world drug policy

A research conducted by the Colombian Government on the levels of purity and types of adulterants used to dilute cocaine, has recently been published. From a sample of three Colombian cities, it was discovered that more than 60% of consumed cocaine is in fact not cocaine at all, but cocaine-based paste. Likewise, users of other substances such as LSD and MDMA have reported modified substances generating adverse health effects and harms.

Civil society organizations have recognized that the adulteration of psychoactive substances is an inherent negative consequence of the prohibitionist regime. Focusing on harm reduction, these organizations are now generating strategies that are not only focusing on protecting users from harms associated with the substances, but also from the risks of consuming adulterated substances. It is on these lines that services aimed at analyzing psychoactive substances are gaining importance. These services provide immediate information for users wishing to know whether what they bought in the black market was what they had been told or not.

Given these developments, the NGO ‘Acción Técnica Social’ is proud to present their new services on substance analysis. These services are presented to partner organizations, substance users, and interested government stakeholders as part of a harm reduction initiative in festive areas: “Echele Cabeza cuando se de en la cabeza” ("Use your head when you get high"). Since late last year, and with support from the Spanish organization “Energy Control”, ATS has been developing an important and necessary service to protect the integrity and health of people who use drugs in the city of Bogota.

At the moment, the ATS substance analysis service is designed as a mobile unit to be utilized at parties and events where substances such as 2CB, MDMA, amphetamines, and cocaine are used. The mobile unit provides information on whether substances have been adulterated or are what they were described to be. In such cases, further information on how to avoid associated risks is given to users.

“Echele Cabeza cuando se de en la cabeza” is an initiative supported by the Colombian Ministry of Social Protection. ATS has established an agreement with the national government to provide field-work information relating to the early recognition of new substances and adulterants in Colombian streets. Released last week, the first information alert confirmed the presence of adulterated LSD among the substances sold in Colombia. An example of a substance also found in other countries is the compound 25I-NBEOMe (2CI), identified by the Energy Control team.

We consider the current agreement with the national government as important since it allows greater reach for efforts aimed at protecting the health of users. Nonetheless, ATS encourages the Colombian government to publicize their support and promote the visionary strategies that have been proven successful in contexts similar to the Colombian one. In the future, ATS hopes to implement services where users are able to leave their substances for analysis. Users would be able, after a defined period of time, to check online the contents of the analyzed substance. At any rate, ATS hopes that before the end of the next semester, they will be able to conduct a major sample collection. Even though the substances to sample are yet to be decided, the purpose of this project is to create a detailed sample of substance use in the city of Bogota.

At a time where both the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ are being globalized, ATS trusts in international cooperation to place at the disposal of partner organizations all the information they will compile. ATS considers of extreme importance the fact of being able to share data on trends in drug use and the composition of substances. This will allow us to provide better services that efficiently protect people who use drugs.

Let’s continue to move forward on the construction of open, free, and just societies.

Qualitative drug testing: Harm reduction programs in Colombia 

 global campaign, members of the Thai Civil Society Coalition for Harm Reduction (12D Network), human rights activists and people who use drugs attended a street rally to raise awareness of the harms caused by the ‘war on drugs’. We gathered at the front of Government House, holding banners demanding drug policy reforms to end the criminalisation of drug use, violations against drug users and compulsory treatment.

The 12D Network had prepared a letter to the Prime Minister, Ms. Yingluck Shinawatra, demanding that the government reform its drug control policies. On her behalf, the Secretary -General of the Office of Narcotics Control Board (ONCB), Pol. Gen. Pongsapat Pongcharoen, met with the 12D Network at the rally and officially received the letter. The Secretary-General addressed rally participants and committed to meeting with the participants again next week for a more detailed dialogue about the letter, which comprised 5 requests of the government:

support and implement harm reduction and evidence-based policies on drug use

provide more resources to implement prevention and healthcare and harm reduction services for people who use drugs

review and reform laws and policies to end the criminalisation of people who use drugs

support voluntary rehabilitation and treatment methods that are based on evidence and human rights, and end the imprisonment of people who use drugs, and

provide more opportunities for Thai civil society organisations and drug user networks to participate in policy making processes.

