This winter the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition was invited to participate alongside 45 other representatives of government, business and civil society organizations in a process to create different scenarios for what could happen in the hemisphere related to drugs and drug policies over the next 15 years.

The commitment to undertake such a forward thinking exercise was made by leaders at the 6^th Summit of the Americas held in Cartagena, Colombia in 2012, where they agreed to review current approaches to illegal drugs and to consider alternative futures for drug policy in the region. Through a process of transformative scenario planning, a diverse array of participants came together to create different scenarios that each tell a story of what could happen in the next 15 years – not what should happen or what we want to happen – but what could happen in the area of drugs and drug policy. The OAS has also prepared an analytical report that looks at the situation on the ground.

The agreement to undertake this process stemmed from the urgency Latin American leaders expressed this past year in response to the increasing levels of violence in the region. For several years the voices of former and sitting political leaders in Latin America have been becoming more insistent that drug policies must be reviewed because of the death and destruction being witnessed related to the ongoing war on drugs. Even Canada’s cautious and conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper said that “It is clear that what we are doing is not working” at the closing press conference of the Summit. He is not alone.

Sitting leaders in Colombia, Uruguay, Guatemala and the former leaders of Mexico, Brazil and Colombia have all called for dialogue on alternative approaches including considering the legal regulation of drugs, decriminalization, and shifting illegal crops such as poppies and coca to legal cultivation regimes for medical and industrial uses. Is change really in the wind or is this a policy window that will slam shut with a few changes of leadership? Dialogue is an ongoing process and the commitment by the OAS to undertake scenario building is a great start. But where will it lead?

On May 15^th, the OAS will release its analytical report and a set of four scenarios developed through the scenario planning process. This release is another marker on the path towards drug policy reform in the hemisphere and the scenarios presented will provide an opportunity for dialogue and public engagement on the future of drug policy in the region. The release of a the scenarios is the next event in a string of opportunities that are coming up over the next 3 years that may help to turn the tide on the war on drugs.

In early June, a Summit of Foreign Ministers will be held to discuss and craft a declaration to strengthen and update drug policies in the region including considering some alternative approaches. In 2014, the United Nations will complete a mid-term high-level review of the Plan of Action that came out of the 2009 Commission on Narcotic Drugs. In 2015, the next Summit of the Americas will take place in Panama, which will provide a serious opportunity for leaders to consider new directions in drug policy. And in 2016, the United Nations General Assembly will hold a special session on Drug Policy in New York. The road ahead provides a number of critical opportunities for politicians to show leadership and support efforts to learn from new ideas and approaches. Let’s see if they can rally the support and courage to do so.

To keep up to date with CDPC’s activities abroad, sign up to our mailing list. And if you would like to support our efforts to end the war on drugs, please consider making a donation.

Several cities in Canada are planning for the implementation of safer consumption services in their communities.

That was the conclusion of the speakers at a lively event on the feasibility of scaling up supervised consumption services in Canada held at the recent Canadian Association of HIV Care (CAHR) conference in Vancouver. Sponsored by the Dr. Peter Centre, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition, this half-day workshop brought together speakers from Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver to discuss their plans for the scale-up of these services across the country.

The most famous of these services is Insite, located in Vancouver, BC. The vast amount of evidence from the reviews conducted on Insite suggest that this unique service has several beneficial outcomes: it is used by the people it was intended to serve, which includes over 10,000 clients. And it’s being used by people who might ordinary inject drugs in public. This service has also reduced risk behaviours by reducing the sharing of needles and providing education on safer injecting practices. Insite has promoted entry into treatment for drug dependency and has improved public order. It has also been found to reduce overdose deaths, provide safety for women who inject drugs, and does not lead to increased drug use or increased crime.[i]

But public opposition and political fears still plague the scale up of these services. Despite well-documented benefits, opponents still claim that these services “promote” illegal drug use. These claims are based on the false assumption that failing to provide health care services to people who use drugs will dissuade drug use itself. All this does is drive people away from health care and into less safe injecting practices that can result in injury, infection and death. These opponents fail to appreciate that these services promote engagement in health care for hard-to-reach populations, and protect the dignity of people who use drugs by prioritizing their health care concerns.

