2/9 Post-UNGASS 2016 - Solutions that should be considered

As pointed out by the Transform Drug Policy Foundation (2012), it remains important “to acknowledge that there are no ‘silver bullet’ solutions or ‘one-size- fits-all answers’ to the world drug problem.” As we will see in a further article which will review the central topic of the upcoming Special Session, challenges may vary considerably depending of the concerned country, notably depending on their situation in regards to the cross-cutting segmentation of illegal drug production, trade, and consumption. Ideally, political and socio-economic tensions should be taken into account in order to arbitrate in between reproductive “urgent short-term reforms aimed at reducing some of the most egregious harms of the drug war”, with transformative, “more substantial reforms to domestic and international laws and related institutions in the longer term.” (Ibid.)

As such, one thing is certain, however not necessarily acknowledged by all; because cultural and institutional contexts consequently influence the effectiveness and acceptance by local population for drug control policy, the design of such strategies “need to be tailored to local settings.” (Felbab-Brown & Trinkunas, 2015) Therefore the recognition by UNGASS 2016 of the relevance and existence of local policy experimentations is crucial to the sustainability of the international drug control regime. Such experiments should be subject to scientific and political scrutiny and assessed through evidence-based evaluations.

In regard to the current problematic situation, although there is a chance that most of them may not be resolved during the Session, several topics should be addressed by the end of the meeting. These topics include: law enforcement and violence; mass incarceration; sustainable alternative development; meaningful demand reduction; wider access to essential medicine; scientifically based data collection; market regulation and treaty review; meaningful participation of civil society; and harm reduction.

• Law enforcement and violence

The core policy design of law enforcement actions should first and foremost be aimed at reducing direct violence associated with the drug trade—and also from drug control enforcement counter-measures itself. Furthermore, enforcement should focus on the most precarious environments and the most violent and dangerous actors first. However, it should be taken into account that strategies which focus actions on high-value targets such as stopping drug cartels overlords, although quite publicly rewarding for political officials, can often “inadvertently increase violence by provoking turf war.” (Felbab-Brown & Trinkunas, 2015) In order to avoid such patterns, drug control strategies should divert efforts towards the middle leadership layers, which is often more effective in reducing direct violence.

Similarly, law enforcement activities should not be militarized as this could push illicit actors to do the same. As infamously shown in Mexico, criminal organizations do have the means to compete with law enforcement, often largely over-powering them. Finally, violence perpetrated against the most vulnerable segments of society, whether they are considered “addicts” or part of vulnerable populations such as ethnic and religious minorities, or indigenous communities, should cease as they are counter-productive and have proven widely ineffective; often leading us to our second point: mass incarceration.

• Mass incarceration

A growing number of countries are currently facing over-crowded prison capacities due to the arrest of consumers and low-level, non-violent agents of the drug trade. This process, often exacerbates drug use and further involvement into the criminal spheres. Women remain the primary victims of such policies (Malinowska-Sempruch & Rychkova, 2015), as-well as ethnic minorities (ACLU, 2013; Alexander, 2010). This phenomenon is particularly relevant for the U.S. population, but is far from being restricted to this country alone.

• Alternative development

Although AD has never proven to be beneficial in terms of actual drug-control measures for consumer countries (Kleiman & al., 2011), sustainable plans to allow farmers to grow alternative, legal crops remain an important and necessary challenge due to the lack of funding, interest, and political will encountered in most countries where illicit-drug plants are being grown. In this regard, “in the absence of alternative livelihoods being already in place, and not simply promised” (Felbab-Brown & Trinkunas, 2015), eradication of illicit crops should not be allowed to take place. Indeed such a process, “creates extensive political unrest and exacerbates militancy without the collateral benefit of defunding belligerent groups.” (Ibid.) In this regard, a holistic approach should be “fully integrated into overall rural and economic development efforts” in order to “focus on both on-farm and off-farm income, and address the structural drivers of illicit economies.” (Ibid.) Only two countries in the world have presented successful, long term implementations, namely Thailand and Bolivia, and all eyes should be turned towards them in order to adapt successful recipes to other specific local contexts.

