Indeed, in the southern part of Netherlands, the Wietpas (“Weed pass”) was implemented one year ago in order to supress Cannabis tourism mostly from Belgium and France. From then on, only Dutch consumers that produced this pass could come and buy Cannabis in Coffee shops. The mayors claimed that this reform would allow to stop all the inconveniences and troubles that cannabis tourism caused such as traffic jam, night time noise and, above all, crime and dealing.

But this ban didn’t lead to a fall in drug dealing, quite the contrary.

Since its implementation, an explosion of drug supply offences happened in those cities since it led to a sharp increase of street dealing.

One month after the ban begun, the mayor of Maastricht considered it as a “big success” since “the number of foreign tourists had dropped significantly”. This conclusion ignored two facts that were much more relevant to understand what was happening in his city : Dutch newspapers were all relating stories of street dealers that were becoming rich thanks to the ban and in 30 days, the local drugsmeldpunt – the city hotline for drugs – received 619 complaints instead of an average 160 complaints per month before. The Cannabis price might also have decreased at that time considering the huge quantity of Cannabis that flew through the illegal network and the street dealers proliferation.

One year after its implementation, the assessment of this reform is clear: instead of making the streets safer and reducing the cannabis consumption, it contributed to the huge rise of drug related criminality. In Maastricht, the number of drug related crimes has doubled over the past year while in Roermond it tripled.

This explosion of ‘crime’ had important side effects: most of the Dutch consumers in those southern provinces refused to register and this led to a transfer of the Cannabis market from the coffee shops to the streets. In the end, this is endangering the main raison d’être of the Dutch drug policy and of the coffee shops’ existence that is to separate the soft drugs market from the hard drugs one and to regulate the cannabis sale. Indeed, street dealers usually provide soft drugs such as cannabis but also hard drugs, regardless of the age or nationality of their clients.

This ban reform has been so controversial that its implementation was abandoned at the national scale and several cities such as Amsterdam and Rotterdam already announced that they would keep their coffee shop open to foreigners. Moreover, it conducted interestingly to the rise of another debate: the one about “the backdoor supplying”- about the hypocrite Dutch decision to authorize Cannabis sale but to forbid its growing that leads coffee shop owner to get supplying from illegal market. In April 2013, cities such as Utrecht, Leeuwarden or Amsterdam urged the government to legalise the growing of Cannabis. This may seem to be a more effective way to tackle with drug related criminality.

The mentioned report consists of approximately 400 pages with the input of all of the OAS Member States and includes an analytical study and technical document that outlines a series of scenarios and options for the anti-drug strategy over the coming years.

The analytical report covers about 90 pages and comprises a set of reports about each one of the aspects of the problem, such as health, development, security, production, legal alternatives and the costs of the illegal market. The report examines the current environment of drug policies in the hemisphere, taking from the experience of governments, civil society, academic institutions or groups of experts.

The second part constructs four possible scenarios in the development of the problem through 2025, depending on the decisions taken by the leaders. Each chapter provides an analysis to reference the current situation in the region, an evaluation of best practices and new approaches that are being undertaken in different countries, as well as a description of the basic challenges and obstacles to improve results.

On the 17th of April last year, Portugal implemented a law banning any commercial activity related to so-called New Psychoactive Substances (NPS). The regulations created an interim table, initially listing about 160 substances (phenethylamines, tryptamines, cathinones, synthetic cannabinoids and some plants). Within this legal framework, trading listed NPS is deemed to be a misdemeanor, with offenders subject to a fine. Listed substances, if proven toxic within a maximum period of 18 months, pass on to the definitive criminal table. During this time, fines can go up to € 3,740 in the case of individuals and € 44,890 in the case of legal persons.

Possession of substances for consumption comes under the same legal framework as other types of illegal substances, given that drug use is decriminalised in Portugal. To avoid the black market becoming the sole destination for the substances already in circulation, the government has announced a 15-day “amnesty”: During this period, anyone can go to the nearest police station and hand in any substances they have, without fear of prosecution. Traders tried to get around this with marketing ploys: In the days leading up to the ban, the largest distribution chain of NPS in Portugal announced deals such as “two for the price of one”, in order to off-load stock.