The day before the rally, the Thailand Law Reform Council Rights Protection Sub-Committee organized a public forum called 

’10 years of Harm Reduction Policies in Thailand: Rights Promotion or Violation’.

 The purpose of the forum was to review Thailand’s drug control policies in the last 10 years since the Prime Minister at the time, Mr. Thaksin Shinawatra, declared a war on drugs in Thailand. A range of speakers from government, health services and civil society spoke about the need to address the stigmatization and discrimination against people who use drugs, particularly amongst healthcare providers, and to incorporate evidence-based approaches in the rehabilitation system.Mr. Veeraphan Ngammee of the 12D Network highlighted the fact that the number of new HIV infections in Thailand has been increasing since 2003 from 10,000 to 1.2 million, indicates that the government’s drug control policy has been ineffective. Concrete suggestions for improving Thailand’s drug policies included reforming drug laws, raising public awareness about drug use and dependence, ending compulsory treatment and introducing voluntary options, and ensuring better balance between law enforcement and health in developing and implementing policy measures.

These activities are steps forward for the reform of drug control policy in Thailand. The 26 June rally was perhaps the most successful demonstration to date of drug user networks, as it elicited a positive response from government that have never before been witnessed. The next steps forward for improving drug policy in Thailand will hopefully be witnessed by us at the dialogue next week promised by the Office of Narcotics Control Board.

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

26 June Day of Action in Bangkok, Thailand

The Obama administration’s statement, 'A Drug Policy for the 21st Century', makes satisfying reading. Basically, the White House is saying (publicly through its own website) that it accepts that the decades of US drug policy reliance on widespread arrest and harsh punishment of people who use drugs has been an expensive mistake. This has been coming for some months now, with increasingly clear statements from the US federal administration that a change of direction is needed in drug policy, but the clarity of this statement is crucial, in that it finally puts to bed any notion that the ridiculously harsh US sentencing policies for non-violent drug offences can produce any benefit for American society.

I commend Drug Czar Kerlikowske, and the other advisers to President Obama who must surely have approved this statement, for their bravery in making this step. However, the obvious question now is – if you now accept that mass incarceration was a mistaken and ineffective policy, what do you plan to do about the hundreds of thousands of Americans who will spend tonight (and many more nights) in prison as a result of this mistake. There are a wide range of legislative initiatives aiming to reduce the use of incarceration for non-violent drug offences in the future, but nothing that addresses those currently languishing in US prisons under this injustice.

As someone who has disagreed with much of US drug policy for the three decades I have worked in this field, it is heartening to be increasingly finding more to support than to condemn. I do however, foresee some remaining problems with some of the other proposals in Mr Kerlikowske's statement:

The focus on prevention. While in theory it is of course better to prevent a problem than respond to it later, one of the lessons of the last 30 years is that prevention programmes may do a lot to raise awareness of risk, and improve self-esteem and decision making, but are not a key factor in reducing overall drug use prevalence. If the White House sets ambitious prevalence reduction targets on the back of an increased investment in prevention, it is likely to be disappointed.

Similarly, the commitment to early screening and intervention with those developing drug problems is welcome, but it is important to recognise that recovery rates amongst those receiving those interventions are relatively low. We are better at treating long entrenched drug dependence than we are in preventing its onset.

Finally, the commitment to promote the US Drug Court model internationally carries real dangers. Offering alternatives to custody is a much needed reform in many countries, but the drug court model is an expensive one (that most countries cannot afford) and still applies tough sanctions to relatively minor offenders. There are many more cost effective ways to divert minor offenders to treatment and support (see the IDPC Policy Guide), and the US authorities need to promote the full range.

The US Federal Government has unrivalled diplomatic and human resources around the world with which to promote humane and effective drug policies – I hope that this new 21st Century approach will now be reflected in their work.

Mike Trace, IDPC Chair and former UK Deputy Drug Czar

Real change we can believe in

Last month, Harm Reduction International hosted the 23rd international harm reduction conference in Vilnius, Lithuania. Around 800 participants attended from all around the world to share latest experiences, developments and evidence – and the sense of community was noticeable from the opening.

