Prof. Sevil Atasoy, who is currently the President of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), is a candidate for re-election to the INCB membership.

Prof. Atasoy noted that she has been re-nominated by Türkiye, stating, “Experience is not only technical knowledge; it is also crucial in managing complex political and operational processes.”

A reception was organized by the Permanent Mission of Türkiye to the United Nations (UN) in New York, at Türkevi in New York, on the occasion of the re-candidacy of Prof. Sevil Atasoy, President of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), Vice Rector of Üsküdar University, Head of the Forensic Sciences Department, and Director of the Graduate School of Addiction and Forensic Sciences, for INCB membership. Diplomats from numerous countries that are members of the Economic and Social Council attended the event.

INCB's Sevil Atasoy: 'Drug policies should be shaped on the basis of human rights and public health'


Jude Byrne was an extraordinary person and fearless advocate for people who use drugs over a career spanning decades, holding numerous roles with the Australian Injecting and Illicit Drug Users League (AIVL) as well as serving as a board member of INHSU. Jude was also a founding member of INPUD and acting Chair of the Board for close to a decade. Few people have left such a lasting impact on the movement as Jude. 

Read more about Jude’s life and impact here.

Awardees notified: Approximately 3-4 weeks after deadline

INPUD mentor program kick-off meeting (online): June 2026

INHSU Conference: 6–9 October 2026, Prague, Czech Republic

INPUD mentor program dates: June 2026 – March 2027


We are looking for emerging community leaders who identify as female and are passionate about advancing the health and rights of people who use drugs. Successful applicants should have:

A strong commitment to leadership and a desire to pursue opportunities for growth and impact

Early to mid-career experience, regardless of how long they have been involved in the sector, with an interest in taking on leadership roles. This award is not designed for people who have extensive leadership experience already

A demonstrated track record of advocacy, community engagement, or involvement in harm reduction or drug policy reform efforts

A willingness to participate actively in the INPUD mentorship program and INHSU conference, and a commitment to sharing knowledge, building partnerships, and advancing advocacy for people who use drugs

For more information and to apply for this year’s award, visit the Jude Byrne Award page on the INHSU website and click on the ‘APPLY NOW’ button. Applications close on 20 April 2026.

Jude Byrne emerging female leader award - Call for applications

This single programming document (SPD) covers the period from 2026 to 2028. It is presented in line with the guidelines for the SPD and the consolidated annual activity report of decentralised agencies, adopted by the European Commission on 20 April 2020.

Substantive work is structured around the areas defined in the new EUDA SPD delivery framework (presented in Section II, ‘Introduction – strategic approach’). The framework reflects the work priorities embedded in the EUDA Regulation and supports the Agency’s contribution to EU preparedness on drugs through increased customer focus, operational efficiency, and internal cooperation and coordination.

Under this model, work will be organised around three thematic areas: substance use and harms; best practice and responses; and policy and society, crime, markets and precursors. It also includes the EU Early Warning System on new psychoactive substances (EWS), as well as laboratory networks, drug alerts, and threat assessments. These are complemented by three cross-cutting areas: partnership and international cooperation; communication and stakeholder engagement; and research, innovation and foresight.

Strategic direction, performance management, and control will be provided by the corporate governance area, while administration and IT support services will underpin effective delivery.

The concrete priorities of work are defined in the 2026 annual work programme, presented in Section III of the document.

It is important to note that this SPD was developed prior to the publication of key strategic documents that will shape the Agency’s future work. These include the forthcoming EU drugs strategy (from 2026), the EU action plan on drug trafficking, and revisions to the legal framework on precursors, as announced in the EU internal security strategy, ProtectEU. As a result, some elements of this SPD may need to be adjusted to reflect these final, published strategies.

EUDA Single programming document 2026-2028

 Article I of the Charter of the United Nations provides the Organization’s aims, one of which is “to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character”. One way to achieve that aim has been to reinforce international cooperation through the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, which was elaborated a few years after the Charter came into force.

