Durante el año pasado las organizaciones de ENCOD estuvieron involucradas en la elaboración del Estudio “Drogas y Diplomacia: una investigación”. Para ello, se realizaron diversas actividades, entre ellas, dos Talleres de trabajo en Murgia, en noviembre de 2008 y abril de 2009. El informe final, Usos de drogas y participación democrática, ha sido publicado en octubre de 2009.
Virginia Montañés Sánchez, ponencia presentada en el Workshop “Evaluación de políticas y programas relacionadas con el fenómeno social de las drogas en la Unión Europea“, Instituto Internacional de Sociología Jurídica, Oñati, 8 y 9 de mayo de 2006
El objetivo de la presentación es analizar la participación de la sociedad civil en la evaluación y diseño de las políticas de drogas de la Unión Europea; explorar las redes de organizaciones de la sociedad civil trabajando en Europa en el ámbito del fenómeno de las drogas y las estructuras de comunicación entre sociedad civil e instituciones europeas en otros sectores; y, por último, presentar una propuesta sobre cómo debería estructurarse un espacio de diálogo entre la sociedad civil y la Comisión Europea en el ámbito de las drogas.
Durante la última Asamblea General, ENCOD decidió revisar las políticas de
reducción de daños y elaborar un documento de debate con propuestas sobre cómo deberían formularse políticas de reducción de daños más justas y eficaces. Para ello, estamos recabando información de todas aquellas organizaciones que trabajan en este ámbito. Os rogamos rellenéis este cuestionario y nos lo enviéis por email antes del 15 de marzo.
Muchas gracias por vuestra participación.
Un abrazo
Virginia Montañés
****
CUESTIONARIO
¿Cómo definiríais el concepto de RD en vuestra asociación?
¿Qué razones han llevado a tu entidad a trabajar en intervenciones de
reducción de daños?
¿Habéis recibido algún tipo de formación en RD? ¿qué entidad os ha dado la formación? ¿quién ha financiado la formación?
¿Qué tipo de intervenciones de RD se hacen en tu entidad? Diferenciar
intervenciones según sustancias, entornos, infraestructura (generación de espacios para promover el consumo responsable), por edades, por sexo, género, otras.
¿Qué tipo de intervenciones creéis que se deberían hacer y no se hacen? Diferenciar intervenciones según sustancias, entornos, estructurales, por edades, otras.
¿Por qué creéis que no se hacen?
¿Cómo creéis que se debería aplicar el enfoque de género en las
políticas de reducción de daños?
En el caso de que lo hagáis, ¿Cómo gestionáis la combinación de
programas libres de drogas con intervenciones de RD?
¿Qué política de RD se aplica en tu comunidad? ¿es coherente con el
discurso de los políticos sobre el tema?
¿Qué política de RD se aplica en el estado español? ¿es coherente con el
discurso de los políticos sobre el tema?
Opcionales para aquellas organizaciones que ya rellenaron el cuestionario sobre Drogas y Diplomacia:
¿Tenéis comunicación con las administraciones que diseñan y ejecutan las políticas de drogas en vuestra zona? ¿es formal o informal?
Esta comunicación, ¿ha surgido por iniciativa de la administración o
vuestra?
During the last General Assembly, ENCOD decided to review the harm reduction policies and to elaborate a debate document with proposals on how more just and effective drug policies should be formulated. In order to fulfil that goal we are collecting information from all those organisations working in this area.
We will very grateful if you fill this questionnaire and send it to us before
March 15th.
With the responses we get we will elaborate a document that will be sent to you for comments.
Thanks a lot for your collaboration
Best regards
Virginia Montañés
****
QUESTIONNAIRE
How would you define the concept of harm reduction in your association?
What were the reasons why your organisations started to work on harm
reduction interventions?
Have you ever received any training on harm reduction? What entity did give that capacitation? Where did you get the funds from?
What kind of harm reduction interventions your organisation is implementing? Please, differenciate according to substances, environments, age, sex, gender, etc.
What kind of interventions do you think should be implemented and are
not? Please, differentiate according to substances, environments, age, sex, gender, etc.
Why do you think they are not implemented?
How do you think the gender perspective should be applicated in the harm reduction policies?
In case you work with both kind of programmes, how do you manage the
combination of drug free programmes with harm reduction interventions?
What kind of harm reduction interventions are promoted in your country by the administration? Are they coherent with the policy on drugs that is carried out in your country?
Optional questions for those who already filled the questionnaire on Drugs and Diplomacy:
Do you have any communication with the administration that design and
implement the drug policies in your country? Is it formal or informal? Could
you describe it?
This communication, was an initiative from your organisation or did it come from the administration?
La Federación Estatal de Asociaciones de Personas Afectadas por las Drogas y el VIH (FAUDAS) reivindica mayor respeto a los derechos de las personas usuarias de drogas y afectadas por el VIH y el aumento de medidas para reducir los daños provocados por ciertas formas de consumo y ciertos efectos negativos de las políticas de drogas.
La Alianza para legalizar el cannabis de UK (LCA) ha publicado el boletín de agosto de 2008 de la Alianza.
