• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

TAKING STOCK OF HALF A DECADE OF DRUG POLICY AN EVALUATION OF UNGASS IMPLEMENTATION - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TAKING STOCK OF HALF A DECADE OF DRUG POLICY AN EVALUATION OF UNGASS IMPLEMENTATION Marie Nougier,1 Adrià Cots Fernández2 & Dania Putri3 Taking stock of half a decade of drug policy Taking stock of half a decade of drug policy Acknowledgements • Heather Haase, International Drug Policy Con- sortium Authors: • Heloisa Broggiato, International Association for • Marie Nougier, Head of Research and Communi- Hospice and Palliative Care cations, International Drug Policy Consortium • Isabel Pereira, Dejusticia • Adrià Cots Fernández, Research and Advocacy Officer, International Drug Policy Consortium • Jamie Bridge, International Drug Policy Consor- tium • Dania Putri, Freelance Consultant • Jérôme Evanno, Parole autour de la Santé The authors wish to thank the following individuals for their valuable comments and contributions: • Katherine Pettus, International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care • Ailish Brennan, Youth RISE • Olivia Rope, Penal Reform International • Ann Fordham, International Drug Policy Consor- tium • Rebecca Schleifer, consultant • Annette Verster, World Health Organization • Ruth Birgin, Women and Harm Reduction Inter- national Network • Coletta Youngers, Washington Office on Latin America & International Drug Policy Consortium • Tania Ximena Pastrana Uruena, International As- sociation for Hospice and Palliative Care • Constanza Sánchez Avilés, ICEERS • Triona Lenihan, Penal Reform International • Dasha Matyushina-Ocheret, consultant, UNAIDS • Zaved Mahmood, Office of the High Commissio- • Dave Bewley-Taylor, Global Drug Policy Observa- tory, Swansea University ner for Human Rights • Deborah Alimi, Univ. Panthéon Sorbonne/Daleth Infographics: research • Juan Fernández Ochoa, International Drug • Diederik Lohman, Open Society Foundations Design: • Giada Girelli, Harm Reduction International • Mathew Birch: whatifweconsulting.com • Gloria Lai, International Drug Policy Consortium Foreword The United Nations General Assembly Special Ses- sion (UNGASS) on drugs in 2016 and its Outcome Document did not imply a radical change in the in- ternational legal regime on controlled substances, such as cannabis, cocaine or heroin, as it maintained the prohibition of production, distribution and use of these substances, outside medical or scientific use, in spite of the well-documented negative con- sequences of this prohibition on democracy, human rights and public health. That was unfortunate as the world lost a real opportunity to eliminate one of the most substantial drivers of massive human rights violations all over the world in the last dec- ades. However, the UNGASS was not an irrelevant moment either. It was a significant step in the right direction as the Outcome Document proposes im- Rodrigo Uprimny portant elements that allow, or even oblige, States to abandon the most extreme punitive interpreta- of the Outcome Document have been really taken tions of the international legal regime on controlled substances, that have created too much unneces- onboard and implemented by governments and sary suffering in the world. have had positive impacts on the evolution of drug policies. As the reader will see, the balance is mixed. On some aspects, important progress has been The UNGASS Outcome Document rightly introduced a new language and narrative for dealing with drug achieved. For instance, today we have been able to policy, which goes beyond the classic three pillars reduce the strong separation that previously exist- of supply, demand and cooperation of previous UN ed between discussions on drug policy, usually led documents on drug policy. The UNGASS Outcome by the CND in Vienna, and discussions on human Document stresses the need for States to adopt a rights, usually led in Geneva. This sort of Berlin wall public health and development-oriented approach between Geneva and Vienna, so to speak, has fallen; to drug policy, which has to respect human rights, it is more and more accepted that any discussion on and adopt better metrics and indicators to evaluate drug policy has to take into account all the human the impacts and effectiveness of this policy. That rights obligations of States. Conversely, most hu- general orientation of the Outcome Document is man rights bodies have understood that drug policy in itself very important. Besides, in certain aspects, is not a monopoly of the Commission on Narcotic the document goes further and makes more specif- Drugs (CND) or the International Narcotics Control ic and important recommendations. For instance, Board (INCB) in Vienna and that they must monitor instead of promoting punitive approaches in drug any human