British Columbia is about to become the first Canadian province to decriminalize personal possession of some state-banned drugs—a move that media and government officials are widely touting as progressive. As drug users who work in frontline harm reduction, we do not share this view. 

 to Canada’s federal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act will decriminalize personal possession, by adults over 18, of opioids, methamphetamine, cocaine and MDMA. The exemption will remain in effect for the next three years. It sets the threshold of personal possession at a cumulative 2.5 grams.

This threshold does not reflect true buy-in from the people it purports to serve.

“In my experience as a longtime drug user and [overdose prevention site] supervisor, everyone has different tolerances, so they use and carry different amounts,” Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU) President Kevin Yake told 

. “Two-and-a-half grams … that’s breakfast for a guy like me, not three days of supply. I don’t agree with the thresholds at all.”

Health Canada, which is well aware of this and has the authority to rectify it, did not provide responses to 

Canada: British Columbia decrim threshold was set for police, not people who use drugs 

Killing in the name of the war on drugs: a special section from the 1st Asian regional meeting of the International Society for the Study of Drug Policy

Excerpt from the Editorial, by Karen Laidler

The aim of this special section is to build on the growing body of work on drug policy in the Global South, and the violence associated with the global war on drugs (

). These observers have noted that the war on drugs is real, with states, armed with punitive drug laws and employing varying levels of military and law enforcement tactics to strike hard against those involved in the drug market. As 

:210) argues, the target is not the drug itself, but “the categories deemed worthy of punishment… the transversally poor, marginal, unorthodox, subaltern groups of humans around the globe. The rich and bourgeois classes are practically left untouched by the ‘War on Drugs…” The justification for killings, whether state sanctioned or extrajudicial, has been couched in the specificities of culture and its preservation. Yet it is apparent from this collection of essays, that the ability to exercise structural violence is less about the preservation of cultural values of collectivism, and more to do with the preservation of political power. The result is not a united community, but in fact, a sharply divided society. Such policies further entrench the culture of shame and stigma against persons who use drugs and affords those in power with political and economic capital.

Why Vietnam continues to impose the death penalty for drug offences: A narrative commentary

The war on drugs in Southeast Asia as ‘state vigilantism’

‘Alternative facts’: Public opinion surveys on the death penalty for drug offences in selected Asian countries

Deadly serious: The United Nations, drugs, and capital punishment in the 1980s

“Shabu is different”: Extrajudicial killings, death penalty, and ‘methamphetamine exceptionalism’ in the Philippines

An uphill battle: A case example of government policy and activist dissent on the death penalty for drug-related offences in Indonesia

State sanctioned killing in the name of drugs: Laws, practice and conflicting trends in Asia

“I held on to the police’s leg for mercy”: Experiences of adversity, risk and harm among people who inject drugs during an anti-drug drive in Dhaka, Bangladesh


Sharful Islam Khan, Samira Dishti Irfan, Mohammad Niaz Morshed Khan

Killing in the name of the war on drugs: a special section from the 1st Asian regional meeting of the ISSDP

For as long as most of us can remember, the United States has led the charge in the global “War on Drugs”. This disastrous 50-year-old experiment in criminalising people who use drugs while spending billions on law enforcement has caused untold harm and suffering across the world (including New Zealand), especially for Black people, Indigenous peoples, and people of colour.

So even though Biden’s announcement will only affect the relatively small number of people with federal cannabis convictions (most minor cannabis offences are prosecuted at a state level), the fact it came from a serving US president is momentous, and signals the latest in a global shift away from the catastrophe of prohibition.

Over the weekend we launched a petition calling on the New Zealand government to decriminalise cannabis and follow Biden’s lead by pardoning cannabis use and possession convictions. 

Why Aotearoa / New Zealand should decriminalise cannabis and overturn convictions

Statement delivered at the 38th Meeting of the 51st Regular Session of the Human Rights Council, on 5 October 2022

Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everyone.

We are here now to discuss the human rights situation in the Philippines in the context of the UN Joint Program, where it is, potentially, a very good opportunity for us to make positive changes. Under this Joint Program, there also is a clear risk, actually, of institutionalizing human rights violations under a UN Joint Program for Human Rights.

I struggled with this. Because how can we move forward and fix things if we are not honest about what has been happening and continue to be happening? And we quibble over numbers instead of acknowledging the wrongs that have been committed against Filipinos, and where we should be facilitating accountability?