As always at these events, there was a huge range on offer – from traditional presentations to ‘dialogue space’ discussions, an international film festival, and a music concert by local superstars Ball and Chain! Such spoils inevitably meant that no-one got to see everything they wanted to, and this was exacerbated by the large number of important side-meetings taking place as well as groups sought to take advantage of being in one place at one time.

One such event was an IDPC Members Meeting, at which around 40 people met over lunch to discuss the network’s work and the opportunities coming up (see picture) – reflecting on the recent developments in Latin America and New York among many other things.

Highlights from the main programme included video addresses from Richard Branson and Stephen Lewis, a great speech from former Polish President President Aleksander Kwaśniewski (now a member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy), and Ethan Nadelmann from the Drug Policy Alliance in the USA. From IDPC’s perspective, we launched our new Drug Policy Advocacy Training Toolkit during a lunchtime session and Secretariat staff presented on a wide range of topics – such as amphetamine-type substances, the Community Action on Harm Reduction project, and the history of drugs and sex work in the twentieth century. It was also a great opportunity to further promote the Support. Don’t Punish. campaign.

Overall, the conference was a great success and an invaluable opportunity to be with colleagues and allies at an important time for harm reduction and drug policy reform. For more information, please visit the conference website: http://www.ihra.net/conference

Reflections from the International Harm Reduction Conference 

It was nearly standing room only Monday at UN Headquarters in New York, for a presentation of the Organization of American States’ reports on “The Drug Problem in the Americas” and the Declaration of Antigua Guatemala, “For a Comprehensive Policy against the World Drug Problem in the Americas,” adopted during the 43rd Regular Session of the Organization of American States General Assembly in La Antigua, Guatemala from 4 to 6 June 2013. The event was sponsored by the Permanent Mission of Guatemala to the United Nations, in collaboration with IDPC, Harm Reduction Coalition and the New York City Bar Association Committee on Drugs & the Law.

, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Guatemala, who was followed by 

Drug Policy Coordinator, México Unido Contra La Delincuencia and Transform Drug Policy Foundation, and 

Advocacy Director, Health and Human Rights Division, Human Rights Watch. The event was moderated by 

IDPC Associate and Senior Fellow at The Washington Office on Latin America.

Coletta Youngers opened the discussion with a brief background of the OAS meeting, where for the first time, OAS placed its main focus on drug policy issues. Coletta discussed the OAS’s analytical report and scenarios exercise, and the Declaration of Antigua Guatemala, which among other things, calls for a Special Session of the General Assembly of the OAS in 2014, as a lead up to the drugs UNGASS to be held in New York in 2016. Coletta pointed out that while many countries in the region are calling for alternative policies, there’s certainly no consensus on what those policies might be – rather we are at the beginning on a very long and interesting debate, and are focused on moving that debate forward. Underscoring the important role of civil society organizations, she talked about the Antigua declaration setting forth a very comprehensive set of recommendations made by a diverse group of civil society members.

Minister Fernando Carrera Castro then gave his address. He discussed his history with drug policy reform starting with his days advising President Otto Pérez Molina, who, in the face of adversity and intense criticism, has for many years advocated for finding an alternative to the “War on Drugs”.

The Summit of the Americas in Antigua was a turning point in this regard. Well-attended by many high level leaders, the consensus from the meeting was that, although drastic change in the short term was not likely, “adjustments” are needed, primarily with respect to: changing the focus to health and human rights, decriminalization, prevention of violence, and discussing the socioeconomic aspects of the problem and developing social policy in response. It was recognized at the meeting that a shift from a multi-disciplinary approach was needed instead of continuing to focus on interdiction. In the end, it was acknowledged that these “common sense” policies must be a topic of public debate so that a new strategy could be developed over the next 3-4 years in the lead-up to 2016. In the end, Minister Carrera stated that “we’re just starting these discussions – we don’t know where we’ll be in 10 years time, but we’re starting a change in approach,” and acknowledged that the 21st century “deserves a more scientific approach to drugs, not just a continuation with a repetition of what we’ve done in the last 50 to 60 years.”

