US officials at first aggressively resisted calls from Latin American leaders to make the drug issue a priority for discussion when the hemisphere’s heads of state meet in Cartagena for the Summit of the Americas this April. Not without justification, Washington feared that the Latin Americans were preparing to point their collective finger at US anti-drug policy, making it the culprit for the surge in drug-fueled crime and violence across the region. The US grudgingly retreated, at least partially, and now says it is prepared to talk about drugs at the Summit, but that it has no intention of altering its policy approach.

Among Latin Americas, there is a growing consensus that the root cause of their violent crime wave is the massive use of narcotics in the US—which is overwhelming the world’s largest market for illicit drugs, consuming an estimated $60 billion worth a year. And there is not much question that it is mostly the US’s unceasing demand for drugs and the huge profits it generates that finances organized crime across the region, particularly in Mexico and Central America. Moreover, the US over the years has shown itself unwilling or unable to dampen its demand and curb the flow of money and weapons to criminal gangs.

Nonetheless, Washington’s anxieties about discussing drug policy with hemispheric leaders in Cartagena are exaggerated. The strongest advocates for including drug issues prominently on the Summit agenda are also among the US’s sturdiest allies in the region–Colombia’s Juan Manuel Santos, who will host the meeting, Mexico’s Felipe Calderon, and Guatemala’s Otto Perez Molina. All of them are committed both to battling narcotics trafficking, and to working closely with the US on drug and security matters. They want to generate a debate on policy and strategy—not embarrass the US or put it on trial. They also know this is an election year in the US. Legalization will surely get some attention, but it highly unlikely it will dominate the exchange. It’s a discussion the US president should be able to manage.

Actually, the US should be grateful that the Latin American leaders—presidents, ex-presidents, and many others—have pressed for this debate. There is none in Washington, even though most Americans now believe the drug war has failed. President Obama himself called for, but has not forcefully pursued, major reforms to shift the emphasis of policy from law enforcement to prevention and treatment. Secretary Hillary Clinton has stated that US drug strategies “have clearly not worked.” “How”, she questioned, “could anyone conclude differently?” It will be salutary for the US president to participate in a serious debate on drug issues outside of the politically venomous confines of Washington. And the US will get a forum in which to defend its views, if chooses to.

President Santos and other Colombians should be pleased by their efforts to get drugs onto the agenda. By tackling a high-intensity issue like drug policy frontally, the April Summit will gain significant attention worldwide, and will certainly be more relevant to hemispheric affairs. But, however vigorous the discussion in Cartagena, the outcome will almost surely leave the issues unsettled. The next steps will be crucial.

Ideally, the US, Colombia, and the other countries of the hemisphere should leave Cartagena with a plan to pursue the discussion and put in the work needed to develop new pragmatic approaches to managing illicit drugs and their consequences, unbound by ideology or by the inertia of past policies. And if the US decides that it is not ready to consider new approaches and wants to sticks with costly unworkable policies, then the Latin Americans should proceed on their own. It is their interests that are most at stake.

Originally published by El Espectador, in March 13, 2012

Last year, the Global Commission on Drug Policy called for an open debate on the global war on drugs. On Tuesday night, they went a long way to achieving this objective. A live debate streamed via YouTube entitled ‘It’s Time to End the War on Drugs’ was watched by millions over the world. This pioneering method of engagement on social and political issues has given the drug war debate a global audience that was unthinkable a few years ago.

Non-governmental organisations and prominent individuals have tirelessly worked to propel this once marginal debate into the public realm. In doing so, they have garnered unprecedented public support and raised the issue on the global political agenda.

An impressive line-up of public figures advocated for global drug policy reform-at King’s Hall in London and via video-link at ‘Google hangouts’ across the globe- including Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former President of Brazil, Vicente Fox, former President of Mexico and Sir Richard Branson. They represent an eclectic mix of professional backgrounds: former heads of state, businessmen, journalists. It points to the mainstreaming of the movement and its increasingly diverse support base. Specialist NGOs are now working together with key international players, to strategically push for change.

The debate was opened with a statement from current President of Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos, whose potential influence as a sitting head of state advocating for an open debate on this issue should not be underestimated. Santos said “It’s time for an in-depth discussion on this issue. All, I repeat, all the options must be considered. A rigorous, evidence-based discussion is needed on the costs and benefits of the alternatives, which should be led by scientists and experts.”

Experts in support of the motion proceeded to eloquently present the arguments in favour of an end to the war on drugs and the alternatives to failed prohibitionist policies. They argued that the war on drugs is a waste of public funds, which has not achieved its aims of reducing supply of, and demand for, illicit substances. The war on drugs is in fact a war on drug users, filling prisons with those who have not committed violent offences and fuelling an HIV pandemic by failing to provide adequate health services to those in need. Alternative policy approaches, such as decriminalization in Portugal, were highlighted as experiments with legal reforms that have reduced problematic drug use and drastically curbed HIV transmission amongst people who inject drugs.

