La siguiente es una crónica sobre el cannabis en México a partir del siglo XXI, precedida por algunos antecedentes de contexto.

México es un país cuya formalidad -legal, política- raramente coincide con lo que sucede en la realidad del mercado o en la relación cotidiana del ciudadano con la ley; y la cannabis es un buen ejemplo de ello.

 llegó por primera vez a lo que ahora es México con los conquistadores españoles, para ser utilizada como cáñamo, a finales del siglo XV.

Debido en buena medida a la sofisticada relación de los pueblos originales con el mundo natural, así como a sus amplios conocimientos botánicos, la planta pronto fue adoptada –y utilizada– también por sus efectos psicoactivos, incorporándose a la cultura popular.

Muy pronto, también, esas prácticas fueron notadas y reprobados por la Iglesia católica, si bien las propias autoridades virreinales también impulsaron el cultivo del cáñamo, por lo que durante los siguientes siglos la mariguana no desapareció de la cultura popular, pero el 

 psicoactivo fue un asunto confinado únicamente a los segmentos más pobres de la sociedad, del submundo criminal, o de algunos artistas díscolos.

La Revolución Mexicana de (1910-1920) tuvo como resultado un sistema presidencialista y de partido hegemónico –el Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) que mantuvo relativamente pacífico al país hasta fines del Siglo XX, pero con libertades civiles limitadas en los hechos.

, antes incluso que en los Estados Unidos, y si bien el régimen conoció, toleró y gestionó siempre el tráfico y su comercio local, nunca fue asunto de debate público o de interés político.

A pesar de ello, el Dr. Leopoldo Salazar Viniegra, entonces Jefe del Hospital Psiquiátrico y el mayor especialista nacional en toxicomanía, logró la despenalización de todas las drogas -

 incluida- durante 5 meses de 1940, con el argumento de que la prohibición dificultaba los esfuerzos nacionales en materia de salud pública. Previsiblemente, el experimento fue cancelado por presiones de Estados Unidos.

Después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, y de la firma y ratificación de México a la Convención Única de Estupefacientes de 1961, así como los dos tratados posteriores sobre sustancias psicoactivas de 1971 y 1988, la 

 se inscribió en los artículos 234, 235, 235 bis y 238, 237 y 238 del apartado “Estupefacientes”, en la Ley General de Salud de 1984.

En ellos se establece la prohibición absoluta del 

 en todas sus formas, el cáñamo incluido: “

Siembra, cultivo, cosecha, elaboración, preparación, acondicionamiento, adquisición, posesión, comercio, transporte en cualquier forma, prescripción médica, suministro, empleo, uso, consumo y, en general, todo acto relacionado con estupefacientes o con cualquier producto que los contenga

Para fines del Siglo 20 el sistema político del país se agotaba. Obligado por las circunstancias, el partido hegemónico debió tolerar reformas democráticas que ampliaron paulatinamente el espacio de la oposición política, pero también el de la sociedad civil. Causas antes consideradas como extrañas a la sociedad mexicana, como los derechos de ciertas minorías, comenzaron a ver la luz pública. La 

La ventana que se cierra: crónica política y legal de la cannabis en el México del Siglo XXI

On 20 January 2025 the United States announced a 90-day freeze on US foreign aid which has had a devastating impact on people living with and affected by HIV, on the people and organizations supporting them and on the global response to HIV as a whole.

Community organizations have been particularly impacted by the freeze in funding. Community healthcare workers are losing their jobs, clinics are having to be shut down and, as a result, people in need of HIV testing or prevention or who are living with HIV and dependent on daily antiretroviral medicine are unable to access the life-saving HIV services they need.

On 10 February, UNAIDS convened an emergency meeting with community organizations to monitor the impact of the unfolding crisis. Community groups reported that HIV services around the world are facing serious challenges. Some are grinding to a halt. Supplies of antiretroviral medication, pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and condoms have been disrupted, leaving many without essential tools of HIV treatment and prevention.

HIV testing kits are increasingly scarce and outreach services – essential for connecting people in need of HIV testing – are being suspended. As a result, HIV and sexually transmitted infection testing are disrupted, threatening detection and prevention efforts.

“The damage is immediate and severe,” said one advocate. “People who rely on [U.S.-funded] programmes for [safety and] survival are suddenly left with nothing.”