Lisa Sánchez followed with a discussion of the actual process of drafting the OAS reports and the methodology: the report composed of two components including 1) the analytical report, which addressed different dimensions of drug problem in Americas (where are we?), and 2) the scenarios report, showing four narratives of what drug policies could look like from 2013 to 2025 (where could we be?). The scenarios report, the more forward looking of the two, shows four narratives, or “stories”, each with its own focus, such as security, legal alternatives, health and strengthening of communities, and conflict and disruption of adopting different policies in different countries. She pointed out that it was important to note that these are not meant to be a set of recommendations, but a useful baseline document to foster debate and promote national, local and regional dialogues on drug policy in order to better understand what the real possibilities of change are and how can we as governments and civil society actors can respond to support drug policy reform.

Lisa then explained the four scenarios briefly: 1) “together”, with an emphasis on security policy; 2) “pathways”, with a focus on legal regulation; 3) “resilience”, with a focus on strengthening of communities; and 4) “disruption”, which has as its solution the deprioritizing of enforcement in transit countries. All of the scenarios introduce some degree of change, although none of them are mutually exclusive; rather, it is up to governments to take the four of them and try to understand how drug policy can evolve and get a clear idea of what a post-prohibition world could look like if one or another decision was made. Ultimately, the scenarios report provides a good baseline tool moving forward to address the drug problem both hemispherically and within the UN in 2016.

After Lisa’s presentation, Coletta pointed out the widely divergent needs and goals among nations especially within Latin America, and that there was therefore the need for corresponding flexibility.

Finally, Rebecca Schleifer gave an impassioned presentation on the topic of human rights and drug policy, acknowledging the great strides made in the area– indeed at the session of the Commission of Narcotic Drugs in 2009, the very mention of the words “harm reduction” raised alarm bells.

Rebecca discussed Human Rights Watch’s position of opposing criminalization of possession for personal use. HRW has been documenting human rights abuses relating to drug control efforts for more than 15 years and has found that in countries throughout the world, criminal law relating to drug use and related law enforcement practices facilitate or exacerbate serious human rights abuses, ranging from torture, ill treatment and extrajudicial killing to denial of basic health services. Despite the fact that individuals have the human right to seek life saving health services without fear of punishment or discrimination, the research in many countries shows that many people do not carry sterile equipment and do not take advantage of health services geared towards drug users because of fear of being branded a drug user.

Rebecca pointed out that while the trend seems to be on the emphasis of drug treatment, not incarceration – couching drug users as patients, not criminals – seems at first to be progressive, there are serious problems with this approach. First, the vast number of people who use drugs do not need treatment. Second, treatment is extremely limited and many facilities don’t meet human rights standards.

In two instances of “calling out the elephant in the room,” Rebecca discussed human rights abuses in Guatemala involving 6,000 people held in up to 200 “evangelical prayer camps” ostensibly for the purposes of treatment. Drug users are taken off the street, by field hunting parties (

), by the police, family members or voluntarily. They face difficult conditions inside these facilities, including harsh penalties if they want to leave and little government oversight. In the second instance, she discussed the primary donors to the drug control system– the United States, for example (who were, actually, in the room) – and pointed out that with major donor status comes a responsibility to see that human rights are not violated in the process.

Rebecca also discussed progresses made, domestically and internationally, in drug reform –for example, decriminalization of possession for personal use, protecting access to harm reduction services, supervised injection sites; and prison-based needle exchange.

In closing, she discussed reform under the international drug conventions – the Declaration of Antigua noted the importance of “fully implementing” the Conventions, and Rebecca expressed hope that “fully implementing” would mean that governments use the flexibilities permitted in the drug conventions, which INCB recognizes, such as the decriminalization adopted in Portugal. She emphasized, however, that HRW’s position is that states need to seek amendment of the Conventions insofar as they conflict with human rights obligations – including efforts to permit decriminalization of possession for personal use.

