For decades, debates and political commitments on drug policy at the United Nations have been plagued by the goal of 'achieving a society free of drugs' (or 'drug abuse'). Who could forget the slogan of the big UN drugs event in 1998 - “

!”?. This fantastical notion has underpinned unimaginable harm as governments all over the world have strived to eradicate drugs through draconian measures. Despite these efforts, the global market in illegal drugs grows ever larger, more robust and with a greater diversity of substances. In parallel, the human cost of the so-called ‘war on drugs’ continues to grow exponentially - 

a devastating crisis of mass incarceration, overdose deaths, extrajudicial killings and a litany of human rights violations

 that have impacted some of society’s most marginalised.

Last week the UN General Assembly made history by adopting a 

 that did not include the long-standing reference to 'actively promote a society free of drug abuse' for the first time in three decades. Not only was this overly simplistic, ‘war on drugs’-era notion absent from the text, but the resolution includes some of the strongest ever human rights language relating to drug policy, an aspect on which the main UN drug policy forum in Vienna (the Commission on Narcotic Drugs) has made 

Resolutions on drug policy at the General Assembly have always been agreed by consensus, however this resolution broke new ground as it was adopted - for the first time in history - after a vote.

The Russian Federation, unhappy with the removal of the drug-free language and that the resolution was, in their own words, ‘skewed towards the defence of human rights’ (see minute 32:00 of the debate at the 

3rd Committee of the General Assembly in mid-November

) called for a vote on the text, which it went on to lose at both the 3rd Committee and the plenary. Thus, the Russian Federation brought about the end of the revered 'Vienna consensus' that has dominated UN drug policy fora, namely the custom of adopting resolutions and political texts on drug policy through the consensus of all Member States, rather than by voting.

It was a reluctant breaking of the consensus with an unprecedented number of countries making statements before the vote in the 3rd Committee, many of them lamenting the need for a vote and noting their hope for a return to the usual consensus for future drug policy resolutions. Ultimately, when the resolution reached the plenary of the General Assembly, a total of 124 Member States voted in favour of the resolution, while 9 voted against, with 45 abstentions.

Mexico, the penholder for this annual resolution on drugs at the General Assembly (normally referred to as the ‘omnibus resolution’ because it seeks to summarise drug policy developments across the UN system) had decided not to simply present the same repetitive, largely agreed text as in previous years but instead took a new approach by cutting its length, regrouping the paragraphs thematically, and placing the focus of the resolution more solidly on the central concern of the 

: protecting the ‘health and welfare of mankind’. In their opening statement at the 3rd Committee just ahead of the vote, Mexico's Ambassador to the UN in New York stated: 'Why waste paper on reports and resolutions, which just repeat the same thing every year? We cannot continue with the bureaucratic inertia of transcribing agreed language, and still hope for different results, by repeating our same actions'.

While Mexico's 'zero-draft' was inevitably watered down in the negotiations preceding the vote, the final text marks a serious departure from past resolutions by condemning for the first time in a UN drugs resolution 'systemic racism in the law enforcement and criminal justice systems' and 'underscoring the importance of ensuring that such acts are not treated with impunity'. With respect to the deep-rooted controversy of 'alternative development’ versus forced eradication, for the first time the resolution calls on Member States 'to secure alternative livelihoods, preferably before removing existing livelihoods earned from the cultivation of illicit crops'. In addition, the document also contains strong language on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, in particular a reference to their right to traditional medicines.

The final text marks a serious departure from past resolutions by condemning for the first time in a UN drugs resolution ‘systemic racism in the law enforcement and criminal justice systems’ and ‘underscoring the importance of ensuring that such acts are not treated with impunity’.

Overall, by emphasising human rights concepts and doing away with tired and ultimately harmful ideological objectives such as 'a society free of drug abuse', the resolution goes a long way towards refocusing international cooperation away from reducing illegal cultivation, production and drug trafficking and towards reducing the negative consequences of the global drug situation on individuals and communities.

Crucially, this progressive text was adopted by an overwhelming majority of Member States, with only 9 countries voting against it. This demonstrates that the 'Vienna consensus' has been an instrument to hold back progress on drug policy making, pushing the international community towards policies and narratives that are far more conservative than those of a majority of Member States. A good example of this is that the words 'harm reduction' remain a taboo in international documents, although at least 105 countries 

 harm reduction in their national drug policies.

It is also worth recalling that the General Assembly is the '

 deliberative, policymaking and representative organ of the United Nations'. It comprises representatives of all 193 Member States, and it elects the members of the UN Economic and Social Council, of which the Vienna-based Commission on Narcotic Drugs is a functional commision.