The US pause in administering foreign assistance while it reviews recipients is not just a bureaucratic delay; it is a direct threat to continued progress against AIDS and will quickly erode decades of hard-won gains in the global HIV response. It will destroy many community organizations without which the world cannot close the gaps in HIV testing, prevention and treatment.

The US Government has invested more than US$ 100 billion to date in the global fight against AIDS with the US accounting for around 73% of donor funding for HIV worldwide; millions of people at risk for and living with HIV rely on US funded clinics to stay healthy in the face of HIV.

How the shift in US funding is threatening both the lives of people affected by HIV and the community groups supporting them

UNAIDS is launching a survey to gather insights for the next Global AIDS Strategy 2026-2031, which will guide the next phase of action for the HIV response. Your input is essential to ensure it is inclusive, effective, and responsive to real-world needs while reflecting the priorities of stakeholders worldwide. Your input will also help define the key focus areas and actions needed to accelerate progress.

Please take a few moments to share your perspectives 

The survey is now available in 3 languages: English, French, Spanish (see upper right-hand corner of the survey). More languages will be made available soon.

Global AIDS Strategy 2026-2031 survey

The Netherlands expanded a government-run initiative on Monday allowing legal cannabis sales.

While growing cannabis is still illegal, cannabis shops — known as coffeeshops — in 10 municipalities will be allowed to sell marijuana from 10 licensed producers.

“Weed was sold here legally for 50 years, but the production was never legal. So it’s finally time to end that crazy, unexplainable situation and make it a legal professional sector,” Rick Bakker, commercial director at Hollandse Hoogtes, one of the regulated producers, told The Associated Press.

Some 80 coffeeshops are taking part in the experiment which advocates hope this will ultimately end a long-standing legal anomaly — you can buy and sell small amounts of weed without fear of prosecution in the Netherlands, but growing it commercially remains illegal.

Bakker's company in Bemmel, near the German border, is indistinguishable from the surrounding greenhouses producing tomatoes and peppers. But it makes 200 kilograms (440 pounds) of weed per week and is one of the largest producers in the experiment.

A trailblazer in decriminalizing pot since the 1970s, the Netherlands has grown more conservative. 

, long a magnet for marijuana smokers, has been closing coffeeshops in recent years and has banned smoking weed on some of the cobbled streets that make up its historic center.

Advocates have been pushing for a legal growing for years, citing the safety of the product as well as concerns about crime.

Dutch cannabis growers welcome expansion of state-run experiment to make sales legal

“The so-called war on drugs has destroyed countless lives and damaged entire communities. These policies are simply not working, and we are failing some of the most vulnerable groups in our societies,”

 said UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk during a recent speech on global drug policies.

For decades, governments have adopted a largely punitive approach to controlling narcotic drugs. UN experts say the results have been catastrophic, citing harmful consequences such as mass incarceration, increased drug-related crime and violence, record numbers of drug-related deaths, growing illegal drug production, and the stigmatization of entire communities.

However, there have been important shifts in recent years. From the Philippines to Ghana, Pakistan, and Colombia, countries are moving away from punishment and criminalisation, embracing more humane, public health- and human rights-based approaches.

In December 2024, Scotland launched a Charter of Rights for People Affected by Substance Use. This first-of-its-kind document aims to ensure that people who use drugs know their rights, receive necessary support, and are treated with dignity.

“The Charter sets out the key human rights that belong to people affected by substance use and marks a significant change from the previous approach of criminalization,”

 said Alan Miller, human rights activist and professor at the University of Strathclyde. 

“It places people and human dignity at the centre.”

The Charter was developed by the National Collaborative, an independent network chaired by Miller, with input from civil society, policymakers, affected communities, people who use drugs, and their families. It was in part a response to Scotland's high drug-related death rate, the highest in Europe.

“Clearly, the scale of the deaths was a tipping point, but there has been a shift in the public narrative,”

“Families formed support groups and started to speak up. The public now sees the problem as a health issue or about inequality and poverty—not just pushers or traffickers.”

UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk echoed this change in approach:


“The Charter represents a shift away from punishment and towards prevention, treatment, and support for those affected by drug use, in line with the International Guidelines on Human Rights and Drug Policy.”