I struggle. For how can claims be made to address human rights violations when, many times, there is no clear understanding of where the violations are coming from? And this is especially true when we speak of treatment and health where actions and programs remain punitive and repressive.

There also continues to be a culture of surveillance and control. We have a very bad habit of tagging and labeling people. In the drug response, people continue to be placed on lists, and where it becomes so easy to scapegoat and arrest and kill in the name of the drug response. Where we lay blame where there should be none. We have arrested people on the lists, and heard reports where evidence is planted. It has also become easy to fabricate drug charges against individuals that have been considered as enemies, and letting them languish in jail.

The message seems to be: if it's drugs, we'll fix you or else. And this is the same kind of thinking that has fueled tens of thousands of people getting killed. Quibbling over numbers will not make this reality less real.

The Joint Program is a space, a unique space where government and civil society are able to work together. But we have to be seriously committed to create the changes that the Joint Program was intended for, and where it should not simply be a laundry list (of activities), a ticking-off exercise. We need to make sure that the programs really do translate to positive changes on the ground.

So, when we say we do training, for example, or capacity building, what are we capacitating people for? How would we assess being capacitated? How do we assess that these programs, these training programs, actually translate to engagements on the ground that protect and safeguard human rights? These are the questions that we need to be asking instead of asking whether somebody attended a program or not. Or, just quibbling over or ticking off the number of attendees in programs, ticking off the number of graduates in community-based programs. Instead of really trying to see, to ask the questions that we need to be asking:

Are these programs improving quality of life of individuals?

And, in doing programs under the Joint Program, are we sure we are not placing people in greater harm? How many have, in good faith, attended so-called community-based programs only to miss the last half because then, it was found out, they had been killed?

If we talk about health response, why are we not urgently setting in place harm reduction services that can protect and save lives? We have the evidence. Why are we ignoring that?

How come until now we have no ethical standards set in place? Where, as one government official said, harm reduction is good but sorry, we have a drug-free mandate.

The Joint Program does not exist in a vacuum. We have to recognize that there are laws, such as our drug law, that cause overcrowding in our prisons. We have sections of the drug law that are disproportionate where someone arrested for selling less than one gram of methamphetamine is dealt a life sentence. A penalty much, much harsher than for homicide.

Why are there laws and regulations, policy issuances, and (legislative) bills where information-gathering and surveillance are the norm? We have to stop the lists.

We must continue monitoring the Joint Program. The work is not done. We have opened an opportunity where the potential is great. If we drop the ball now and cease to continue to be critical and thorough in monitoring, we will have missed an opportunity from which other nations can learn. And we would miss the opportunity to put in place safeguards and protections for the next generation. Now is the time to put things in place.

I will take seriously what has been said (by the government) about working with civil society organizations. Civil society organizations are the ones working on the ground. We are here to help, to create the kind of environment that truly protects human rights.

And, one last thing -- to make real changes happen there are prerequisites. None of any of our recommendations will bring about meaningful change if it still lives within the narrative of living in a drug-free Philippines. This narrative is getting us stuck. If we continue with this narrative, we will continue to violate human rights.

So, I ask you again, as we continue discussions -- the Joint Program is an opportunity. There are words in the Joint Program; let them not be empty words. We can work together, but there has to be serious commitment among all those who are involved.

Philippines: If we continue with "drug free", we continue to violate human rights

The War on Drugs has failed in its stated goal of reducing drug use and sale and has instead resulted in a devastating trail of trauma, pain, and suffering, for families, and communities, with communities of colour facing the harshest impact.

Globally, Black Brown and Indigenous people are disproportionately targeted for drug law enforcement and face discrimination across the criminal justice system.

The War on Drugs has provided the architecture, in many ways, within which racist and colonialist laws, policies and practices can operate. Our work to decolonise drug policy seeks to raise awareness of the racism and colonialism underlying international drug control, and its impact on the health and human rights of individuals and communities in order to begin to dismantle these destructive policies.

