Colorado and Washington have become not just the first U.S. states – but the first political jurisdictions anywhere in the world – to approve regulating, taxing and controlling marijuana similar to alcohol.

The Drug Policy Alliance and its electoral arm, Drug Policy Action, worked closely with local and national allies to draft these initiatives, build coalitions and raise funds.

“The victories in Colorado and Washington are of historic significance not just for Americans but for all countries debating the future of marijuana prohibition in their own countries,” said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. “This is now a mainstream issue, with citizens more or less divided on the issue but increasingly inclined to favor responsible regulation of marijuana over costly and ineffective prohibitionist policies.”

The Colorado and Washington initiatives inspired diverse coalitions that included traditional drug policy reformers, law enforcement, organized labor, advocates for fiscal responsibility, mainstream civil rights organizations, advocates for children, and people from across the political spectrum. The campaign in Washington gained strength and legitimacy from the unprecedented number of endorsements by elected officials as well as former and current law enforcement officials.

“Marijuana policy reform remains an issue where the people lead and the politicians follow,” said Ethan Nadelmann, “but Washington State shows that many politicians are beginning to catch up.” Also notable was the silence of Obama administration officials who had spoken out two years ago against California’s Proposition 19 but who refrained from intervening this year. “That bodes well,” said Mr. Nadelmann, “for both states' prospects of implementing their new laws without undue federal interference.”

Never before has support for making marijuana legal been so widespread. Last year, a Gallup poll found for the first time that 50 percent of Americans support making marijuana legal, with only 46 percent opposed. Public support has shifted dramatically over the last two decades – especially over the last five years – as majorities of men, 18-49-year-olds, liberals, moderates, Independents, Democrats, and voters in Western, Midwestern and Eastern states now support making marijuana legal. Last week, the annual FBI Uniform Crime Report found that police made 757,969 arrests in 2011 for marijuana law violations in the U.S. – 86 percent of these arrests were for possession only. Marijuana arrests comprise one-half of all U.S. drug arrests.

Other reform measures also prevailed in California and Massachusetts. California’s Proposition 36 – which will significantly reform the state’s notorious “three-strikes” law – is expected to pass by a wide margin. Moving forward, Californians convicted of a third nonviolent felony – including drug law violations – will no longer receive a mandatory 25-to-life sentence. The Drug Policy Action Issues PAC was one of the primary financial contributors to the Prop. 36 campaign. Meanwhile, Massachusetts became the 18th U.S. state since 1996 to legalize marijuana for medical purposes.

To read this news in Bulgarian, please click here.

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

Colorado and Washington State make history, become first US states to regulate, tax and control marijuana 

Two years ago, California’s bid to legalize marijuana—Proposition 19—achieved great notoriety in Latin America, but ultimately fell short at the ballot box. Next Tuesday, voters in the state of Washington appear ready to do what Prop 19’s supporters could not quite achieve—an Election Day victory.

Polling and prediction markets suggest that Washington’s Initiative 502 will prevail on November 6. Colorado voters might also put Amendment 64 over the top, although that is shaping up to be a closer call. Another legalization proposal, Oregon’s Measure 80, looks unlikely to pass.

Within the United States, plenty of ink has been spilled over these state-level marijuana legalization bids. But in Latin America, relatively little has been written, and none of it has resonated quite like California’s Prop 19 did in 2010. This year’s fiercely contested presidential race has understandably been the focus of most international attention. And California has the reputation of being a trend-setter, as well as being by far the most populous state in the country. Los Angeles County alone is home to more registered voters (4.5 million) than is the entire state of Washington (3.8 million).

But if the marijuana legalization initiatives in Washington and Colorado have been under-the-radar in Latin America so far, that could change dramatically by the time ballots are counted next week. Even if only one U.S. state were to approve legalization, the decision would reverberate throughout the hemisphere, where the drug policy debate has opened up dramatically—as President Obama learned first-hand at the April 2012 Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia.

At one level, the consequences of a state-level vote in favor of legalization will depend on real-world implementation, and that will in turn depend on how the federal government responds to the state action and to the specifics of the state’s new regulatory design. The federal Controlled Substances Act prohibits the production, sale, and possession of marijuana, and the Justice Department has been silent on how it might react to passage of legalization by a state. The nature of the federal response will itself be affected (to a greater or lesser degree) by which candidate wins the presidential election next Tuesday. Among the strategies that federal authorities might consider, the one that might seem obvious at first glance—dramatically stepped-up enforcement by federal agents—is not likely in practice. More targeted federal responses could include withholding federal funds or threatening to seize marijuana tax revenues.