Drawn from national and international human rights law, the Charter outlines key rights, including:

the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health

the right to an adequate standard of living

freedom from degrading treatment and arbitrary arrest

Niamh Eastwood, Executive Director of Release (UK), emphasised the harm of criminalising people who use drugs.

“Treating people as criminals adds to their suffering, causes stigma and exclusion, and deters them from getting the life-saving health interventions they need,”

“The Charter is a first-of-its-kind and we hope there will be more.”

Zaved Mahmood, Human Rights and Drug Policy Advisor at UN Human Rights, noted a growing shift in global perspectives:

“There is a general acceptance that any discussion on drug policy must take into account States’ human rights obligations,”

UN Human Rights supports Member States in developing and implementing drug policies based on human rights, aligned with the 2019 International Guidelines on Human Rights and Drug Policy.

In the Philippines, where a punitive drug policy led to thousands of deaths and extreme overcrowding in detention centres, the UN has supported a more humane shift. According to Signe Poulsen, Senior Human Rights Adviser in Manila:

“Under the previous administration, a high number of people were killed and the country ended up with one of the world’s most congested pre-trial detention systems.

Through a UN joint programme, the Office engaged government agencies and civil society to promote human rights-based reforms. These efforts include technical assistance for an independent forensic institute to investigate potentially unlawful deaths, and support for widows of victims through psychosocial care and basic services.

The “war on drugs” has also led to a rise in the use of the death penalty, contrary to international law. In 2024, drug offences accounted for 40% of all confirmed global executions. However, progress is underway:

 abolished the death penalty for drug offences in 2023.

 removed the mandatory nature of capital punishment the same year.

 reformed its laws in 2020 to treat drug use as a health issue and now supports harm reduction in 14 districts.

Professor Adeeba Kamarulzaman, member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, remarked:

“It is always two steps forward and one step back when it comes to drug policy reform.”

Colombia is moving from a repressive strategy toward a development-focused approach to eliminating illicit drug cultivation. With UN Human Rights support, the country is investing in rural economies and addressing structural causes of violence. The 2016 peace accords include a chapter on drug policy reform, and the Truth Commission has called for drug policy to be part of peacebuilding.

Türk has consistently called for a transformative approach that includes voluntary healthcare, harm reduction, decriminalisation, social reintegration, gender sensitivity, and responsible regulation.

“Drug policies that prioritise health and human rights are more effective and more humane.”

An effective and humane approach to drug policies

In July 2022, the Supreme Court of Ghana ruled in a 4-3 majority decision that the inclusion of Section 43 in the Act was unconstitutional, citing procedural flaws in its passage. However, experts believe that the successful implementation of these cannabis regulations could unlock significant economic benefits for Ghana.

The Minister for Finance, Hon. Ato Forson has revealed that the Ministry of the Interior has initiated processes to implement Section 43 of the Narcotics Control Commission Act, 2020 (Act 1019) and the Narcotics Control Commission Regulation 2023 (L.I. 2475).

He announced this in his presentation of the 2025 Budget Statement to Parliament on March 11, 2025.

Hon. Ato Forson stated that this initiative is aimed at regulating the cultivation and management of cannabis with a tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content not exceeding 0.3% on a dry weight basis in Ghana.

According to the Minister, Comprehensive Guidelines for the cultivation and management of cannabis have already been drafted, and the associated charges and fees will be laid before Parliament for approval in 2025. This is contained paragraph 734, page 119 of the THE 2025 BUDGET STATEMENT AND ECONOMIC POLICY OF GOVERNMENT referred to as 

“Resetting The Economy For The Ghana We Want”.

This development comes after years of legal back-and-forth regarding cannabis legislation in Ghana. The passage of Act 1019 in 2020 was initially celebrated as a progressive move toward the regulation of industrial hemp and medicinal cannabis. However, in July 2022, the Supreme Court of Ghana ruled in a 4-3 majority decision that the inclusion of Section 43 in the Act was unconstitutional, citing procedural flaws in its passage.

Following a review application by the Attorney General, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its decision in May 2023, maintaining that the legislative process leading to the law's approval was flawed. This ruling temporarily halted efforts to regulate the cultivation and management of industrial hemp in Ghana. This necessitated Parliament to reconvene and pass amendment of the Act to let same be inline with the parameters set by the Supreme Court.