The session ended with a brief question and answer session, which touched on the connection of the OAS reports and Declaration with the process leading up to the High Level Review scheduled for the 57th Session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs in 2014 and the UNGASS to be held in New York in 2016.

Guatemala Minister of Foreign Affairs presents results of OAS General Assembly meeting, focused on drug policy, to full house at UN Headquarters in New York

“I was arrested for drugs when I was 19-year-old, now I am 32-year-old. Thirteen years have passed but even now I can be imprisoned anytime. I live under the threat of police. Use drugs once and become a criminal for life,” rued Vinod (name changed) as he took part in a Support. Don’t Punish event in New Delhi.

These words ably illustrate the consequences of the punitive laws that criminalize drug use in India. As part of efforts to raise awareness and speak against harmful policies, India HIV/AIDS Alliance joined the Support Don’t Punish campaign with Global Day of Action activities in New Delhi to raise awareness of the harms caused by the criminalization of people who use drugs.

At busy service sites for people who inject drugs (PWID) in the Yamuna Bazar and Jahangirpuri sections of the city, we shared Support. Don't Punish stickers and posters and spoke with PWID about how June 26 has long been observed as “anti-drug day” with public arrests of PWID along with the disposal of seized drugs. Our campaign aimed to reclaim the day as one to support PWID.

PWID from both sites volunteered to join us as we headed to our rally at Jantar Mantar, a historic area of New Delhi. Here the group grew as it was joined by more representatives from drugs users groups and other activists to observe a silent march to bring the issues of PWID to the notice of decision makers and the general public and encourage policy reform to promote our health and human rights.

Our last stop of the day was at Sahara House, a community-based drug treatment center, where we took part in an interactive session facilitated by Tripti Tandon a prominent lawyer from Lawyers Collective. PWID shared their experiences, and Tripti noted that though the law allows for a PWID to avail detoxification, this provision is often overlooked by law enforcement.

As our Day of Action ended in New Delhi, we hoped it would mark a turning point for PWID.

There are signs of change. As we raised community voices on 26th June, a group of international technical experts urged the Prime Minister of India to end the War on Drugs. Is a new consensus forming? As our banner proclaimed, “The War on Drugs kills us!” In India, this War has been lost, leaving behind only death. We need to move past futility and toward solutions that work for PWID.

Support. Don’t Punish: A day of action in New Delhi for decriminalisation of drug use

The distinct sound of circling wagons characterized the rhetoric at the launch of the 2013 World Drug Report on Wednesday 26th June, as speakers from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) other high level organizations referenced recent cracks in the UN drug control regime, including the report of the Organization of American States (OAS) and various national and local measures to legalize and regulate the sale and use of cannabis. The session was a dizzying whirlwind of words such as terrorism, trafficking, democracy, suffering, new psychoactive substances, and human rights, a phrase that came up more than twelve times in the various presentations (after that I lost count). Yet given all the pious references to the fact that the drug control treaties are based on the principles of health and human rights, only one speaker, James Ugala from Ghana, mentioned harm reduction in the context of “holistic policy.” The Iranian delegate was more forthcoming, calling the fight against drugs a “holy war” mentioning that “it” had “cost” more than 3600 Iranian lives last year.

While the report struck a self-congratulatory note mentioning that world drug use had “stabilized” at 27 million “problem users,” giving statistics on seizures and alternative development programs, alarms were sounded at the growing global use of new psychoactive substances that are not regulated by the drug control conventions. Speaker after speaker reiterated this fact, discursively blurring it with the massive harms to democracy and development perpetrated by global trafficking – the word “mafia” came up a lot – and corruption, all framed by the mantra of shared responsibility. While it may have been my imagination, some delegates seemed to be laying the rhetorical groundwork for a new global convention on psychoactive substances.

