A national conference on drug policy reform, led by civil society organisations, will take place in February 2020 to resist the harms of 30 years of prohibition and punitive drug policy in Italy. The convening takes place 10 years after the last government-led National Conference, despite clear legislation that the government is required to organise a convening on national drug policy every three years.

The 2020 “self-summoned” national conference, taking place at the Camera del Lavoro Metropolitana in Milan, is described as an act of “civil obedience” by its organisers, who are concerned that the Italian government has neglected its duty as outlined in the Italian Constitution, article 1, clause 15 of the law 309/90 to address drug policy and its impacts.

The government’s National Conference is meant to bring together politicians, experts on drugs and drug policy, civil society associations and other non-governmental organisations to assess the government’s current drug policy and examine its efficacy in terms of predetermined objectives, methods and strategies. The National Conference is also meant to be used to evaluate potential negative consequences – which, with regards to drug prohibition, have been many and egregious in character all over the world.

However, what could initially be considered a lack of due diligence on the part of the Italian government has now transformed into de facto law-breaking, resulting in the stagnation of both the public debate around drugs and national drug policy and law. Without regular National Conferences, the drug policy debate at the governmental and public level has waned, with impact assessment and evaluation much more difficult to carry out and ascertain. It is clear that this is a major limitation hindering improvement and reform of drug policy.

The last National Conference, convened in Trieste in 2009, was considered by many grassroots organisations to be of little relevance to their urgent concerns about the impact of the war on drugs in Italy. The last conference of any relevance – at least in terms of reforms proposed and the value of the debate, took place in Genoa back in 2000 – 9 years before the government’s last National Conference.

The Genoa conference contributed an active anti-prohibitionist thrust to the debate, with proposals from civil society organisations and even some government members ranging from the decriminalization of all drug use to the introduction of heroin-assisted treatment (HAT) and the legalization of cannabis. But following Genoa – with the Italian PM at the time declaring no agreement on the matter – the public debate came to a halt.

Only two conferences have been held since, and they both revolved around the measures projected in the ‘Fini-Giovanardi’ law (49/2006), the infamous piece of legislature criticized for being highly repressive towards people who use drugs (PWUDs) and for significantly contributing to the overcrowding of prisons in Italy.

Law 49/2006, in fact, abolished the distinction between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ drugs (with cannabis equaled to cocaine and heroin, a huge increase in arrests followed) and introduced “quantitative thresholds in order to effectively distinguish between consumption and trafficking” (while drug possession, on paper, was decriminalized, the actual thresholds were derisory: 0.5g for cannabis; 0.25g for heroin; 0.75g for cocaine). Moreover, it reintroduced administrative sanctions for personal use, like suspension of a passport and/or driving licence, but for longer periods and in addition to other penalties like detention and community service, rather than instead of them.

Concisely, it was brutal on the drug users and street suppliers alike. It produced an unseen increase in incarceration rates, especially for non-violent offences. It wasted infinite resources for the tribunal, police and penal systems focusing on low-level offences with no significant impact on the illicit market.

Ten years without a National Conference on drug policy in Italy: the demand for change is led by civil society

In early 2017, Myanmar police raided a house in Yangon’s Thaketa township with a warrant to search for drugs. Underneath a Buddhist altar, they found 10 tablets of yaba—a stimulant containing methamphetamine and caffeine. Three housemates, one of whom was the target of the warrant, were arrested and charged under two sections of Myanmar’s 1993 drug law: Section 15, for failure to register as drug users, and Section 16(c), for possession of illegal drugs.

At the time of the raid, a fourth person was in the house: a woman in her 20s who had been hired to come over and style the housemates’ hair. She was also arrested, and when police tested her urine, they found the presence of drugs in her system. Despite having no drugs on her, no prior criminal record, and no apparent connection to the drugs found in the house, she was slapped with the same charges. In early 2018, a judge sentenced all four defendants to 10 years’ imprisonment with hard labour—four for failure to register, and six years for possessing a stash of pills worth less than US$4.

