The Wall Street Journal
July 16, 2010

EU Court Backs Dutch Drug-Sales Curbs

By MIKE GORDON

LUXEMBOURG—A Dutch city was within its rights to bar so-called coffee shops from selling marijuana and hashish to foreigners in an effort to clamp down on drug tourism, an adviser to the European Union's top court said Thursday.

The nonbinding legal opinion from the European Court of Justice's advocate general, Yves Bot, said the city of Maastricht could prohibit drug sales to foreigners even while sales to Dutch citizens were tolerated.

The advocate general said drugs "are not goods like others and their sale does not benefit from the freedoms of movement guaranteed by European Union law" because they are illegal outside the Netherlands, the court said.

Many thousands of young tourists flock to the Netherlands each year to sample marijuana and hashish that are openly sold in cafés and bars known as coffee shops across the country.

The country hasn't formally legalized drugs, but, under government guidelines, possession of small amounts of certain "soft" drugs isn't prosecuted.

Cities are also allowed to license shops to sell a maximum of five grams per customer per day. They can't sell to customers under the age of 18 or permit drugs other than marijuana or hashish on their premises.

Maastricht's "measure is necessary to maintain public order in the face of troubles caused by drug tourism and contributes to combating the illicit trade in narcotics," the court said.

The court was providing its opinion on an effort by the mayor of Maastricht, a midsize university town sitting in a finger of Dutch territory almost surrounded by Belgium and Germany, to clamp down on drug tourism. As many as 70% of the two million customers who visit Maastricht's coffee shops every year have to cross the border.

In 2005, Gerd Leers, Maastricht's then-mayor, prohibited coffee shops in his city from selling drugs to people who aren't from the Netherlands.
The ban, at the request of the Dutch Minister of Justice, was meant to create a test case over whether Dutch cities could limit access to Dutch nationals.

Police started strictly enforcing the rules. Shops found in violation are closed for a minimum of three months for a single offense, six months for a second violation, and permanently for a third offense. The restrictions led to the closure of 11 of Maastricht's 26 licensed shops.

Subsequent developments have led to a plan to fingerprint customers and electronically record their identity cards. The rules are supposed to help stores show they aren't selling to underage customers and that they don't sell more than five grams per customer per day.

Marc Josemans, owner of a coffee shop called "The Easy Going" and chairman of the Society for Official Coffeeshops in Maastricht, was one of those who broke the rules.

He says he sells about €10 million ($12.7 million) in drugs per year and risks losing about 30% of that if the ban on sales to non-Dutch stands.
He was forced to close for three months after the city found that, in 2006, he had sold drugs to Europeans not from the Netherlands on two occasions.

Mr. Josemans took the mayor to the Dutch court called "the Council of State."

He explained in an interview with Australian television that he wasn't concerned only about his own economic rights, but also his clients'
rights and health.

"If they are not allowed to go to the safe haven to buy their cannabis, separated from the hard drugs," he said, "they are obliged to go in their own country in the illegal circuit where everything is in the same room on the same table, and that is a dangerous situation."

The Dutch court decided that some of the issues in the case might contravene the European treaty rights of free movement of goods and services across borders, or even discriminate against people from other EU nations. It therefore referred questions on how the Maastricht law should be interpreted to the European Court of Justice.

Mr. Josemans's lawyer, Andre Beckers, has argued that cannabis should be treated like any other product and that the nationality of the customer shouldn't matter in what is essentially an economic matter.

On Mr. Josemans's side is the European Commission, the EU's executive arm. Hubert Van Vliet of the commission's legal service argued that excluding the coffee shops from the EU single market would undermine fundamental European treaty rights.

He said simpler, less-sweeping measures could deal with any public-order problems. He proposed an ID system, compulsory use on the premises and lower amounts of pot for each buyer.

Defending the law, the Maastricht city council and the Dutch state questioned how goods that are formally illegal can be discussed in terms of free trade. They also argued that the law existed to protect other EU countries from having to deal with tourists disturbing public order upon their return.

The case will now go back to the Dutch court for final resolution.

Write to Mike Gordon at mike.gordon@dowjones.com _______________________________________________
Dd-world mailing list
https://lists.tni.org/mailman/listinfo/dd-world

 

Editorials

Evidence based policy for elicit drugs

An ethical obligation for those working in the field of drug addiction

Systematic reviews have shown that methadone maintenance treatmentsignificantly reduces heroin use compared with other treatments,¹ and it also reduces HIV risk behaviour among injecting drug users.² Not surprisingly, it is on the World Health Organization's list of essential medicines.³ In the linked prospective cohort study (doi:10.1136/bmj.c3172) Kimber and colleagues describe the effect of opiate substitution treatment on mortality and time to long term injection cessation.⁴

The study, which is based on observational data from a single primary care facility in Edinburgh, found that longer duration on opiate substitution treatment (primarily methadone) was associated with reduced mortality, but that it was also associated with a lower likelihood of injection cessation. Although the association with improved survival might be expected on the basis of pastresearch,^1 2 the negative association between opiate substitution treatment and injection cessation is curious. Despite the limitations of the study, which Kimber and colleagues acknowledge, the study overall supports the already extensive evidence base for using methadone as a first line treatment for opioid addiction.^1 2