The Russian representative, Mr. Ivanov, attacked the report for its failure to mention the devastating impact of illicit Afghan opium production on the Eurasian region, which, he said, was the “defining factor in political destabilization in Eurasia that was obvious to whole world.” He suggested that “implementation of current political action plan threatened to be a debacle” if the CND did not pay more attention to the situation in Eurasia, citing alternative development for Afghan poppy farmers as the “appropriate remedy” that ECOSOC should apply. For his part, the Afghan representative said that treatment programs and alternative development were working in the provinces where there was sufficient US and UK aid and food programs, but that deep poverty and political instability gave the Taliban a free hand to encourage farmers to grow poppy for the world market. Sergei Lebedev, ED of the Commonwealth of Independent States recommended the Russian Federation’s policy of forcing all people dependent on drugs into “treatment” and confiscating the property of drug dealers to the assembly at large.

INCB President Raymond Yans mentioned access to essential medicines for “relief of pain and suffering” four times in his five minute speech, but spoiled the moment by intoning the words “control” and “abuse” at least thirty times. Predictably Yans condemned the US states’ that are legalizing recreational cannabis use, which he said “was in grave contravention of the drug control conventions.” How this position squares with the cited toll on democracy taken by illegal drug use and trafficking was baffling.

Michel Perron of the Vienna NGO Committee (VNGOC), was a voice of sanity, highlighting the overdose prevention and HIVAIDS resolutions brought by NGOs at the 56th CND and recommending a three point plan of action to include NGOs in the 2014 high level assessment and the 2016 UN General Assembly Special Session on drugs (UNGASS). He called on member states to earmark a portion of their annual contributions to UNODC for NGO specific activities, concluding his remarks with the statement that “the CND is the body vested with the fiduciary and policy authority and by extension – accountability – to get it right. Getting it right cannot be done by governments alone and we (civil society) look forward to contributing to your mandate.” A full report on the meeting is forthcoming.

Launch of the UNODC World Drug Report 2013 – Between “holy war” and “holistic policy”

I am the Policy Manager of the Asia Action on Harm Reduction (Asia Action) project in China. This project is funded by the European Union. Where people who use drugs (PUDs) are discriminated against and marginalized, and governments are still unwilling to change their minds, this project is an act of bravery for harm reduction. Project partners are undertaking a challenging journey to bring about change and protect the human rights of PUDs.

I started to work in harm reduction when I joined AIDS Care China in November 2012. It has been an intensive learning for me which I call ‘life on the road’. I am continuing this journey and want to take the Chinese public and government with me.

On the Road is by Jack Kerouac and this book helps us to understand how different everyone’s life is. It also teaches us to respect other people’s choices. We can accept drug use as a way of life and people who use drugs could have a family, a job and lots of friends like many of us do. Through Asia Action we encourage governments and local communities to give people who use drugs a chance for a better life and help them to live their ‘life on the road’.

Recently I visited Ruili City, which is a major border crossing between China and Myanmar. I visited the local methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) clinic, met people who use drugs on MMT; and followed my colleagues on their journey to all corners of the city to provide clean syringes to PUDs, many of whom live on the streets or under the bridge. MMT clients told me that they are at the very bottom of the society and through our conversations I feel their desires to be accepted by the public. Many of them earn a living by working as a porter or collecting coke bottles. They are struggling between drug use and an ordinary life. All they need is support in a friendly and respecting way.

People who use drugs in China lack access to clean needles and syringes; they don’t have enough money to pay for MMT fees; and they face the risk of being imprisoned in compulsory detox centres which obviously do them no good. However, the biggest challenge from my perspective is that they are not accepted by the general public.

Both the public and the Chinese government regard drug use as a criminal act. So once a person has been labeled as a PUD or injecting drug user, his or her driving license will be revoked and be recorded within the controlling system managed by the Ministry of Public Security. And sometimes a person who looks and acts like an PUD will be subjected to an impromptu urine test and then imprisoned in a compulsory detox centre if the result is positive, even if there is strong evidence showing that he or she is an MMT client.

The situation in China is that the public discriminates against people who use drugs and expects all of them to be imprisoned or even wishes them death. The reason? Well, I think it is because ordinary Chinese have little tolerance for others, nor are they necessarily able to understand a different life style.

During the recent project partners’ meeting, we saw the fantastic Someone’s Mother, Someone’s Brother film. Any person may be attracted or forced to start using drugs and may end up dying on the street without help or support. It is the addiction that makes people suffer. Nobody is born evil and any one of us could be in this situation. Shouldn’t we ask ourselves why we didn’t provide interventions much earlier, at the time they needed them most?