The practical impacts of state-level legalization, should implementation proceed, would not be merely domestic. For example, researchers at the Mexican think-tank IMCO have estimated that state-level marijuana legalization could diminish the income of Mexican drug trafficking organizations by hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

But apart from exactly how legalization would play out in practice—the federal response, the structure of the market, cross-border impacts, etc.—a state-level vote in favor of legal marijuana would be of enormous importance symbolically, both in the United States and in Latin America.

Within the United States, national surveys have indicated a steady growth in support for legalizing marijuana. In 2011, Gallup found that half of Americans supported the idea of making marijuana legal, up from 34 percent in 2001, with younger voters most in favor of legalization. Even in the wake of Prop 19’s defeat in California, the sense has become that state-level legalization is a matter of “when,” not “if.”

“When” looks very much like “now,” at least in the case of Washington and perhaps also Colorado. The politics of marijuana legalization will continue to differ by state, but a win in one state would help shift the political calculus; rather than considering marijuana policy reform as, at best, a topic to avoid, more politicians may see it in a new light—as a potentially voter-friendly issue that spans the ideological spectrum.

The symbolic importance of a win for state-level legalization would extend well beyond U.S. borders. The U.S. government is well-known in Latin America for its role as chief architect and champion of the “war on drugs,” including the marijuana prohibition regime embedded in the United Nations drug conventions. Even if federal law remains unyielding, the state-level move toward legalization in the home of the modern drug war could hardly go unnoticed in Latin America.

This is especially the case today, since the debate over drug policy in Latin America is more vibrant than ever. On the one hand, the OAS report mandated at the Cartagena summit is to include a chapter specifically about “legal and regulatory approaches to the drug problem.” Especially once a U.S. state has voted to legalize, it would be difficult to imagine how the OAS report could fail to raise marijuana legalization as a possible policy option, however opposed the U.S. federal government might be.

At the same time, the leaders of several countries that have been close U.S. “drug war” allies—Colombia, Guatemala, and Mexico—continue to call for international reconsideration of the current drug control paradigm. Last month, those countries formally requested that the United Nations begin preparing for an international conference to review all options, “including regulatory or market measures, in order to establish a new paradigm that prevents the flow of resources to organized crime organizations.”

Of even greater immediate significance, this year the Uruguayan government introduced legislation that would legalize and regulate the marijuana market in that country. Parliamentary debate over the proposal is underway, with a vote in Uruguay’s House of Representatives possible before the end of November. Approval of legalization in at least one U.S. state next week would certainly give the Uruguayan effort a boost.

Public opinion surveys and prediction markets aside, the polls on Election Day are ultimately the only ones that matter. If one of the marijuana legalization initiatives should pass on November 6, it will represent a genuine milestone for drug policy reform, not only for the United States, but for Latin America and the rest of the world.

The U.S. federal government may prove unwilling or unable to stay out of the way once legalization is approved at the state level, so implementation is still anybody’s guess. But federal moves to block implementation would not mark the end of the story, but only the beginning of a new chapter—a chapter that begins with marijuana legalization as a political reality, not merely a distant prospect.

Taking the initiative on legal marijuana

"Designer drugs", "legal highs" or "bath salts" - whatever they are labelled as, psychoactive substances have become a major concern in all regions of the world, particularly given their considerable public health consequences and their potentially even fatal effects.

The term "new psychoactive substances" covers a wide range of substances that often have pharmacological properties and effects similar to those of internationally controlled drugs. This diverse group includes synthetic cathinones, which are similar in structure to amphetamines and synthetic cannabinoids in mimicking the effects of THC, the main active ingredient in cannabis. Piperazines, often sold as ecstasy, are another group of new psychoactive substances that were first encountered in established markets for amphetamine-type stimulants.

While new drugs have always appeared on illicit drug markets, the pace at which such substances have emerged in recent years has accelerated considerably. Last year in Europe alone, 49 new psychoactive substances were reported to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.

No such figures are available at the global level, however, owing to the absence of an early warning system for these substances.