Formal opposition coming from the federal government has stalled the implementation of these beneficial services even in BC. In 2007, the federal government refused to grant a continuation of the legal exemption to Insite (Section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA)). Proponents of the site, including the PHS Community Services Society, VANDU, and Vancouver Coastal Health, challenged this refusal all the way to Canada’s Supreme Court. In 2011, that Court ruled in favour of the exemption noting the rights of people to access this health service, and ordered the federal Minister of Health to grant a continuation of the exemption. Future sites will be required to make an application for a section 56 exemption to avoid criminal charge for violations of the CDSA.

It looks like the process of making an application for a Section 56 exemption will be onerous. Because of these challenges, some speakers at the CAHR conference urged the audience to consider other options like less expensive unsanctioned sites that use peer-run models of care.

The need is clear – the will is there – the results are in.  Let’s urge the federal government to make access to these services as easy as possible so we can save lives, prevent illness and protect the dignity of people who use drugs.

If you would like to help us advance the implementation of safer consumption services in Canada, please consider making a donation to the CDPC. And if you would like to keep up to date with our campaigns, sign up to our mailing list.

In early April, the BC Provincial Health Officer released a report that warns that recent changes to sentencing and other justice practices brought about by the enactment of the Safe Streets and Communities Act (SSCA) will have very negative effects on the health of Aboriginal people – changes brought about by the SSCA like mandatory minimum sentences will put more Aboriginal people in prison.

This report also notes that the SSCA appears to conflict with other federal programs aimed at reducing prison time, specifically section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, which requires sentencing judges to consider all options other than incarceration.[i]

The imposition of mandatory minimum sentences flies in the face of evidence of their ineffectiveness. Convicting people of drug-related offences does not reduce the problems associated with drug use, nor do these sentences deter crime.[ii]

The overrepresentation of Aboriginal Canadians in this country’s prison system is a national disgrace, made all the more disturbing by its avoidability. In 2011, approximately 4% of the Canadian population was Aboriginal, while 21.5% of the federal incarcerated population were Aboriginal. Since 2006-07, there has been a 43% increase in Aboriginal inmate population, and one in three federally sentenced women are Aborignal. In the Prairies, Aboriginal people comprise more than 55% of the total prison population at Saskatchewan Penitentiary and 60% at Stony Mountain Penitentiary in Manitoba. Provincial rates are even worse; 81% of people in provincial custody in Saskatchewan were Aboriginal in 2005.[iii]

As the BC Provincial Health Officer’s report argues, the reasons for the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in Canada’s prisons are multifaceted but are rooted in historical causes like colonialism, loss of culture, and economic and social marginalization by white Canadians.

These concerns were echoed in an October 2012 report by the Correctional Investigator of Canada entitled, Spirit Matters: Aboriginal People and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA, 1992).[iv] This report speaks to the lack of resolve on the part of the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) to meet the commitments set out in the CCRA. The CCRA contains Aboriginal-specific provisions to enhance Aboriginal community involvement in corrections and address chronic over-representation of Aboriginal people in federal corrections. Included among these requirements were the establishment of Healing Lodges that emphasize Aboriginal beliefs and traditions and a focus on preparation for release.[v]

The report found that in BC, Ontario, Atlantic Canada and the North there were no Healing Lodge spaces for Aboriginal Women. In addition, because Healing Lodges limit intake to minimum-security offenders, 90% of Aboriginal offenders were excluded from being considered for a transfer to a Healing Lodge. The report concludes with a critique of the lack of action by the Correctional Service of Canada: “Consistent with expressions of Aboriginal self–determination, Sections 81 and 84 capture the promise to redefine the relationship between Aboriginal people and the federal government. Control over more aspects of release planning for Aboriginal offenders and greater access to more culturally-appropriate services and programming were original hopes when the CCRA was proclaimed in November 1992.”[vi]

The implications of Conservative government changes to sentencing practices are clear: rising rates of incarceration of Aboriginal people, higher rates of substance use problems combined with a lack of commitment to alternative healing paths means more federally and provincially sentenced Aboriginal people will end up in Canada’s prisons where they will not receive the services they need.

During the March meetings of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, discussion of drug policy reform occurred mainly in side events organized by NGO’s. The International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC) organized a series of lunch-time discussions on themes like cannabis policy reform, the Latin American agenda for drug policy reform, and models of decriminalization. In each of these sessions the current state of cannabis control was a key issue given that several countries and other jurisdictions have or are considering lessening controls on this drug.

