Search results

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.

The landscape for international drug policy is shifting rapidly as the tensions between the objectives, assumptions and activities that are being introduced at local level are tearing apart the assumptions on which the system was founded. Countries are divided into camps that pursue different aims with drug policy. In addition to an established distinction between those that seek to reduce drug harms and those pursuing a vision of a drug-free world, some UN member states have established licit markets for products that the conventions hold are available for medical and scientific purposes. This incongruence is matched by states in the other camp who apply capital and corporal punishment ostensibly in pursuit of a public health objective. These differences over underlying values, but also in the use of evidence, and interpreting the purpose of the drug control system are no longer reconcilable. While there is pressure on maintaining the system, it no longer serves an organic function and continues mainly for the benefit of constituent members. With the dissolution of US leadership, drug policy is no longer operating within an effective international framework.

Global drug policy has undergone significant change over the past decade, especially with the advent of the 2016 UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on drugs. This was a catalyst moment both in highlighting the need for a gender perspective in drug policy, and in initiating a review of the indicators used to evaluate progress in drug policy.

To date, the UN has not adequately tracked gender-specific data in drug policy. This is symptomatic of the lack of focus granted to the specific vulnerabilities and needs of women in the illicit drug trade. This has resulted in a knowledge and understanding gap in relation to the issues faced by women worldwide.

The importance of quantitative and qualitative data and analysis of how and why women are involved in the illicit drug trade, and how this relates to their age, ethnicity, socio-economic status, family situation and history of trauma, violence and mental illness cannot be understated. Without adequate indicators on the underlying factors of their engagement in the trade, the differentiated impacts that both drugs and drug policies have on their lives, and the vulnerabilities they may face, policy makers will be unable to design and implement drug policies that are truly effective.

This chapter provides a historic overview of how data on women has so far been tracked by the UN. The chapter will then look to the future, focussing on opportunities to identify more meaningful indicators within a revised Annual Reports Questionnaire, and also by leveraging the Sustainable Development Goals, UN human rights mechanisms and civil society research.

The purpose of this paper is to explain how international drug policy continues to have a hugely damaging effect on population health, human rights and wellbeing, not only on individuals who consume and/or sell drugs but also on societies as a whole. And to review whether anything has changed after United Nations General Assembly Special Session.

UNGASS had been seen as a real opportunity for scientific evidence to become the driver of future drug policy. This paper looks at any changes that have since taken place that might support such an aspiration.

The authors found the criminalisation and incarceration of people who use drugs, mainly from the most marginalised sections of society, remains the primary response in almost every member state of the UN and there are at least 33 countries that retain the death penalty for drug offences. The impact on the health of people who inject drugs (PWIDs) living with HIV is devastating and overdose and AIDS related mortality are the leading causes of death. Hepatitis C infections among PWIDs are increasing at epidemic levels even though this now a curable disease.

Changes in drug policy urgently needed.

This paper is an important review of the health implications of bad drug policy.

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.