• Demand reduction

Demand reduction are policies aiming at “reducing consumer demand for controlled substances.” (UNODCCP, 2000) Frequently “underfunded, poorly designed, and in short supply” (Felbab-Brown & Trinkunas, 2015), demand reduction approaches undertaken by many countries are often ineffective and can take, as we will see in the case of Southeast Asia, the form of “abusive labor camps masquerade as treatment centers.” (Ibid.) If recognizing addiction as an illness requiring medical treatment can be considered as a move away from the criminalization of users, the administrative redefinition of their status should not be used as a way to avoid transparent due-process while allowing ‘undesirable cleansing’. In this regard, community based treatment should be favored in order for problematic users to “be effectively targeted through mild, short, swift, and reliable penalties.” (Ibid.) Drug reductions procedures should include meaningful prevention targeting youth, though confidence building, potential for employment, and a broader offer of relevant social activities; while avoiding advertising campaign infantilizing targets. However, the need to recognize that most drug users do not need treatment remain a fundamental requirement that most member states are still incapable of recognizing to date.

• Access to essential medicine

Alongside reducing the harms caused by the illegal drug phenomenon, guaranteeing the access to essential medicine for all is one of the goals of the current regime which has yet to be achieved and has shown dramatic failure of the IDCR by leading more than 5 billion people worldwide lacking access. This component of the regime should be ensured, and over-zealous classifications of substances that would affect this requirement should be avoided. This is probably the most urgent action that needs to be evaluated, and ultimately, the scheduling issues of the current system will need to be further addressed.

• Data Collection

Establishing meaningful international data collection in regards to drug related issues has been on the demand list of many concerned actors in the past. In this regard, national questionnaires informing annual UNODC World Drug Reports should include questions concerned with “human rights, conflict, crime, corruption, development and security—as well as the more familiar public health measures.” (Transform, 2009) Such data banks could help strengthen the evaluation process of the current policies in place and “support a more effective critique of current successes and failings, which will help inform and guide more serious discussion of alternative approaches.” (Ibid.) Furthermore these questionnaire should also be sent to relevant scholars working on the subject and not be limited to member states appreciation and will.

• Market regulation and treaty review

Although the topic will not be approached by member states during the Session, a compromise could be achieved if an independent advisory group was to be created by the Special Session. This committee could be tasked with reviewing the current U.N. drug control architecture, including system-wide coherence, inconsistencies and legal tensions around policy evolutions, and national experimentations. Allowing this to happen outside of the realm of the Session, could help to overcome ideological and moral perspectives, and allow member states to correctly assess current experimentations on the substance regulation of previously illicit substances, which are arguably falling outside the bound of the current legislative framework.

In order to put governments back in control, markets for currently illicit products must be regulated. This is becoming less and less potentially arguable. But because, “the drug control conventions lack built-in review mechanisms to enable the system’s evolution” (Jelsma, 2015), and in the absence of political consensus in regard to treaty reform, several options that do not require consensus should be considered, notably the rescheduling of substances, as-well as inter se modifications. Such processes could offer an attractive interim option for like-minded member states in order to give legitimacy to regulation endeavors “under international law by modifying the treaty only between themselves.” (Ibid.)

• Civil society

The UNGASS 2016 Civil Society Task Force should be financially and technically supported in its effort to monitor the compliance from member states to their international engagements. The aftermath of the Special Session is probably as important as the debate preparation and the Special Session themselves. It could be argued that only civil society groups have the independence to act as watch dogs and uphold states to their commitments. Nations should take strict pre-agreements to ensure accountability, including financial provisions.

• Harm reduction

Harm reduction is probably the primary case of what should be considered and widely adopted in regards to astronomical amounts of evidences proving that the services work. However, it will probably end up not being officially supported in the final declarations. There will probably not be a consensus around these two words put together as the phrase itself is still largely problematic for a number of member states. As explained by Ann Fordham, Executive Director of the IDPC (NZDF, 2016) “We’re still in the dynamic where the EU countries in particular have no problem, and they push very strongly to support harm reduction. But countries like the US, despite their more progressive approach in recent years, still have quite an allergic reaction to the actual term ‘harm reduction’. And of course Russia and China and many of the Middle Eastern countries don’t accept the term.” What has changed - as we will show in articles related to Southeast Asia - is the willingness to accept harm reduction services related to injecting drug use, even if countries do not officially accept to endorse the term.