However, despite the wealth of evidence demonstrating the benefits of opiate substitution treatment, the availability of the drug is limited—often where it is needed most.⁵ For instance, in Russia, where most new cases of HIV are attributable to heroin injection, and where the United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS estimates that more than 1% of adults aged 15-49 are alreadyinfected with HIV, methadone remains illegal.⁶ Sadly, as discussed in the linked article by Rhodes and colleagues,⁷ the situation with methadone in Russia is only one example of a global pattern of effective interventions being severely limited and ideology trumping scientific evidence when it comes to policies on illicit drugs.^8 9

Doctors and scientists therefore have a crucial role in increasing the importance of scientific evidence when shaping drug policies. However, given that society continues to respond to drug addiction primarily as a law enforcement problem while effective interventions remain limited or even illegal, it could be argued that those who work in the field of addiction have long been shirking this obligation.¹⁰ This is because evidence clearly shows that drug law enforcement has failed to achieve its stated objectives and has instead caused serious harms.

For instance, under the current global drug control regimen, a massive illicit market has emerged which the UN estimates is worth $320bn (£218bn; 261bn) annually.¹¹ In many settings, these illegal revenues drive corruption and violence, as has been seen recently in Mexico and Afghanistan. Other consequences include record levels of incarceration of non-violent drug offenders, and the spread of HIV among injection drug users including those in prison.¹² Importantly, ever increasing expenditure on drug laws and expanding prison populations have not prevented the growth of this market; instead, an overall pattern of increasing drug purity and falling drug prices has occurred.¹¹

The ineffectiveness and unintended consequences of drug control efforts in the United States recently led to a unanimous resolution at the 2007 annual US Conference of Mayors, which concluded that the "war on drugs" had failed and a "new bottom line" in US drug policy was needed, with a focus on reducing the negative consequences associated with drug misuse. As a result of the harms of drug prohibition, as discussed in the linked article by Stephen Rolles, regulatory models for drug control are now creating international interest.¹³

The limitations and harms of enforcement based drug strategies have been known for many years, but meaningful reform has been slow to come. In 1919 in the American Journal of Public Health, Professor Ernest Bishop wrote in frustration that drug addiction was being framed as a criminal justice matter rather than a health problem and stated that: "The worst evil of the narcoticsituation in the past few years, and especially since the enforcement of restrictive legislation without provisions for education and adequate treatment, is the rapid increase and spread of criminal and underworld and illicit traffic in narcotic drugs. This exists because conditions have been created which makesmuggling and street peddling and criminal and illicit traffic tremendously profitable, and it would not exist otherwise."¹⁴ More than 90 years later, Bishop's words still ring true.

Some doctors and scientists have spoken out about the need for evidence based approaches to tackle the illicit drug problem,⁸ but this has been far too rare in the field of addictions.¹⁵ Although there are social forces that seek to maintain the harmful status quo in the drug policy arena,⁹ these forces wouldbe overwhelmed if the medical, public health, and scientific communities stood together and called for evidence based approaches to tackle drug related harms.¹⁰ In the face of the global public health emergency presented by both drug addiction and HIV, this is a clear moral and ethical obligation for those who work in the addictions field.

Cite this as: BMJ 2010;340:c3374

Evan Wood, associate professor

¹ University of British Columbia, BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, 608-1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6Z 1Y6

uhri-ew@cfenet.ubc.ca

Research, doi:10.1136/bmj.c3172

Competing interests: The author has completed the Unified Competing Interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the author) and declares: (1) No financial support for the submitted work from anyone other than his employer; (2) No financial relationships with commercial entities that might have an interest in the submitted work; (3) No spouse,partner, or children with relationships with commercial entities that might have an interest in the submitted work; (4) No non-financial interests that may be relevant to the submitted work.

Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

References

1. Mattick RP, Breen C, Kimber J, Davoli M. Methadone maintenance therapy versus no opioid replacement therapy for opioid dependence.Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;2:CD002209.[Medline]
2. Gowing L, Farrell M, Bornemann R, Sullivan L, Ali R. Substitution treatment of injecting opioid users for prevention of HIV infection.Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;2:CD004145.[Medline]
3. Kerr T, Wodak A, Elliott R, Montaner JS, Wood E. Opioid substitution and HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention. Lancet 2004;364:1918-9.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
4. Kimber J, Copeland L, Hickman M, Macleod J, McKenzie J, De Angelis D, et al. Survival and cessation in injecting drug users: prospective observational study of outcomes and effect of opiate substitute treatment. BMJ 2010;341:c3172.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Mathers BM, Degenhardt L, Ali H, Wiessing L, Hickman M, Mattick RP, et al. HIV prevention, treatment, and care services for people who inject drugs: a systematic review of global, regional, and national coverage.Lancet 2010;375:1014-28.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
6. United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS. 2008 report on the global AIDS epidemic. 2008.www.unaids.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/HIVData/GlobalReport/2008/2008_Global_report.asp.
7. Rhodes T, Sarang A, Vickerman P, Hickman M. Health potential of harm reduction for drug users. BMJ 2010;341:c3439.
8. A collapse in integrity of scientific advice in the UK. Lancet2010;375:1319.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
9. Wood E, Montaner JS, Kerr T. Illicit drug addiction, infectious disease spread, and the need for an evidence-based response. Lancet Infect Dis 2008;8:142-3.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
10. Porder S, Chan KM, Higgins PA. Scientists must conquer reluctance to speak out. Nature 2004;431:1036.[Web of Science][Medline]
11. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. World drug report 2005. 2005. www.unodc.org/pdf/WDR_2005/volume_1_web.pdf.
12. Taylor A, Goldberg D, Emslie J, Wrench J, Gruer L, Cameron S, et al. Outbreak of HIV infection in a Scottish prison. BMJ 1995;310:289-92.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13. Rolles S. An alternative to the war on drugs. BMJ 2010;341:c3360.
14. Bishop ES. Narcotic drug addiction: a public health problem. Am J Public Health (NY) 1919;9:481-8.[CrossRef]
15. Kerr T, Montaner JS, Wood E. Science and politics of heroin prescription. Lancet 2010;375:1849-50.[CrossRef][Web of 

