It would be hard to dispute that the War on Drugs, instigated by President Nixon in 1971, has deliberately targeted lower-income communities and communities of color. Nixon’s own counsel and domestic affairs advisor, John Ehrlichman, confessed in 1994 that the War on Drugs was designed as an assault on “the antiwar left and black people.”

Ever since, we have been able to see the crippling impact of this sinister and deceptive strategy on these communities. We can see it simply by visiting any prison or jailhouse—or by viewing the demographics of incarcerated populations.

But what is not talked about enough is the drug war’s effects on parents in these communities. It has long been strategically intertwined with the child protective system in such a way that it can be sold to stakeholders under the guise of “saving the children.”

If you take the time to spend a day in any family court, what you will see is disturbing: Benches full of parents of color and little black and brown children in despair.

See, what is not talked about in the same breath as mass incarceration are the rates at which families of color are being torn apart. More meaningful to me than statistics is the real suffering of these families that I have often witnessed.

We need more focus on how the drug war attacks parents of color

The U.S. opioid epidemic is being driven by an unprecedented surge in deaths from fentanyl and other synthetic opiates. Fentanyl's powerful effects are long-lasting, and even tiny amounts of the drug can lead to an overdose. Antidotes, such as naloxone, do not last long enough in the body to fully counter the drug, requiring repeated injections. Now, scientists report that they are developing single-dose, longer-lasting opioid antidotes using polymer nanoparticles.

The researchers will present their results today at the American Chemical Society (ACS) Spring 2019 National Meeting & Exposition.

"We became interested in this problem while trying to make non-addictive pain medications," Saadyah Averick, Ph.D., says. "In that course of research, we realized the limitations of current opioid antidotes."

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, opioids, such as heroin, oxycodone and fentanyl, were implicated in more than 47,000 deaths from overdose in 2017. These drugs all bind to the mu opioid receptor (MOR) in the brain, which is the body's natural pleasure receptor, explains Averick, a scientist at Allegheny Health Network Research Institute. "The drugs bind, turn on the receptor and stimulate a euphoric feeling. The synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl, turn this on really, really well," he says.

And their effects are long-lasting. Fentanyl, which is much stronger than morphine, another opioid, can be absorbed into fat tissue, which protects it from being metabolized right away. It is then slowly released from this tissue, causing effects for several hours. Naloxone, an MOR antagonist and antidote, only stays in the system for about 30 minutes to an hour, however. Because of this mismatch, repeated doses are required to help the patient recover. But not all patients want to undergo the entire treatment course, and they can end up succumbing to an overdose after the naloxone is metabolized.

To overcome this challenge, Averick and his colleagues developed a drug delivery system intended to ensure that a steady, sufficient dose of antagonist is delivered over 24 hours. The researchers reacted naloxone, which has a multi-ringed chemical structure, with polylactic acid (PLA), thus creating a naloxone polymer. They then prepared covalent nanoparticles (CNPs) by adding this polymer to a solution of polyvinyl alcohol. They used a variety of analytical methods to purify and analyze the resulting particles, which are 300 nanometers in diameter.

Next-generation single-dose antidotes for opioid overdoses

The CDPE has conducted an international cross comparison of illegal drug policies to create an online tool – the 

 – to demonstrate the alignment and gaps between the metrics that countries use to assess the success of their drug policy and the actual drug policy-related outcomes they experience.

Globally, supply side strategies to reduce the scale of the illegal drug market have been prioritized by policymakers seeking to reduce drug-related harms. This has led to the development of a narrow set of indicators that are largely process-oriented – that is, they do not capture the real world impact of drug policies – to determine the effectiveness of drug policies. These include: the number of hectares of illegal drug crops eradicated by counternarcotics operations, the number and quantity of illegal drug seizures per year, and the number of people who use or traffic drugs that are arrested or in custody. However, a large body of evidence demonstrates the relative ineffectiveness of these approaches in managing the problems associated with drugs. In fact, research has shown that such policies have contributed extensively to producing a range of harms to the health and safety of individuals and communities affected by these policies.

Recently, a number of countries have sought to implement drug policies that focus on the health and safety of communities. To support this reorientation, a broader set of outcome indicators – those that measure the impact of drug policies on individuals and communities in the real world – are also required. To support this reorientation, the CDPE has proposed the adoption of the following domains for evaluations of drug policy: Health, Peace and Security, Development, and Human Rights. These domains enable a more comprehensive assessment of the impact of drug policies on a range of outcomes relevant to communities. They are also in alignment with many of the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.