The online audience did not take much persuading, with 92% of online voters supporting the motion in the pre-debate poll. This nonetheless increased to 95% at the end of the debate. These figures are echoed in the results of surveys commissioned by Richard Branson prior to the debate, which found that 91% of those surveyed wanted an end to the war on drugs. This resounding support gives a clear mandate to the movement to influence political will for reform.

Former President of Brazil and Chair of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, said “There is a clear rise in public perception on the flaws of the current approach to deal with drugs in our society. We can no longer afford the levels of violence in Mexico, Brazil, Central America and West Africa, the trillions of dollars spent on this endless war and the obstacles it presents to harm reduction policies. It is about time that the UN and politicians in office engage on a constructive debate towards decriminalisation, regulation and public health programs that may reduce violence whilst preventing and relieving the suffering of drug abusers.”

This debate has achieved the global platform it deserves. The support base of the reform movement is increasingly broad and influential. The next steps are to seize this momentum, and urge governments and multilateral institutions to let go of failed prohibitionist approaches and replace them with drug policies grounded in science, health, security and human rights.

Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch is the director of the Global Drug Policy Program, Open Society Foundations

Original Publication

The Portuguese Government’s decision amid the financial crisis to dissolve the Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction (IDT) has worried supporters of Portugal’s decriminalization policies. The IDT—an institution under the Ministry of Health with responsibility for treating drug dependent persons—ceased to function on January 31 of this year and has been replaced by SICAD (Serviço de Intervenção nos Comportamentos Aditivos e nas Dependências).

The future of funding for Portugal’s exemplary harm reduction services remains uncertain. New evidence from Agência Piaget para o Desenvolvimento (a national harm reduction network in Portugal) suggests that seven harm reduction projects face closure, and funding for Portugal’s specialized drug-related services is subject to systematic delays.

With drug treatment no longer under the IDT, drug users will have to go to regular health clinics or hospitals to access methadone and other drug-related services. For many who depend on this specialized treatment, the prospect of accessing mainstream services is likely to be intimidating, which means they may not go at all. Another concern is that psychologists and other health professionals will be asked to work in other parts of the health service, draining the drug dependence services of their most valuable employees.

In 2001, Portugal decriminalized the possession of drugs for personal use and concurrently initiated a national program of treatment and harm reduction measures. Ten years later a number of key health outcomes have improved: fewer people there die of overdoses and HIV transmission rates amongst drug users as a proportion of all newly diagnosed HIV-infected persons have decreased significantly. This innovative approach to solving drug problems has brought experts from around the world to see what lessons they can learn.

It also brought Richard Branson, a member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, to Lisbon in early December to a press conference at which he congratulated the country on its drug policy.

With drug possession no longer a criminal offense, the focus shifted to treatment. More public funds are channeled into treatment rather than paying for lengthy stays in prisons, and police do not put up resistance to needle exchanges and other kinds of outreach work. If a person is caught with a small amount of drugs, he or she is sent to a dissuasion committee, which will refer him or her to treatment if necessary.

Outside Lisbon, in an area whose inhabitants are predominantly of African origin, there is a mobile drug treatment unit (Unidade Móvel), which previously belonged to the IDT. Comprised of a one-story building and a bus surrounded by a tall wire fence, the treatment center caters to around 6,000 clients, mainly from nearby Amadora (Portugal’s third-largest city) and Sintra. Every day, between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m., around 200 drug users queue outside the bus. A nurse hands out medicines through a hatch window.

In this “one-stop-shop,” patients can access methadone and medicine for TB, HIV, and other illnesses, if there is an agreement with their doctor. Patients can also have informal consultations with health professionals whilst walking around the courtyard.

This exemplary commitment to harm reduction is under attack from some voices among Portugal’s right-wing parties, who favor prohibitionist approaches. In spite of the IDT’s dissolution however, the health minister, Paulo Macedo, continues to show support for existing drug policies.

Investment in specialized harm reduction services such as those provided in Amadora’s Unidade Móvel should not be compromised in the name of austerity. Indeed, there is a danger that short-term, cost-saving measures could prove costly further down the line.

While much is uncertain today for the patients and staff at Portugal’s drug dependence clinics, there is hope that the international praise of Portugal’s drug policy will help keep it firmly in place and that open dialogue based on hard evidence will help protect the country’s impressive achievements to date.

For more on Portugal’s drug policy, see our report Drug Policy in Portugal: The Benefits of Decriminalizing Drug Use.

Originally posted at Open Society Blog in February 10, 2012

It has taken far too long for the topic of drug decriminalization to be the subject of prime-time television debate. What was strikingly apparent from the discussions on Thursday night’s BBC Question Time in Plymouth, South West England, was the contrasting views of the studio audience and the guest panel, formed of members of Parliament and newspaper columnists. (If you’re in the UK, you can view the program on BBC iPlayer.)

Labour and Conservative MPs David Lammy and Elizabeth Truss defiantly opposed decriminalization. Jeremy Browne, Liberal Democrat MP and minister of state in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, was cautiously and uncomfortably ambivalent. And Melanie Phillips, columnist for the Daily Mail, vehemently criticized the drug policy reform movement.