Before the law was promulgated, APDES tried to put forward other models of legislation for parliamentary debate, stressing the failure of purely prohibitionist measures. In fact, the EMCDDA has calculated that new substances appear on the market at the rate of one per week. In this game of cat and mouse, the mouse is destined to win. Two days after the law came into force, Dr. João Goulão, director of SICAD (Service of Intervention in Addictive Behaviors and Dependencies) stated, “Since the law [came into force] I have received notification of a half dozen [new substances], and so we are on alert” – acknowledging that these substances are constantly emerging and the list “keeps growing”. He added that “The other [illegal substances] are well known, but with these new ones, we’re playing Russian roulette – things can go wrong at any time” (From a Portuguese Daily Newspaper).

The opinion of APDES is that prohibition only increases the pressure on producers to release onto the market new substances with the ability to circumvent the law, and that some of these may well be more toxic than those already circulating. Only by regulating the production and sale of certain substances with a safe profile could the pressure be reduced.

The government has prohibited any commercial activity related to these substances, but it hasn’t implemented service responses focussed on NPSs, nor has it moved to assess, monitor and evaluate users and their behaviour, or provide support and health education. In party settings – where most of the use of NPS use takes place – the response in terms of prevention and harm reduction is almost inexistent in our country. As a result of austerity measures, the Portuguese Government has frozen state grants giving funding for things such as harm reduction and outreach projects. At the moment, there is no funding for outreach teams working specifically in this field, providing information about the risks and effects of such substances, issuing harm reduction materials, or doing counseling. The only Drug Checking service working in Portugal, promoted by APDES, faces constant financial uncertainty.

Drug Checking, besides being an essential tool to work with drug users – using specific strategies to reduce the harms from adulteration, overdose or misrepresentation – is one of the most effective methods, in partnership with an early warning system, of monitoring the market, detecting new substances and noting new consumption trends.

In spite of the fact that Portuguese drugs policy has been acclaimed as an example of good practice around the world, this new law feels like a step backwards from a more appropriate, pragmatic and effective drug policy.

The District of Columbia’s Department of Health seems to have a taken a page directly from Reefer Madness for its new advertising campaign, suggesting a synthetic form of marijuana known as “K2″ or “Spice” will turn people who use it into “zombies.” The ads recently made their debut on the DC Metro, and are wacky enough to look like a parody. Teenagers — presumably under the influence and grotesquely made up to look like “Walking Dead” extras — pose in various stages of decay with captions like “No One Wants to Take a Zombie to the Prom.” Seriously?

Just about everyone agrees that teenagers should be discouraged from taking drugs and warned about potential health risks. But decades of exaggerated claims and egg frying commercials have taught us that wild and fictitious notions about drugs do very little to generate confidence, trust and safety among young people. Research by the Government Accountability Office, in fact, has found that these sorts of tactics are ineffective at reducing teen drug use rates.

There may be legitimate health concerns associated with synthetic marijuana, a chemical compound created to imitate the still-prohibited plant. Like any drug, “fake weed” should be carefully studied to better understand its effect on humans, and regulated accordingly. Giving teens access to information grounded in science and health is a much more sensible alternative to preparing them for the zombie apocalypse.

Representatives of the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), the Transnational Institute (TNI), and the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) will be in Bogotá on May 17 and available for comment before and after the report’s release. WOLA Senior Associate John Walsh and the Coordinator of TNI’s Drugs and Democracy Program, Martin Jelsma, both participated in the scenarios report described below.

At the Cartagena Summit last year, the region’s leaders expressed their frustration with the ineffectiveness and high costs of current drug control policies and tasked the OAS with producing a report designed to stimulate debate on options for improving policies. The study to be unveiled on Friday represents the culmination of the OAS-led review.

If the review is to fulfill its purpose, the new study should enrich the already-vibrant hemispheric debate over drug policy alternatives, including the option of legal, regulated markets for cannabis.

The new hemispheric study comes as the debate over drug policy alternatives is advancing at the local and national levels. In the United States, Colorado and Washington have already voted to legalize and regulate cannabis, and in Uruguay, the parliament is debating a bill that would legalize and regulate that country’s domestic cannabis market.

The OAS study to be unveiled this week should further propel the debate in key upcoming international forums:

May 20-22: In Washington, the OAS report will be presented and discussed at the bi-annual meeting of the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (Comisión Interamericana para el Control del Abuso de Drogas, CICAD).
June 4-6: In Antigua, Guatemala, Toward a Comprehensive Anti-Drug Policy in the Americas will be the main item on the agenda of the annual session of the OAS General Assembly, which is attended by foreign ministers in the region.
See also the civil society declaration to inform the General Assembly, which included mention of legal, regulated markets for cannabis.

