Less than eight per cent of drug users worldwide have access to a clean syringe programme. Credit: Fahim Siddiqi/IPS

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 26 2015 (IPS)

As the call for the decriminalisation of drugs steadily picks up steam worldwide, a new study by a British charity concludes there has been no significant reduction in the global use of illicit drugs since the creation of three key U.N. anti-drug conventions, the first of which came into force over half a century ago.

“Illicit drugs are now purer, cheaper, and more widely used than ever,” says the report, titled Casualties of War: How the War on Drugs is Harming the World’s Poorest, released Thursday by the London-based Health Poverty Action."This approach hasn’t reduced drug use or managed to control the illicit drug trade. Instead, it keeps drugs profitable and cartels powerful." -- Catherine Martin of Health Poverty Action

The study also cites an opinion poll that shows more than eight in 10 Britons believe the war on drugs cannot be won. And over half favour legalising or decriminalising at least some illicit drugs.

The international treaties to curb drug trafficking include the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances and the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.

But over the last few decades, several countries have either decriminalised drugs, either fully or partially, or adopted liberal drug laws, including the use of marijuana for medical reasons.

These countries include the Netherlands, Portugal, Czech Republic, Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Ecuador, Honduras and Mexico, among others.

According to the report, the governments of Mexico, Colombia and Guatemala seek open, evidence-based discussion on U.N. drugs policy reform.

And “both the World Health Organisation (WHO) and UNAIDS not only share this view, but have called for the decriminalisation of drugs use.”

Asked if the United Nations was doing enough in the battle against drugs, Catherine Martin, policy officer at Health Poverty Action, told IPS, “The problem is that the U.N. is doing too much of the wrong things, and not enough of the right things.”

She pointed out that an estimated 100 billion dollars worldwide is poured into drug law enforcement every year, driven by U.N. conventions on drug control.

“However, this approach hasn’t reduced drug use or managed to control the illicit drug trade. Instead, it keeps drugs profitable and cartels powerful (fuelling corruption); spurs violent conflict and human rights violations; and disproportionately punishes small-scale drug producers and people who use drugs,” she added.

The report says UK development organisations have largely remained silent, while calls for drugs reform come from Southern counterparts, British tycoon Sir Richard Branson, current and former presidents, Nobel prizewinning economists and ex-U.N. secretary-general Kofi Annan.

The charity urges the UK development sector to demand pro-poor moves as nations prepare for the U.N. general assembly’s special session on drugs next year.

Many non-governmental organisations (NGOs), including British groups, have no lead contact or set process for participating in the session, says the report.

The report claims many small-scale farmers grow and trade drugs in developing countries as their only income source.

And punitive drug policies penalise farmers who do not have access to the land, sufficient resources and infrastructure that they would need to make a sustainable living from other crops.

Alternative crops or development programmes often fail farmers, because they are led by security concerns and ignore poor communities’ needs, the report notes.

The charity argues the militarisation of the war on drugs has triggered and been used to justify murder, mass imprisonment and systematic human rights violations.

The report stresses that criminalising drugs does not reduce use, but spreads disease, deters people from seeking medical treatment and leads to policies that exclude millions of people from vital pain relief.

Less than eight per cent of drug users have access to a clean needle programme, or opioid substitution therapy, and under four per cent of those living with HIV have access to HIV treatment.

In West Africa, people with conditions linked to cancer and AIDS face severe restrictions in access to pain relief drugs, amid feared diversion to illicit markets, according to the study.

Low and middle-income countries have 90 per cent of AIDS patients around the globe and half of the world’s people with cancer, but use only six per cent of morphine given for pain management.

Health Poverty Action states the war on drugs criminalises the poor, and women are worst hit, through disproportionate imprisonment and the loss of livelihoods.

Drug crop eradication devastates the environment and forces producers underground, often to areas with fragile ecosystems.

Asked what the U.N.’s focus should be, Martin told IPS the world body should focus on evidence-based, pro-poor policies that treat illicit drugs as a health issue, not a security matter.

These policies must protect human rights and end the harm that current policies do to the poor and marginalised, she said.

“Drug policy reform should support and fund harm reduction measures, and ensure access to essential medicines for the five billion people worldwide who live in countries where overly strict drug laws limit access to crucial pain medications,” Martin said.

Meanwhile, the report says that drug policy, like climate change or gender, is a cross-cutting issue that affects most aspects of development work: poverty, human rights, health, democracy, the environment.

And current drug policies undermine economic growth and make development work less effective, the report adds.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen@aol.com

In Bolivia, licensed growers can legally cultivate a limited quantity of coca—a policy that has actually reduced overall production. But because it doesn’t fit the U.S. drug war model, the policy has raised hackles in Washington. Credit: Thomas Grisaffi/FPIF

By Zoe Pearson and Thomas Grisaffi
WASHINGTON, Sep 26 2014 (IPS)

Once again, Washington claims Bolivia has not met its obligations under international narcotics agreements. For the seventh year in a row, the U.S. president has notified Congress that the Andean country “failed demonstrably” in its counter-narcotics efforts over the last 12 months. Blacklisting Bolivia means the withholding of U.S. aid from one of South America’s poorest countries.