The 1961 Convention as amended by the 1972 Protocol and its companion conventions, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971 and the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988, address one of the great challenges of our time, namely, to ensure the availability of substances under international control for the relief of pain and suffering, but doing so in a manner that avoids increasing the likelihood of the illicit trafficking and use of those substances and the social and economic harms that such use can cause.

 In those conventions, States made it clear that they aimed to address their common challenges through joint action: in the preamble to the 1961 Convention as amended, the Parties asserted that effective measures against the illicit use of narcotic drugs required coordinated and universal action because they understood that that was the most effective way to protect their citizens and provide for their medical and scientific needs.¹

Similarly, Parties to the 1971 Convention gave expression to their belief that taking effective measures to provide psychotropic substances for the needs of their citizens while protecting against trafficking in those substances required coordination and universal action, and that only a widely-respected international convention could achieve those objectives.²

 Recognizing the growing challenges posed by the world drug problem and the need to broaden the scope of cooperation in international drug control, Member States negotiated and adopted the 1988 Convention. Breaking new ground, the Member States incorporated into the Convention provisions against money-laundering and the diversion of precursor chemicals, and comprehensive articles that encourage and facilitate international cooperation in criminal matters, including to tackle drug trafficking, and assigned new responsibilities to INCB to manage the trade in chemicals used to manufacture plant-based drugs and synthetic drugs.

 Within the United Nations drug control framework, several actors play a crucial role with respect to the conventions: foremost, the States Parties themselves, along with the Economic and Social Council, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, WHO, INCB and the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Secretary-General has delegated his role in that respect to UNODC. Over the years, several other actors have emerged as vital stakeholders, assisting States in implementing their legal obligations and political commitments and enabling the functioning of the systems of licit trade and precursor control, supporting efforts related to prevention, treatment and rehabilitation, ensuring availability, and facilitating law enforcement and judicial cooperation. Among those actors are civil society organizations; private sector entities, including manufacturers of substances under international control; the healthcare industry; the world’s postal systems and firms engaged in international commerce; and international and regional organizations. All have been vital in facilitating availability and preventing trafficking.

 Notwithstanding the existence of this robust framework, its effective functioning has come under considerable strain owing to more recent challenges, not least those posed by the global synthetic drug problem. Synthetic drugs present an increasing challenge because of their high potency, relative ease of manufacture and ability to be concealed, compared with plant-based drugs. The legitimate medical use of many synthetic drugs, combined with the widespread availability of dual-use precursor chemicals, has enabled criminal groups to exploit regulatory gaps and circumvent existing control mechanisms, making it difficult for States and other actors to respond effectively.

 An additional, ongoing challenge is the unequal access to and availability of affordable opioid analgesics, such as morphine, to meet the legitimate medical needs of populations, particularly for pain management and palliative care. The consumption of morphine and other opioid analgesics remains heavily concentrated in developed countries in North America and Europe, while developing countries in other regions continue to maintain lower levels of consumption. That disparity is not due to an insufficient supply of opiate raw materials but may be a result of estimates of requirements by some countries that do not accurately reflect their medical needs; it may also arise in the context of humanitarian emergencies that impede access to opioid analgesics. Adequate availability relies on the capacity of Governments to provide accurate estimates of their needs and on simplified control measures during emergency situations, as provided for in the conventions.

 Challenges to international cooperation in drug control have also arisen in the multilateral sphere. In particular, States members of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs have, over the past several years, increasingly found themselves in disagreement over the conventions’ applicability to the non-medical use of cannabis and other matters, including alternative development and the appropriate measures to deal with the negative health and social consequences of drug use (i.e. harm reduction measures).³

In 2024, for the first time in its history, the Commission, at its sixty-seventh session, adopted two resolutions by means of voting,⁴ effectively breaking what has been known as the “Vienna spirit” of cooperation and compromise, whereby resolutions have been adopted by consensus and without a vote. The Vienna spirit has been a key factor in promoting a sense of common and shared responsibility among countries in addressing the world drug problem, but has, without a doubt, been affected by diverging views and practices with regard to implementing obligations under the conventions. The trend away from consensus-based decision-making continued during the Commission’s sixty-eighth session, in 2025, when Commission members requested votes on all draft resolutions.