The truth is not so straightforward. Researchers at the University of Manchester surveyed 1380 people seeking drug treatment across England. Of them 40% admitted (anonymously) to committing acquisitive crime (that is, robbery or burglary) at least once in the previous month. The researchers admit that rates of acquisitive crime among drug users are high, and that problematic crack cocaine use in particular is associated with crime.

However the researchers found that people were more likely to commit crime if they were younger, poorer and had “indicators of a chaotic life style and complex needs.” Clearly drug dependent people who commit acquisitive crime don’t simply do it because they are drug dependent. The researchers concluded: “Behavioural and demographic factors were associated more strongly with acquisitive crime than drug use expenditure, suggesting that the need to finance drug use is not necessarily the main factor driving acquisitive offending by drug users.”

This means that the drug dependency isn’t irrelevant to the acquisitive crime, but it does suggest that most of the people would have faced the same pressures to commit acquisitive crime, regardless of whether they were drug dependent or not.

The myth that people who are drug dependent are also necessarily thieves is a key element of the stigma that drug dependent people experience. Stigma is often more damaging than the drug abuse itself, since it can make people feel isolated and afraid to ask for help. This research resoundingly debunks this myth, combats the stigma and paves the way for a more humane approach to drug dependency. It’s high time that society at large recognises that the idea that drug dependency causes crime is just an inaccurate stereotype.

“I simply can not understand how someone can think of an involuntary internment model before thinking of a voluntary one. Brazil is going back to the examples that didn’t work”, stated the director of the NGO Drug Policy Alliance, Ethan Nadelmann. He condemns this form treatment stating that it is mistaken and a regression of all the discussions on drug policy that have taken place thus far. The speech was delivered during a meeting in Rio de Janeiro promoted by the Igarapé Institute, Brazilian Commission on Drugs and Democracy (CBDD), Pense Livre Network and the Global Commission on Drug Policy.

Those who support this type of internment state that cocaine and crack users loose their capacity to know what is best for them. For Nadelmann, the same can be said for alcohol addicts, gambling addicts or any other type of addiction. “If someone commits a robbery in the name of an addiction, than that person must be punished as a robber, but if someone under the influence of drugs harms themselves, they must be treated as a sick person.”

Nadelmann is worried that Brazil will follow the North American example of incarcerating drug users. “Instead of copying our form of treatment, Brazil should follow the Portuguese formula,” he explained. In Portugal for the past 12 years it has no longer been a crime to carry a certain quantity of drugs for personal consumption. The country has reduced the cases of overdose and HIV and hepatitis contaminations.

International research and reports, including from bodies such as the United Nations, state that such criminalization and penalization policies have failed. Ethan believes that criminalizing the drug user represents a problem because incarcerating the sick who are incapable of kicking the habit is not only expensive but also ineffective, overfilling the prisons and fueling the black market. “We cannot blame the users for not knowing how to stop consuming drugs; arresting them will not reduce the crime or the incidence of use. This is why treatment that is health oriented instead of criminalization is necessary.”

He points out that the highest return will be obtained from a policy that is based on education, harm reduction and investment in the poorest segments of society. He also states that this approach will be hard to implement because many people do not want it.

According to Nadelmann, in the United States, young people claim that it is easier to buy marijuana than alcohol. He claims that the main risk in legalization is the possible increase in the number of consumers. “We have seen this happen with alcohol and tobacco, but in the case of marijuana, the risk of increase in consumption is low. The vast majority of marijuana users do not become dependent on the drug nor make use of other drugs.”

Nadelmann recognizes that drugs cause a lot of damage but states that a world without drugs will never be possible, and for this reason, the war on drugs is not the solution. He uses the example of the “dry law” that prohibited the manufacturing, sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in his country during the 1920s and 1930s. “People did not stop drinking because of prohibition. The criminal organizations took control of the alcohol market increasing violence, death tolls, corruption and the incarceration rates. Alcohol became even more dangerous because it was illegal.”
In the last 40 years the United States has spent approximately US$ 1 trillion on this war to repress the use of drugs. The war on drugs in the United States has seen the incarceration of 5% of the world population. More than 25% of the world’s prison population is held in North American prisons as a result of the war on drugs. “Adults claim that we need more war to protect our children but society will only deteriorate with this idea that incarcerating is the best way of protecting.”

Like Ethan, other authorities support this measure. Former presidents such as Fernando Henrique Cardoso (Brazil), César Gavíria (Colombia), Ernesto Zedillo (Mexico) and Ricardo Lagos (Chile); Former chairman of the Federal Reserve Paul Volker; Former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan; and presidents Juan Manuel Santos (Colombia) and Otto Pérez Molina (Guatemala), also participate in this action. The Drug Policy Alliance believes that the decriminalization, legalization, taxation and control of marijuana is a good start.