The story has hardly made the news in the United States, and that is worrisome. While many countries in the hemisphere call for drug policy reform and are willing to entertain new strategies in that vein, it remains business-as-usual in the United States.

In the present geopolitical context, when even U.S. drug war allies Colombia and Mexico are calling for new approaches to controlling narcotics, the U.S. rejection of the Bolivian model further undermines Washington’s waning legitimacy in the hemisphere.
The U.N.’s Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), meanwhile, seems to think that Bolivia is doing a great job, lauding the government’s efforts to tackle coca production (coca is used to make cocaine) and cocaine processing for the past three years.

The Organisation of American States (OAS) is also heaping praise on Bolivia, calling Bolivia’s innovative new approach to coca control an example of a “best practice” in drug policy.

According to the UNODC, Bolivia has decreased the amount of land dedicated to coca plants by about 26 percent from 2010-2013. Approximately 56,800 acres are currently under production

U.S. opposition

Bolivia has achieved demonstrable successes without—and perhaps because of—a complete lack of support from the United States: the Drug Enforcement Administration left in 2009 and all U.S. aid for drug control efforts ended in 2013.

Bearing in mind that U.S. drug policy in the Andes has always emphasised “supply-side” reduction like coca crop eradication, the decision is of course a political one. It reflects U.S. frustration that Bolivia isn’t bending to Washington’s will. Interestingly, most Bolivian-made cocaine ends up in Europe and Brazil—not the United States.

At the same time, Peru and Colombia, both U.S. favorites given their willingness to fall in line with U.S. drug policy mandates, were not included in the list of failures. To be sure, those countries have recently decreased coca crop acreage as well; in some years by a lot more than Bolivia has. Still, they had respectively about 66,200 and 61,700 acres more coca under cultivation than Bolivia in 2013, according to the UNODC’s June 2014 findings. Peru currently produces the most cocaine of any country in the world.

Bolivians have been consuming the coca plant for over 4,000 years as a tea, food, and medicine, and for religious and cultural practices. Coca, the cheapest input in the cocaine commodity chain, cannot be considered equivalent to cocaine, since over 20 chemicals are needed to convert the harmless leaf into the powdery party drug and its less glamorous cousin, crack.

Still, coca is listed as a Schedule 1 narcotic under the 1961 U.N. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (the defining piece of international drug control legislation).

When Evo Morales became president of Bolivia he worked to modify the Convention, and in 2013 eventually wrested from the U.N. the right to allow limited coca production and traditional consumption within Bolivia’s borders. In the process, all Latin American countries except Mexico (which supported the U.S.-led objection) supported Morales’ mission.

The Bolivian model

The basics of Bolivia’s approach to reining in coca cultivation are fairly simple. Licensed coca growers can legally cultivate a limited amount of coca (1,600 square metres) to ensure some basic income, and they police their neighbours to ensure that fellow growers stay within the legal limits. Government forces step in to eradicate coca only when a grower or coca grower’s union refuses to cooperate.

This grassroots control is possible because of the strength of agricultural unions in Bolivia’s coca growing regions and because of growers’ solidarity with President Morales, himself a coca grower.

Another incentive is that reducing supply drives up coca leaf prices, which means that producers can earn more money for their families. As one longtime grower and coca union leader from the Chapare growing region put it: “It’s less work and I make more money.” This income stability, combined with targeted aid from the Bolivian government, means that many coca growers are able to make a living wage and diversify their livelihood strategies—investing in shops, other legal crops, and education.

It also helps that the violence and intimidation at the hands of the previously U.S.-backed Bolivian military has come to an end. People remember what is was like, and many still suffer injuries sustained during different eradication campaigns. One coca grower, for example, had her jaw broken so badly by a soldier as she marched for the right to grow coca that she cannot be fitted for dentures to replace her missing teeth. She emphasized that life is so much better now because it’s less stressful. People do not want to see a return to forced eradication campaigns.

No one is pretending that Bolivia’s coca control approach means the end of cocaine production.  Some portion of coca leaf production—by some estimates, about 22,200-plus acres worth—is still ending up in clandestine, rudimentary labs where it is processed into cocaine paste.

Furthermore, because it is squeezed between Peru, a major cocaine exporter, and Brazil, a growing importer, Bolivia has found it increasingly difficult to control cocaine flows. As a result, despite increased narcotics seizures by Bolivian security forces under Morales’ government, drug trade activities within Bolivia’s borders by some accounts have actually increased over the last few years.

Nevertheless, and for better or worse, the country’s new method of coca control yields results and undeniably satisfies the U.S. supply-side approach, yet Washington maintains its hardline stance against the county. In the present geopolitical context, when even U.S. drug war allies Colombia and Mexico are calling for new approaches to controlling narcotics, the U.S. rejection of the Bolivian model further undermines Washington’s waning legitimacy in the hemisphere.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, IPS-Inter Press Service. Read the original version of this story here.