rights violations associated with drug policies, the Outcome Document urges States to policy. For example, several human rights treaty respect the principle of proportionality when estab- bodies, such as the Committee on Economic, So- lishing criminal drug offences and also to consider cial and Cultural Rights, of which I am member, the alternatives to criminal punishment and prison in Committee on the Rights of the Child or the Human this field. That is not a minor point if we take into Rights Committee, have increasingly made recom- account how, in many parts of the world such as mendations to States to adjust their drug policies to in the United States or all over Latin America, the human rights standards, for instance recommend- enormous increase in incarceration and the unjus- ing the adoption of harm reduction programmes. tified suffering it has caused in the most vulnerable populations has been strongly linked to extremely However, as this report rightly stresses, these punitive versions of drug policy. advances, no matter their importance, have not been able to counterbalance the lack of progress In that context, this very well documented IDPC in other fields of drug policy: or even worst, the report is timely as it evaluates, five years after the regressive steps taken by some countries towards UNGASS, whether these progressive orientations more repressive approaches, including my own Taking stock of half a decade of drug policy i country, Colombia, in which the government en- visages to re-establish aerial spraying of coca fields with glyphosate, in spite of the recommendations against this measure made by many human rights bodies and most experts in drug policy. I totally agree with the main conclusions of the re- port: the advances made since the UNGASS for a more humane and democratic drug policy are not only very limited; they also face risks of retrogres- sion. However, this situation should not discourage all persons, organisations or States committed to drug policy reform. On the contrary, we need to maintain our efforts and enthusiasm for drug re- form at the international and national level, making all efforts to ensure that at least all States take seri- ously the commitments they undertook by adopt- ing the UNGASS Outcome Document. We need to continue our efforts to eliminate, or at least, reduce Ann Fordham significantly, the harms and suffering caused by In many respects, the 2016 UNGASS is now widely repressive drug policies. And for that purpose, the considered a high point for progressive drug policy concrete recommendations made by this report are at UN level, with the UNGASS Outcome Document very pertinent as they combine nicely reasonable- heralding a shift in rhetoric towards human rights, ness and courage. health and development. The gains made in the Out- come Document (detailed so well by Rodrigo Uprim- Rodrigo Uprimny ny, with whom I humbly share this foreword) were Professor, National University Colombia hard fought and hard won by several member states Senior researcher at the Center of Studies “Dejusticia” strongly committed to ensuring greater human Member of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cul- rights accountability in drug policy. These difficult tural Rights inter-governmental negotiations were accompanied and supported by civil society and, in hindsight, the UNGASS was a galvanising moment for the global drug policy reform movement. Working to leverage the opportunity this high-level moment provided, Almost a decade has passed since Colombia, Mexico the movement became more diverse, visible, coor- and Guatemala called urgently for a UN General As- dinated and vocal than ever before. The Civil Soci- sembly Special Session (UNGASS) on drug policy. At ety Task Force worked tirelessly to ensure that the the General Assembly in 2012, they stated that ‘re- voices, stories and lived experiences of those most vising the approach on drugs maintained so far by affected by drug policy were heard loud and clear in the international community can no longer be post- the UN debates. Working together with progressive poned’ and urged the UN to ‘exercise leadership’ to member states, drug policy reform-oriented civil so- review all the available options, ‘including regulato- ciety managed to gain significant ground on health ry or market measures’, towards a more effective ap- and human rights (including women’s rights) in the proach to address the challenge of drugs. It was not Outcome Document. surprising that this push came from Latin America as the region has borne witness to the unmitigated While there have certainly been important gains devastation of punitive and repressive drug policies over the last five years, and the momentum for – which have ultimately failed to eradicate, or even reforms relating to

Load more

  115

Copy Link