Iboga is a shrub indigenous in Central Equatorial Africa. In local communities in Gabon, its root has been used for centuries to produce a very powerful psychoactive drug called by the same name “Iboga”.

This plant contains Alkaloid substances that may allow drug users to free themselves very quickly and permanently from their dependence to drugs or even alcohol. There are a lot of accounts from heroin or cocaine dependant people that were saved overnight thanks to this plant. Howard Lotsof’s story, one of the precursors in the western countries, is just the first of a long list of happy ending and miraculous stories.

Iboga’s chemical compounds are likely to allow the brain to “regenerate itself” and to block opioid receptor, which would explain its anti-addictive properties. However it doesn’t always work and deaths related to its use have occured, which have made the truth about Iboga less clear and confused the debate even more.

USA, Belgium, Poland, Denmark, France… There is a long list of countries where Iboga consumption is forbidden. In France, it is considered as a hard drug. It was forbidden by Health Ministry in 2007, after a drug-dependant French person’s death was linked to it.

Scientific research into Iboga’s medical properties have taken place in the USA, but it is still forbidden there nonetheless. In Israel and India, clinical tests are being carried out. Other countries have decided to go further: specialized treatment centres have been opened in Brazil or Mexico and Iboga can even be prescribed as a medical treatment in New Zealand.

Beyond personal stories and anecdotes about its positive effects, scientific researchers have begun to show Iboga’s effectiveness. But until now, no one has published a clear and statistic study about and how often and how it works.

Through the daydreaming state Iboga creates, its consumer has visions, can live personal events of his life for a second time, including ones about its drug dependence. Beyond the chemical effect of Iboga, it seems that its hallucinogenic properties have a great role in terms of psychoanalysis : “It’s like having 10 years of psychoanalysis in three days” stressed Howard Lotsof. But this psychological process is very subjective and tricky to measure.

Thus, it is more difficult for scientists to obtain significant evidence and elaborate experimental procedures.

Hallucinogenic effects, mystic use context in Africa, empirical discovery in Western countries by drug users rather than scientific or medical experts.. All those elements may have put a brake on considering Iboga as a real and serious alternative to substitution treatment and may have helped to make up its image as a hard drug.

Yann Gagnon, a French activist militating for Iboga recognition and normalization in France was recently reminded cruelly about that.

A Consultant in intercultural mediation, he is one of the main expert about Iboga in France. He is often a referenced as an expert in articles or documentary about Iboga. Since 2004, he began a research process on Iboga properties, working closely with public agencies and French academic people.

The Versailles Court of Justice recently withdraw his custody rights considering that he had consumed Iboga in Gabon years ago and that he had promoted it to friends in France.
A petition has just been published on Internet called “Iboga and Human Rights”. Its goal is to support Y.Guignon and to raise funds so that he can go on with this battle.

Having been cured thanks to Iboga in the past, this activist is fighting for its de-stigmatisation and for a regulated, sustainable and safe use of this plant with a qualified medical support for people who would receive this treatment. According to him, it is necessary to develop this process in France relying on scientific as well as traditional knowledge of this product.

Experts warn that it is not a recreational drug and that it has to be consumed within a controlled process because it can lead to very dangerous medical consequences: people suffering from heart or psychotic problems, persons that are under medication (such as antidepressant) should refrain from consuming it if they don’t want to suffer terrible consequences including death.
Indeed, in Gabon, its consumption is really organised, with a lot of rituals, and most importantly always supervised by initiated people.

Yet, parallel treatment networks developed in Europe, on the spot or through the organisation of journeys in Gabon or Latin America.
Leaving this product free, non-regulated, with treatment organisation acting on the quiet, is in reality increasing the risks for Iboga consumers in France and in the other countries where it is illegal. In 2009, the French watchdog center on drugs and addiction (OFDT) stressed the huge risks that exist in the “secret groups, in closed environments without any control by the competent medical authorities”.

Miraculous plant ? Maybe. Controversial ? Obviously !
And it may seem necessary that this controversy triggers a real debate in France and in Western countries about those public health issues, as this petition tries to do so, instead of focusing only on the best ways to criminalize this plant.