There remains a range of approaches countries use to evaluate domestic drug policies. The 

 allows users to comparatively assess how countries determine policy success or failure in this regard, while also providing access to United Nations datasets on country-level drug policy-related outcomes. We intend for this tool to help users identify evaluative approaches that support effective drug policies.

Drug policy metrics map

The film tells a story about the anti-drug law enforcement practice, prison conditions in the penitentiary institutions of Belarus, and everyday life challenges that former prisoners and people who use drugs face. To convey to the viewer the origins of stereotypes, numerous clips from the anti-drug videos of the USSR, Russia, and Belarus are used in the film.

“Criminalisation of people who use drugs, impossibility to defend oneself in the court, and forced labor in punitive camps are direct manifestations of the authoritarian regime. The society does not respect the right of people to their own bodies, their freedom of choice. State propaganda, anti-scientific information, and stereotypes distort people’s notion about reality. Drugs users are called “narcomaniacs” and treated worse than murderers.

Uniformity of views of the state and society on this issue leads to mass uncontrolled violence on an incomparable scale. People who use drugs are an extremely vulnerable group in such a situation. Innocent people are convicted for years of isolation in inhumane conditions. We have to stop it as soon as possible”, Piotr Markiełaŭ, one of the creators of the film, says.

Narcotisation and authoritarianism: A film about the drug war in Belarus

Global drug policy, born out of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, has been plagued by the harmful “Vienna Consensus.” This bureaucratic apparatus that governs the application of global drug laws from this city is limited by inertia, and resists recognizing the urgent need to replace substance prohibition with more intelligent and efficient policies. However, this consensus, thankfully, is showing signs of rupture.

The 52 countries that are part of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND)—the organ that governs drug treaties—and hundreds of civil society actors gathered once more in Vienna on March 14th and 15th for the Ministerial segment of the 62nd session. In 2019, the the action plan with the objective of achieving a “world free of drugs” turned 10 years old. From the start of this program to the present, the world has not only failed spectacularly, as demonstrated by a shadow report presented by the International Drug Policy Consortium, but has furthermore caused substantial damage in its effort to achieve an unrealistic goal.

It doesn’t help that these negotiations are always held in Vienna. Unlike other multilateral negotiation spaces of the United Nations, such as climate change or the trafficking of endangered species, whose Conference of the Parties changes location every meeting and includes all of the States who have signed the treaty, the substance control regime meets every year in the same city, with only the countries from the CND. This factor limits the participation of many countries, both because it is impossible for them to be in Vienna, and because of the disarticulation with other spaces that are fundamental parts of other debates on human rights and sustainable development, such as Geneva and New York.

The Vienna Consensus is broken, and we’re not going to fix it

President Maithripala Sirisena on Sunday said he had fixed a date to execute convicted drug traffickers, reiterating his earlier announcement on restoring the death penalty in Sri Lanka.

He was speaking at an event on drug prevention, attended by religious heads representing different faiths, and underscored his resolve to eradicate the problem of illegal drug trafficking, braving “any challenge” that might come his way, a press statement issued by the President’s Media Division said. “A schedule is ready,” he said. Amid what officials call “a heightening drug menace”, President Sirisena announced in February that the death penalty would be restored to combat the problem.

Sri Lanka has a four decade-long moratorium on capital punishment and his controversial decision lifting that has drawn considerable criticism from international rights watchdogs and local civil society. Further, authorities advertised for the job of a hangman and received over 100 applications, according to a Reuters report early March.

‘Date fixed to execute drug offenders’, says President of Sri Lanka

The Philippine Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the release of police documents on thousands of killings of suspects in the president's anti-drug crackdown, in a ruling that human rights groups said could shed light on allegations of extrajudicial killings.

Supreme Court spokesman Brian Keith Hosaka said the court ordered the government solicitor-general to provide the police reports to two rights groups which had sought them. The 15-member court, whose justices are meeting in northern Baguio city, has yet to rule on a separate petition to declare President Rodrigo Duterte's anti-drug campaign unconstitutional.

Solicitor-General Jose Calida had earlier agreed to release the voluminous police documents to the court but rejected the requests of the two groups, the Free Legal Assistance Group and the Center for International Law, arguing that such a move would undermine law enforcement and national security.

"It's a big step forward for transparency and accountability,'' said Jose Manuel "Chel'' Diokno, who heads the Free Legal Assistance Group.

