Search results

The purpose of this paper is to re-appraise the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in order to develop alternative and new ideas for drug law reform.

The approach is to analyse the Act from historical and socio-legal perspectives, drawing on the inter-disciplinary field of regulation studies.

The Act has its roots in radical counter-cultural reform activism in the 1960s. Its innovative legal structure has enabled a diverse range of policy approaches to be possible over the last 50 years. Future drug law reform efforts need to broaden out from a narrow focus on law and also to engage more seriously with the politics of drug law and policy.

Drawing on the inter-disciplinary field of regulation studies leads to novel insights about the politics and practice of drug law reform.

This chapter looks at the past, present and future of international cannabis control required by the UN drug control conventions in the post-2016 United Nations General Assembly Special Session era with an eye on the next High Level Ministerial Segment (HLMS) at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in 2019, and beyond. From a policy analysis perspective, the author meanders through the increasing tendency to legally regulate recreational cannabis markets notwithstanding the obligation enshrined in the UN drug control conventions to limit cannabis exclusively for ‘medical and scientific’ purposes. Taking into account relevant national and international developments, the chapter describes how the growing discomfort with the status of cannabis and the prohibitive and punitive approach stemming from the international drug control regime went through a process from soft to hard defections of the treaty obligations. The case of the Netherlands demonstrates the difficulty faced by reform-minded states in reconciling their wish for a different cannabis control mechanism with their obligations under international law, resulting in an incomplete regulation of its coffee-shop system, where small amounts of cannabis are tolerated for sale, but where the illicit supply to the shops remained unregulated. Subsequent more wide-ranging reforms to regulate cannabis from seed to sale in Uruguay, several US States and – in 2018 – in Canada, are clearly violating the obligations of the UN drug control conventions. Nevertheless, the HLMS will likely leave the elephant in the room untouched. The emerging paradigm shift regarding cannabis shows that a modernisation of the UN drug control regime is long overdue. This chapter discusses some of the options available.

The argument is presented that, is contrast to expectations, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA) of 2000 will not be responsible for significant change in the practice of civil asset forfeiture, that the Act is a sheep in wolf's clothing. While it has ushered in some important procedural changes, CAFRA does not address several of what critics perceive to be the most significant problems associated with civil asset forfeiture, among them are a questionable standard of proof, equitable sharing, and the so‐called “taint doctrine.” Thus, it is likely that civil asset forfeiture will continue to be a valuable law enforcement tool in the war on drugs.

The United Nations General Assembly Special Session on drugs has provided countries with internationally agreed recommendations to adapt their drug policies for more efficiency and better outcomes. This chapter focusses on the Russian Federation’s role in international drug policy, through an analysis of its national approaches and their design, as well as on its diplomatic efforts at the bilateral and multilateral levels to oppose drug policy reform. A systematic review of peer-reviewed, grey literature, policy documents, UN reports and news reports on the country’s response to drugs internally and externally was conducted between September and December 2017. Despite its efforts to oppose drug policy reform and the prioritisation of public health, the Russian Federation faces major epidemics of imprisonment and HIV. Internationally, while it has not been successful in addressing the ongoing reforms in Europe and the Americas, it has been effective in preserving its international priorities by opposing harm reduction and maintaining the prohibition paradigm at the multilateral level.

States in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) have historically leaned towards conservative, reactionary models of drugs policy. The combination of authoritarian forms of government, whether dynastic monarchies (Morocco, Jordan and Persian Gulf countries), semi-military republics (Syria, Egypt and Algeria) or religiously sanctioned republics (Iran), with the strong influence of Islamic law and norms, has signified that the region has enforced strict forms of drug prohibitions. For that matter, the region is home to cultural and social norms that are less permissive than in other regions of the world: for instance, with regard to premarital sex, homosexuality, clothing, alcoholic drinks and freedom of expression. This image of the MENA region is often overplayed by media commentators and Western scholars, especially in the field of drugs policy. The almost total absence of studies of drugs policy or drugs history in the MENA, excluding works in epidemiology, speaks well about the oblivion to which the region has been relegated over the last decades. The chapter provides first a background on the main questions regarding MENA drugs policy, looking at the historical developments in drug regulations and drug trends. Then, it discusses the current policies that operate across the region and, if pertinent, the prospects of policy development. When necessary, the argument refers to contextual elements that have influenced the direction in national and transitional drugs policy. Conscious of the fact that the MENA is as vast and diverse as a continent, I have opted to focus on three paradigmatic cases (Iran, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia), which provide an adequate geographical and thematic coverage of the MENA drugs policy. The three cases cover different aspects of today’s MENA drugs policy spectrum, from draconian repressive measures to progressive harm reduction programmes. Taken in their geographical dimension one can appreciate the variety and difference that exists within the MENA region, therefore supporting one of the key objectives of this chapter, which is to provide a nuanced analysis of drugs policy against the grain of homogenising and culturally reductive approaches.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss priorities for effective responses to illicit drugs in West Africa in a changing international policy environment.