To fill this gap, UNODC operates a network of drug-testing laboratories through the international collaborative exercises programme, which for the first time allows laboratories from around the globe to monitor their performance in drug testing. Participating drug-testing laboratories also report at six-month intervals on the new substances that they have analysed.

More than 100 laboratories participate in the exercises. In 2011, 42 per cent of 128 laboratories from 48 countries reported new psychoactive substances, mostly synthetic cathinones such as mephedrone ("m-cat" and "bubbles") or methylenedixoypyrovalerone (MDPV, "ivory wave" and "cloud 9"). Synthetic cannabinoids (often sold as "spice" or "K2") are also analysed frequently, although the emergence of piperazines appeared to be declining in 2011.

The past two years have been characterized by increasing diversity of products, as manufacturers of new psychoactive substances adapt their products almost endlessly. "The variety, the changing physical forms and the constant modifications in labelling make it difficult for law enforcement and other drug control authorities to identify new psychoactive substances," noted Justice Tettey, Chief of the Laboratory and Scientific Section of UNODC. "Laboratories do not often have the capacities to analyse these new psychoactive substances, and UNODC calls on Governments to support their drug-analysis laboratories in this process."

UNODC operates the Global Synthetics Monitoring: Analyses, Reporting and Trends (SMART) programme to shed light on emerging trends and developments in the fast-changing world of synthetic drugs. The current UNODC Global SMART Update, available in English and Spanish, provides an overview on the various new psychoactive substances available on illicit drug markets and highlights the challenges they pose to the international community.

Tracking designer drugs, legal highs and bath salts

Half-baked compromise in Dutch government coalition agreement continues disastrous coffeeshop policy

The new coalition government of conservative liberals (VVD) and social-democrats (PvdA) presented its coalition agreement on Monday. They agreed to abolish the cannabis pass, but access to coffeeshops remains limited to residents of the Netherlands. Customers need to identify themselves with an identity card or a residence permit together with a certificate of residence. Non-resident foreigners are still banned. In other words, there will be no cannabis pass, but the policy continues.

However, the new agreement also specifies that implementation of the residence criterion will be done in consultation with the municipalities concerned and if necessary in stages. The implementation also depends on municipal coffeeshop and security policies in order to allow “a tailor-made approach per municipality.” The agreement has all the signs of a half-baked compromise between two diametrically opposed positions of the two parties involved, in which the VVD has the upper hand in continuing the disastrous policy they started during the previous right-wing government.

The only loophole seems to be in the phrase about “a tailor-made approach per municipality”, which is the only concession to the resistance among many mayors and city councils that oppose the pass. The mayors of the four largest cities in the Netherlands (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht) openly spoke out against the nationwide introduction of the pass scheduled for January 1, 2013. Rotterdam mayor Ahmed Aboutaleb (PvdA) said the cannabis pass does not work and will never work. It just causes more public disorder and street dealing. The largest police union also said that the pass did not work. They qualified the pass as a political decision without any focus on a realistic policy that would solve the problem.

The coalition agreement appears to pave the way for the big cities to determine their own policies, but there has not yet been any official statement on how this will be implemented. The VVD will get the post of the Minister of Justice which will go to current minister Ivo Opstelten, who introduced the cannabis pass. The social-democrat PvdA campaigned against the pass and advocated the regulation of cultivation and supply to the backdoor of the coffeeshops, which is currently still left to the black market. They essentially gave in to the law-and-order approach of the VVD.

Cannabis pass abolished? Not really

Illicit drugs continue to remain among highest-value illicit commodities trafficked in the Asia-Pacific region - fuelling violence, corruption, conflict and addiction. Concerns in the Asia-Pacific region centre - at present - on amphetamine-type substances (ATS) and heroin. East and Southeast Asia the focus of attention is on Myanmar which accounts for one-quarter of global cultivation and a sizable quantity of ATS production.

In the midst of these trends the 36th Meeting of Heads of National Drug Law Enforcement Agencies (HONLEA) for Asia and the Pacific started today in Bangkok.

Annually organized by UNODC, HONLEA is a meeting designed to allow participants to discuss major regional drug trafficking trends and countermeasures. The meeting is also a venue to for practitioners and law enforcement agents to exchange expertise, share best practices and information on drug-related matters and to develop a coordinated response. This year's meeting is taking place during 30 October - 2 November at the United Nations Conference Centre in Bangkok, Thailand.