The panel was asked whether drug users should go to jail, a question which was raised during Sir Richard Branson’s appearance at the Home Affairs Select Committee enquiry on drug policy earlier in the week. Sir Richard is a Commissioner on the Global Commission on Drug Policy and an advocate of drug policy reform.

The Question Time debate challenged the conventional wisdom that the UK public is unequivocally opposed to drug decriminalization and that political support for a more liberal drug policy is untenable.

On the contrary, it was fascinating to see that the arguments put forward by audience members echoed the views of experts working in the field of drug policy who advocate for decriminalization, such as those put forward by Release in a letter [pdf] to the prime minister last June.

“Addiction is a complex issue and difficult discussions are necessary to understand what works well for those who suffer because of drug abuse,” said one audience member. “If they legalized all drugs tomorrow, I’m pretty sure that everyone here would not go out and buy some heroin…The amount of money that is spent on incarcerating drug users could be better spent on treatment,” said another.

Mark Steel, an isolated voice of reason on the panel, noted that “if you listen to almost anybody who’s close to the problem, they will say the same. Just criminalizing it doesn’t work.” Indeed, a pharmacist in the audience explained that he dispenses methadone to people who use the medicine to break dependence on heroin. Such measures help individuals overcome problematic drug use and can lead to reduced crime rates in communities.

Another audience member pointed to recent cutbacks in law enforcement and questioned whether limited police resources should be devoted to going after people who use drugs.

Has this long-neglected debate shown that there has been a fundamental change in the public mood about drug decriminalization or that the public was not so starkly opposed in the first place? Is it time for UK politicians to follow the lead of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Drug Policy Reform by not only listening to the expert evidence in support of decriminalization, but also the views of their own constituents?

Originally posted on February 1/12 at Open Society Blog

www.globalcommissionondrugs.org

For Immediate Release:                          Contact: Tony Newman (646)335-5384

May 27, 2011

Former Presidents of Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Switzerland, Prime Minister of Greece, Kofi Annan, George Shultz and Paul Volcker Call for Paradigm Shift in Global Drug Policy

Commission of World Leaders Urges New Approaches to Failed Drug War, Move from Criminal Justice toward Public Health Approach

Live Press Conference and Teleconference on Thursday, June 2 in New York City

The Global Commission on Drug Policy will host a live press conference and teleconference on Thursday, June 2 at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City to launch a new report that describes the drug war as a failure and calls for a paradigm shift in global drug policy.

read more

The Brazilian Commission on Drugs and Democracy has produced a report, released in April after 18 months of discussions, which concluded that marijuana is the illicit drug with less potential for harm. The document, which will to be delivered to the government in July, proposes an alternative way to combat the drug problem, since “achieving a world free of drugs” has proved to be an elusive goal.

The institution, formed by experts from various fields such as health, law, journalism, public security, athletism, social movements, among others, calls for an “honest debate” on the issue and the discussion on the regulation of marijuana, cultivation for personal, consumption and the decriminalization of its use. The report also cites the examples of Spain, Netherlands and Portugal, which adopted similar measures to those set by the Commission.

Carta Capital magazine discussed the report with the president of the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz) and the Brazilian Commission on Drugs and Democracy, the doctor Paulo Gadelha, who advocates “depenalization” of the user, ie, it is still a crime, but no prison as punishment.

CartaCapital: The report proposes a new approach to fighting drugs. What would be the most appropriate way to deal with the problem?

To read the full text (in Portuguse), click here.

After a year of studies, interviews, meetings and debates, the Latin American Comission on Drugs and Democracy launched its declaration and its final report, evaluating the current Drug Policy and its impacts on Latin America.

Read the documents below:

- Final Report of the Latin-American Commission on Drugs and Democracy.

- Declaration “Drugs and Democracy: Toward a Paradigm Shift”.

Ethan Nadelmann

Some anniversaries provide an occasion for celebration, others a time for reflection, still others a time for action. This June will mark forty years since President Nixon declared a “war on drugs,” identifying drug abuse as “public enemy No. 1.” As far as I know, no celebrations are planned. What’s needed, indeed essential, are reflection — and action.
read more

Despite its prohibition during the last half century, the coca leaf is still chewed by Andean indigenous populations, who have been consuming the plant’s nutrients for the past 5,000 years. The defense of this ancestral tradition has been espoused by Bolivian diplomats, who are pushing an intense international campaign before the United Nations to amend Article 49 of the Convention of 1961 and recognize the legitimacy of the coca leaf.

After hearing formal objections from the United States, Sweden and Great Britain, the UN postponed making a final decision last week and is now expected to rule on the practice’s legality on February 18.
read more

California’s Proposition 19 (”Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010″), a statewide referendum on the decriminalization of possession and sale of small amounts of marijuana for recreational use, was voted down yesterday, by a 56.5 percent to 43.5 percent margin.  The proposal, which would have undermined federal laws against narcotics use and sale, has added to widespread debate on the potential economic and social effects of current drug policy in the U.S. and in Latin America.
read more