The paper analyzes published research, technical papers and reports on drug use and policy responses in West Africa and opines on priorities for drug policy in the region within the post-United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) 2016 policy environment.

Drug use and related harms continue to increase in West African countries despite efforts to reduce drug trafficking and use through legal prohibition. The UNGASS 2016 outcome document enables flexibility in policy interpretation and implementation, which provides an opportunity for governments to prioritize national needs in drug policy. West African countries should prioritize and support research and data collection, prevention, treatment and harm reduction and sustainable livelihoods.

The paper emphasizes the need for West African countries to seize the opportunity created by the ineffectiveness and weakening of the prohibition regime as well as new treaty flexibility following UNGASS 2016 to reform drug policies to prioritize regional and national needs.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights outlines fundamental protections for all human beings. Critically, such rights and protections are particularly applicable to those imprisoned throughout all carceral spaces: the right to physical security; freedom from torture and other cruel and unusual punishments; equal protection under the law; and a right to a community standard of living, including food, clothing, medical care, and social services. The need for special vigilance in applying these principles to justice settings for children and women entwined in these spaces has been met with the development and implementation of the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-Custodial Measures for Women Offenders (2010) or the Bangkok Rules. These Rules provide for a women-centered approach to human rights within correctional environments. The Bangkok Rules are based on several dominant themes relevant to women in prison and additionally emphasize the importance of alternatives to custody. Since their adoption over 10 years ago, there has been clear progress in implementing and promoting the Bangkok Rules throughout Southeast Asia, as we will describe in this chapter. While we applaud these efforts, there is still much work to do within the region. We argue that attention is needed both within and outside of women’s prisons to expand the promise of the Bangkok Rules beyond current efforts. In our view, the attention inside prison walls must now turn to addressing intersections between gender and other marginalized statuses, ensuring all forms of safety, dignity, and respect. Outside prison, reform of egregious and punitive drug laws is essential. Equally important, is the critical need to develop a more robust response in terms of non-custodial measures and other non-prison-based responses to women in conflict with the law.

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.

Women across the world are being incarcerated at an alarming rate. Between 2000 and 2017, the female incarceration rate worldwide increased by 53.3%, whereas the male incarceration rate increased by only 19.6%. In Latin America, drug offences are the first or second cause of female incarceration. The excessive use of pre-trial detention, mandatory minimum sentences, and disproportionate penalties characterise the region’s drug policies. Recent data compiled by the Washington Office on Latin America show that between 35% and 70% of incarcerated women, depending on the country, are behind bars due to a drug offence, while for men the rate is much lower. In other words, harsh drug laws disproportionately impact women.

Qualitative research on female prisoners accused of drug-related offences shows how gender roles, gender-based violence and social exclusion are often triggering factors for women’s participation in the drug trade. Agency and victimisation co-exist in these women’s stories, and while drug trafficking becomes a means to cope with adversity, it also further enhances previous vulnerabilities, and incarceration can have a devastating impact on their families. These women are engaged in high-risk activities but represent a low risk to society. Drug law reforms and the use of alternatives to incarceration could reduce the number of women behind bars for low-level drug offences.

This paper aims to explore the context and implications of the New Zealand Drug and Substance Drug Checking Acts 2020 and 2021.

This discussion provides a description of legislative changes about drug checking in the New Zealand context, alongside a critical analysis of the interlinked factors surrounding these important pieces of legislation.

The legalisation of drug checking is an important harm reduction development in the New Zealand context, although overregulation of licensing requirements should be avoided, as well as overly punitive responses to peer service providers who may have criminal convictions. The new regulations should also ensure that innovation around new technology or products tested is not stifled.

New Zealand is the only country to introduce permanent national legislation to legalise drug checking, and as such analysis of the legislation is of interest to the international community.