 All these challenges underscore the need for adaptive policy responses by Governments and strengthened political will to meet obligations and commitments and address common problems effectively. To assist Member States in strengthening their engagement in international cooperation in drug control and in raising awareness of current challenges and opportunities related to the international drug control system, the present chapter provides an overview of the work of the Board in reinforcing the cooperative efforts of States Parties through its treaty-mandated functions, programmes and initiatives. In particular, the Board’s work in support of licit trade and control systems under the conventions is highlighted. The chapter also contains information on the Board’s extensive cooperation with regional and international partner organizations, particularly in relation to the operational aspects of drug control, as well with civil society and the private sector, which represent two other key groups of stakeholders within the international drug control system. The chapter concludes with a series of recommendations aimed at strengthening international cooperation with a view to responding to the contemporary challenges posed by the world drug problem.

INCB Annual Report 2025

The upcoming 61st Session of the Human Rights Council, to be held between 23 February and 31 March 2026, presents critical opportunities for reflecting on the impacts of drug control policies on human rights worldwide and on States’ obligations to promote and protect people’s rights, while discussing pathways for reform. 

Below are some key moments where drug policy will or can be addressed, and suggestions for mainstreaming drug policy in the session. More information about civil society participation during the session can be found here.

61st Human Rights Council: Drug policy opportunities

Drug reform campaigners have called for an overhaul of global drug controls amid an increasingly complex and deadly drug situation in the world and as hardline anti-drug approaches are increasingly being used as cover for repression of civil society and human rights defenders.

 released earlier this month by the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC) assessed progress made since the 2016 UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on drugs, widely viewed as a potential turning point in global drug policy.

It found that the promise of UNGASS remains largely unfulfilled – despite notable progress in some areas – and that punitive and prohibitionist approaches continue to dominate global drug control, despite their enormous human and financial cost.

“Punitive approaches [to drugs] are costing lives, undermining human rights and wasting public resources, while silencing the very communities that hold the solutions. This report shows why governments must move beyond rhetoric and commit to real structural reform,” Ann Fordham, IDPC Executive Director, said.

Advocates of drug policy reform have for decades pointed to evidence showing how hardline drug policies have completely failed.

‘Worrying’ war on drugs rhetoric comes with human, financial costs

When Ghana's Narcotics Control Commission Act (Act 1019) was passed in 2020, it was celebrated as a landmark piece of legislation. It promised a revolution in drug policy—a shift from the handcuffs of the past to the healing hands of public health. Yet, approaching six years later, a fundamental paradox lies at its core. While the law speaks the language of rehabilitation, its heart still beats with the pulse of prohibition.

The Act’s stated goals are progressive: to establish a dedicated rehabilitation fund and prioritize treatment and harm reduction over pure enforcement for low-level drug offences. But by attempting to be both a healer and a jailer, Act 1019 has created a legal paradox that traps the very people it claims to rescue. The Act's punitive core remains firmly in place, creating a framework that is fundamentally at odds with its own health-focused mission.

The preliminary findings of the 2025 Integrated Bio-Behavioral Survey (IBBS) provide stark evidence that "draconian" practices persist and are costing lives. It is a law in conflict with itself, and the most vulnerable are paying the price. As the distinguished drug policy scholar Dr. Joanne Csete observed, "Plainly, there is a chasm into which policies fall on the way from the rhetoric to the reality”.