Fortunately, it is not too late! Please take the Support Don’t Punish action today. Click here to find out how.

Recently, an MMT client came to the AIDS Care China clinic asking for help. He has been sick for a while and didn’t have the strength to earn a living. In addition, he is living with HCV. We promised to try our best to help him. When he heard the promise, a light flickered in his eyes.

On the road: Harm reduction advocacy in China

On Wednesday 26th June, activists will take to the streets in 26 cities around the world for the SUPPORT. DON’T PUNISH campaign’s first ever day of action. The campaign calls on g

overnments to remove criminal sanctions for drug use and scale up health and harm reduction services for people who use drugs.

The day of action on 26th June deliberately coincides

United Nations’ International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking

, a day on which the UNODC and many governments promote tough drug control policies and zero-tolerance ideology towards drug use. The 26th June is also the 

United Nations’ International Day in Support of Victims of Torture.

 The day of action seeks to reclaim the message of the 26th June and make it about recognising the need for reforming drug policies so that they are based in principles of human rights and public health.

The SUPPORT. DON'T PUNISH campaign highlights the failures and harms of a strongly punitive approach towards drug use. Despite the billions of dollars spent each year on harsh drug law enforcement in an attempt to stop the illicit production, trade and use of drugs, an estimated 230 million people continue to use drugs today. This represents 5 per cent of the world's population. The objective of eradicating the illicit drug market has proven to be absurdly unrealistic. In addition, the current “war on drugs” approach that relies on heavily punitive measures towards people who grow, produce, trade and use drugs has taken its toll on our society in terms of appalling human, social and economic costs.

These costs include the stigmatisation and marginalisation of people who use drugs, the mass incarceration of people for non-violent drug offences and a serious impact in terms of public health - an explosion of the HIV and hepatitis epidemics among people who inject drugs

Of the 16 million people who inject drugs worldwide, around three million are living with HIV and two-thirds are living with hepatitis C. These blood-borne viruses are entirely preventable as long as people who inject drugs have access to sterile needles and syringes.

Global experience has shown that the decriminalisation of drug use and the provision of harm reduction services, such as needle and syringe programmes (NPS), drug consumption rooms (DCR) or Opioid Substitution Therapy (OST), have been effective in reducing drug-related harms. However, despite compelling evidence for their effectiveness and UN endorsement of these measures, many governments continue to deny people who use drugs access to these life-saving services. In addition, although governments spend around US$ 100 billion a year, very little donor money is currently being spent on harm reduction interventions.

With this Day of Action, activists worldwide are re-claiming 26th June to call on governments to invest in effective HIV prevention measures for people who use drugs, to bring an end to the criminalisation and punishment of people who use drugs, as well as ensuring the provision of voluntary, evidence-based and human rights-compliant drug treatment programmes while putting an end to imprisonment as a form of treatment.

In addition to the 80 organisations and 700 individuals that have officially joined the SUPPORT. DON’T PUNISH campaign, prominent voices have also endorsed the campaign’s key message. Among them, Caroline Lucas, Green party MP for Brighton Pavilion, stated that "by criminalising millions of people around the world we are not tackling the root causes of the drug problem. We need to take an approach based on evidence and to address the drug problem as a health issue, not as a criminal one. On 26th June, I will be joining people from around the world on a special day of action on drugs reform”.

The day of action will be held 26 cities across the world, including Bandung / Sukabumi, Bangkok, Beirut, Bournemouth, Delhi, Indonesia, Jakarta, Kathmandu, Kiev, Kuala Lumpur, Makassar, Matram, Medan, Mexico City, Moscow, Mostar, Nairobi, Ohrid, Oslo, Paris, Pokhara, Port-Louis, Seville, Tbilsi, Tuzla, Zenica and London. The day of action will vary according to the location, with interventions from prominent football teams, theatre groups, singers and politicians. But all will regroup under one banner – Support. Don't Punish.

Blog