Speaking on behalf of Yury Fedotov, UNODC Executive Director, Mr. Gary Lewis, UNODC's Regional Representative, emphasized the need to focus on three things: accurate knowledge of the problem; state-of-the-art technical countermeasures and better regional cooperation.

"As the custodians of the laws designed to protect the young and the vulnerable we can all play an invaluable role in turning the illicit flows of drugs into a high-risk operation for the criminals," Mr. Lewis said.

In addition to focusing on supply, Mr. Lewis also noted: "Our efforts must also focus on persuading our citizens to stop consuming illicit drugs. We must continue to raise awareness about the dangers of drug use to health and development. We must champion evidence-based, community-based treatment."

Attended by 129 countries from 32 countries, this year's HONLEA meeting focuses on three important topics:

 including the identification of new smuggling routes and of trafficking groups involved in the diversion of precursors and their modus operandi;

 in particular the detection and dismantling of "mega-labs", the challenge of illicit manufacturing in kitchen laboratories, the control of Internet pharmacies and the emergence of new designer drugs that are not under international control;

 the challenges of multi-jurisdictional investigations, case studies of significant operations and lessons learned.

The 36th HONLEA meeting will last until 2 November with the adoption of the meeting report which will contain conclusions and recommendations.

HONLEA is a subsidiary body of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, which is the central policymaking body within the United Nations system dealing with drug-related matters. For more information about the Commission, please visit here.

UNODC holds HONLEA meetings in three different regions: Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Asia and the Pacific. The most recent HONLEA for Africa (22nd) and Latin American and the Caribbean (22nd) were held, respectively, in June and October this year.

Membership of HOLEA for East Asia and the Pacific is open to any State or territory that is a member or associate member of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). Other United Nations Members States may be invited as observers at their request. HONLEA Asia and the Pacific was established by ECOSOC resolution 1845 (LVI).

Heads of National Drug Law Enforcement for Asia-Pacific meet to counter illicit drugs

Youth RISE has launched its new membership structure, creating a new searchable membership database to improve communication among its network and create a more inter-connected membership network of young activists .

Membership is open to all young people under 30 interested in drug policy, harm reduction, HIV, sexual health, human rights and drug user rights. To register as a member, please click here.

Youth RISE launches new membership structure

As the 2015 target date for achieving the Millennium Development Goals approaches, there is wide debate as to what development goals the global community should set next. The United Nations Secretary-General (UNSG) Ban Ki-moon has appointed a High-level Panel to advise on the global development agenda beyond 2015. The Panel will deliver a report to the 2013 September General Assembly.

In support of this process, the United Nations Development Group is leading efforts to catalyse a “global conversation” on the post-2015 agenda through a series of global thematic consultations and more than 50 national consultations.

UNICEF and WHO have been asked to lead the UN-organized consultations on health.

The UN’s global consultation on health will take place between October 2012 and February 2013. It will include a web-based consultation; the development of a series of background papers (both on lessons learned from the current MDGs as well as future directions); and a series of consultative meetings with Member States, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private sector partners and academic and research institutions.

The process will culminate in a high-level meeting in late February 2013, involving governments, NGO coalitions, key UN partners and members of the UNSG’s High-Level Panel. It will seek to incorporate ideas and lessons from other regional and country consultations, thereby building a powerful consensus around key issues and recommendations on health to feed into the inter-governmental process that will start later in 2013.

Call for papers: Health in the post-2015 development agenda

As part of the global health thematic consultation, interested individuals and groups are invited to submit “think pieces” on the positioning and role of health in the post-2015 agenda. The aim is to garner experiences and lessons learnt from the health-related MDGs and consider how these can be harnessed to ensure that health remains intrinsic to the new development agenda.

Manuscripts will be accepted from 5 October 2012. The final date for submissions is 

Health in the post-2015 UN development agenda: Global consultation

In recent years there has been much talk of the so-called “Portuguese model,” based on an initiative that led to the use of illicit drugs being decriminalised in 2001. In fact, it is often said that Portugal was the first country in Europe to decriminalise drug use de jure, while Spain, for example, took that step de facto for the first time in 1974, except that it was not through a specific law but rather as a result of a Supreme Court ruling.

