Parallel Universes: Human Rights and International Drug Control

This video produced by the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union highlights the human rights violations done against people all over the world as a result of the current international drug control system. The activists and researchers interviewed here recount the litany of abuses done in the name of drug control: torture, corporal punishment, overcrowding in prisons, death penalty for drug offences, denial of palliative care and HIV/AIDS treatment, among others.

As explained by the producers, the words of Paul Hunt, former UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health (2002-2008), at the 2008 Harm Reduction Conference are more valid than ever. The international drug control seems to be operating in a parallel universe from human rights law and it is the most vulnerable people who pay the price for this.

Click here to read Human Rights, Health and Harm Reduction: States’ amnesia and parallel universes, by Prof. Paul Hunt, member of the International Advisory Committee of the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy.

Follow us on twitter @ICHRDP

Opium brides

PBS Frontline broadcasted on January 3 a thought provoking reportage on Afghanistan’s opium brides. Reporter Najibullah Quraishi journeyed into the Afghan countryside to reveal the deadly bargain local farm families have been forced to make with drug smugglers in order to survive.

Watch this story and related stories in Frontline’s website.

For more information on the opium brides, read also “In the Shadows of the Insurgency in Afghanistan: Child Bartering, Opium Debt, and the War on Drugs by Atal Ahmadzai and Christopher Kuonqui, published in Children of the Drug War: Perspectives on the Impact of Drug Policies on Young People.

A new language for the children of the drug wars

For decades, governments have used the rhetoric of war to describe their drug control efforts and rally their populations behind hardline policies they say will help protect children. Nayeli Urquiza, Research Fellow at the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy, argues it’s this very terminology that encourages the abuse of children by turning them into enemies of the state.

This guest editorial was originally published in the November issue of Matters of Substance, a publication of the New Zealand Drug Foundation.

For more information on this issue, read the book “Children of the Drug War: Perspectives on the Impact of Drug Policies on Young People”. Available online or download the PDF at www.childrenofthedrugwar.org

Count the Costs: Increasing harms to the environment

The ‘War on Drugs’ has not only affected people but also the environment. Current drug policies have not reduced the environmental harm caused by illicit drug production but actually increased them according to the latest briefing by ‘Count the Costs’, a project launched earlier this year by a range of organisations, including the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy.

Deforestation and pollution are just some of the devastating effects of the current drug control policies. Chemicals used to wipe out illicit crops in Colombia have affected its rich flora and fauna. The so called ‘balloon effect’, the phenomenon by which law enforcement displaces production in one region causing it to expand in another one as drug producers mobilise to meet demand) has also led to significant deforestation in Colombia, Mexico, Guatemala, Myanmar, Thailand and the United States.

As a result of the balloon effect, there has been “widespread deforestation, jeopardising the 200 species of oak tree and the habitats of numerous endemic bird species” in Mexico’s Sierra Madre mountain range. In Peru, 10% of the total rainforest destruction over the past century is due to the illicit drug trade.

Although authorities argue the need to continue such policies precisely to avoid the environmental harm done by illicit production of drugs, the briefing highlights that “they have simply transferred these harms to more remote, ecologically sensitive areas such as the Amazon forests – an unavoidable consequence of the balloon effect.” The benefits are elusive as production is only displaced but not eliminated.

The consequences on development should also be considered as it is the most vulnerable and poor who are caught in the middle of supply reduction strategies. As criminals target areas with ‘little economic infrastructure or governance and suffer from high levels of poverty’, many farmers have few alternative means of earning a living outside of the drug trade. At the same time, law enforcement’s methods to eradicate crops, such as aerial spraying with chemical herbicides, destroys not only illicit but also licit crops, such as food crops. Water deposits in natural parks have also been contaminated due to the proximity of illicit crops to natural protected areas.

Other environmental harms include the massive consumption of electricity for the production of hydroponic cannabis and its corresponding CO2 footprint, or toxic waste dumping in the production of methamphetamines.

As a result, ‘Count the Costs’ recommends national authorities and international funders to take due consideration of environmental concerns at all levels. Thorough scrutiny of the impact of drug control policies on the environment is long overdue. This includes not only a more careful scrutiny as mentioned above, but also to explore “a range of alternative systems, including decriminalisation of personal possession of drugs, and models of legal regulation”.

Read the full version of the briefing here.

Join Count the Costs campaign on twitter and facebook.