Edited by Kanya D’Almeida

Excerpt:

A report released Tuesday by the London School of Economics (LSE) depicts drug prohibition as a massive failure, a financial drain on economies and a violation of the basic human rights of citizens.

“The pursuit of a militarised and enforcement-led global ‘war on drugs’ strategy has produced enormous negative outcomes and collateral damage,” concluded the LSE’s Expert Panel on the Economics of Drug Policy, a group of 21 that includes five Nobel Prize-winning economists, former U.S. secretary of state George Shultz and Deputy Prime Minister of the UK Nick Clegg.“The LSE report in many ways articulates what has been said before - that we are wasting tremendous financial and human resources in the name of a failed paradigm." -- Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch

For years, opposition to drug prohibition has often been associated – accurately or not – with marginalised groups, either users themselves or the families of prisoners incarcerated under minimum sentencing guidelines.

Now, economists – perhaps the least likely victims of the war on drugs but vital to its deconstruction – are weighing in.

“The LSE report in many ways articulates what has been said before – that we are wasting tremendous financial and human resources in the name of a failed paradigm,” said Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch, director of the Open Society Global Drug Policy Programme.

“The question of the economics [of the drug war] have never really been gauged as strongly as it is being today,” Malinowska-Sempruch told IPS.

The report comes as more nations voice their displeasure with policies of interdiction that were hoisted upon them by powerful, conservative countries like the U.S.

In 2012, the heads of states of Colombia, Mexico and Guatemala delivered a statement to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon asking for an “urgent” review of drug policy.

Last year, the Organisation of American States released a report that called for the easing of such policies and consideration of possibility of decriminalisation.

In New York for the 2013 U.N. General Assembly, Guatemalan President Otto Perez Molina called marijuana legalisation in Uruguay and the U.S. states of Colorado and Washington that year “visionary.”

And this past December, a leaked internal document containing draft recommendations from U.N. member states on drug policy showed many more willing to express their disquietude in private.

Failure by any measure

The LSE report found that policies of interdiction fail even their own narrow objectives.

“Evidence shows that drug prices have been declining while purity has been increasing,” wrote the authors.

The 100 billion dollars spent annually worldwide on law and order measures associated with drugs is not only largely wasted but ends up incurring bigger bills down the line.

One U.N study cited in the report found every dollar spent on opioid-substitution therapies (OST) like methadone “may yield a return of between four and seven dollars in reduced drug-related crime, criminal justice costs and theft alone.”

When accounting for health care costs, “total savings can exceed costs by a ratio of 12:1.”

But where prohibition is favoured over harm reduction programmes, drug use can lead to public health crises.

Russia, one of the few countries than bans methadone, has an HIV rate more than double most western European countries. Last year, the Russian government reported 55,000 newly diagnosed HIV patients, 58 percent of whom were intravenous drug users.

In recently annexed Crimea, Russian authorities announced they will shut down OST services.

Draconian drug laws can have a punitive effect not only on citizens but on the entire workforce of a country.

In 2000, the Polish government criminalised the possession of even the smallest quantities of illicit drugs. Within a decade, more than 100,000 Poles had gained criminal records and now find themselves barred from public sector employment.

All the while, in the U.S., the private prison industry and defence contractors have profited handsomely from enforcement expenditures and the housing of prisoners – staggering numbers of them.

Between 1979 and 2009, the number of prisoners in the U.S grew by 480 percent to 2.2 million; 1 in 5 – and half in federal prison – are locked up on drug offences.

Reports like the LSE’s set the stage for a showdown in 2016, when the U.N. General Assembly will have a special session dedicated to the future of drug policy.

Last year, for the first time, a majority of U.S. citizens said they favoured the legalisation of marijuana. But in the U.S. and around the world, laws lag behind the evolution of mores.

Despite headlined-grabbing votes in Uruguay, Portugal and small parts of the U.S., the vast majority of an estimated 230 million drug users worldwide still reside in countries that schedule drugs based on two strict U.N. Conventions: the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotics and the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances.

Still, the International Narcotics Control Board, an oversight body with quasi-judicial powers, is increasingly ignored by countries that see benefits from bucking the conventions.

“The conventions are just just a reflection of what states see them as,” says John Collins, coordinator of the LSE’s IDEAS International Drug Policy Project.

“They are realising that the conventions are a lot more flexible than previously interpreted,” Collins told IPS. “I think we are really reaching a tipping point.”

But while decades ago signing the conventions had little political fallout for member states, least of all for those – like the U.S. – who ghost-wrote them, unwinding their countless manifestations in trade agreements and international law will take more than a stroke of a pen.

Many smaller countries that are ill-affected by the war on drugs still prefer to risk their political capital on more cut and dry issues.

“The General Assembly in 2016 is a tremendous deal,” said Collins. “But I think what we should argue for more broadly is that the U.N. stop being a bully on this issue.”

“The main thing to look at is what member states are doing at a national and regional level. Let’s see how they react to cannabis regulation,” he added.