As speakers at the session on cannabis policy reform pointed out, the history of the inclusion of cannabis in the international drug control treaties had little to do with facts or evidence. In Canada for example, cannabis was prohibited in 1923 with little public debate and even less actual use of this substance. Its prohibition may have been related to a number of factors including emerging international drug control agreements as well as a series of racist articles in Canada’s national magazine, Maclean’s, written by Emily Murphy from 1920-22 and published in her book, The Black Candle, in 1922. [1] Murphy depicted cannabis use as the domain of Black men and insisted that this drug undermined the morality of otherwise good white women. In fact, at that time very few people used cannabis in Canada and most members of Canada’s Parliament did not even know what it was. [2]

But the misanthropic roots of Canada’s efforts to control cannabis also stemmed from geopolitical politics of the late 19^th and early 20^th century. As the Canadian Senate argued in 2002:

“The international regime for the control of psychoactive substances, beyond any moral or even racist roots may have initially had, in first and foremost a system that reflects the geopolitics of North-South relations in the 20^th century. Indeed, the strictest controls were placed on organic substances – the coca bush, the poppy and cannabis plant – which are often part of the ancestral traditions of the countries where these plants originate, whereas the North’s cultural products, tobacco and alcohol, were ignored and the synthetic substances produced by the North’s pharmaceutical industry were subject to regulation rather than prohibition.” [3]

By 1961, a patchwork of international treaties existed to control drugs (I.e. cocaine, heroin).  In 1961, the CND consolidated these treaties into the aptly named Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Cannabis was included in both Schedule IV and Schedule I of the Convention marking this plant one of the most dangerous substances. [4] This new Convention obliged signatories to create a system of penalties for possession, trafficking and cultivation of this plant. But by 1961, cannabis had been prohibited in Canada for almost 40 years. It remains today a prohibited substance. In fact, the most recent amendments to Canada’s drug law, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, provide mandatory minimum prison sentences for cultivating as little as six plants. [5]

But as the IDPC session at the CND illustrated, the international consensus on the prohibition of cannabis is quickly breaking down. Legislators in Uruguay are seriously considered the implementation of a legally regulated and state controlled regime for cannabis; the US states of Washington and Colorado have voted to create regulated markets for cannabis for adults and proposed legislation to do the same has been introduced in eight other state legislatures. These events follow on a long history of decriminalization of cannabis including the Dutch coffee shop model, the decriminalization of cannabis in several Australian states, and the initiation of discussions about cannabis decriminalization in several Latin American countries. In fact, the pace of recent developments that lend support to new models for regulating cannabis has been so rapid that it’s hard to keep up.

BC sits on the border of the one the U.S. states currently creating a regulated market for this drug. It begs the obvious question…what is Canada going to do in the face of these changes? Drug law in this country is a federal matter and thus changes must occur at that level. That hasn’t stopped Sensible BC from initiating a campaign to get British Columbians to vote for a ballot initiative that would see changes to BC’s Policing Act. These changes would redirect policing resources in BC away from enforcing laws against simple possession of cannabis by adults – a form of defacto decriminalization.

The public health footprint of cannabis is small compared to other substances like alcohol. And there are likely significant tax revenues to be gained from a regulated model. One of the other advantages that seldom gets a mention is the fact that a regulated model can borrow some of the techniques used to regulate tobacco and alcohol including age controls, plain packaging, limits on who can sell, when they can sell, licensing for cultivation, specifications for potency and purity, among others. Right now, cannabis supply is controlled by an underground market with none of the provisions I noted above. What make more sense? Continue along the same failed road, or create a regulated market which could potentially balance the need for consumer choice with public health goals?

I think the choice is clear.

To support the CDPC’s cannabis reform activities,  please consider making a donation.

I fully expected the 51^st Commission on Narcotic Drugs to be as depressing as others that I have attended in recent years. With so many organizations in the world working to change drug policies and refocus attention on the harms that arise from global drug polices on individuals, families, communities and countries, attending the CND is often a reality check on the slow, sometimes microscopic pace of change in this international forum on drug policies.

As the meeting commenced it became clear that there was something different in the air this year. For one the usual buzz around the presence of the US Drug Czar was strangely missing from the proceedings – his travel budget a victim of sequestration cuts, Gil Kerlikowski stayed home this year. Not a bad one to miss given the torturous task his staff might have had writing speaking notes to explain the recent situation in Colorado and Washington where voters passed resolutions to bring into existence a legal regulatory regime for adult non-medical use of cannabis.