‘Children of the Drug War: Perspectives on the impact of drug policies on young people’ Damon Barrett (ed)

‘Children of the Drug War’ is a unique collection of original essays, edited by Damon  Barrett (Project Director at the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy), that investigates the impacts of the war on drugs on children, young people and their  families. With contributions from around the world, providing different perspectives and utilizing a  wide range of styles and approaches including ethnographic studies, personal accounts and  interviews, the book asks fundamental questions of national and international drug control systems:

• What have been the costs to children and young people of the war on drugs?
• Is the protection of children from drugs a solid justification for current policies?
• What kinds of public fears and preconceptions exist in relation to drugs and the drug trade?
• How can children and young people be placed at the forefront of drug policies?

Four thematic sections address:

• Production and trade
• Race, class and law enforcement
• Families and drug policy
• Drug use and dependence

The book is published by the International Debate Education Association (iDebate Press). It is available for purchase in hard copy from amazon.com, amazon.co.uk and other outlets.

A pdf of the full book and pdfs of each of its four sections are available for free download. It may also be read online.

Briefing on Bolivia’s concurrent drug control and other international legal commitments

Damon Barrett
International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy
July 1, 2011

Bolivia’s denunciation of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is not just about one treaty. It is about finding an appropriate balance between multiple concurrent and conflicting international legal obligations. When international treaties ratified by or acceded to by Bolivia and relevant jurisprudence are taken into account, it is clear that Bolivia would find itself in breach of multiple international agreements were it to fully implement the 1961 Single Convention as written. A reservation on the 1961 Single Convention is the most reasonable and proportionate way to address this conflict.

Download the backgrounder (PDF)

This is particularly so in relation to indigenous peoples and free prior and informed consent relating to issues that affect them. The manner in which Bolivia translates international obligations under the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs into national legislation, programmes and policies must be consistent with its obligations to respect indigenous peoples rights that flow from its obligations under contemporary international, constitutional and (indigenous) customary law. The proposed reservation provides the means through which these obligations can be harmonised. Without it the Convention would constitute a unilateral imposition of a ban on the coca leaf on indigenous peoples, and a failure to fulfill the obligations to hold good faith consultations in order to obtain their consent and to ensure their cultural and physical survival.

A second question relates to whether the reservation is compatible with other concurrent international legal obligations, in this case under the law of treaties and children’s rights. An analysis of these agreements set against Bolivia’s proposal reveals no apparent conflict.

This backgrounder is divided into two sections.

I. Considers drawing a balance between the Single Convention of 1961 and
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966
• International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights 1966
• International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 1965
• UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People 2007
• ILO Convention 169 – Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention 1989
• UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage 2003
• UN Convention on the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988
• Convention on Biological Diversity 1992

II. Considers the compatibility of the proposed reservation with
• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969
• Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989
• ILO Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labour 1999

Bolivia Withdraws from the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs

TNI/WOLA Press release
Thursday, June 30, 2011

The Bolivian government formally notified the UN Secretary General of its withdrawal from the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (as amended by the 1972 Protocol) yesterday. The withdrawal will enter into effect on 1 January 2012. At that time, Bolivia will re-accede to the Convention with a reservation on the coca leaf and its traditional uses.

Bolivia’s step – the first of its kind in the history of the UN drug control treaties – comes after the rejection earlier this year of its proposal to delete the Single Convention’s obligation that “coca leaf chewing must be abolished” (article 49). A number of countries, including the United States, objected.

TNI and WOLA express their full understanding and support for the decision taken by the Morales administration, with the approval of the Bolivian legislature. After its proposed amendment was rejected, Bolivia had no other choice but to withdraw from the Convention, given the need to reconcile its international treaty obligations with the country’s new 2009 Constitution, which allows for a period of four years for the government to “denounce and, in that case, renegotiate the international treaties that may be contrary to the Constitution.”

According to the 2009 Constitution: “The State shall protect native and ancestral coca as cultural patrimony, a renewable natural resource of Bolivia’s biodiversity, and as a factor of social cohesion; in its natural state it is not a narcotic. It’s revaluing, production, commercialization and industrialization shall be regulated by law” (article 384). Martin Jelsma, director of TNI’s Drugs and Democracy program, points out: “The restrictions placed by the Single Convention on the coca leaf and its traditional uses – in the absence of any evidence of its harmfulness, were an historical error and a violation of indigenous rights.” The other procedure available under the treaty to correct this error – apart from the amendment that was already rejected – is a World Health Organization (WHO) review of the classification of the coca leaf. Bolivia considers that the outcome of such a WHO procedure would likely take too long to comply with the four-year Constitutional deadline.

We call on the international community to express understanding and support for the decision taken by the Bolivian government. Other countries with comparable legal conflicts regarding the status of the coca leaf, such as Peru, Colombia and Argentina, would be well-advised to follow Bolivia’s step and/or to initiate the long overdue WHO review.