In any case, the decriminalisation process taken forward in Portugal undoubtedly serves as a clear example of the fact that showing greater tolerance to drug users does not lead to an increase in consumption. On the contrary, in Portugal’s case all the indicators show a reduction in the use of illicit drugs following this move, while the problems associated with such use also declined.

Nevertheless, Portuguese-style decriminalisation has immense loopholes and contradictions, such as the fact that the illicit growing of psychoactive plants (of which cannabis is the most common) is still considered a crime, even when it is destined for personal use. This contradiction, which permits the possession and use of small quantities but not self-supply, means that drug users are forced to depend on the illegal market. Furthermore, possession for personal use is punishable as an administrative offence. Dissuasion Commissions (whose members are legal advisers, psychiatrists and social workers) have been established and are able to impose fines or community service. Another of their roles is to persuade addicts to enter treatment programmes. Most of their rulings have led to the legal proceedings brought against non-addicted drug users being suspended. Around ten per cent of cases have been settled with a fine.

  The Bloco’s new proposed law covers all aspects of cannabis, from production to distribution.

For some time, various groups have been arguing that further steps need to be taken on the road to decriminalisation, by means of coherent regulations that would cover all aspects of the matter and permit a system of supply that offers an alternative to the illegal market. A few years ago, the Bloco de Esquerda (Left Bloc), a leftist party very similar in origin and ideology to Syriza in Greece, and which in the last election obtained about 10% of the vote and 16 seats in the Legislative Assembly (Portugal’s only house of parliament, since the senate no longer exists), came up with a different proposal along the lines of the so-called “Dutch model,” which suggested that drugs could be supplied through commercial establishments similar to Holland’s coffee-shops.

Nevertheless, the appearance of Cannabis Social Clubs in Spain has led to a shift in attitude among many groups that used to support a commercially-oriented regulatory model. The Bloco de Esquerda itself decided to abandon that proposal in view of the advantages of the model based on non-profit associations. These include greater transparency, self-management by the consumers themselves, the absence of commercial interests (thus reducing the risk of drug use being promoted), elimination of the so-called “back door,”[1] and the possibility of introducing the arrangement without needing to reform UN treaties beforehand, since the cannabis clubs fall within the sphere of personal consumption.

The Bloco’s new proposed law (which has not yet been presented to parliament) covers all aspects of cannabis, from production to distribution. Its justification mentions the failure of the repressive model consecrated by the UN, the manifest success of decriminalisation – which silenced the arguments of the prohibitionists by demonstrating the viability of more tolerant approaches – and the internal contradictions in the current legislation, which indirectly help to sustain drug trafficking.

The text of the proposal defines the legal arrangements applicable to the growing, consumption and acquisition of cannabis and its by-products, and the possession of these for personal use without the need for a doctor’s prescription. In fact, the initiative’s promoters have avoided mingling medical use with so-called “recreational use,” since they believe that the two debates should be kept separate. They also believe that the defence of the right to use cannabis should not be based on its medicinal properties but rather on individual freedoms.

The proposal – the text of which is not yet definitive – imposes limits on acquisition, growing and possession. It stipulates that the acquisition of cannabis products for personal use should not exceed the amount required for one month’s consumption. This is defined on the basis of Decree 94/96 (26 March), which stipulates estimated daily doses for different illicit drugs. Thus, the amounts someone can obtain each time may not exceed 75 grams of marijuana, 15g of hashish or 7.5g of hash oil. Growing would be limited to a maximum of ten plants per person, while possession would not be allowed to exceed the above-mentioned amounts. In other words, if people choose to grow their own they may store the output from the ten plants, and if they obtain their supply through a club (or on the illegal market) they may only keep enough for one month.

The proposal also includes a system of authorisations, which would be non-transferrable and may be withdrawn in the case of failure to comply with the legal obligations they entail, but would not affect personal use. Therefore, if the proposal goes ahead, the consumption, growing, acquisition and possession of cannabis and cannabis products destined for personal use would not only cease to be a crime but would also no longer be considered an administrative offence, thus leading to full depenalisation, in contrast to what has been the case up till now.