This conversation between Imani Mason Jordan, Gracie Bradley and Shanice McBean took place via Zoom on Wednesday 8th

Decolonising drug policy: British policing, the war on drugs, and the everyday impacts of colonialism

," co-hosted by Release and Harm Reduction International.

is an interdisciplinary writer, artist, editor and facilitator.

is an activist, campaigner and writer and also the ex-director of

is an anti-racist organizer who has done, loads of wonderful work with

Intersecting drug policy and abolition in Britain: A conversation

A strong majority of Oregonians continue to support Measure 110, the state’s historic drug decriminalization initiative that voters approved almost two years ago, a new poll shows. Besides decriminalizing drug possession, the measure also invested hundreds of millions in extra funding for substance use treatment and other critical services. The public’s clear backing comes as many law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and two out of three current gubernatorial candidates have loudly opposed the law. Without evidence, they claim it will worsen drug-related harms and crime.

The new survey asking Oregon voters about their feelings on Measure 110 was released by Data for Progress on September 12. Here are some of the results:

*Asked if the state should address drug use and addiction through public health approaches or the criminal justice system, 72 percent chose public health. A majority of voters in all the state’s regions favored this approach.

*Asked if the state should repeal Measure 110, 58 percent of voters wanted to keep it in place. That includes 82 percent of Democrats, 56 percent of Independents and 31 percent of Republicans.

*The survey broke down Measure 110 into its individual provisions, and tested the popularity of each. Majorities of voters supported the elements of peer mentoring, employment assistance, recovery services, health care, housing, harm reduction, and ending criminal penalties for drug use.

United States: Oregonians strongly support their state’s drug decriminalization

A recent press release from Amnesty in July 2022 highlighted a spike in Iranian executions, where at least 251 people had been executed in the first half of 2022. This report was confirmed by local Iranian watchdog organisations, noting that more than a third of these executions (36%, or 91 people) had been for drug-related offences. This rise represents a rapid escalation in state-sponsored violence, occurring within a context of raising political unrest in the nation.

Iran Human Rights (IHR) has been monitoring executions in the Islamic Republic of Iran for the past 17 years. According to several reports gathered by them, demonstrate that there had been at least 126 people that were executed for drug-related offences in 2021, a five-fold increase in comparison with the previous three years.

IHR’s work is particularly vital to reporting drug-related deaths, as the Iranian government often hides their executions: IHR said that none of the drug-related executions in 2021 were reported by the state, having instead to verify the deaths through independent sources. Of the 251 conducted in the first half of 2022, only 31 were confirmed by domestic media or government officials.

Drug executions in Iran are back on the rise

Human Rights Watch (HRW) in a statement on Thursday (September 8) said that there’s “no compelling evidence” that could show that the Philippines is serious about investigating, let alone prosecuting, those that were responsible for the killings of the past administration’s war on drugs.

The statement comes after the Philippine government, represented by the Solicitor General, submitted its comment before the pre-trial chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC), arguing that the ICC and its prosecutor, Karim Khan, no longer have jurisdiction over the Philippines.

“Since the Philippines first sought a halt to the prosecutor’s investigation last November, Human Rights Watch has monitored the situation and found no compelling evidence that the government was seriously investigating these cases, let alone prosecuting those responsible,” HRW’s Senior Philippines Researcher, Carlos Conde, said.

Philippines not serious about probing war on drugs

While left-leaning presidential and gubernatorial hopefuls are either silent about or dodging the issue of drug policy in their campaigns and manifestos, there are two political forces gaining momentum in Brazil. The first one emerges from right-wing, military-minded candidates. It aims to normalise the police operations (a cornerstone of prohibitionism) that have claimed several thousands of lives in recent years. The objective, of course, is to provide more equipment and training for police forces, while praising lethal operations that are allegedly carried out to free society from the scourge of drug suppliers.

The second force emerging with strength during this electoral run emanates from civil society. The Brazilian Platform of Drug Policy, allied with the Black Initiative For Drug Policy, launched the campaign “

You are also a victim in the war on drugs

”, with an accompanying Emergency Manifesto For The End of The War on Drugs, inviting society at large to think about how we are all victimised by the violence associated with prohibitionism. The manifesto is organised in four axes: starting with the “Care” Axis, calling for governmental investment into harm reduction-oriented initiatives. Among the demands are the development of drug education programmes, investment in the public health system, the offer of continued professional development for health and social workers, and the provision of adequate spaces to develop harm reduction programmes.

The manifesto was handed to the former and currently leading presidential candidate Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva by the lawyer and activist Dandara Rudsan. With well-structured and straightforward demands, based on the best practices and ideas related to harm reduction, human rights, and reparations, the document can provide good guidance for Lula, if he is elected, to amend the issues related to the drugs legislation he signed back in 2006. The challenges are many, but if he is willing to listen to society, especially those affected by drug policy failures, there will be an opportunity for transformation. We have a unique opportunity to use our social capital and our right to vote to make sure that these demands are met.