 

---

From: Peter Sarosi [mailto:sarosip@tasz.hu]
Sent: 08 July, 2010 10:59 AM
To: Peter Sarosi
Subject: Tell Ban Ki Moon we don't want a Russian UN drug czar!

Dear Colleagues,

At the end of July the current head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Antonio Maria Costa will leave his post after eight years. The front runner for the job is the one being promoted by the government that is making the most noise - Russia. He is the current Russian ambassador to the UK, Yuri Fedotov. 

Russia is a country with one of the worst records on drug policy and human rights: it ignores scientific evidence on effective HIV prevention among drug users and its punitive drug laws push drug users to the margins of society. 

Watch our video and take action: spread the word, share this video with others and send an email to Ban Ki Moon!  

http://drogriporter.hu/en/fedotov

bests,

Peter Sarosi

Drug Policy Program Director

Hungarian Civil Liberties Union

Tel.: +36 1 279 2236

www.drugreporter.net

P please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norm-stamper/the-politics-of-cannabis_b_641955.html

_______________________________________________
TDPF_News-L mailing list
Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tdpf_news-l
To unsubscribe, email tdpf_news-l-unsubscribe@gn.apc.org

Subject: [Transform News] July Newsletter

Having problems reading this? You can read all our newsletters online here: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Newsletter.php