The decision to finalize regulatory guidelines and present them before Parliament for approval signals a renewed push toward creating a structured legal framework for industrial hemp cultivation.

Ghana: Government to lay guidelines for cultivation and management of cannabis for approval in 2025

For the second year in a row, what had been an uneventful, consensus-driven United Nations meeting on drug policy saw unexpected drama and signs of real change.

At the 68th session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) in Vienna in March 2025, governments approved the formation of an independent expert commission to recommend changes to the architecture of global drug policy, which has changed little since the early 1960s.

Colombia again played a catalytic role, as it did in 2024. But this time, the United States—under the new Trump administration—tried to block nearly everything, isolating itself diplomatically in the process.

In this episode of the WOLA Podcast, Adam Isacson speaks with three experts who were in Vienna:

, Executive Director of the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), a network of 195 organizations working to reform global drug policy.

, Senior Coordinator for drug policy at DeJusticia, a Bogotá-based think tank and advocacy group.

, WOLA’s Director for Drug Policy, who has tracked the UN’s drug control system since the 1980s.

The conversation traces the slow evolution of the UN drug control system—from decades of punitive consensus to today’s shifting coalitions, unprecedented votes, and long-overdue reviews.

Much of the episode centers on a breakthrough: a new resolution establishing an “independent external review” of the UN’s own drug control institutions. For years, countries like Colombia have called for an honest assessment of the system’s failings. Now, thanks to a resolution spearheaded by Colombia and passed over U.S. opposition, that review is happening. The details still matter: how independent the expert panel will truly be, who funds it, and whether the review can influence the hard architecture of the drug control treaties.

“Vienna was very much a space where delegates would just pat each other on the back on how well we’re doing the war on drugs,” Pereira said. “The spirit of Vienna created a sort of lockdown situation on debate, true debate,” added Walsh. “Civil society enlivened the Vienna atmosphere” in recent years, he noted, “with new debates, new arguments.” Now, this international space has become more dynamic.

The guests also discuss coca leaf: its decades-old listing as a Schedule I narcotic, Bolivia’s and Colombia’s ongoing push for a scientific review, and the possibility of a pivotal vote in 2026. They stress how traditional knowledge—especially from Indigenous communities—must be recognized as legitimate scientific input during that review.

Underlying it all is a major diplomatic shift. Colombia is using the UN system to demand drug policy grounded in health, human rights, and development—not militarized prohibition. But with Petro’s term ending in 2026, it’s unclear who will pick up the baton.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is signaling a return to zero-tolerance drug war policies—and burning bridges with potential allies in the process. “They behaved so terribly. I mean, they broke with all diplomatic niceties,” said Fordham. “The U.S. just went for it in their opening statement… It was frankly an embarrassing, but also pretty shocking statement.”

Despite the uncertainty, all three guests agree: civil society is no longer on the sidelines. NGOs and experts are shaping debates, challenging rigid thinking in Vienna, and holding governments to account.

CND68: Historic vote initiates overdue review of UN drug control ‘machinery,’

” Ann Fordham, Adrià Cots Fernández, International Drug Policy Consortium, March 18, 2025.

A Historic Vote at the CND: Colombia Challenges the Global Drug Control System

,” Isabel Pereira Arana, DeJusticia, March 18, 2025.

CND 2025: What future for the UN drug control system?

” TRANSFORM Drug Policy Foundation, March 23, 2025.

When the Adult in the Room Is Gone: Trump’s Budget Cuts and Global Drug Policy

,” István Gábor Takács, Drug Reporter, April 2, 2025.

Download this podcast episode’s .mp3 file here

, or wherever you subscribe to podcasts. The 

Global drug policy: “Countries are being freed up to actually speak their minds”

The Trump administration’s slashing of foreign aid is already having a devastating impact on harm reduction and HIV services around the world. But the harmful effects extend far beyond that. Drugreporter interviewed key experts at the annual UN drugs meeting, the CND in Vienna, to provide a clear picture of the real impacts.

In its first three months, the Trump administration, under the direction of the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), cut 

 employees of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which was the most affected.

I feel ashamed to see that a country capable of doing so much good in the world is actively seeking to do so much harm

, the Director for Drug Policy and the Andes at the Washington Office on Latin America (

So far, many foundational global health efforts—such as treating malnutrition, preventing newborn and maternal mortality, and eliminating infectious diseases like HIV, malaria, tuberculosis, and polio—have been impacted, along with harm reduction programs.