Brazilian activists deliver manifesto to end drug war to leading presidential candidate

An anonymous drug testing trial will take place at the Electric Picnic music festival in the Republic of Ireland.Festival goers will be encouraged to place drugs into "surrender bins" at the County Laois venue so they can be tested for potency and contamination. Health officials will warn the public if they detect particularly dangerous drugs in circulation at the gig.

They stressed that drugs remain illegal but said they were taking a "pragmatic" approach to protect public safety. The testing scheme, run through the Health Service Executive (HSE), is part of the Irish government's Safer Nightlight campaign.

The HSE's initiative has the support of An Garda Síochána (Irish police service). But are the authorities not concerned that such an approach may appear to normalise or condone drug taking? "Our message is really, really clear that it's safer not to take drugs at all. Drugs remain illegal and that's the Guards' position as well so if you're caught in possession of drugs at a festival by An Garda Síochána you will face prosecution," Prof Keenan said. "But with all of that going on, we know that people still do take drugs at festivals... we're pragmatic enough to understand that it does happen and like the Guards we're interested in public safety and this is an initiative which we think will contribute to the health and safety of attendees."

Ireland: HSE to trial drug testing pilot at Electric Picnic festival

By the African Policing Civilian Oversight Forum (APCOF), the Centre for Law Enforcement and Public Health Limited (CLEPH), and the Centre for Human Rights - University of Pretoria

The aim of the course is to provide insight into the impact that police can have on the enjoyment of human rights by a wide variety of populations. This can include those who confront discrimination within many societies, on the basis of sex or gender identity, on the basis of disability or of xenophobia. It can also include those who are in some other way marginalised, because of economic or social conditions, or because of drug use or sex work.

This programme will also move beyond a purely human rights and criminal justice approach toward questions of protection in these contexts, exploring the potentially valuable contribution to be made by public-health or developmental approaches. Sometimes it is necessary for the criminal justice system to get out of the way (for example through the decriminalisation of petty offences), but police officers cannot be expected to have all of the solutions.

The objective of the course is to contribute toward building a community of practitioners on the continent who can become active advocates for increased accountability of the police, and who are skilled to identify and act in terms of overseeing the actions of the police. Training is provided to police officers, legal practitioners, policy-makers, and graduate students.

On Wednesday, 7 September 2022, IDPC's Maria-Goretti Loglo will intervene in this course with a presentation entitled 'Policing drug use'.

For more information about the Advanced Human Rights Course on Policing and Vulnerability in Africa, presented by the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria, please contact dennis.antwi@up.ac.za

Policing and vulnerability in Africa - Advanced human rights course,

Public security is one of the main topics during electoral campaigns in Brazil. As usual, during interviews and debates, presidential and gubernatorial hopefuls are encouraged to talk about their perspectives on policing, the criminal justice system, and drug policy. Drugs, as it is widely known, are still a matter of public security and policing instead of being approached within a health and well-being framework. As so many of the stories on this website demonstrate, you can realise how these police operations that usually lead to extrajudicial killings and miscarriage of justice are, in general, repeatedly justified as a necessary means to achieve an alleged noble end: to combat the drug supply and “win” the War on Drugs.

Even though decriminalisation and legalisation of drugs are getting more traction around the globe, Brazil remains a strongly conservative country and, in the current electoral campaign, left-wing candidates are refraining to approach this issue from a progressive angle. Politicians like Marcelo Freixo (Brazilian Socialist Party), a gubernatorial candidate for Rio de Janeiro with a long history in advocacy and campaigning against paramilitary groups and for the decriminalisation of drugs, is dodging the subject. In a 2016 debate with Flavio Bolsonaro (the son of the current President), when both were running for the mayoral office of Rio de Janeiro City, Freixo said that the criminalisation of drugs was the criminalisation of poverty, and was responsible for the deaths of both civilians and police officers. Last month, during a collective interview with other gubernatorial candidates for Rio de Janeiro, when asked about the legalisation of cannabis, Freixo avoided the issue, stating it is a debate that divides society and that this is not the appropriate moment to discuss it. In his government manifesto, drugs are only mentioned through the lens of criminal organisations that must be combated. His strategy for public security is very much centred on reforming police training and qualification.