A law at war with itself: How Ghana’s drug policy is failing its public health mission

In January 2021, the former First Minister announced a new National Mission to reduce drug-related deaths, acknowledging that responsibility for Scotland's tragic and preventable loss of life "rests - first and foremost - with government". Since then, Scotland has taken important steps forward, introducing innovative and increasingly evidence-led approaches. But, despite the ambition behind the National Mission, more than 4,500 people have lost their lives to drugs since 2021 - leaving behind devastated families, grieving communities and a country still struggling to confront a decades-long public health crisis. As we approach the next Scottish Parliament elections, the message is clear: we cannot become complacent, and we cannot slow down. The next parliamentary term will bring a significant number of new MSPs - and with that comes a rare and meaningful opportunity to reinforce and accelerate Scotland's shift toward compassionate, evidence-based and rights-led policy, ensuring that people with living and lived experience genuinely shape decisions at every level. We call on all political parties to seize that opportunity. Show courage. Follow the evidence. Refuse to accept preventable deaths as inevitable. And work collaboratively - across government portfolios, with the third sector and alongside the people most affected - to deliver the bold, sustained, transformational change that Scotland urgently needs.

A National Mission for Change: Putting People, Evidence and Rights at the Heart of Scotland’s Drug Policy  

 Grande Bibliothèque de BAnQ, 475 boulevard de Maisonneuve Est, Montréal / Online


• In person: 8 May 2026 (23:00)
• Online: 12 May 2026 (23:00)

 French and English (simultaneous interpretation available for certain sessions)

Since its creation in 1991, the Quebec Harm Reduction Conference (RQRDM) has served as a key space for exchange, reflection and mobilisation. Originally focused on HIV prevention among people who inject drugs, the conference has progressively expanded to address overdose prevention, sexuality, substance regulation and broader social justice issues.

The 39th edition marks a return to the essence of harm reduction. At a time when harm reduction approaches are increasingly subject to stigma, misinformation and political backlash, the conference seeks to reaffirm the evidence base and human rights foundations of this pragmatic and humanistic approach.

Research consistently demonstrates that when harm reduction strategies are properly implemented and adequately resourced, they reduce overdose deaths, improve public health outcomes, and strengthen communities — countering claims that such approaches increase drug use, crime or homelessness.

39th Quebec Harm Reduction Conference (RQRDM)

For thousands of years, Andean people living around what is now the town of Coripata, east of La Paz, Bolivia, have used coca leaves to relieve fatigue, hunger and altitude sickness (known as soroche), as well as to treat headaches and digestive problems.

Concerned about the future of this cultural and religious practice, Daynor Choque, heir to this ancient tradition, points to a pile of leaves on the table in front of him.

“We have been using coca without any problems since the time of our ancestors,” says Choque, leader of the commercial arm of local coca producers. “Now, producers are being pushed into the illegal cocaine market just to survive – unless we can sell our coca legally on international markets.”

The growers’ wishes were dealt a blow last December when, 65 years after the UN’s convention on narcotic drugs first declared that the coca leaf should be as restricted as its derivative, refined cocaine, the World Health Organization (WHO) refused to change the leaf’s status.

Even though a recent WHO critical review found that coca leaf (Erythroxylum coca) does not harm human health, the leaf – which contains 1% or less of the cocaine alkaloid – remains on the same dangerous drug list as heroin, fentanyl and cocaine.

‘Coca leaf is life itself’: Andean growers’ hopes fade as WHO upholds global curb

In several Swiss cities and municipalities, the implementation of pilot trials to gather insights into the regulation of cannabis is continuing. The pilot trials are being conducted based on the experimental article introduced in 2021 in the Federal Narcotics Act and the associated ordinance. According to the latest figures from June 2025, around 10 400 adults are participating in the seven ongoing pilot trials. This corresponds to slightly less than five percent of the people who, according to the Federal Statistical Office, reported having consumed cannabis in the last month in 2022 (around 220 000 people). Different sales models are being tested in pharmacies, in specialized cannabis shops (some simulating a for-profit sales model and others that are not-for-profit), in associations ("social clubs"), and in the Drug Information Center (DIZ) of the City of Zurich, which all provide a controlled access to cannabis products. The data available up to July 2025 shows that participants in the pilot trials are generally satisfied with the product quality, as well as the advice and information provided. So far, the pilot trials have also proceeded without any notable incidents or negative effects on health or public order. Some of the trials report improvements in mental well-being, which is attributed to the elimination of procurement stress and the reduction of stigmatization. For the majority of participants, legal outlets are now the main source of supply. After just one to two years, a large proportion of participants – in both non-profit and for-profit models – appear to be turning away from the illegal market, which is becoming less important for their supply. Smoking products with a high THC content remain the most popular. However, interest in a broader range of products with new product categories (vaporizers, e-liquids, edibles) and products with lower THC content is increasing, and in some cases, changes towards lower-risk forms of consumption are observable. According to initial evaluations of the first 12 months of study participation, the average monthly amount of THC purchased per study participant remains relatively stable. Sales staff at all points of sale have been trained on issues relating to consumption and addiction. In their interactions with consumers, the non-profit models place a particular focus on prevention, while the forprofit models tend to emphasize the personal responsibility of study participants in areas such as the use of medical advice and prevention. Discussions with international experts from fields such as public health, criminology, psychology, and market regulation confirm the uniqueness and potential of the Swiss approach. Findings from other countries underscores the importance of a strict regulation to introduce a non-commercial system, clear guidelines for packaging and advertising, and coherent governance at the national level if public and individual health is to be protected effectively. These findings provide important guidance for the debate on a possible regulation of cannabis in Switzerland that would combine public health, safety, and youth protection.