“It was a conviction and a sentence that we were very, very aghast at,” says Sam Roberts, an American public defender who assisted with the hairdresser’s defence as a fellow for the International Legal Fund in Yangon.

To Roberts, the judge’s decision highlights the misguidedness of Myanmar’s brutal approach to drug control—an approach that treats drug users as criminals and funnels them into prisons by the thousands. Myanmar’s criminalisation of drug use, even personal use with no intent to sell, has deterred all but 3% of an estimated 300,000 drug users from seeking medical treatment. It’s also failed to bring down rates of dependency, disease transmission, and overdose. At least 50% of the country’s inmates are serving sentences for low-level drug offences.

“You are criminalising what’s essentially non-violent, ultimately non-criminal, addictive conduct that’s consistent with illness rather than bad intent, and you’re taking a lot of young people and putting them in prison for a long time,” Roberts says.

“This is crippling communities, families, and society as a whole.”

When the Myanmar military almost decriminalised drug use

The future government has been urged to consider every available measure to curb the current drug death “crisis”, including decriminalisation, in an unprecedented plea from the UK’s major drug treatment providers.

They implored the next government to be “brave and radical” in the changes they make to current drug laws, described as “not fit for the modern world”.

An independent commission must be established to revamp “incredibly outdated” policy, with no options off the table, said the UK’s largest drug treatment provider, Change Grow Live. Ahead of the general election, the charity urged all political parties to commit to setting up this commission and implementing whatever it recommends, and to pledge centralised, ringfenced funding for drug and alcohol treatment until at least 2025.

The call was also backed by Addaction, Turning Point and Humankind. Together the four organisations provided support for the vast majority of the 268,251 adults receiving drug and alcohol treatment in England this past year.

The plea for every political party to prioritise the crisis and pledge tangible, evidence-based change ahead of the general election comes in response to record levels of drug-related deaths, with 4,539 fatalities in England and Wales in 2018, and 1,187 in Scotland – the highest rate anywhere in Europe.

“What is most concerning and completely unacceptable is that these tragedies can be avoided: with the right policies, approach and support,” Change Grow Live’s CEO, Mark Moody, told 

. Referencing the Misuse of Drugs Act, he said: “There are very few policies written in 1971 that are fit for the modern world – and drug legislation is one of those things.”

While the charity is “not suggesting a lift and shift of policies that have worked in other places” and doesn’t believe in “silver bullets”, Mr Moody said decriminalisation, and other evidence-based policies, need to be evaluated in a British context with nothing “off the table”.

“I don’t think you can necessarily say that what works for Portugal works for the UK,” he said, emphasising the need for nuanced policy discussions, even in terms of what different regions of the country may require.

But while he sees “no criminal justice or health benefits” to criminalising individuals for possessing small amounts of substances for personal use, Mr Moody suggested criminalisation can further stigmatise drug users – which he described as “a big part of the problem in the country. We should be talking about our fellow citizens as human beings who have a problem rather than demonising them,” he said. “When you characterise people in this caricature way, it does get in the way of sensibly thinking about how to do something, which is a problem for the whole of society, not just the person affected by it.”

 NGOs urge: Decriminalise drugs to tackle deaths crisis in the UK 

New Zealanders will know exactly what they are voting on at next year’s cannabis referendum with the release of the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill (‘Cannabis Control Bill’) by Justice Minister Andrew Little today.

The Government has outlined the details of its cannabis legalisation model, which prioritises public health and safety, introduces a government-licensed production and retail market, and puts controls around use. The detailed release has been welcomed by the Drug Foundation.

“New Zealand is recognised globally for progressive and pragmatic policy that is forward looking and solves problems. We continue to have some of the highest cannabis use in the world, despite government spending for decades in law enforcement. Prohibition is failing us and it’s time for a new approach. The Government’s proposed cannabis law set us in the right direction,” said Ross Bell, Executive Director.