Evo Morales, President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, in his opening address to the Commission thanked the delegates for allowing Bolivia to re-join the conventions with a reservation that addressed Bolivia’s constitution, which upholds the use of coca leaf as a part of Bolivia’s cultural heritage. President Morales went on to ask whether there was tension in the room and he wondered if it was related to the knowledge that “the fight against drugs has failed globally?” He went on to chastise the US for trying to force Bolivia to curb its coca farming with threats and by tying eradication of coca to the building of schools in the 1980s. Morales’ words were strong in that he pointedly noted that efforts to control drug trafficking are intertwined with other geopolitical goals of “mastery” and “dominance”. Such bold statements are rare in the public forum at CND.

UNODC Director, Yuri Fedetov’s opening remarks were an interesting mix of the old and the new. While asserting that progress is being made on the global drug problem Fedetov acknowledged that international drug control policy cannot remain isolated from needed improvements in HIV services nor can it ignore discrimination and the lack of evidence-based services for people who use drugs. During the civil society session with the Director, Fedetov was animated and seemed to welcome the openness of the debate at this session where a number of questions focusing on drug policy reform surfaced.

Another fresh breath of air in this years event was New Zealand’s Minister of Revenue, Peter Dunne who addressed the Commission and explained the new and innovative legislation that will be coming before the New Zealand parliament in the fall that will address the many new psychoactive substances that are appearing almost daily that are unscheduled within the treaties. Under the proposed legislation, the Psychoactive Substances Bill, all of these new substances will be banned unless a manufacturer can prove that they pose no more than a low risk of harm. Rather than ban all new substances immediately the New Zealand government plan to put the onus on the industry to ensure the safety of their products and if they pass muster they will be placed in a regulatory schedule that will allow retail sales of the products under certain conditions.  When asked how this scheme was received by other delegations Minister Dunn said there was a great deal of interest in the proposed legislation and countries are watching closely to see the outcomes.

The Organization of American States review of drug policy in the western hemisphere that was mandated by the last Summit of the Americas in April 2012 was also a topic of interest as expectations begin to mount now that the review is coming to conclusion in the next couple of months.

All in all this years CND had some interesting moments if you read the tea leaves and listened to the buzz in the corridors. My take is that there is an implicit if not explicit recognition that the drug policy landscape is indeed changing, new approaches are being considered, and countries are beginning to demand a wider debate on policy. For the CND to remain relevant, these debates should be welcomed as an important opportunity at future meetings of the Commission.

The CDPC is continuing its coverage of the week-long meetings of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna this week. 

The current UN drug control system is based on three international drug control treaties: the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the 1971 UN Convention on Psychotropic Drugs and the 1988 Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. This drug control systems requires member states to take measures to prevent the non-medical use of a wide range of drugs through restrictions on production and supply, and by suppressing demand.

Canada is a party to these treaties and subject to scrutiny by the International Narcotic Control Board. Historically, these drug control treaties and organizations were created by governments and stacked with law enforcement professionals with very little influence or participation by civil society groups.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) operates as the secretariat for the UN and advises governments on effective law enforcement, treatment systems, methods of estimating drug use and publishes the annual World Drug Report. The UNODC is front and centre this week because of its responsibilities for the organization of the Commission’s meetings

On Wednesday, the head of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Yury Fedetov, met informally with NGO’s. Fedetov was faced with drug policy reform groups like the Transnational Institute in Holland, Transform Drug Policy Foundation, the International Drug Policy Consortium, and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.  I almost felt sorry for the guy and then I remembered that he still holds many of the cards when it comes world drug control. Fedetov faced many questions about the involvement of civil society in the deliberations of the Commission. Clearly there is a push for these groups to be involved in a more meaningful way – and there are examples at the UN where civil society groups play a much larger role, such as UNAIDS.

This week the CND Committee of the Whole is discussing a resolution entitled “Preparations for the high-level review of the implementation by Member States of the Political Declaration and Plan of Action on International Cooperation towards an Integrated and Balanced Strategy to Counter the World Drug Problem.” Yes, apparently the titles given to CND resolutions can be … long. Let’s just say the resolution has something to do with an upcoming review of the Commission’s activities.