Analysis of results from cannabis pilot trials in Swiss cities

Judgment of the Court in Case C-271/23 | Commission v Hungary (Rescheduling of cannabis)

Hungary, which cannot argue that the common position is unlawful, infringed the European Union’s exclusive external competence in that field, and acted in breach of the principle of sincere cooperation.

In November 2020, the Council of the European Union adopted a decision on the common position to be taken by the Member States, on behalf of the European Union, at the subsequent session of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs. The purpose of that common position was, inter alia, to amend the scheduling of cannabis and cannabis-related substances in two United Nations Conventions, namely the Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, following a recommendation by the World Health Organization.

When voting on those recommendations, Hungary’s representative not only voted in breach of the common position adopted by the Council, but also made a statement contradicting that common position.

In view of that situation, the European Commission brought an action for failure to fulfil obligations against Hungary. According to the Commission, Hungary infringed the European Union’s exclusive external competence and the Council decision on the common position, and acted in breach of the principle of sincere cooperation. In its defence, Hungary argued, principally, that that Council decision was unlawful.

In its judgment, the Court rules in favour of the Commission and finds that Hungary failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law.

The Court notes that the Council Framework Decision on drug trafficking defines the concept of ‘drug’ by referring to the two abovementioned United Nations Conventions. Decisions amending the scheduling of substances in those conventions can affect the application of the penalties laid down in that framework decision, and therefore can affect and alter EU law directly. The adoption of a position to be taken by the Member States on behalf of the European Union with regard to such decisions thus falls within the European Union’s exclusive competence.

Hungary disregarded that competence in the present case by acting in the way it did. That Member State thereby also infringed the Council decision on the common position that had been adopted in exercise of that exclusive competence.

Under the principle of sincere cooperation, the Member States are required to facilitate the achievement of the European Union’s tasks and must abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of common objectives. In the present case, by voting, within an international body, against a common position of the Council, Hungary compromised that principle as well as the principle of unity in the international representation of the European Union and its Member States. By disassociating itself from the common strategy established within the Council, it weakened the European Union’s negotiating power with regard to the other parties to the Convention.

Lastly, the Court states that, in the context of an action for failure to fulfil obligations, a Member State cannot properly plead that an act of an institution, body, office or agency of the European Union is unlawful. That would amount to allowing a Member State to take the law into its own hands by first infringing EU law and then waiting for the Commission to bring proceedings against it by way of an action for failure to fulfil obligations. That would run counter to the principle of the rule of law and the duties of solidarity which are accepted by the Member States and which form part of the fundamental basis of the legal order of the European Union. The position could be different only where the Member State challenges an act that contains such particularly serious and manifest defects that it could be categorised as a non-existent act.

If the Court of Justice finds that there has been a failure to fulfil obligations, the Member State concerned must comply with the Court’s judgment without delay. Where the Commission considers that the Member State has not complied with the judgment, it may bring a further action seeking financial penalties.

Drug law reform