“Any new approach must put public health and safety at the centre, which is exactly what the Cannabis Control Bill does, and is why we are endorsing a “yes” vote at the referendum,” said Mr Bell.

Earlier this year, the government released an overview of its legal cannabis model, including restricting sales to people aged over 20 years and banning public consumption and advertising. Today’s announcement provides much greater detail including:

Tax levies collected from a new industry will be redistributed to harm reduction activities

Products are required to be clearly labelled and potency will be regulated and controlled

Police resources will be redirected to focus on more serious crime, breaking the illicit model and minimizing criminal exposure to youth

Sales will be restricted to those aged 20+ years

Driving under the influence will remain illegal

Government will control the supply chain to minimise harm.

Cannabis Control Bill in New Zealand ticks the boxes

You have almost definitely used drugs at least once in the last month. Might have been alcohol, might have been cocaine, might have been an expired angina medication that some deep web psychonaut discovered is good for making it feel like your tongue is about to explode.

The Global Drug Survey wants to hear all about your drug-taking experiences so it can continue to build a comprehensive record of how and why people use drugs around the world. Over the past few years, the anonymous data the team has gathered has revealed new drug trends and information, and has helped to inform policy and new harm reduction strategies.

This year, alongside all the more general stuff about what drugs you use, how often you use them, and what they were like, the GDS wants to know your opinion on: CBD and how people are using cannabis to treat their illnesses; what drinkers regret doing when they’ve been drunk; how exactly MDMA users dose over the course of a night; how people self-medicate with psychedelics; and, lastly, how variations in drug policy and access to harm reduction advice in different venues affected your approach to getting on it.

Take part in the world's biggest anonymous drugs survey

SACABA, Bolivia (AP) — A U.N. envoy met with Bolivia’s interim president Saturday to find a way out of the country’s political crisis while the world body expressed concern the situation could “spin out of control” amid a rising death toll.

On leaving the meeting with interim leader Jeanine Áñez, envoy Jean Arnault said the United Nations hopes it can contribute to an “accelerated pacification process” leading to new elections following the resignation and exile of Evo Morales.

Meanwhile, another international body, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, condemned Áñez’s government for issuing a decree it says “exempts from criminal responsibility” soldiers who took part in efforts to break up protests and unrest that have left at least 23 people dead.

The norm was approved before the most violent day since the crisis began, when at least eight pro-Morales coca growers were killed when security forces opened fire during a demonstration.

“It is not a license for the Armed Forces to kill,” Presidency Minister Jerjes Justiniano told a press conference. He said the decree is based on the Criminal Code, which states that “if one defends oneself in self-defense, there is no penalty.”

Earlier Saturday, U.N. human rights chief Michelle Bachelet issued a statement calling the deaths “an extremely dangerous development.”

Bolivian interim leader meets UN envoy amid violence fears

Natauboo Jama started selling methamphetamine in northern Thailand after her second child was born. Known locally as 

, it is sold mixed in a three-to-one ratio of caffeine to meth and is popular among small-scale farmers who need stamina to work long hours.

Jama was once a farmer herself. But plunging food prices and debt-slavery to agricultural corporations that sell farm equipment and seeds forced her to seek an alternative income. By selling 

, she made enough money to support her family.

Like many poor farmers across the world, Jama was trapped in a dangerous intersection of economic and drug policies. Free trade agreements and competition from giant agro-businesses drive many small farmers to use drugs for increased productivity, or to sell them for survival. But the governments behind these economic policies also criminalize the use and sale of drugs, filling their prisons with the poor.

At age 25, Jama was caught and thrown into an overcrowded prison in Chiang Mai, the largest city in northern Thailand. She was incarcerated for 10 years.

I met her, now 38, at her current workplace: the Women’s Massage Center for Ex-Prisoners in downtown Chiang Mai. Speaking through an interpreter, she described her imprisonment.

“We slept 50 women to a room on mats on the floor,” she said. “Sometimes the food was rotten.”

