Search results

This paper aims to analyse the fundamental principles of the main international conventions against use of drug and to verify if it would be preferable to let European Member States adopt specific measures according to own needs at a national level.

The research uses a comparative approach by examining the different national legislations in respect of the discipline of the international conventions for finding analogies and differences between them.

The research has discovered a wide variation in the criteria for triggering a legislative response and in the penalties for non-compliance. Nevertheless, there seems to be a trend towards countries focusing on penalising supply rather than possession of these substances.

To maintain a common international level in fighting against the use and commerce of drug to enforce the effectiveness of national regulations.

The achievement of a high level of health protection, well-being and social cohesion to prevent and reduce drug use, dependence and drug-related damage to health and society.

To ensure a high level of security for the general public by taking action against drug production, cross-border trafficking in drugs and the diversion of chemical precursors used in drug production, as well as by intensifying preventive action against drug-related crime through effective cooperation, embedded in a joint approach.

This is a fast-moving area of law, which continues to evolve for the different new substances being introduced in international drug traffic, so different solutions to the problem can be found by national legislators who need to be coordinated at an international level.

In two separate sections the authors summarise the observations, use the insights to reflect on some of the propositions made in the book, and follow the appeal of one of the authors to civil society and academics to “help governments out of the drug policy dilemma that is now facing them”. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

The genre the authors follow here is ethnography and the material takes the form of reflective field notes. Since each author follows a particular set of interests the authors split the paper into two sections. There are no strong conclusions, safe that the concerns about the international drug control system were fully borne out by events on the floor.

The role of CSOs is critical in moving the process forward – but countries are likely to drift apart as the policy differences are becoming inrreconcilable.

It is imperative to develop new models of cooperation in the management of psychactive substances.

This is in recognition that at national level just as much as at Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) and UN General Assembly Special Session the increased involvement of CSOs has been pivotal in shifting focus towards public health and human rights. This in turn has encouraged some nations to do the same in their domestic policies – and to stand up and say so in CND meetings.

More involvement of academics and editorial teams in the design of sustainable policies and practices.

In a critical report on the CND the authors challenge the viability of the international drug control regime in view of the emerging differences between different member states. This is the first attempt in the drug policy literature to assess the durability of the drug control regime as it is faced by the fast paced transformation of cannabis into a recognised medicine and regulated recreational substance. If the appearance of agreement is maintained this is entirely for diplomatic reasons and organisational benefit. In reality, the system is breaking apart and new methods for regulating drugs are emerging.

For three days in early June 1998 the General Assembly of the United Nations was imbued with an air of unity as members strove to find ‘common ground’ against the escalating drug crisis. The international community had gathered together under the auspices of a special session to contemplate a concerted approach to countering the global drug problem. The latter is perceived to be a grave threat to ‘the well‐being of mankind, the independence of states, democracy, the stability of nations, the structure of all societies, and the dignity and hope of millions of people’.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of civil society in the recent history of drug policy reform. It focuses on the UN drug control system, which is designed to regulate certain “scheduled” or listed substances internationally. It provides new light on recent reformist discourses and strategic agendas and how they related to the reality of UN politics and international relations. It questions the idea that the UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs (UNGASS) in 2016 was a failure in terms of outcomes. It concludes by suggesting that the true outcomes of the UNGASS process will initially be obscured by the complexity of national-international drug policy dialectics, but may eventually prove more tangible and enduring than proposed formal systemic reforms.

The paper examines the historical role of civil society in the UN drug control system. It highlights that although civil society played a key role in the early formation of the system, this role diminished over time as the system professionalised. Meanwhile, as a new reformist movement emerged in the 1990s challenging the status quo, the paper traces this movement through the early UNGASS process, the decline of the reformist era and the eventual UNGASS outcomes. It concludes with a critical evaluation of civil society strategies and the relationship between idealistic strategies and the realities of national and international politics.

Rather than a failure of outcomes, UNGASS represented a failure of assumptions, strategic vision and ultimately expectations on the part of reform optimists. These groups ultimately created and became captive to a goal of formal systemic reforms, or treaty revisions, underpinned by a dogmatic assumption of “the inescapable logic of reform necessity”. This logic argued that highlighting treaty “breaches” and contradictions would be a sufficient condition to drive a formal UN system-wide re-evaluation of drug control. These failures of strategic assumptions and vision ultimately resulted in the sense of “failure” of UNGASS 2016.

This research highlights the need to critically evaluate civil society strategies and desired outcomes with an eye to history, international relations and the realities of managing a complex global issue. The application of mono-causal explanations for individual state actions or international cooperation is shown to be vastly insufficient to explain, plan for or predict the outcomes of a complex multilateral framework. Furthermore, this paper highlights a research agenda on the role of civil society in drug policy formation and how this relates to the current policy and advocacy groupings among member states and interest groups at national and international levels.

This paper highlights a more realistic appraisal of the determinants of and possibilities to change international drug policy. It thereby utilises an impressionistic historical narrative of the UNGASS process to enable an evaluation of the frontiers of policy reform at the UN level and provide some guidance on the failures of past strategies and potential future directions of international drug control and reformist strategies.

As highlighted in this paper, drug policy is an area where major policy failures are recognised within the current international approach. Experimentation with new tactics and strategies are needed to break out of the traditional prohibition-centric approach to this issue. The benefits of more successful policies would be felt though a lower level of harm from drug use, drug markets and drug policy. As such, a pragmatic understanding of how the international system might evolve to support new evidence-based approaches is crucial to developing a socially beneficial approach to drugs and drug policy.