Chapter II of the proposed law deals with the Cannabis Social Clubs (CSCs), which are regulated in some detail. In the proposed text, a club is defined as “a not-for-profit civil-society association for the purposes of study, research and debate on cannabis, as well as the growing of cannabis plants, the production of cannabis substances or preparations and the provision of these to its members, in properly authorised establishments and under the conditions set out herein.” In other words, it outlines a type of organisation almost identical to the model currently being discussed in Spain. In this sense, the Bloco proposal is ground-breaking because, despite being based on an existing model, Portugal could become the second country with a law that permits cannabis clubs. In Uruguay the proposal is that the state would issue licenses to producers, whether they be home-growers or members of growers’ clubs, as is the case in Spain.

The proposed law goes on to establish a series of limits and conditions for the clubs to operate: members must be over the age of 18 and will be invited to join by another club member; the clubs will not be allowed to serve alcohol, and gaming machines are banned; they must be at least 300 metres away from the nearest school; and non-members will only be able to enter the club if they are accompanied by a full member. The clubs will not be able to advertise, and the products they dispense may not have a brand or a trade name.

As far as the acquisition of cannabis products by members is concerned, the proposal stipulates that minors and people who have “an obvious mental illness” will not be allowed to enter the club and may not be provided with any substance whatsoever. The club will make available to its members only the quantity required to cover their monthly needs. The receptacles in which the products are dispensed must indicate the origin and the quantity of the substances they contain, the effects and risks associated with their use, and the international common name as defined by the World Health Organisation.

With regard to oversight of the clubs’ activities and cannabis growing and distribution in general, the proposal gives INFARMED (the national pharmaceutical drugs and health products authority) the power to approve and withdraw authorisations to grow cannabis, although these will not be necessary in the case of possession for personal use. The CSCs must also request permission to extract active ingredients.

INFARMED will also be responsible for “overseeing the growing, extraction and manufacture, distribution, import, transport, acquisition, delivery and possession of substances to be made available to the members of Cannabis Social Clubs.” Responsibility for enforcing the ban on alcohol, gaming, minors, advertising, etc, would fall to local governments. Both they and INFARMED would be able to inspect the clubs’ activities at any time.

As far as infractions are concerned, unauthorised trading in cannabis would be punishable by a prison sentence of up to four years in the case of minor offences and between 4 and 12 years in serious cases, with severity being defined in terms of quantity and circumstances. Other infractions (alcohol consumption, the presence of minors in a club, etc) would be punished as an administrative offence, with fines that in most cases range from 2,500 to 25,000 euros.

  The proposed law of the Bloco de Esquerda (BE) to legalize the creation of self-cultivation and cannabis social clubs was discussed at a public hearing in Parliament.

At the end of September I was invited by the Bloco de Esquerda to travel to Portugal on behalf of the FAC to explain what the CSC model consists of and how it operates. During my visit I was able to participate in various events, including a parliamentary hearing that was also attended by a Socialist Party representative, Elsa Pais, who was president of Portugal’s Drugs and Drug Addiction Institute (IDT) from 2000 to 2002.

At the hearing, João Semedo, a doctor and Bloco MP (who will also be responsible for presenting the proposal when the time comes), spoke of the need to gather support, which is why they have chosen the formula that seems most acceptable to the rest of Portugal’s political parties. Pais’s role is therefore essential, and she gave quite a forceful speech in which she argued that these issues must not be sidelined in the political debate, especially bearing in mind that individual rights and freedoms of this sort tend to be less respected in times of crisis.

In Pais’s opinion, the Bloco proposal is very positive, because it solves the problem of how drug users are to obtain supplies without resorting to the illegal market. In her view, the CSC arrangement has a number of advantages: it is based on a risk prevention strategy, it respects the seemingly untouchable UN treaties, it gets rid of traffickers by depriving them of customers, and it is a proven model that reinforces informed decision-making and the responsibility of individual users. At the end of her speech, Pais made a commitment to try to convince others in her party to support the proposal. This will be essential, since the Socialists are the largest party in parliament, with 97 seats.

Nevertheless, the Bloco and the Socialist Party together have a total of 113 votes in parliament – slightly less than the 116 needed for an absolute majority. Even if Pais does manage to convince her party colleagues, which is by no means certain, the support of another party would still be needed. This might be the United Democratic Coalition (CDU), an alliance of communists and greens, whose position does not yet seem to be decided. So, a lengthy debate can be predicted before we see concrete results.