She spoke of the hardships of separation from her family and trouble finding work after release. Many women, she said, go back to selling 

 because no one will hire people with criminal records.

Incarcerated women in Thailand face issues seen worldwide

Drug policy varies greatly among European countries, despite common foundations in UN treaties or EU strategies. In this article I’ll review syringe service programs (SSPs) in four East-Central European countries—the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Hungary, collectively known as the Visegrád Group—to show how politics impact harm reduction.

The Civil Society Forum on Drugs, an expert group of the European Commission, published a report a year ago on the implementation of services for people who use drugs (PWUD). The report reveals discrepancies in the accessibility and quality of 12 examined interventions, with the greatest contrast for SSPs found among the Visegrád Group.

Asked to rate accessibility of SSPs in their country, surveyed Czech professionals in the field gave a high score: 8.9 out of 10. Poland returned a medium score of 4.7. Professionals in Slovakia (3.5) and Hungary (just 1.8) gave low scores for SSP access.

Analysis of annual reports of SSPs shows that they are available in 65 percent of Czech cities, 21 percent of Hungarian cities, 15 percent of Slovak cities and only 7 percent of cities in Poland.

According to European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction data and information acquired directly from the services, 2017 numbers for sterile syringes distributed per PWUD were: 199 in the Czech Republic, 184 in Slovakia, 65 in Hungary and only 35 in Poland.

Where do these dramatic differences come from?

My experiences in drug policy and harm reduction research in the region suggest that the internal functioning of SSPs is similar. They hire similarly educated personnel, adhere to similar values and principles and have congruent procedures.

But criminal law around drugs varies greatly. In the Czech Republic, possession of small amounts constitutes an administrative offence, subject to a small fine. In Hungary, even drug 

 is punishable by up to two years in prison.

So it seems plausible to seek reasons for access discrepancies 

This article was originally published by Filter, an online magazine covering drug use, drug policy and human rights through a harm reduction lens. Follow Filter on Facebook or Twitter, or sign up for its newsletter. This article is based on the findings of Iga Kender-Jeziorska’s study—”Needle exchange programmes in Visegrad countries: a comparative case study of structural factors in effective service delivery”—published in Harm Reduction Journal in September 2019. Harm Reduction Journal is an open-access, peer-reviewed publisher of research into drugs and many intersecting areas. Filter is proud to partner with Harm Reduction Journal to help bridge the gap between research and public understanding.

Politics and harm reduction: Four Visegrád countries’ syringe access stories

By Corrinne Burns / The Pharmaceutical Journal

Scotland’s first heroin-assisted treatment service has launched in Glasgow city centre. But a pharmacist involved in designing the service has said a drug consumption room is ”urgently needed” to run alongside it.

The Enhanced Drug Treatment Service (EDTR), which is licensed by the Home Office, will provide diamorphine to patients with heroin addiction who have not responded to other forms of treatment.

Patients are currently being recruited to the service, which is expected to be fully operational by the end of December 2019. Patients will administer the drug themselves, on-site, under supervision from clinical staff, and must commit to attending the clinic twice a day, seven days a week. Up to 50 patients will be able to use the service at any one time.

In addition to receiving diamorphine, service users will be offered addiction counselling and support with social welfare issues including housing and benefits advice.

Scotland has the highest level of drug-related deaths in the EU, and the nation’s drug-related death rate per head of population is almost three times that of the UK as a whole. Recent data from National Records for Scotland show that in 2018, 1,187 drug-related deaths were recorded in the country. A third of those deaths (33%) were in the Greater Glasgow & Clyde NHS Board area.

Scotland's first heroin-assisted treatment service launched in Glasgow

Drug policy and feminist movements have rarely been connected - but they should be.
Over the past two years, AWID has been working closely with communities of women who use drugs to build solidarity and learn from each other. We learned several things through this process. The war on drugs is clearly a feminist issue because it disproportionately affects historically oppressed groups already at a higher risk of violence and repression. It is critical for feminist movements to understand the gendered, racial and class aspects of repressive drug policies, including the criminalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs. We also need to do more to build solidarity and connections with drug policy and harm reduction movements.