Transform News - July 2010	Briefings	Support	Donate	Media Blog
" There are no Corona beer smugglers. Beer sellers don't smuggle. They simply ship their product. Drug laws cause drug crime. " -- John Stossel - Fox News Contents 1. What Transform Has Been Up To BMJ Bedford Row Chambers Cambridge Institute of Criminology Venezuelan Consulate Vienna HIV/AIDS conference 2010: Drug Policy Networking Zone 2. UK News Coalition ignores prohibition's price tag Leaked Home Office Memo UK Parliamentary committees and drugs Banned Mephedrone cleared of blame for two deaths The Economist steps up public debate on drug legalisation House of Lords debate health lead drug policy and legalisation Tension at the Heart of the Classification System 3. International News Vienna Declaration The Power of regulation Fox News - Time to Stop Fighting the Drug War New Executive Director of the UN Office of Drugs and Crime 4. What You Can Do Blueprint international Sign the Vienna Declaration   What Transform Has Been Up To BMJ Steve has written a 2000 word commentary for the British Medical Journal considering the drug war and alternatives from a public health perspective. It is published online on July 14th in a BMJ special issue to coincide with the IAS AIDS conference in Vienna.the issue features a range of articles on drug policy reform and health policy in the UK and around the world. The article can be read here An excellent accompanying video can be viewed here Bedford Row Chambers Steve spoke at a Bedford Row Chambers symposium at the Law society to a full house and was very well received. Bedford Row will be publishing a discussion paper based on the symposium. Cambridge Institute of Criminology Danny Kushlick gave a presentation to diploma and masters students at the Cambridge Institute of Criminology. Venezuelan Consulate Danny gave a presentation at the Venezuelan Consulate on the negative impact of securitization of cocaine. Vienna HIV/AIDS conference 2010: Drug Policy Networking Zone Transform Drug Policy Foundation and the International Drug Policy Consortium are delighted to present The Drug Policy Networking Zone at the XVIII International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2010) from July 18th to 22nd. The Drug Policy Networking Zone is a space for sharing ideas, experiences and expertise on drug policy reform. Its also a place to forge new links and develop strategic thinking on the issues. We've joined forces with the Harm Reduction and Human Rights Networking Zones to produce a 'mega' zone with a full schedule of talks, discussions, debates and multimedia running throughout the week. Events The full programme of events can be viewed here Highlights from the programme include: What can the drug policy reform movement learn from HIV/AIDS activism? Tuesday 20 July, 16:00-16:45 Civil society actors within the HIV movement have a much stronger presence and a louder voice within drug policy debates than civil society within drug policy reform. This session aims to discuss and debate the essential features of AIDS activism that could inform drug policy activism. ”Beyond a declaration”, how can we continue to move towards drug policy reform? Wednesday 21 July, 14:15-15:15 The Vienna Declaration is a global call for science-based drug policy and is the official declaration of AIDS 2010. The session will feature one of the declaration’s key authors, Evan Wood, from the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy, Steve Rolles from Transform and Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch from OSI. Drug policy and law reform: progress and challenges for the future Wednesday 21 July, 12:00-13:00 and Thursday 22 July, 16:30-17:30 Policies that act as a barrier to drugs services can increase the health risk for injecting drug users putting them at greater exposure to blood-borne infections, including HIV. The panel will look at how lobbying, campaigning and legal challenges against such policies and interventions can lead to law reforms that ultimately provide greater protection to IDUs and enable them to access drug treatment and harm reduction services without fear of being punished. See here for our e-flyer outlining all the events Opening Reception Don’t forget to mark your calendar for the OPENING RECEPTION of the Drug Policy, Harm Reduction and Human Rights networking zones on SUNDAY, JULY 18 from 16:00–18:00.  For more information about the Drug Policy Networking zone email jane@tdpf.org.uk Press Briefing We will be holding a press briefing from 15.30-16.00 on 18th July. For more information please email jane@tdpf.org.uk Volunteer We are currently looking for volunteers to help with the organisation and staffing of our zone at the AIDS Conference in Vienna.  Our volunteers will be crucial to the success of our presence at the conference so we hope you will be able to offer some of your time, even if it is only a few hours. We need to have to have the zone staffed throughout the period of the conference.  We are asking for volunteers to cover two hour time slots.  Volunteers will be involved in assisting primarily with: -        Getting sign up to IDPC and Transform networks -         Setting up sessions -        Talking passionately about drugs If you interested in volunteering please email Marie at: mnougier@idpc.net We hope you can join us in Vienna! 2. UK News Coalition ignores prohibition's price tag The new Coalition Government are cutting projects to save £2 Billion but as usual they are forgetting the elephant in the room; Prohibition. Analysis from Transform for its Comparison of the Cost-effectiveness of Prohibition and Regulation of Drugs suggests that the government could save billions in expenditure each by moving to an evidence based system of drug regulation – as well as drastically reducing the wider social economic costs associated with the illegal drug market (particularly crime costs) If everything is really on the table – lets start a meaningful debate on drug law reform; It’s got to better than cutting vital public services or cancelling school building programs. If the government are serious about cutting wasteful expenditure and implementing more cost effective policy interventions it would be criminal not to be looking at our failed punitive drug policies; They are expensive, they deliver the exact opposite of their stated goals and they are actively counterproductive. Transform is developing new analysis on these issues and also pitching op-eds to mainstream media to highlight the importance of this debate. Danny spoke to Broadcasting House on Radio 4 on the savings that can be made from legally regulating drugs. A transcript can be read here. Leaked Home Office Memo An internal Home Office memo, accidentally leaked to the BBC’s Martin Rosenbaum (see his blog here),  exposes a culture of playing fast and loose with Freedom of Information (FOI) requests that might expose Government policy to criticism. The fifteen-page document demonstrates in detail how officials at the Home Office discussed withholding a Home Office commissioned value for money study (of the UK drug strategy) from Transform because of fears of bad press for its much vaunted drug policy. The epic 3 year saga of how we finally obtained the VFM study is detailed here. The internal document was inadvertently sent to