Philippine Supreme Court orders release of drug war evidence

Statement delivered at the 62nd CND Session under agenda item 11. Follow-up to the special session of the General Assembly on the world drug problem held in 2016, including the seven thematic areas of the outcome document of the special session | Delivered by Ann Fordham, Executive Director, IDPC

Madam Chair, Your Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you for giving me the floor. I am making this statement on behalf of the International Drug Policy Consortium – a global network of more than 180 NGOs that come together to promote drug policies based on human rights, human security, social inclusion and public health. The majority of our members are working at the national level and many are representatives of the most affected communities.

The 2016 UNGASS Outcome Document represents a forward-looking framework that provides a strong basis for the coming decade, especially given it 7-themed broad structure.

We have previously noted the important progress in the UNGASS Outcome document, which includes a greater focus on implementing health and development orientated drug control in full compliance with human rights obligations, including the principle of proportionality. In particular, the thematic chapter on improving access to controlled medicines for medical purposes is especially critical. The mention of specific life-saving harm reduction interventions such as needle and syringe programmes and medication assisted treatment for opioid dependence as well as the provision of naloxone to reduce preventable deaths from overdose additionally represents significant progress. The emphasis in the UNGASS Outcome document on aligning drug control objectives with the Sustainable Development Goals is also key given the global commitment to “Leave no one behind”.

We also welcomed the emphasis on improved UN system-wide coherence on drug policy and better cooperation between the relevant UN entities. Towards this end we welcome both the UN common position developed under the auspices of the Chief Executive Board for Coordination at the request of the Secretary General and adopted through extensive consultation among over 30 UN entities as well as the policy document, of the UN system coordination Task Team on the Implementation of the UN System Common Position on drug-related matters presented last week called “What we have learned over the last ten years: A summary of knowledge acquired and produced by the UN system on drug-related matters”. Mechanisms for collaboration, coordination and information sharing between UN entities is essential for progress. In this regard, the Strategic Advisory Group to the UN on HIV and Drug Use which brings together UN entities, donor governments together with civil society, community representatives and the Global Fund to Fight HIV, TB and Malaria represents an innovative initiative to progress and improve the HIV response for people who inject drugs.

In terms of the operational implementation of the UNGASS outcome document, much work remains to be done, although we recognise that several countries have already made some progress in this regard.

In the ministerial declaration adopted last week, member states noted “with concern persistent and emerging challenges related to the world drug problem” including a robust and diversifying illicit drug market, the dire lack of availability of internationally controlled substances for medical and scientific purposes, including for the relief of pain and palliative care, and that drug treatment and health services continue to fall short of meeting needs, and deaths related to drug use have increased; and that the rate of transmission of HIV, the hepatitis C virus and other blood-borne diseases associated with drug use remains high in many countries.

The inconvenient truth is that unless there is a significant shift and genuine re-orientation of drug policies, in ten years’ time, these persistent and emerging challenges will only have grown and become even more intractable.

The policy brief from the UN Task Team makes this point in no uncertain terms:

‘Punitive drug policies continue to be used in some communities, despite being ineffective in reducing drug trafficking or in addressing non-medical drug use and supply, and continue to undermine the human rights and well-being of persons who use drugs, as well as of their families and communities.’

The global community cannot afford another decade of failure to meet the stated goals of achieving “a drug-free society.” As IDPC highlighted in our ‘Shadow Report’ released ahead of last week’s ministerial segment, in which we conducted a comprehensive analysis of the last decade of drug control, the pursuit of such goals are not ‘aspirational’. The pursuit of such goals is devastating for communities worldwide and has resulted in devastating and widespread violations of human rights that have been highlighted by many speakers here at this CND and by the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, as well as four Special Procedure Mandate Holders of the Human Rights Council in the past few days.

However, as last week’s ministerial declaration commits member states to striving towards ‘all aspirational goals’ this means that member states can choose to prioritise the goals included in the UNGASS Outcome Document and the SDGs, which are explicitly mentioned in the UNGASS outcome document. Towards this end for the “single track” approach, member states should ensure that future discussions on drug policy are framed under the 7-themes of the UNGASS.

In closing, we strongly recommend ending punitive approaches towards vulnerable groups and individuals – as is recommended in the UN common position, the task team brief and by the latest UNAIDS report ‘Health, rights and drugs: harm reduction, decriminalization and zero discrimination for people who use drugs’.

Ending punitive approaches towards those most vulnerable will require that global drug control going forward puts people and communities at the centre, and seeks to improve their living conditions, address their situations of vulnerability and protect their human rights, in line with the SDG vision of ‘leaving no one behind’. For the coming decade this is critical as many lives depend on it.