Our new report “Feminist movements and women resisting the war on drugs” documents our experience of how feminists can learn from, support and engage with communities of women who use drugs.

What a world without the war on drugs would look like

The article below brings together writers from across different movements and regions. We asked each of them to reflect on what a world beyond the war on drugs would look like in the contexts they work and live in. Imagining a world beyond the war on drugs visibilises the hugely destructive impact the war on drugs has on communities around the world and encourages us to start reimagining a world beyond stigma, criminalisation, incarceration and violence. The contributions below bring perspectives from Indigenous and other communities using psychoactive plants for healing purposes, workers who cultivate and harvest illegalised crops, Black feminists who organise against the prison system and criminalisation, and women who explore pleasure and cognitive autonomy through using drugs. All of these communities are impacted by repressive drug policies in different ways, but all of them also know that to achieve justice, we need to see an end to the war on drugs.

What a world without the war on drugs would look like
Imagine a world beyond the war on drugs, beyond stigma, criminalisation, incarceration and violence. Communities growing opium as a medicine and for traditional and cultural use. Black youth and women constructing new models of drug policy and repairing the damage caused by the war on drugs. Care through harm reduction is provided to individuals and communities who have suffered violence. Imagine a world where women and all people enjoy autonomy over their bodies and minds. Where people can choose their own path and receive the medical care it entails.

We asked contributors from across different movements and regions to reflect on what a world beyond the war on drugs would look like in the contexts they work and live in.

A world beyond the war on drugs

The three regional networks: Correlation – European Harm Reduction Network, Eurasian Harm reduction Network and Drug Policy Network South East Europe were informed by our members organisations about the situation with sustainability of harm reduction services in Bosnia Herzegovina which is characterised by lack of strategy, policy and funding caused by the delay in establishing national Government for more than a year after the elections, withdrawal of international donors and misunderstandings and low level of cooperation between the governmental institutions and civil society, but also inside the civil society sector providing harm reduction services. The national Strategy for prevention and control of HIV and AIDS has ended (2016) and the Transition plan, developed by the Country Coordinating Mechanism during implementation of The Global Fund funded programme has not been implemented. As a result, the harm reduction services are closed in Sarajevo, Mostar, Bihać and Banja Luka and exist only in Zenica and Tuzla relaying on voluntary work of unpaid Staff and with all supplies already on minimum.

The three Networks expressed our deep concern about the situation and willingness to give contribution to finding solution and ensuring both quick response to the urgent needs and building a sustainable solution. We are ready to provide non-partisan support in identification and advocacy for the best possible approaches to urgently start provision of services to the populations of people who use drugs, sex workers and prisoners and other affected populations and to properly advocate for the sustainability of governmental funding.

The urgent action we are taking is to explore opportunities for emergency bridging funding to ensure survival of existing harm reduction services in the country. The situation is alarming and requires direct action and mobilisation of the international community. The three network have limited resources, so we are now contacting some of our partners and donors, explaining the situation and calling for immediate and urgent support. This could include short-term funding and technical support to ensure a minimum of harm reduction services. So far, we have a promise from the Open Society Foundations for a small grant which would cover basic need for the month of November.

Emergency situation concerning the sustainability of harm reduction services in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria and Romania

European countries are starting to legalise cannabis for recreational use – or at least discussing the option of doing so. However, it is important to recognise that the pace of change has slowed in some countries, with Italy’s decision to ban sales of ‘cannabis light’ products with up to 0.2% THC in May 2019 a notable example.

And we should not assume that Europe and North America will follow similar legislative timelines. It took Canada almost 20 years to legalise recreational use after allowing medicinal, whereas in Europe, countries that have only recently legalised medicinal use are now steaming ahead with plans for recreational use. Once Luxembourg successfully becomes the first European country to legalise recreational cannabis use, it won’t be long before other European countries follow suit.

News