, the director of the International Drug Policy Consortium (

funded harm reduction all over the world. Many people have already fallen off their HIV treatment, HIV prevention is going to be deprioritized, and there is going to be a very serious impact.

The Trump administration also withdrew its contribution to the 

‘ budget, which accounted for 50% of the organisation.

Cutting funding at this fragile moment is tantamount to cutting the future of so many people around the world

, a Human Rights Officer from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (

The International Network of People who Use Drugs (

 to understand the impacts of these cuts on the ground.

” says the newly appointed Executive Director of INPUD, 

Seventy-six organizations responded to the 

, with more than 60% being community-led organizations. For 25% of these NGOs, US funding was 

. The most affected programs were HIV testing, services for women who use drugs, legal and human rights support, and HIV treatment. The most disrupted programs were outreach and peer work.

These two programs are the foundation of any further harm reduction work. If you cut these, you are dismantling the entire model

The cuts impact Africa the most, as the continent received the majority of US aid.

A lot of our public healthcare clinics are directly funded by USAID, and we also have CDC- and PEPFAR-funded clinics

, a healthcare, human rights, and harm reduction consultant from South Africa. Cutting this funding will affect women’s access to sexual and reproductive healthcare services in rural areas, as they cannot access alternatives. “

We are going to see a decline in healthcare and a rise in mother-to-child transmission of HIV.

The health response in Eastern Europe and Central Asia is also affected, particularly HIV testing, care, and treatment.

An important component that we always forget is the narrative shift,

, the Executive Director of the Eurasian Harm Reduction Association, told us. “

Right-wing and populist governments now feel emboldened to speak out against LGBTQ people, people who use drugs, and other minorities to gain political support. It seems like the only reasonable adult in the room has disappeared.

A sad example of this is our own country, Hungary. In March 2025, the far-right government of 

, claiming it posed a threat to children’s well-being. Orbán argued that Hungary had previously been under pressure from the West not to take such action, but now that the “

,” it was time to act. His government also 

, preparing for a major crackdown on civil society and free speech. They introduced a constitutional amendment banning not only “

” of illicit drugs but also the so-called “

” of them. This Russian-style ban on “

” could lead to the repression of harm reduction and drug policy reform efforts, including Drugreporter itself.

, the overdependence on US funding was not sustainable, but the speed at which the cuts happened made it impossible to fill the immediate gaps. Cutting development aid is visible in almost all other countries as well, though not as swiftly and ferociously as in the USA.

, sees an opportunity in this crisis. If African governments collaborate, they could find solutions to fund the health sector. “

This is a wake-up call for many African countries. If we could fight corruption in Africa, we wouldn’t even need aid programs to function effectively.

“The criminalization of people who use drugs is extremely costly”, and perhaps European governments will realize that it diverts too many resources away from security spending, speculated 

All our lives are filled with struggles, challenges, and living underground. This is not new to people who use drugs,

Maybe it is time for more aggressive advocacy and organization.

We addressed two more pressing topics in the film. One is the Trump administration’s new war on drug cartels, designating them as terrorist organizations.

If any US administration really wanted to put the drug cartels out of business, they should approach the idea of legal regulation—our lucrative market. This is not what Trump seems to have in mind,

And lastly, there are also progresses to report:

At we finished filming and left the CND, 

 an overdue review of the UN drug control “machinery.” The majority of member states voted to create a panel of independent experts to rethink the global drug control regime. The landmark resolution led by 

, established a multidisciplinary panel of 19 independent experts, acting in their personal capacity, to prepare a clear, specific, and actionable set of recommendations aimed at enhancing the implementation of the three drug conventions, as well as the obligation of all relevant international instruments, and the achievement of all international drug policy commitments’.

The scientific review of the coca leaf by the WHO is still ongoing, regardless of the US cutting WHO funding. 

, Vice President of Bolivia, appeared before the CND crowd with coca leaves in his hand, explaining that the coca leaf is a gift to the Andean-Amazonian peoples. 

Indigenous Peoples and Minorities Section

 at the UN Human Rights Office, reaffirmed that including the coca leaf in Schedule 1 of the UN drug conventions was a historical error and that it should be completely removed. Hopefully, the WHO’s recommendation will reflect this very soon.