It will also be interesting to see what stance is taken by João Goulão, president of the IDT and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), to whom I was able to explain in person how the cannabis clubs operate, and who showed himself open to discussing them as a possible alternative to the current regulations. If Goulão – one of the originators of Portugal’s successful decriminalisation policy – was to support regulation along the lines of the Bloco initiative, it might be more likely to succeed. Because if one thing is certain, it is that right now the likelihood of it being approved un-amended is slight. In any case, the debate promises to be interesting.

 is a representative of the Federación de Asociaciones de Personas Usuarias de Cannabis (FAC) and author of Cannabis social clubs in Spain: A normalizing alternative underway, Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies Nr. 9, January 2011

Cannabis reaches parliament: The debate on regulating Cannabis Social Clubs in the Basque country

Between collective organisation and commercialisation: The Cannabis Social Clubs at the cross-roads

 in Highs and lows in cannabis policy reform: Recent developments in cannabis regulation

[1] The “back door” problem refers to the fact that the coffee-shops in Holland can sell up to five grams of cannabis to their customers (the “front door”), but they have to obtain their supplies on the illegal market (the “back door”). For the coffee-shops to be able to operate in a way that avoids any activity classified as a crime, the growing of cannabis would have to be regulated.

Portugal progresses toward integrated cannabis regulation

Increasingly, Afro-Colombian communities are bearing the brunt of the U.S.-financed aerial fumigation efforts in Colombia. In 2011 and 2012, fumigations took place in the departments of Nariño, Valle del Cauca, and Choco—regions populated primarily by Afro-Colombians. The fumigations join the wealth of mining, industrial, and development projects that regularly violate these communities’ right to free, prior, and informed consultation regarding actions taken on their lands.

Aerial fumigation of coca crops is conducted with the chemical 

—marketed in the United States as Roundup. Conclusive findings on glyphosate’s long-term safety remain elusive; while some studies have found that the chemical harbors no carcinogenic qualities, the United Nations argues that adverse health effects—specifically for children—are an undeniable possibility. Extensive anecdotal evidence from sprayed communities continues to raise legitimate concerns as to the chemical’s safety. Reports from Afro-Colombian community groups indicate widespread skin, respiratory, and gastrointestinal issues on locals after fumigations take place. Worst affected are pregnant women, the elderly and children.

Equally troubling is the damage to Afro-Colombians’ food security and the environmental effects of spraying. Imprecision in spraying campaigns has led to the killing of non-coca crops used for sale and consumption, including banana, yucca, corn, and rice fields. Such crops provide basic food security for many of the communities sprayed, and once destroyed, can prompt displacement of rural farmers. In June and September 2012, the over 6,000 inhabitants of La Mamuncia-Lopez de Micay in Cauca’s daily food items were destroyed, along with a cacao project supported by the Cauca government that served as this community’s main source of income.

Furthermore, as the chemical spray seeps into streams and aquifers, its harmful impact further damages humans and the environment. Studies show that glyphosate has a negative effect on aquatic life and biological diversity. Poisoning of Afro-Colombian communities’ main water sources remains a major concern. In other words, however “targeted” or “harmless” aerial eradication programs may be in theory, the collateral damage of spraying is staggering and this damage is highly destructive to Afro-Colombian rural communities.

Much of this environmental damage cannot simply be reversed. Colombia’s Pacific coast is one of the world’s most biodiverse regions. Choco, for example, is home to virgin forests containing species of flora and fauna that do not exist anywhere else. Errant spraying does not merely eliminate theses species from existence in Colombia; rather, it drives them into global extinction. Such damage to the natural environment is leading to irreparable harm to Afro-Colombians’ rich culture and traditional rural way of life.

The aerial fumigation efforts also deepen Colombia’s already significant internally displaced population. Vulnerable communities—notably Afro-Colombian and indigenous peoples—are regularly forced off their land due to threats, violence, and the internal armed conflict. Under the constant threat of—even licit—crop destruction through spraying and related violence between drug traffickers and the state, these groups are regularly forced to leave their ancestral lands and seek safer havens.