Thank you for your consideration and your continued commitment to the meaningful participation of civil society.

IDPC statement at the 62nd session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs

Drugreporter’s team attended the UN Commission on Narcotics Drugs (CND), please read some take home messages and watch some videos we produced there!

1. The CND is still dreaming about a drug-free world

Drug-free World: Reloaded. This was the title we gave to our video report about the 2009 Commission on Narcotic Drug meeting, when governments, despite of the evidence that their policies clearly don’t work, basically copy-pasted and repeated the 1998 political declaration. That is, they adopted another action plan to “eliminate or significantly reduce” drug use and trafficking in 10 years. I still remember the disappointment I felt: what is wrong with these people? This year I was not disappointed at all – everything went according to my expectations (I got older and more skeptical). The ministerial statement failed to draw conclusions from the evidence that they could not achieve any reduction in demand and supply and they reconfirmed their commitment to achieve a drug-free world. There were some strong, critical speeches at the opening, for example, the president of Bolivia defended coca legalisation again. But what we see is polarisation of opinions rather than linear progress.

If you want to learn more about why the ministerial declaration is a disappointment, read this excellent statement from the International Drug Policy Consortium!

5 things we learned at the UN drugs meeting this year

GENEVA (14 March 2019) – States fighting the world drug problem must acknowledge the devastating impact of their methods on people of African descent, and amend them as necessary, says a group of UN human rights experts*.

They must address the racial discrimination in enforcement of drug laws, systemic and race-based denial of human rights, and ongoing acceptance of stark racial disparities in prosecution and incarceration that are not commensurate with actual rates of trafficking or use of narcotics or other legitimate criminal justice priorities.

The comments by the UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent come ahead of a high-level meeting in Vienna of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, which will review the Political Declaration and Plan of Action agreed in 2009 to combat the illegal trade in drugs.

“The global war on drugs has disproportionately targeted people of African descent and disregarded the massive costs to the dignity, humanity and freedom of individuals,” the experts said.

“The pretext of fighting the world’s drug problem has been used to justify excessive surveillance, criminalisation and the targeting of people of African descent worldwide. People of African descent are disproportionately penalised and denied access to treatment or alternatives to being locked up. This is despite the fact that people of African descent use, sell and traffic narcotics at rates similar to other racial groups, particularly in the West.

“It has also not decreased trafficking or the use of narcotics worldwide, despite the enormous investment of resources over several decades. Important recent analyses demonstrate that the war on drugs has operated more effectively as a system of racial control than as a mechanism for combating the use and trafficking of narcotics.”

Globally, people of African descent experience discrimination at every stage of the criminal justice system and are more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, convicted, and harshly sentenced including the use of the death penalty, for drug crimes. Higher arrest and incarceration rates are not reflective of increased prevalence of drug use, but rather law enforcement’s focus on urban areas, lower income communities and communities of colour.

In addition, public health risks associated with unregulated use of narcotics are largely ignored where they principally impact people of African descent, including in detention settings which are high-risk environments for HIV, hepatitis C and tuberculosis transmission.

“There is lack of recognition that enduring racial disparities and race-based outcomes are related to policy priorities that are grounded in discrimination and negative racial stereotypes, including the targeting of minority communities of African origin rather than criminality,” the experts said.

“The measurable impact and devastation of narcotics policy targeted at people of African descent stands in stark contrast to the lack of measurable success in curtailing the use, sale and/or trafficking via these same policies, and despite the enormous allocation of resources and energy in counter-narcotics efforts.

“Laudable concern for the effect of narcotics on communities cannot excuse racism in the development of policy or the deployment of resources.

“Enduring and entrenched racial disparities in the criminal justice system – as well as ongoing tolerance of race-based outcomes in policing, entrenched racial disparities, and ongoing selective enforcement of the law – reflect harmful stereotypes grounded in the historical legacies of the global trafficking in enslaved Africans, colonisation, and the ways in which modern social narratives evolved from rhetoric designed to justify these institutions and the exploitation of people of African descent,” the Working Group said.

The experts said this implicated the entire human rights framework, as perceptions about people of African descent drove adolescents into the justice system and left many permanently barred from a wide range of employment, educational, social security and other benefits and opportunities.

These conditions may be even more extreme in intersectional populations, including women, LGBTI community members, migrants and refugees, and young people of African descent.

“Member States should prioritise public health and harm reduction measures, combat racial discrimination and adopt gender-sensitive approaches in national drug strategies. In addition, in many States, the measuring of apparent and systemic impacts on people of African descent is complicated by policies and practices preventing the collection of relevant data broken down by race,” the experts said.