Rosenbaum (the deleted portions were still visible) along with a letter that the Home Office sent him as a part of an unconnected FOI request. It has allowed for a brief peep behind the curtain of obfuscation and spin that has characterised so many of our dealings with the Home Office. UK Parliamentary committees and drugs For the first time since the modern Select Committee system was created in 1979, rather than party whips choosing the chairs and membership, backbench MPs are. That means they are less likely to be with those who slavishly toe the party line, particularly at a time when no one party has an overall majority. That said, the Whips still get to negotiate amongst themselves which Committees will be chaired by members of which party. Also, no sitting Committee chair who sought re-election lost, and many were unopposed, mainly because senior back benchers, ex-ministers and whips still have real clout and can lean on MPs over who votes for whom. Cross party-appeal, and basic likeability evidently also come in to play. All criticisms aside, this is still a better system, and as it gets bedded down we will hopefully see the important committee system become stronger and more independent. In terms of Chairs of Committees likely to look at drug related issues: Home Affairs. Keith Vaz remains Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. This is a concern given the appalling quality of their last drugs report - on cocaine Committee on Public Accounts (PAC). PACs is one of the most respected committees, with real teeth when it comes to monitoring Government spending. Their last report forced the Government to agree to an annual evaluation of its drug strategy, due to start next year. With the last Chair retiring, all eyes will be on the new one; respected ex-Minister Labour's Margaret Hodge.. Justice. Lib Dem Sir Alan Beith might have seemed a good bet to question Government drug policy given the Lib Dems more progressive approach in opposition. It will be interesting to see how this plays against the diluted coalition line on drugs shown in the recent Lord's Debate comments Banned Mephedrone cleared of blame for two deaths In an interesting epilogue to the fevered pre-election Mephedrone saga it has emerged that 'No trace of drug' was found in the blood of two teenagers whose deaths – linked to the drug during the media scramble – arguably contributed to the unseemly haste with which the ban was barrelled through the ACMD and parliament. Whilst there is no questioning the risks associated with the use of the drug knee jerk policy responses based on tabloid hysteria are not how sensible policy decisions should be made. Prof David Nutt commented "This news demonstrates why it's so important to base drug classification on the evidence not fear and why the police, media and politicians, should only make public pronouncements once the facts are clear." Source More can be read on our blog here The Economist steps up public debate on drug legalisation As part of its latest promotional campaign The Economist magazine has launched a series of  'where do you stand?' debates built around a billboard poster campaign outlining opposing views on a series of contentious issues. One of the issues they have chosen is whether drugs should be legalised and regulated, perhaps unsurprising given their prominent interest in this debate, and indeed support for the reform position over the past few years. Source House of Lords debate health lead drug policy and legalisation The House of Lords has debated the government's response to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime discussion paper Treating Drug Dependence through Healthcare, not Punishment . "What does the new document say? A quote from the Foreword, signed by none other than Antonio Maria Costa , the Executive Director of the UNODC, makes clear the radical shift of policy. Mr Costa himself has for years promoted criminalisation. The fact that he now feels it is right to challenge 50 years of UN dogma must be something of a turning point. Mr Costa now says: "The aim of this draft discussion paper, 'From Coercion to Cohesion' is to promote a health-oriented approach to drug dependence". The paper quotes the narcotic drug conventions in support of the health-oriented approach. One of the great strengths of the paper is that it argues the scientific case for treatment as an alternative to criminal justice sanctions, suggesting that the health approach, "is in agreement with a large body of scientific evidence",including epidemiological, clinical and neurobiological. Many across the world have said these things, but not the UNODC. The paper argues that "there is increasing evidence that a health-oriented approach is also the most effective in reducing illicit drug use" By the same token, imprisonment often worsens the problem in a variety of ways. In my view, no serious policy-maker can ignore this paper." - Baroness Meacher Source Tension at the Heart of the Classification System Using the Freedom of Information Act, the Drug Equality Alliance finally got to see the 2006 advice given to ministers ahead of a planned public consultation into the legal controls on illicit drugs, a report initiated by the former Home Secretary Charles Clarke. More on the story can be read on Mark Easton's blog here 3. International News Vienna declaration The criminalisation of illicit drug users is fuelling the HIV epidemic and has resulted in overwhelmingly negative health and social consequences. A full policy reorientation is needed. The Vienna Declaration is a statement seeking to improve community health and safety by calling for the incorporation of scientific evidence into illicit drug policies. We are inviting scientists, health practitioners and the public to endorse this document in order to bring these issues to the attention of governments and international agencies, and to illustrate that drug policy reform is a matter of urgent international significance. We also welcome organizational endorsements. This is the official declaration of the XVIII International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2010) to be held in Vienna, Austria from July 18th to 23rd. The declaration was drafted by a team of international experts and initiated by several of the world’s leading HIV and drug policy scientific bodies: the International AIDS Society, the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy (ICSDP), and the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS The Declaration is now gathering signatures before its official launch at the XVIII International AIDS Conference, Vienna 2010. There will be a media launch event at the conference on July 20th (see here for details and press release) and a discussion event around the Declaration featuring Evan Wood from the ICSDP and other invited guests, in the Global Village Human Rights, Harm Reduction and Drug Policy Networking Zone on Wednesday July 21st at 2.15-3.15pm. The Drug Policy Networking Zone is co-organised by Transform and the International Drug Policy Consortium. To visit the Vienna Declaration website and register your support click here. The site contains background information, press information and comments from some of the Declaration's supporters, including Michel Kazachkine is the Executive Director of