This ground-breaking development in New York potentially heralds the beginning of the end of the consensus-based approach to drug policy at the UN, especially given that this follows a series of 

 that took place earlier this year in Vienna at the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. Russia has been at the centre of these votes, which indicates that opposition to their aggression in Ukraine has left them increasingly isolated at the UN. Broader geo-politics influences all policy issues in multilateral settings and drug policy is certainly no exception. Russia is wedded to zero-tolerance ideology on drugs and actively leads other conservative nations in rejecting any forward progress. Leveraging their isolation in New York has allowed the now persistent and deep cracks in the drugs consensus to widen and accelerate towards breaking point. Whether this fracture will reverberate in Vienna, changing the way resolutions and political documents are adopted at the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, is yet to be seen. However, many of us working towards a much more humane and enlightened drug policy hope that this outcome in New York signals the death knell of drug-free goals and the stale and retrograde UN consensus on drugs.

'Drug-free world' no more! Historic resolution at the UN spells end of consensus on drugs

In recent years, the historical isolation between the United Nations (UN) drug policy and human rights bodies has eroded significantly, and with accelerating speed. The human rights consequences of drug policies have become an unavoidable – if fractious – topic in global drug policy debates, and human rights bodies routinely monitor the impacts of drug responses. 

The growing convergence between the UN human rights and drug policy regimes is the result of 15 years of progress across the whole UN environment, with contributions from Geneva, Vienna, and New York-based bodies reinforcing and encouraging one another. Civil society has been a constant and necessary presence, broadening the horizon of what is possible, transmitting key information across the UN system, and consistently advocating for change. 

Despite some reluctance to engage in drug-related discussions up until the 2010s, the Genevabased human rights system has become gradually more influential in pushing for this alignment. The first call for convergence between the two regimes came from Geneva, in 2008. Since then, a large number of UN human rights bodies have regarded drug policies to be under their mandate, including the Human Rights Council, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), special mandate procedures, and human rights treaty bodies. 

A parallel shift in priorities also took place in Vienna – at least initially. The first, and so far only, resolution dedicated to human rights at the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) was adopted in 2008, thereby legitimising human rights within the agenda of the CND. In the following years, Member States began to incorporate human rights language into plenary statements; new resolutions on topics closely aligned with a human rights approach were adopted. In 2014, the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) finally condemned the use of the death penalty for drugs offences, discarding its long-standing refusal to acknowledge human rights violations connected to drug control. 

These changes were hard fought by progressive Member States and civil society alike. The 2016 UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on drugs provided an opportunity to accelerate the inclusion of a stronger human rights narrative in drug policy debates across the UN system. This included establishing human rights as a new pillar of the global response to drugs, and the adoption of the strongest negotiated language to date. In part, this progress was due to the unprecedented involvement of UN human rights bodies in the preparations for the Special Session following the first-ever Human Rights Council resolution on drugs in 2015. 

The 2015 Human Rights Council resolution was mobilised Geneva-based bodies to increase their attention to drug policies after the UNGASS. Since then, OHCHR has remained steadfastly engaged on the drugs issue, while there has been ever increasing attention from special mechanisms. In parallel, the recommendations provided by human rights treaty bodies have gained in systematicity and ambition. Recent developments such as the announcement of a forthcoming new General Comment on drug policies by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), show that this trend will intensify in the future. 

The constraints imposed by consensus-based drug policy making and the strong coordination of conservative Member States have blocked progress on human rights language at the CND. Human rights have nonetheless gained visibility and influence at the Commission, thanks to constant pressure from civil society, the increased presence of the OHCHR and human rights mechanisms in Vienna, and the now constant references to human rights by vocal Member States. The centrality of human rights to drug responses is also recognised within the UN System Common Position on drugs, which was adopted by the Chief Executives Board composed of the heads of 31 UN entities in November 2018. 

2022 might have marked a turning page in consensus-based policy making on drug-related matters at the UN. First-ever votes took place at both the CND (albeit on a procedural matter), and at the UN General Assembly, where a substantial majority of Member States supported new and strong human rights language in the yearly drugs resolution. Whether the international community is truly ready to finally end the long-standing consensus on UN drug policy on a regular basis remains to be seen. However, this does open the door for new possibilities in global drug policy debates, and shows that a majority of countries now unequivocally support a greater role for human rights and human rights bodies.

'Drug-free world' no more! Historic resolution at the UN spells end of consensus on drugs

Converging universes: 20 years of human rights and drug policy at the United Nations