The originality of this research lies in its blending of a historical evaluation of the role of civil society in the UN drug control system and the strategies of contemporary civil society actors around the UNGASS process. Thereby it allows a more critical evaluation of the strategic goals, assumptions and outcomes of reformist strategies in the recent era and potential strategies moving forward.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the history of relevant legislation before and after the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA).

A chronological narrative of laws and reports with concluding discussion.

That UK legislators have not made use of the evidence base available to them and have favoured enforcement rather than treatment approaches. That current UK practice has exacerbated not contain the use of and harms caused by illegal drugs.

The paper does not cover all relevant documents, especially those from non-governmental sources.

The practical implications centre on the failure of consecutive governments to reflect on and review the impact of current legislation, especially on people who use drugs.

That the situations of people who use drugs are currently ignored by the government and those proven responses which save lives and reduce harm are rejected.

The paper attempts to show the historical contexts of control and dangerousness of which the MDA is one instrument.

“Cannabis” and “cannabis resin” are derived from the Cannabis plant, used as herbal medications, in traditional medicine and as active pharmaceutical ingredients. Since 1961, they have been listed in Schedule IV, the most restrictive category of the single convention on narcotic drugs. The process to scientifically review and reschedule them was launched by the World Health Organisation (WHO) on 2 December 2016; it survived a number of hindrances until finally being submitted to a delayed and sui generis vote by the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs on 2 December 2020, withdrawing “cannabis” and “cannabis resin” from Schedule IV.

To evaluate WHO’s scheduling recommendations, the process leading to the Commission vote and subsequent implications at global, national and patient/clinician levels. Narrative account of the four-year proceedings; review of the practical implications of both rejected and accepted recommendations.

The process was historically unprecedented, of political relevance to both medical Cannabis and evidence-based scheduling generally. Procedural barriers hampered the appropriate involvement of civil society stakeholders. The landscape resulting from accepted and rejected recommendations allow countries to continue creating decentralised, non-uniform systems for access to and availability of “cannabis” and “cannabis resin” for medical purposes.

Perspective of accredited observers; highlight of institutional issues and the lay of the land; contrast of stakeholders’ interpretations and engagement.

The purpose of this paper is to show a reflection of one year on how the UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) event was unfolded and its impacts and longer term implications.

This paper is a consideration of relevant past and present documentation and commentary. Experiences as a participant at some of the events described.

UNGASS was called for by countries affected by the failings of the existing conventions who wanted to introduce reformed alternative policies. Representatives of the status quo who opposed such change were partially successful in retaining some aspects of the prohibition approach and in minimising dissent and debate.

Some decision-making discussions were not open to all potential participants – governmental, regional and civil society, including the author.

The wider debate prompted by the UNGASS indicated a breakdown in the previous consensus around the prohibition and punitive paradigm of the international conventions.

Greater emphases on health and human rights aspects of international drug policy were included in the final documents. This provides scope for continued evolution of these emphases in the future.

The paper presents an account of the UNGASS and pre-UNGASS proceedings from the point of view of a reform-minded participant.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which the dominant metrics currently used to measure the success of the UN based global drug prohibition regime are in many ways inadequate and consequently contribute to systemic inertia. Within this context, it seeks to explore the potential of explicitly linking drug policy to the recently launched sustainable development agenda (SDA) and the associated sustainable development goals (SDGs) to initiate a change in approach.

Framing the topic in terms of international relations (IR) and regime analysis, prominent examples of where current metrics are imprecise (the relationship between production and seizures), misconceived (drug use) and missing (a range of drug and drug policy related harms) are explored. Attention is then given to an examination of international development as a model for measuring drug control outcomes, including a discussion of the SDGs in general and the intersection between drug policy interventions and several goals in particular.

While aware of the complexity of the issue area, the paper finds that there are considerable shortcomings in the way international drug policy outcomes are currently assessed. Although methodological problems are likely to persist, linking drug policy with the SDGs and their associated metrics offers the potential to help to shift the focus of international policy in a manner that would benefit not only UN system-wide coherence on the issue, but also assist in the achievement of the regime’s own overarching goal; to safeguard the “health and welfare” of humankind.

With the next high-level review of international drug policy due to take place in 2019, the paper offers policy makers with a way to begin to refocus drug policy metrics, and subsequently review outcomes, in line with the UN system-wide SDA.

As an emerging domain of inquiry, the paper not only explores a hitherto largely unexplored – yet increasingly important – facet of UN level policy evaluation, formulation and implementation, but also helps to fill a gap in the IR literature on regime dynamics.

The purpose of this paper is to describe and summarize the recent emergence of NPS onto the drug market. To show the international and national responses, legal and guidance. To indicate some of the challenges NPS present to jurisdictions. To indicate some of the challenges NPS present to treatment agencies. To outline what is known about prevalence and effects.

A narrative account of the substances becoming known and the response made by jurisdictions.

The use and effects of NPS are slowly becoming known and exchanged between jurisdictions and treatment agencies. The user group appears to differ from the “traditional” substance users groups with which agencies are familiar. The use of the internet is a characteristic of this new market and user group.

New substances are constantly being identified. Previous treatment approaches may not be fully relevant to NPS. The new area of cognition enhancement is being gradually realized.

Treatment agencies need to develop new approaches, both to treat the effects of NPS use and to attract NPS users, who do not identify as “drug users”.

A new user group appears to be emerging. Cognition enhancement is a feature of NPS composition and use/attraction.

An attempt to summarize existing understanding of NPS use and marketing and to predict future trends and needs.