This resolution also refers to the 2016 UN Special Session (UNGASS) on the “World Drug Problem”. This session is the first opportunity for a global discussion on drug policy since 1998. The last paragraph of the resolution would make the CND the primary preparatory body for UNGASS 2106. Some civil society groups are here in Vienna pressing delegations to open the preparatory process so that it will include civil society and other UN organizations with a stake in drug policy.

This is key to global drug policy reform. We want as fulsome and open a debate in 2016 as we can muster to ensure the numerous experiments in reform taking place around the globe can be openly considered.

As I mentioned in my previous blog, representatives of the CDPC are here in Vienna at the annual week-long meetings of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs. The opening plenary on Monday March 11th included an extremely engaging speech from Evo Morales, President of Bolivia. While most speakers reiterated their support for international drug control efforts and continually emphasized the need for “international cooperation”, Morales pushed through the usual dull diplomatic language to speak some truth to power. He opened his speech by asking if there was tension in the room and he wondered if it was related to the knowledge that “the fight against drugs has failed globally?”

This isn’t something that’s said very often here in heart of international drug control policy-making.

Morales thanked the 169 countries who supported Bolivia’s re-accession to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. After a first attempt to amend the Single Convention failed in 2011, Bolivia left the Convention with the intent to rejoin with a new reservation designed to align its international obligations with its constitution, which protects indigenous rights.

The reservation, which legalizes coca for local use, applies only to Bolivian territory and the exportation of coca internationally remains prohibited. With the support of those 169 countries Bolivia re-entered the Convention with the reservation in place. Only 15 countries objected, including Canada.

Morales reminded his audience that traditional and indigenous use of coca leaf has important social and health benefits and that its inclusion in the 1961 Convention was an error. In its natural state it has many medicinal properties, and he suggested that international drug controls have hindered scientific research into these benefits. He was careful to emphasize that Bolivia does not support the trade in cocaine but he pointedly noted that efforts to control drug trafficking are intertwined with other geopolitical goals of “mastery” and “dominance”. He chastised the U.S. for trying force Bolivia to curb its coca farming with threats and by tying eradication of coca to the building of schools in the 1980s. In no uncertain terms, Morales drew a parallel between these policies and American efforts to control the region. No doubt, in a sedate and conservative institution like the CND, his words stung for some delegates.

His speech was a reminder that the edifice of international drug control has some serious cracks. Not only are other Latin American leaders speaking out on the need for debate about the way forward, but the recent legalization of cannabis in Colorado and Washington, a proposal by the Norwegian government to decriminalize heroin smoking (a way of using heroin considered to be more safe than injecting because the risk of overdose is less), and the now fairly long-standing decriminalization of drugs in Portugal, represents the efforts of jurisdictions to plot a new way forward guided more by the principles of justice and public health than by law enforcement. In fact, in eight U.S. states bills legalizing cannabis have been introduced in recent months.

It looks like the long-term efforts to broaden the scope of policy options for drug issues is beginning to reap rewards. Let’s hope the CND can catch up.

The Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) was established in 1946 as a commission of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). UN commissions carry out specific responsibilities assigned to ECOSOC. The CND assists ECOSOC in supervising the application of international drug control conventions and agreements. It is the principal policy-making body within the UN system on drug control issues. It is also the governing body of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime Programme.

The CDPC is here in Vienna for the annual week-long meetings of the CND at the UN. And as you can see, it’s easy to slip into talking in acronyms when attending such an event. The casual use of these acronyms is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to accessing the often turgid and mostly impenetrable operations of the CND. Unlike other UN commissions and programs, civil society plays a small but growing part in the deliberations of the CND. In fact, some countries still oppose the participation of civil society entirely. What this means is that the key policy-making body for global drug control is still partly insulated from the concerns of groups working on issues like human rights and the prevention of HIV and Hep C among people who use drugs. It’s also clear that words like “harm reduction” are flash points. Official country delegations and speakers avoid this term assiduously.

The opening plenary session on Monday morning signaled the tone of these meetings. Most speeches in this session reiterated support for the international drug control system but cracks were apparent, such as a rousing speech by the President of Bolivia, Evo Morales. A speech by Yuri Federtov, Executive Director of the UNODC, reflected some of these tensions. Federtov’s speech was a carefully constructed one. He embraced the key assumption of these UN groups and meetings: that drugs are at the centre of the world’s drug problems and he touted the role that the UNODC is playing in trying to control the availability of drugs.