The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria. Transform is pleased to have had a role in the production of the Declaration as a member of the writing committee, providing editorial input and feedback on early drafts. The Power of regulation The amount of control that the Food and Drug Administration now has over tobacco companies is impressive, all thanks to regulation. Wouldn't it be nice if they had such control over other drugs too. FDA should use its power to lower nicotine in cigarettes, former chief says: "A year after Congress gave the federal government the authority to regulate tobacco, anti-smoking activists are applauding the initial steps taken by the Food and Drug Administration to control cigarette marketing and advertising. But a prominent public health figure says that the efforts are not enough and that the FDA could achieve dramatic change by using its new power to lower the amount of nicotine in cigarettes." Source Washington Post Reform arguments continue to move into the mainstream: Fox News debates drug legalisation There has been unprecedented coverage of the drug law reform debate on Fox news in the last month, including vocal support for the reform position form one of the channels leading commentators; John Stossel: "I understand that people on drugs can do terrible harm -- wreck lives and hurt people. But that's true for alcohol, too. But alcohol prohibition didn't work. It created Al Capone and organized crime. Now drug prohibition funds nasty Mexican gangs and the Taliban. Is it worth it? I don't think so, and I'll discuss this issue tomorrow night on my Fox Business show." . . . " We've locked up 2.3 million people, a higher percentage than any other country. That allows China to criticize America 's human-rights record because our prisons are "packed with inmates." Yet drugs are still everywhere. The war on drugs wrecks far more lives than drugs do. Need more proof? Fox News runs stories about Mexican cocaine cartels and marijuana gangs that smuggle drugs into Arizona. Few stop to think that legalization would end the violence. There are no Corona beer smugglers. Beer sellers don't smuggle. They simply ship their product. Drug laws cause drug crime." View the Fox news show here Link to video debate View Ethan Nadlemann debating Oreilly here New Executive Director of the UN Office of Drugs and Crime It has been confirmed today that UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has appointed the Russian diplomat Yuri V. Fedotov as the new Executive Director of the UN Office of Drugs and Crime. the implications of this move are discussed below. (official confirmation here) Who is Yuri V. Fedotov?  Like previous appointments to the Exec Director of the UNODC we know relatively little about Fedotov. He is currently Russia's ambassador to the United Kingdom, and his Wikipedia page (usual wikipedia caveats apply) states that: 'Fedotov graduated from the Moscow State Institute of International Relations in 1971' and 'has held many foreign service positions to the UN and at Russian embassies in Algeria and India. In 2002 he was appointed the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and held this post until 2005.' Whilst the UNODC appointment is nominally independent of National Government (even though nominations are made by National Governments) Fedotov is a 40-year career Russian diplomat – so we should probably not be under any illusions about his independence or loyalties. Why should we be concerned? Quite aside from Fedotov’s personal qualities, as the TransNational Institute (TNI) noted earlier in the week the appointment puts Russia in a ‘far more influential position to influence the international war on drugs. And that is a very bad message....Russian drug policy is one of, if not the most horrible in the world’ This is a point that needs to be stressed: Russia has a quite appalling track record on drug policy – particularly around injecting drug use. A Lancet piece published just this week (Russian injected drug use soars in face of political inertia) provides a useful summary overview of some of the key problems. It makes grim reading: “According to WHO and UNAIDS, Russia has one of the world's most serious injection drug-use epidemics, which in turn is fuelling an explosion in HIV/AIDS incidence. Research by HIV/AIDS monitors in Russia estimate that there are up to 2 million injecting drug users in Russia, 60—70% of whom have HIV-related illnesses. Up to two-thirds of new HIV cases in Russia are linked with injected drug use, and according to UNAIDS there are an estimated 1 million people with HIV in Russia. HIV prevalence in Russia has doubled since 2001. The Russian authorities have come in for fierce international criticism over their policy towards the treatment of drug addiction, which relies almost exclusively on the promotion of abstinence. Opiate-substitution therapy, such as providing methadone, or buprenorphine, which is standard practice in much of the rest of the world, is banned by law, and promotion of its use is punishable by a jail sentence. Some Russian doctors who have advocated methadone use for drug users in harm-reduction programmes say they have subsequently faced harassment.” This has not merely remained a domestic issue. Russia has aggressively promoted these policies in the UN arena, including within the UNODC, INCB and CND. As TNI point out: “Despite the country’s abysmal record on HIV prevention and injecting drug use, Russia believes it should teach the rest of the word lessons on drug policy. At the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), Russia has consistently attempted to block any political progress on harm reduction for HIV prevention relating to injecting drug use. At the 2010 CND session the Russian delegation refused to acknowledge previous resolutions adopted by consensus at the Human Rights Council and ECOSOC and a decision of the UNAIDS PCB on the issue. At the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), the recently deceased Russian delegate Tatyana Dmitrieva has parroted the misstatements of fact made by the Russian government, and ―despite a requirement for independence― joined Russian government officials in public denouncements of methadone notwithstanding the obligation under international law to ensure adequate supply of licit controlled substances for treatment purposes. Needle and syringe exchange programmes in Russia are implemented solely by NGOs through international aid. Last year the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria had to continue emergency funding to harm reduction programmes when Russia reneged on a previous agreement to continue funding once the Global Fund grant had expired. The Russian government has actually cut funding over the past few years to needle and syringe programs” TNI have also highlighted the concerns around Russia’s backward thinking on supply side controls and human rights: “With regard to production and trafficking, Russia has recently been pressing hard for NATO intervention in Afghanistan against suspected drug traffickers, and for the forced aerial eradication of opium poppy. Both are disastrous policies intended to divert attention from Russia’s drug problems at home. They are utterly at odds with the UN’s commitment to a ‘balanced approach’ to supply and demand reduction as well as being contrary to human rights standards. Human rights must be at the centre of drug control policies. Russia’s domestic human rights record is well known. Internationally, it has consistently sought to block human rights language in resolutions at the CND. In 2010 the Russian Delegation declared that fighting AIDS “is not linked to human rights”, contradicting the 2001 and 2006 General Assembly political declarations and the World Summit Outcome, not to mention decades of experience in fighting the pandemic. At the Human Rights Council, Russia has recently both attempted to block references to most at risk populations in a resolution on human rights and HIV/AIDS, and has led the charge in undermining human rights norms through the concept of “traditional values”, stigmatising men who have sex with men, drug users, sex workers, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities and seeks to undermine their basic rights.” For more discussion on the human rights issues raise by this appointment take a look at the comment piece by Damon Barrett (from IHRA) that ran on the Guardian's CiF blogs last week (New UN drugs tsar must be a leader on human rights),  and also Damon on Australia's ABC The World Today radio show. So why – given Russia’s shocking record on harm reduction - has a Russian diplomat been appointed to a job with the lead UN role on harm reduction? It seems hard to fathom why Ban Ki Moon would have made this appointment. It seems about as sensible as putting a North Korean diplomat in charge of press freedom. Unfortunately the appointment process is almost entirely opaque so we can only speculate. Since rumours of Fedotov’s potential appointment (over other front runners including nominations from Canada and Brazil) began to circulate a few weeks back significant efforts have been made by various groups across the world to highlight the obvious concerns (backed by Harm Reducation and HIV/AIDS NGO activity, and a nascent grass roots social media campaign - see this HCLU video for example). These have clearly either been ignored or outgunned by other pressures. Russia have never been a major funder of the UNODC either (but then nor have Italy who have dominated the ED role for decades) – so there is no suggestion that they have bought their way into the role. Such appointments are evidently made following endless behind the scenes diplomatic horse trading of one sort or another. One suspects that with Russia being such a big player in global politics and the UN, they were ‘due’ a big posting or two, and the UNODC just drew the short straw. Maybe other unrelated pressures were brought to bear.  Ban Ki Moon may have had reservations (other big hitters within the UN certainly will have done) but been able to do very little about it. How is this likely to play out? At this stage of course it’s simply impossible to know. However, it seems unlikely that Fedotov could seriously promote a hard line Russian approach within the UNODC, at least not publicly. Not only would this run counter to the direction of travel in the agency over the last few years (and the views of most UNODC staff), but it would be a direct challenge to the many member states active within the UN who have adopted pragmatic harm reduction positions. Just as seriously would be the impossible situation that such a move would create for UNODC relations with UNAIDS, the WHO and the many other UN agencies that directly and vocally support harm reduction. Expect to hear a lot more about all this from this month’s huge international AIDS conference in Vienna (a key action of which is the Vienna Declaration). So trying to find some positives here, there may be a possibility that the appointment will actually expose Russia to greater scrutiny and thus ultimately help drag them out of the dark ages. But a moderately progressed Russian drug policy would still seem hopelessly backwards to much of the rest of the world. Despite some of the issues around the previous Executive Director Antonio Costa, he has (albeit interspersed with often bizarrely rude outbursts and ill judged rants) made some significant statements on issues including the priority of public health, the importance of harm reduction, the unacceptability of the death penalty for drug offences, the futility of eradication, the centrality of human rights to drug policy, and the negative consequences of supply side enforcement (click for a Transform blog retrospective). Even if no more progress is made (and there is certainly a long way to go) it is hard to see how these positive steps – all on the record - can be undone, or somehow be renounced by the new ED on behalf of the UNODC. More likely is that the Russian influence will be subtle but corrosive. Progress made – much of it through the heroic efforts of the NGO community (IHRA’s HR2 program and the IDPC for example) – could now stall, important ongoing developments will be kicked into the long grass, and discussions on future developments that might have taken place, will now not happen. This would have serious consequences for the development of harm reduction in some of the places where it most urgently needed (not least Russia), but also impact on emerging developments such as embedding of human rights monitoring and assessment into all UNODC programs. If the situation on key issues such as human rights and harm reduction does begin to seriously deteriorate then the UNODC could come under intense strain. Key UNODC funders (not least the UK) could come under pressure to withdraw or suspend funding. More seriously, the tensions (between hard line and  more progressive harm reduction states) that were evident at the 2008 Commission on Narcotic Drugs during the drafting of the Political declaration (specifically around the inclusion of the words 'harm reduction') could become more acute. These simmering tensions could easily erupt into a full blown crisis, with the reform states coalescing around a breakaway reform agenda that could threaten the whole UN drug control infrastructure. At the very least such a crisis could render the UNODC, INCB, CND and the conventions they stand behind increasingly redundant and irrelevant – with the unquestionably useful elements of the system suffering along with the outdated and counterproductive. Perhaps such a crisis is what is needed in the longer term, with a more rational flexible international drug control infrastructure, one fit for the challenges of the new century, emerging from the ashes of the tired broken old one we have now. Perhaps. But for now this seems like a huge backward step for both the UN drug control agencies and indeed the UN as a whole. 4. What You Can Do Blueprint international We now have translations of the executive summary of Blueprint available in Spanish, Italian and Portuguese. We'd greatly appreciate any suggestions of who you think that we should send these to. Please email your ideas to: info@tdpf.org.uk Sign the Vienna Declaration To visit the Vienna Declaration website and register your support click here.
Unsubscribe Transform Drug Policy Foundation, Easton Business Centre, Felix Rd, Bristol, BS5 0HE, Telephone: +44 (0) 117 941 5810 Transform Drug Policy Foundation is a registered Charity no. 1100518 and Limited Company no. 4862177