In 2000, the Afro-Colombian Assembly of the Community Council of Yurumanguí (Valle del Cauca) launched an anti-coca campaign in order to stop the harm, both the crops and the fumigations were causing on the locals. The leaders cognizant that coca and fumigation efforts were incentivizing displacement from the community, destroying food crops, eroding security, and posing a serious threat to their cultural integrity organized themselves to defend their land, cultural, and political rights. The strategy involves identifying areas where coca is grown, approaching the growers to explain the coca’s ties to violence and ask that the illicit crops be destroyed. If the grower does not acquiesce the community organizes a group of persons to eradicate the plants themselves. Though this effort lacks official support and has increased tensions with guerillas and coca growers, it serves as an example of the alternative community-based responses to aerial fumigation proposed by Afro-Colombian communities.

Beyond Valle del Cauca, Afro-Colombian groups have responded to the threats posed by coca cultivation and fumigation efforts. Over 5,000 Afro-Colombians took to the streets to protest fumigation in September 2011 with some protestors blocking the main road to the department for several days. The Inter-Ethnic Forum of Choco (FISCH) and COCOCAUCA, two regional groupings of Afro-Colombian community councils and organizations, have publicly denounced the harmful effects of fumigation efforts on Afro-Colombians and repeatedly asked U.S. and Colombian authorities to seek alternatives to fumigation.

Sadly, Afro-Colombian organizations’ efforts to halt fumigation efforts have fallen on deaf ears. The health, ecological, and cultural damage on Afrodescendant communities continues to take place without their being a significant change in the drug trade. While some common ground exists between affected communities and the government—both wish to see an end to drug trafficking in the region—alternative and more effective solutions to this common problem must be reached. A positive first step would be for the United States and Colombia to view Afro-Colombian communities as partners rather than enemies in their anti-narcotics efforts and to consult with their leaders on how best to reduce coca growing collective territories. Unilateral and harmful action on the part of Colombia in collectively-held lands is not only an unacceptable, harmful solution to the drug issue, but also has failed demonstrably to meet the U.S. and Colombian goals of curbing coca cultivation.

*This blog posting is a summary of a presentation by Gimena Sanchez-Garzoli, WOLA Senior Associate for the Andes. Additional research support was provided by Adam Schaffer, Program Assistant for Drug Policy and the Andes.

Ineffective U.S. fumigation policy adversely affects Afro-Colombians 

How did the international drug control system arise, why has it proven so durable in the face of failure, and is there hope for reform? These are the questions that were discussed during an event organised by the London School of Economics (LSE) in October. Speakers included:

David Courtwright is professor of history at the University of North Florida.

Nigel Inkster is the former director of operations and intelligence for MI6.

William McAllister is special projects director at Office of the Historian, US Department of State.

Ethan Nadelmann is founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

To watch a video of the event, please click here.

The global drug wars

On 9th of October, 2012 the Steering Committee (SC) of Eurasian Harm Reduction Network (EHRN) confirmed Arian Boci as the Chair of EHRN SC.

“It is an honor and a challenge to take on the duties of the Steering Committee Chair at EHRN. I am grateful to my colleagues – SC members, for their trust and I’ll do my best to fulfill their expectations. A few priorities that I intend to address as Chair: first, to find ways to more actively engage the Network’s members and to work with the SC members to achieve better representation of EHRN members’ interests in EHRN’s programmatic activities; second, to ensure that EHRN contributes to the sustainability of harm reduction programs and addressing the human rights violations of people who use drugs in Eurasia,”

 – said Arian Boci, following the elections.

Arian Boci has over 10 years of wide ranging program management and research experience in the fields of HIV/AIDS/STI, substance abuse prevention and policies, sexual and reproductive health and family planning, maternal and child health, social behavior change communication.

Additional information about Mr. Boci’s election as the Chair of EHRN SC is available in the PDF below.

Arian Boci becomes the Chair of Eurasian Harm Reduction Network's SC

On July 9th and 10th, and September 23rd and 24th, 2012,as part of the

, Eurasian Network of People who Use Drugs (ENPUD) had two strategic planning sessions, where the core group of drug user community activists discussed and agreed on their organization’s mission statement: 

“We are a community of people who use drugs and our allies, who unite for the purpose to decriminalize drug use and to achieve personal and social well-being”.

The core group of ENPUD activists (that acts as ENPUD’s interim Coordinating Council – the Network’s executive body) made a number of strategic decisions related to ENPUD’s objectives, advocacy agenda, membership policy, and organizational structure.

ENPUD’s interim Coordinating Council requested that EHRN’s Secretariat fulfill the role of ENPUD’s Secretariat until 2014.

News