An alternative diagnosis might suggest that drug laws based on the international treaties are responsible for many of the harms associated with drugs themselves. Criminalization of drug use fosters discrimination and discrimination drives people away from health and other services. Criminalization has failed to stem the tide of drug use around the world, but it has helped to create a lucrative underground economy without regulatory controls.

Despite lofty words to the contrary, drugs are more available than ever and ever more pure than they were 40 years ago. But, and this is an important but, Federtov acknowledged that international drug control policy cannot remain isolated from needed improvements in HIV services nor can it ignore discrimination and the lack of evidence-based services for people who use drugs. In fact, the Deputy Executive Director of the UNODC admitted that historically, drug control was handed over to law enforcement and the principle of public health has been forgotten until recently.

Despite these admissions, much more needs to done to change a system where repressive drug policies and laws still trump public health approaches in many places around the world with dire consequences for people who use drugs.

Canada is no exception. As CDPC’s upcoming report on Canadian drug policy will reveal, a public health approach to drug use has not been fully realized. We still rely on a patchwork of policies and programs to support harm reduction and treatment, while law enforcement continues to receive escalating resources. This approach is expensive, lacks evidence of its effectiveness and continues to result in harms to people who use drugs including criminalization and marginalization.

The United States is again in violation of international law. That is a strong statement and one that reminds us of the invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo bay, water-boarding, rendition, and the strong international legal arguments made about these situations.

But in this case the violation will be hailed by many as a positive step.

On 6 November various ballot initiatives were voted on in the US, from abolishing the death penalty to allowing assisted suicide, to legalising gay marriage. Three had the clearest potential to render the US in breach of international law if they succeeded. With the votes in Colorado and Washington which established a legally regulated framework for non-medical production and sale of marijuana, that breach has now occurred.

The laws in question are the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the 1988 UN drug trafficking conventions (which has a longer, duller title). Alongside one other treaty (which deals with synthetics) these form the bedrock legal foundation of the global drug control regime. Most countries follow them very closely, including the US.

Some states have been pushing at the boundaries of these treaties for some time, however, on particular points of contention that have developed in the decades since the treaties were negotiated. Times have changed since 1961. Grey areas have been exploited, arcane scheduling systems utilised, and interpretations adopted that allow more room for manoeuvre.

But what sets these ballot initiatives apart is that there is no grey area to exploit, and it would take some legal gymnastics to interpret your way past that. This is straight up legalisation of recreational use, production, and sale, which is not permitted. It’s what the system was set up in large part to prohibit, with marijuana receiving particular attention alongside coca and opium. While most substances are listed in annexed schedules, these three are written into the very terms of the treaties (‘cannabis’ is the term used).

The US (alongside over 180 other states) is required, under a very robust and politically supported regime, to ‘limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs’.

There is more, of course, and there are various provisos and caveats on certain provisions, but this is a ‘general obligation’ of the regime around which all else revolves. In other words, the US is not just in breach of some marginal aspect of the system, now, but a fundamental requirement of it that goes to the heart of prohibition.

Millions of US citizens are now permitted to buy and sell marijuana for recreational purposes (regulations pending). These laws apply to a population far exceeding that of Sweden (where I am currently sitting) and way over twice the size of Ireland (where I’m from). This would be supported by neither government, which have signed contracts with the US in the form of these international agreements to the effect that none of them would allow it. The fact that this has happened at state and not federal level does not rectify the legal dilemma the US government now faces.

Many in the US and worldwide are celebrating the results in Colorado and Washington as the beginning of the end of the war on drugs – and appropriately through a democratic process. People have voted for the US to breach international law. That very few would have cared or knew about this is not relevant. This is the fact of it.

There are now four possible scenarios. The US Federal Government can fight it out, stepping all over state sovereignty. The US can withdraw from the treaties in question. The treaties themselves can be changed by international processes. Or the US can carry on in breach and turn a blind eye. I think the fourth is the most likely. Ironically, this leads inexorably to arguments for broader reform, but this is something the US overnment has ardently opposed, even signing a recent declaration with the Russians to that effect.

So the implications for international law and the place of the UN drugs conventions within it must be considered.