 

Drug users aim for supervised site
Fledgling group starts fundraising for harm-reduction centre
Judith Lavoie
Times Colonist
July 11, 2010

The Denver Post (USA)
11 July 2010

Column: California Might Overturn Odious History of Marijuana Laws

Neal Peirce, Washington Post Writers Group

Close to 40 years after Richard Nixon sparked America's "war on drugs,"
California voters this November get to vote on the war's biggest challenge ever.

It's a ballot proposition making it legal for any Californian 21 or older to grow or use marijuana. If passed, there will be no more requirements to prove medical need ( today's law in California and 13 other states ). Cannabis would be subject to taxes, potentially yielding billions of dollars in state, county and city levies.

California will be voting in the wake of Gallup polling that shows nationwide support for legalizing marijuana now at 44 percent, an eight-point jump since 2005. Support is higher in California -- recent polls show the legalization initiative leading by margins of 56 percent to 42 percent and 49 percent to 41 percent.

But that doesn't ensure passage: Historically, a modest poll lead for an initiative can melt away, especially as opponents wage fierce negative campaigns close to Election Day. Stiff opposition to the marijuana measure is likely from California's "prison-industrial complex"
including police chiefs, prosecutors and prison guards.

Still, the California stage is set by the state's early approval of medical marijuana and the Obama administration's key decision last year to reverse earlier policy to shut down marijuana dispensaries even when countenanced under states laws.

Voters will likely debate social impacts of legalization versus potential state and local tax gains. But waiting in the wings is a deep moral issue: How marijuana prohibition laws were written in part to subjugate minority populations.

Last week, the California State Conference of the NAACP issued an "unconditional endorsement" of the legalization initiative. Alice Huffman, the group's president, attacked the current marijuana laws as a de facto way to criminalize young black men.

She cited a Drug Policy Alliance report showing that while total marijuana arrests in California spiraled from 20,000 in 1990 to 60,000 in 2008, arrests for "youth of color" rose four times faster. Federal surveys have consistently shown that young whites are more likely to use marijuana than young blacks. But in every one of California's largest
25 urban counties, arrests of African-Americans for possessing marijuana exceed those for whites. In Los Angeles County, blacks are 10 percent of the population but account for 30 percent of marijuana arrests.

"It is time for them to stop using my community to fill the prisons,"
Huffman said.

And it's not just a California phenomenon. New York City's marijuana arrests are also racially skewed, reports Harry G. Levine, Queens College sociologist. Arrests for small amounts of marijuana in New York City have skyrocketed to unprecedented heights, he reports, with blacks ( 26 percent of the city's population ) making up 52 percent of arrests, and Latinos ( 27 percent of the population ) 31 percent.

For the cops, this is good business, notes Levine: "Narcotics and patrol police, their supervisors and top commanders" benefit from arrests that "are comparatively safe, allow officers and their supervisors to accrue overtime pay, and produce arrest numbers that show productivity."

But for youth -- nearly all handcuffed, put into the back of a police car or van, taken to a local station to be photographed and fingerprinted, and most often held one or more nights in jail -- it's a traumatic experience. Often they can escape longer incarceration by pleading guilty -- but then have a felony conviction likely to haunt them for life.

Yet New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, asked in his first campaign if he'd ever used marijuana, replied: "You bet I did. And I enjoyed it."
One in three Americans, and two recent presidents, has also tried the weed.

Small wonder. Marijuana has been used by humans for more than 10,000 years. President Nixon's hand-picked commission on marijuana found that its health impacts are minimal and that the 'gateway" drug theory has no basis. Yet Nixon, as part of his cultural war on black militants, hippies and campus revolutionaries, made marijuana a chief target.

He wasn't the first. As Mexican workers brought marijuana across the border in the early 20th century, local prosecutors and editors publicly decried the "loco weed." One critic associated it not only with Hispanics but "Negroes, prostitutes, pimps, and a criminal class of whites." States began outlawing the drug, one Texas state senator asserting that "all Mexicans are crazy, add this stuff ( marijuana ) is what makes them crazy."

In the 1930s, Harry Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, spearheaded the campaign to make marijuana possession a federal crime because of "its effect on the degenerate races" -- not only Hispanics but blacks whom he suggested were deluded by "reefer" to "think they're as good as white men."

Ironically, polling shows Hispanics as the only California ethnic voter group leaning against the fall initiative. A refresher on the odious history of marijuana prohibition ought to be enough to shift that.

--
Drugs & Democracy Info <drugs@tni.org>
Transnational Institute (TNI)
De Wittenstraat 25 | 1052 AK Amsterdam (The Netherlands) Tel +31-20-6626608 | Fax +31-20-6757176 http://www.tni.org/drugs http://www.ungassondrugs.org/ _______________________________________________
Dd-world mailing list
https://lists.tni.org/mailman/listinfo/dd-world

 

Portugal's experience points to drug solution
Political will needed but Tories going other way
Ethan Baron
The Province
June 29, 2010

 

Conservatives' irrational crime laws make no sense, cost billions of dollars
Neil Boyd
Vancouver Sun
July 5, 2010

Poll commissioned by LDDPR demonstrates public are ready for drugs ... New poll shows 70% support for legal regulation of cannabis. Three other drugs: Magic Mushrooms, Amphetamines, and Mephedrone show a majority in favour of ... lddpr.org.uk/.../poll_commissioned_by_lddpr_demonstrates_p...