The video was financed by the 

Reporter: Péter Sárosi
Video and article: István Gábor Takács

When the adult in the room is gone: Trump’s budget cuts and global drug policy

On January 24th, the Trump administration halted all global health funding, including USAID, CDC, and PEPFAR, the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. This stop-work order for all U.S.-funded humanitarian initiatives has resulted in significant setbacks to critical programs. The suspension negatively impacts efforts in HIV prevention, treatment, and care, particularly for young people living with and affected by HIV and other marginalised groups who rely on and depend on access to critical health services.

To gain a clearer understanding of its effects, various regional and global networks of young people living with and affected by HIV—such as 

Y+ Global, Youth LEAD, Youth RISE, The PACT, and others

—are carrying out a survey. This survey aims to collect insights regarding the influence of US-funded initiatives on youth-led organisations, how the halt to funding has affected their operations, and their approach to tackling HIV-related challenges. Your input will assist us in evaluating the impact on programs and communities, thus improving our advocacy and resource mobilisation efforts.

All responses will remain confidential and will solely support advocacy efforts. No personal or identifiable information will be disclosed to third parties or made available to anyone without their prior consent. The 

survey will take approximately 7 - 10 minutes to complete

. We greatly value your time and feedback. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact Eddy Rudram, Communications and Advocacy Manager at Y Global, at erudram[@]yplusglobal.org

Survey: Understanding the impact of the US stop-work order on funding for HIV and youth programmes

Recent retrograde shifts in foreign aid and diminishing civil society space threaten gains made through decades of evidence-based harm reduction programming that has saved countless lives globally. Civil society organisations providing crucial peer support systems are being defunded and their voices repressed. Concurrently, feminism and LGBTQI+ rights and sexual and reproductive health services, including contraception, gender-based violence services and safe abortion are being assaulted. Now, more than ever, harm reduction and underserved populations are at risk as essential life-saving services are being closed down.

With the expansion of the measurably harmful Global Gag Rule, sexual and gender diversity are being actively attacked, with trans rights violated to the point of erasure of identity, sexual and reproductive health rights invalidated and gender equality goals undermined. Funding strangleholds are constraining lifesaving healthcare for trans people, women living with HIV, people who use drugs and other key populations. This spurious attempt to institutionalise patriarchal heteronormative hierarchy serves to sanction and popularise racism, sexism, userphobia, transphobia and homophobia. Patterns are emerging where under the guise of ‘family values’, ideology trumps science, propelling a climate ripe for societal destabilisation, hate crime and public health dismemberment.

On this International Women’s Day, we [...] stand in solidarity with our gender expansive and cis-sisters who use drugs to denounce the current undermining of public health, science and bodily autonomy which represent a wider offensive against equality norms, rights protections and common sense.

We recognise that the hard-won progress on gender responsive harm reduction is under threat. As part of the feminist movement, we are cognisant of the necessary collective peril we pose to patriarchy and that this new attempt at reinstalling sexist oppression and derailing public health must be rapidly reversed.

This is a call to action for governments, courts and donors for:

immediate reopening of OAT clinics, recognising their lifesaving impact, (including for pregnant women who are opioid dependent)

laws and policies that safeguard the rights of women and gender expansive people who use drugs and key populations in access to harm reduction and other healthcare, including gender affirming care, without discrimination and criminalisation

direct, flexible, sustained and safeguarded funding for women and gender expansive people-led harm reduction organisations and networks of people who use drugs

gender equity indicators and gender mainstreaming in health investments, including funding conditionalities where gender responsive harm reduction, women’s rights and inadequately served populations are prioritised

accessible accountability mechanisms to track health investments and ensure that these are cost-effective, low threshold and congruent with the needs of people who use drugs

We stand in solidarity with the harm reduction and feminist movements and communities worldwide as the aid freeze forces lifesaving programs to shut down. Harm reduction is essential and a basic human right. These decisions are negligent, unjust, will cost lives and must be immediately revoked. We stand ready to continue our work to address systemic barriers to health and rights for women and gender expansive people who use drugs.

Full list of signatories and translations available on WHRIN's website.