We would not celebrate an ongoing breach by the US of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which it is also bound. Nor would we tolerate (though they happen regularly) violations of the Geneva Conventions, the Torture Convention, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or environmental protocols. Indeed, there is a hierarchy in international law that is exposed by the Colorado and Washington votes.

But it is one within which the drug control regime has an unnaturally elevated position due to the widespread political consensus around prohibition, and fears that have been intentionally fuelled over the years. Drugs, in the UN conventions, are seen as a threat to mankind, and an ‘evil’ to be fought. Over time, respect for the UN drugs conventions has been equated with respect for the rule of law itself. ‘The three United Nations drug control conventions…set the international rule of law that all States have agreed to respect and implement’ said the President of the UN’s International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) in a recent speech. (The INCB is the body that monitors States’ implementation of the drugs conventions). He has confused the rule of law with specific laws.

There are some things that are wrong in themselves (malum in se) and things that are wrong because they are prohibited (malum prohibitum). But when it comes to drug laws, fighting something that is prohibited has resulted in widespread acts that are wrong in themselves and that breach basic legal principles – the rule of law.

The racially discriminatory nature of drug laws is common knowledge. Some governments rely on the international regime to justify executions of people convicted of drug offences (in violation of international law, in fact). Police violence, mass incarceration, denial of due process are routine in States’ pursuit of the general obligation the US now breaches.

The international legal arguments about the Colorado and Washington results will certainly arise. They must, though it will likely be in the rather closed and stale environment of UN drugs diplomacy. When that happens it must emerge is that these ballots are a victory for the rule of law even as they bring the US into conflict with the drugs conventions. Fundamental legal principles of proportionality, fairness and justice, not to mention democracy, have won out over arbitrary and unreasonable controls on human behaviour.

Ending the war on drugs, moreover, will be a victory for international human rights law. It will be a victory for international law itself – for environmental law, anti-corruption agreements, international security, for the achievement of international development agreements and improved health – all of which have been damaged by decades of prohibition. Colorado and Washington have taken us one step closer. For that we should all celebrate.

- Damon Barrett

Damon Barrett is Deputy Director of Harm Reduction International, co-founder of the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy, and an Editor-in-Chief of the journal Human Rights and Drugs.  This blog post was first published on Damon’s Huffington Post blog and the Transform website.

This week the New Zealand government will publish its Psychoactive Drugs Bill. Under the new regulations proposed in the bill, “legal highs” would have to undergo an approval process before being brought to market. The New Zealand Ministry of Health would then issue licenses relating to the importation, manufacture, and sale of psychoactive substances covered by the bill. This process would place the burden on the synthetic drug industry, which would have to prove its products are safe before being made available to the consumer.

From the BBC:

“The new law is a response to the problem of “legal highs”, but is being seized upon by reformers because it crosses a Rubicon – designing a legislative framework built upon regulation rather than prohibition.”

Therein lies the significance of this bill – it is a response to a drug-related issue that uses regulation rather than prohibition as the method of control. Instead of simply issuing criminal bans on emerging drugs, a method that has proven a failure time and time again, New Zealand is choosing to shift the focus to protecting public health.

Rather than allowing these substances to be controlled by the criminal element, they will instead exist within a regulated market. Beyond health considerations, a variety of restrictions will apply to the drugs, such as hefty fines and jail time for any manufacturer caught selling their products to minors.

This bill presents a timely and thoughtful solution to a rapidly emerging problem. In 2012, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drugs Addiction reported that a new “legal high” goes on sale every week.

Thus far, The Canadian government’s response to the phenomenon of “legal highs” has been a traditional approach of banning a substance when the media brings it to the public’s attention, as was the case with the great MDPV (aka Bath Salts) scare of 2012.

Last September, after the federal government proposed that MDPV be included in Schedule I of the Controlled Drugs and Substances act, we issued a submission to Health Canada recommending that banning the substance would have unintended negative effects and that the government should regulate, rather than criminalize its use.

The CDPC is optimistic about New Zealand’s Psychoactive Drug Bill as it is line with a greater paradigm shift occurring in many countries around the world. Leaving the control of drugs and drug quality in the hands of criminals protects no one and creates a litany of disastrous side effects. We look forward to seeing the bill implemented in the near future.

If you would like to learn more about how we are building a better drug policy for Canada, please sign up to our mailing list and we will keep you up to date on news and upcoming campaigns.