For example countries could refer to the U.N. technical documents around HIV prevention, treatment, and care for people who take drugs (WHO, UNODC & UNAIDS, 2012), which endorse needle exchange programs and opioid substitution treatments. In this regard, many practices are agreed upon, but the term in itself remains taboo for many. As noted by Steve Rolles, Senior Policy Analyst at Transform (NZDF, 2016a) “as long as the principle is captured, I think the semantics may not be the biggest concern.” Similarly to the researcher, many would argue that opponents of the practices will look increasingly isolated in regards to the realities on the ground; especially since even UNODC semi-officially accepted the term in their retracted but extremely valid Briefing paper ‘Decriminalization of Drug Use and Possession for Personal Consumption’ (UNODC, 2015a). Because the paper came to join other similar positions from the WHO and UNAIDS, it is not impossible that prohibitionist countries will end up caving in; notably if the U.S. does not officially condemn the practice. Russia would then find itself the only major donor opposing the services. But again it could very well also go the other way.

If the principle is not accepted, avoiding the stigmatization of users, which is at the heart of every harm reduction services, should be placed at the core of demand reduction strategies, notably in order to decrease the rate of HIV spread and other transmittable disease. As we have seen, this epidemic is present worldwide and many countries have been forced to practically react a posteriori in order to tackle the issue. To this extent, as on other topics, the need for like-minded groups should be regarded as extremely pertinent.

• (ACLU, 2013) American Civil Liberties Union, "The War on Marijuana in Black and White", Report of the American Civil Liberties Union, New York, June 2013, https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/1114413-mj-report-rfs-rel1.pdf, Accessed: 09/02/16.

• (Alexander, 2010) M. Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness, The New Press, New York, 2010.

• (Felbab-Brown & Trinkunas, 2015) V. Felbab-Brown & H. Trinkunas, "UNGASS 2016 in Comparative Perspective: Improving the Prospects for Success", Foreign Policy at Brookings, 2015, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2015/04/global-drug-policy/FelbabBrown-TrinkunasUNGASS-2016-final-2.pdf?la=en, Accessed: 04/12/15.

• (Jelsma, 2015) M. Jelsma, "UNGASS 2016: Prospects for Treaty Reform and UN System-Wide Coherence on Drug Policy, Improving Global Drug Policy: Comparative Perspectives and UNGASS 2016", Foreign Policy at Brookings, 2015, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2015/04/global-drug-policy/Jelsma--United-Nations-final.pdf?la=en, Accessed: 22/08/15.

• (Kleiman & al., 2011) M. A. R Kleiman, J. P. Caulkins & A. Hawken, Drugs and drug policy - What everyone needs to know, Oxford University Press, new York, 2011.

• (Malinowska-Sempruch & Rychkova, 2015) K. Malinowska-Sempruch & O. Rychkova, “The Impact of Drug Policy on Women”, Open Society Foundation, May 2015, https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/reports/impact-drug-policy-women, Accessed: 06/01/16.

• (NZDF, 2016) “UNGASS 2016: What prospect for change?” Part 1, New Zealand Drug Foundation (NZDF), February 18, 2016, https://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/matters-of-substance/february-2016/ungass2016-change-prospect, Accessed: 25/02/16.

• (NZDF, 2016a) “UNGASS 2016: What prospect for change?” Part 2, New Zealand Drug Foundation (NZDF), February 18, 2016, https://www.drugfoundation.org.nz/matters-of-substance/february-2016/ungass2016-change-prospect-2, Accessed: 25/02/16.

• (Transform, 2009) S. Rolles, Transform Drug Policy Foundation “Talk About”, After the War on Drugs - Blueprint for Regulation, , UK, 2009, http://www.tdpf.org.uk/resources/publications/after-war-drugs-blueprint-regulation, Accessed: 11/12/15.

• (Transform, 2012) Transform Drug Policy Foundation, The Alternative World Drug Report - Counting the cost of the War on Drugs, UK, 2012, https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016//Contributions/Civil/Count-the-Costs-Initiative/AWDR.pdf, Accessed: 02/10/15.

• (UNODC, 2015a) United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Briefing paper: Decriminalisation of Drug Use and Possession for Personal Consumption - “Leaked Document”, United Nations, Vienna, Oct 2015, http://www.tdpf.org.uk/sites/default/files/UNODC-decrim-paper.pdf, Accessed: 07/09/15.

• (UNODCCP, 2000) United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention (UNODCCP), “Demand Reduction - A Glossary of Terms”, New York, 2000, http://www.unodc.org/pdf/report_2000-11-30_1.pdf, Accessed: 21/03/16.

• (WHO, UNODC & UNAIDS, 2012) World Health Organization; United Nations Office for Drugs and Crime & The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, Technical guide for countries to set targets for universal access to HIV prevention, treatment and care for injecting drug users, 2012 revision, http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/77969/1/9789241504379_eng.pdf , Accessed: 10/12/15.