In 1985, I made the biggest mistake in my life — and it cost me my freedom, my soul, and my humanity. Because I was desperate for cash I was convinced by a bowling teammate to get involved with a drug deal. In exchange for $500, I transported an envelope containing 4 ounces of cocaine from the Bronx to Mt. Vernon, NY. To my surprise I walked into a police sting operation where 20 undercover cops were waiting for me. I did everything I could do wrong and I was convicted and sentenced to 15 years-to-lifeunder the Rockefeller Drug Laws. I served 12 years in a maximum security prison until I was granted executive clemency by Governor George Pataki in 1997.

Upon my release, I struggled with my newly found freedom and realized that the freedom I fought so long and hard to win was not what I imagined it to be. The way of life I once knew was gone, along with my friends and support base. I discovered I was quite alone in a new world that had drastically changed. Despite this I could not forget those I left in prison and decided to go on a rescue mission to save them and change the laws that had imprisoned me.

I become an activist and traveled to Albany New York with groups like the Drug Policy Alliance to meet with politicians. After having several conversations with elected officials I soon realized that change would not occur from the top down. Instead I knew that any change that would occur would have to be done from the bottom up — with a street movement that would unite the masses and legitimize our cause. I then co-founded the NY Mothers of the Disappeared with Randy Credico, the director of the William Kunstler Fund for Racial Justice. The group soon became leading advocates for the reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws. With a motley crew of crippled and sick family members of those imprisoned under the drug laws, we began to generate tremendous press — that put a human face to the Rockefeller Drug Laws. Soon after, celebrities and politicians like Andrew Cuomo and hip-hop entrepreneur Russell Simmons joined the movement. After 30+ years of struggle, some minor reforms were made in 2004 and 2005, and then in 2009 broader reforms were made under Governor David Paterson.

Yet much more needs to be done. A comprehensive new report — Blueprint for a Public Health and Safety Approach to Drug Policy — by The New York Academy of Medicine and the Drug Policy Alliance presents an all-inclusive set of wide-ranging recommendations to implement a health-based approach to drug policy — and calls for strong, effective leadership to seize this once-in-a-generation opportunity. The report demonstrates how New York’s drug policies remain largely split between two different and often contradictory approaches — criminalization and health — despite the historic 2009 reforms of the notoriously draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws.

To establish an effective, coordinated drug policy in New York, the Blueprint outlines recommendations for integrating prevention, treatment and recovery, public safety, and enforcement — thus creating shared objectives among diverse stakeholders. The Blueprint is informed by extensive research, including 25 community consultations around the state with 500 New York residents, lawmakers, law enforcement officials, healthcare providers, victims, advocates, young people, housing and mental health providers, legal experts, educators, and others, who described how drug use and drug policies affected them and their neighborhoods – and what should be done to move the state forward.

In a recent editorial, The New York Times called the report “timely” and said it “provides a detailed blueprint for how the state could remake its drug treatment delivery system and remove public policy obstacles to timely and accessible treatment.”

The draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws — signed May 8, 1973 — became the model for the failed “war on drugs” as states around the country adopted New York’s approach, leading the U.S. to incarcerate more of its own citizens than any other country in the world. It is our hope that New York can lead the nation in a new direction that would embrace the true meaning of justice.

“Given concern around the harm these substances are causing in our communities, the bill needs to explicitly state the legislation is about harm-reduction and health,” Mr Bell said.

“Harm reduction and health need to be at the forefront of policymakers’ and politicians’ minds when making decisions about the design and delivery of this bill.

“Enshrining this purpose in the primary legislation future proofs the bill and ensures this overarching goal is given precedence over competing priorities.”

Mr Bell said expanding the collection of health information about these substances and making that available to the public was also essential.

“New Zealand has been notoriously slack in collecting and sharing good data on the effects these substances are having and we need to become much more proactive in that respect.

“As well as maintaining a register of approved products, data on the health and social impacts of all approved and unapproved products should be kept and made available so the public can make informed decisions.”

The Drug Foundation also recommended that all penalties related to the possession of substances be removed. This includes carrying a product or suspicion of carrying a product.

“Penalties serve no useful purpose in the bill and risk expanding criminal sanctions against young people in particular.”

Mr Bell said that despite this, New Zealand Drug Foundation strongly supports this bill.

“While other countries are still blindly banning drug after drug, the Psychoactive Substances Bill puts New Zealand ahead of the industry’s game. It is a pragmatic and innovative attempt to address a complex problem.

“We hope the committee act on our recommendations and those of other community groups to strengthen the bill and increase its ability to promote health and reduce harm.”

For our submission on the bill please visit http://nzdrug.org/PSBsubmission2013