CONTACT:
Kristel Mucino, TNI/WOLA Drug Law Reform Project Communications Coordinator
kmucino@wola.org; 617-584-1713

RESOURCES:

Backgrounder: Bolivia’s denunciation of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs
Backgrounder: Bolivia’s concurrent drug control and other international legal commitments
Press conference by H.E. Pablo Solon, Permanent Representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, on Bolivia’s decision to withdraw
Martin Jelsma, Director of TNI’s Drugs and Democracy Program, on “Lifting the Ban on Coca Chewing”
Drug Law Reform Website: Unscheduling the Coca Leaf

Bolivia likely to denounce 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs

Bolivia’s lower house has agreed to denounce the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs due to longstanding disagreement with the ban on traditional uses of coca in the treaty.

The law, proposed by President Evo Morales, is likely to pass the upper house where his party has a significant majority. The aim is to re-accede to the Convention with a reservation on the disputed provision(s).

Under the Single Convention (articles 49 and 50) reservations are dealt with in some detail. This move in fact raises some interesting legal issues, and will create inevitable diplomatic heat. It is unclear as yet what the reservation will look like.

The Guardian newspaper is carrying the story. It will be a very interesting legal issue to follow, and one we will be watching closely.

Colombia: Drug war myopia and the human rights lens. Presentation delivered at the Irish Centre for Human Rights

Damon Barrett of the International Centre on Human Rights and Drug Policy delivered a seminar for Phd and masters students at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, focusing on human rights and drug control in Colombia.

The presentation looked at Colombia as a case study in analysing the justifications, means and ends of drug control policies through a human rights framework.

It is available for download.

The right to heath and international drug control: Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health, October 2010

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health

UN Doc No A/65/255

Available in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Spanish and Russian

Summary

The current international system of drug control has focused on creating a drug free world, almost exclusively through use of law enforcement policies and criminal sanctions. Mounting evidence, however, suggests this approach has failed, primarily because it does not acknowledge the realities of drug use and dependence. While drugs may have a pernicious effect on individual lives and society, this excessively punitive regime has not achieved its stated public health goals, and has resulted in countless human rights violations.

People who use drugs may be deterred from accessing services owing to the threat of criminal punishment, or may be denied access to health care altogether. Criminalization and excessive law enforcement practices also undermine health promotion initiatives, perpetuate stigma and increase health risks to which entire populations – not only those who use drugs – may be exposed. Certain countries incarcerate people who use drugs, impose compulsory treatment upon them, or both. The current international drug control regime also unnecessarily limits access to essential medications, which violates the enjoyment of the right to health.

The primary goal of the international drug control regime, as set forth in the preamble of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961), is the “health and  welfare of mankind”, but the current approach to controlling drug use and possession works against that aim. Widespread implementation of interventions that reduce harms associated with drug use — harm-reduction initiatives — and of decriminalization of certain laws governing drug control would improve the health and welfare of people who use drugs and the general population demonstrably. Moreover, the United Nations entities and Member States should adopt a right to health approach to drug control, encourage system-wide coherence and communication, incorporate the use of indicators and guidelines, and consider developing a new legal framework concerning certain illicit drugs, in order to ensure that the rights of people who use drugs are respected, protected and fulfilled.

Recommendations

Member States should:

• Ensure that all harm-reduction measures (as itemized by UNAIDS) and drug-dependence treatment services, particularly opioid substitution therapy, are available to people who use drugs, in particular those among incarcerated populations.

• Decriminalize or de-penalize possession and use of drugs.

• Repeal or substantially reform laws and policies inhibiting the delivery of essential health services to drug users, and review law enforcement initiatives around drug control to ensure compliance with human rights obligations.

• Amend laws, regulations and policies to increase access to controlled essential medicines.

The United Nations drug control bodies should:

• Integrate human rights into the response to drug control in laws, policies and programmes.

• Encourage greater communication and dialogue between United Nations entities with an interest in the impact of drug use and markets, and drug control policies and programmes.

• Consider creation of a permanent mechanism, such as an independent commission, through which international human rights actors can contribute to the creation of international drug policy, and monitor national implementation, with the need to protect the health and human rights of drug users and the communities they live in as its primary objective.

• Formulate guidelines that provide direction to relevant actors on taking a human rights-based approach to drug control, and devise and promulgate rights-based indicators concerning drug control and the right to health.

• Consider creation of an alternative drug regulatory framework in the long term, based on a model such as the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

Next Page »