“Member States should collect adequate data to measure these disparities and their potential improvement over time and also to ensure the availability of treatment services that are evidence-based and respectful of individual rights.”

Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent 

was established on 25 April 2002 by the then Commission on Human Rights, following the World Conference against Racism held in Durban in 2001. It is composed of five independent experts: 

The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.

 Ms Christina Saunders (+41 79 444 6129 / csaunders@ohchr.org) or write to africandescent@ohchr.org For the media conference, please register by sending an email to: benelux@unric.org / +32 2 788 8461

 related to other UN independent experts:

Mr. Jeremy Laurence, UN Human Rights – Media Unit (+ 41 22 917 9383 / jlaurence@ohchr.org)

Follow news related to the UN’s independent human rights experts on Twitter @UN_SPExperts.

Concerned about the world we live in? Then 

 #Standup4humanrights and visit the web page athttp://www.standup4humanrights.org

Fight against world drug problem must address unjust impact on people of African descent, say UN rights experts

A short film to raise awareness about the harms of global drug policy and call for legal regulation of drugs created by Health Poverty Action and Campaign film.

Join the movement for legal regulation here: https://www.healthpovertyaction.org/c...

Shot in the favelas of Sao Paulo Brazil it provides testimony from those affected by the failed ‘war on drugs’. A war being waged on people - not drugs. 50 years of prohibition has not stopped the drugs trade, but violent law enforcement continues to destroy communities - whether people are in the trade or not. Highly punitive policing does not distinguish between use and trafficking in Brazil and failure to address the social and economic issues that drive people into the trade.

Health Poverty Action are calling for the legal regulation of the drugs trade; to control both the dangers of drug taking and to mitigate the harmful impacts the policies have on the poorest and most marginalised communities around the world.

Why I want to legally regulate drugs

States around the world must address the specific concerns of women in drug policies, say UN human rights experts. The call by the UN Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice comes ahead of a high-level meeting on 14-15 March 2019 of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs:

 “States must urgently take concrete measures to meet their commitments to ensuring women’s rights in drug policies and programmes. This cannot happen if issues and concerns that are specific to women remain invisible and neglected. In keeping with the Sustainable Development Goals, in which gender equality is a stand-alone goal as well as being incorporated in all other goals and targets, tackling the impact of drug policies on women deserves proper attention and visibility. Drug policies cannot be effective without addressing the root causes of structural inequality and discrimination which place women in a subordinate role in society, including in the family, often leading to experiences of violence, marginalisation and domination. Marginalisation of women, poverty, gender-based violence, lack of job opportunities and absence of social protection from the State, together with the need to support their family, can drive women into committing drug-related offences. The drastic rise in the number of women in prison globally is alarming. In some parts of the world this increase is mainly due to women being convicted of drug-related offences. Proportionally, more women than men are serving jail sentences in relation to drug offences. Despite their often low-level, non-violent and first-time involvement in such crimes, women are more exposed to health and safety risks and the risks of being caught as drug carriers and disproportionately punished. Women also face insurmountable barriers in enjoying their right to fair trial because of their inability to afford effective legal representation, judicial gender stereotyping and a lack of gender-sensitive administration of justice, which often do not take into account the mitigating circumstances, such as socio-economic deprivation or coercion and the generally low-level of criminality. The incarceration of women involved in low-level drug offences does not contribute effectively to addressing the world’s drug problem. Instead, it perpetuates a vicious cycle of victimisation, placing them in situations of further injustice. States must seize the important opportunity of this high-level meeting of the Commission on Narcotics to focus on women and draw on good practices from countries which have invested in providing them with support in the form of counselling, job opportunities, and access to services aimed at reducing harm and drug dependence. These drug policies and programmes must involve women at all stages of their development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. 

The UN Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice

 was created by the Human Rights Council in 2011 to identify, promote and exchange views, in consultation with States and others, on good practices related to the elimination of laws that discriminate against women. The Group is also tasked with developing a dialogue with States and others on laws that have a discriminatory impact where women are concerned. It is comprised of five independent experts: the Current Chair:

, please contact: Ms Hannah Wu (+41 22 917 9152 / 

 related to other UN independent experts, please contact

Mr. Jeremy Laurence, UN Human Rights – Media Unit (+41 22 917 9383 / jlaurence@ohchr.org)

Follow news related to the UN’s independent human rights experts on Twitter @UN_SPExperts

News