Resist and reverse rollbacks: A feminist call to protect harm reduction and sexual and reproductive health

MEXICO CITY (AP) — Under warm strobe lights and pulsing house beats, a recent festival in Mexico City offered more than music, food and booze. Amidst the usual festival fare, a booth provided free, anonymous drug testing.

The initiative, known as “Checa tu Sustancia” (Check Your Substance), is one of several recent efforts by Mexican civil society to reduce risk among people taking drugs. Spearheaded by the Instituto RIA, a Mexico-based drug policy research and advocacy organization, it aims to address drug use from a public health and social justice perspective, rather than a security one.

In a well-lit corner of the festival, members of the Instituto RIA used reagents and laboratory porcelain plates to test substances that some of the partygoers planned to use and recorded the data. Their analysis uses color changes to indicate what’s in the drug: It can reveal the presence of adulterants but not their exact proportion.

Facts, not fear: Inside Mexico’s pioneering drug harm reduction programs

Toronto, ON | March 31, 2025—In a small victory for those advocating for evidence-informed services, one Toronto supervised consumption site facing forced closure April 1, 2025 will keep its doors open as that deadline passes tomorrow. But the reprieve—granted via a 

 from the Ontario Superior Court – brings no relief for additional sites across Ontario who will still be required to close. 

The Court’s decision, released Friday, suspends the application of location restrictions within Ontario’s 

 until 30 days after the case has been decided. The Court granted the injunction on the grounds that sites’ closure and resulting increased risk of unsupervised drug use risks irreparable harm, threatening the health and lives of people who use drugs. 

Despite this recognition, the injunction does not cover the Act’s requirement for municipally operated or supported sites to obtain provincial approval. Given this, at least one site in Peel Region must still close. Further, the injunction has no impact on Ontario’s denial of funding to all sites. Without such funding, most sites will be unable to sustain their vital work, even if technically permitted to operate.

“In one sense, we are relieved. The Court has recognized the evidence that the Ontario government chooses to ignore: closing supervised consumption sites will drive deaths and harms,” says DJ Larkin of the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition. “But it is deeply upsetting that despite this recognition, thousands of people at risk of harm will still lose this lifeline. Our response to harm as a caring, inclusive community should always be to provide the support and choices people need to stay healthy and well. We must chart a path that is rigorously grounded in public health principles, upholds 

 rights, and protects against the perpetuation of stigma.”

This temporary injunction provides time for the Court to assess whether the Act violates 

 rights and is outside of Ontario’s constitutional jurisdiction, a decision that may take several months. Though the injunction allows all sites impacted by the Act’s location restriction to continue operations, its limited scope, combined with the province’s decision to withdraw or reject funding for existing sites, means it is too little, too late for many communities. 

“Most people believe everyone deserves access to healthcare and well-being, whether they use drugs or not,” says Michael Parkinson of Waterloo Region Drug Action Team. “Supervised consumption sites are one proven way to improve everyone’s health and safety. While the injunction is intended as a temporary reprieve, the deadly reality is its scope is limited and the province remains openly hostile. We are extremely distressed for the Kitchener applicant who sought relief in the Court and has not found it, despite the injunction, and the thousands of others across Ontario who depend on consumption sites. We urge the Ford government to respect the injunction and expedite the continuance of these services.”

Nearly all sites slated to close have accepted funding to transition to the new HART Hub model, which the province promised would be operational by April 1. Ontario explicitly forbids the provision of supervised consumption services through HART Hubs and has threatened to withdraw funding from organizations that offer these services. Some sites transitioning to HART Hub locations have 

 that they will be unable to open in time due to delays from the province. 

“It is shameful: Ontario has put service providers in an impossible position,” says Zoë Dodd of Toronto Overdose Prevention Society. “We are in a toxic drug crisis and the court agrees that people could die from these closures. Providing lifesaving overdose prevention services is essential. Preventing disease transmission is essential. Through this process the Ford government has ignored its own evidence. They are using funding as a weapon.”

Interveners in the case spoke to the increasing toxicity of the unregulated drug supply and described the harms to come to people should sites close. Others noted that Indigenous and Black communities, women, and people experiencing homelessness will bear disproportionate harm.

“We have been working together to keep people safe from preventable harms amid devastating loss,” says Colin Johnson of the Toronto Harm Reduction Alliance. “Why anyone who cares about their fellow Ontarians could agree to the closing of these sites knowing the good they do is beyond me.”

News