Puedes descargarlo aquí (en inglés): http://www.lca-uk.org/newsletter_aug08.pdf
The Legalise Cannabis Alliance UK has published the LCA newsletter for August 2008.
You can download here: http://www.lca-uk.org/newsletter_aug08.pdf
Julian Critchley has come out and said what those in charge of UK drug policy won’t admit: prohibition doesn’t work
Danny Kushlick
guardian.co.uk,
Wednesday August 13 2008
The former head of the government’s UK anti-drug co-ordination unit (UKADCU), Julian Critchley, posted to BBC Home Affairs correspondent Mark Easton’s blog last week, The War on Drugs, calling for the legalisation of drugs. In his post he also reports how those he met during his time at the unit knew that criminalisation was causing more harm than the drugs themselves. (This comes as no surprise to anyone who has read the damning report from the prime minister’s strategy unit from 2003.)
Critchley says:
“I think what was truly depressing about my time in UKADCU was that the overwhelming majority of professionals I met, including those from the police, the health service, government and voluntary sectors held the same view: the illegality of drugs causes far more problems for society and the individual than it solves. Yet publicly, all those intelligent, knowledgeable people were forced to repeat the nonsensical mantra that the Government would be ‘tough on drugs’, even though they all knew that the Government’s policy was actually causing harm”.
Critchley is to be congratulated for speaking out with such candour on the issue. I have met many former and current civil servants who are of the same opinion, but haven’t gone public. What Critchley makes absolutely clear is that many, if not most of those working in the drugs field are knowingly colluding with a regime that actively causes harm. Their silence is not based on ignorance but is tacit support for one of the great social policy disasters of the last 100 years.
Critchley, having retrained as a teacher, concludes with the following:
“I find that when presented with the facts, the students I teach are quite capable of considering issues such as this, and reaching rational conclusions even if they started with a blind Daily Mail-esque approach. I find it a shame that no mainstream political party accords the electorate the same respect”.
His final comment ought to send a shiver down the spine of every UK voter. If you voted in the last election, you probably voted for prohibition. You voted to gift hundreds of billions of pounds to organised crime each year, to undermine the social and economic development of producer countries such as Colombia, Afghanistan as well as transit countries such as Guinea Bissau and Jamaica. You voted to double the amount of acquisitive crime in the UK and to double the prison population with it. Your “X” contributed to misery and degradation for millions of the most marginalised people on earth. Unless we all do something to change it, you will probably vote for prohibition next time too.
In 2003 at a press conference, I asked the then drugs spokesperson at the Home Office, Bob Ainsworth MP, whether the government would support a cost benefit analysis of drug law enforcement. Quick as a flash his reply came back: “Why would we want to do that unless we were going to legalise drugs?” Does that sound like a man ignorant of where that audit trail would lead?
It is the candour of the likes of Critchley and others that exposes the hypocrisy of those failing to speak out and makes prohibition untenable in the long term. As Joseph McNamara, former police chief of Kansas City and San Jose put it: “The drug war cannot stand the light of day. It will collapse as quickly as the Vietnam war, as soon as people find out what’s really going on.” Tragically and despicably, the government’s commitment to populist posturing means that the collapse will come far too late for many.
Dear Friends,
Let me call your attention to our new videos filmed at the Beyond 2008 global NGO forum, they are available on our website:
War on Drugs: The New Jim Crow?
Best wishes,
Peter Sarosi
Swisster
5 July 2008
by Malcolm Curtis
Four federal parties rally in support of an initiative to replace a ban
on cannabis use for adults, while strictly enforcing its prohibition for
those under 18. Swiss voters are set to vote on the issue, rejected by
parliament four years ago, in a November referendum.
A coalition of federal Swiss political parties of various stripes has
renewed a bid to decriminalize marijuana in the country. Elected members
of the Radical, Christian Democrat, Socialist and Green parties on
Friday endorsed an initiative that would regulate cannabis use while
making it illegal for children under the of 18.
The initiative is scheduled to be voted on by Swiss voters on Nov. 30.
The parties have urged people to say yes to the proposal. Members in
Bern said the initiative offers a “reasonable policy” governing the use
of marijuana that is preferable to the current prohibition.
They noted that the proposal effectively protects young people by
banning it for those underage. However the group maintains that for
adults smoking a joint is a personal choice over which each person can
make their own decision.
“It is necessary to remove emotion from the debate,” said Geri Müller, a
Green party member of parliament from Aargau, according to a report
carried by the ATS news service. Stéphane Rossini, Socialist party
member from Valais, said it was not a matter of minimizing the
seriousness of marijuana use but to go beyond dogmatic arguments and
issues of conscience.
Marijuana officially remains a banned drug in Switzerland though
possession in small quantities for personal use is tolerated in many
cantons. The politicians calling for changes to the law say the current
prohibition has failed to cut use. Christa Markwalder, Radical member of
parliament from Bern, said an estimated 500,000 people in Switzerland
are regular or occasional users of cannabis. The more than 27,500
complaints lodged annually with police (based on 2005 figures) have only
served to needlessly overload the police and judicial systems,
Markwalder indicated.
The initiative previously only had the official backing of the Socialist
and Radical parties. Four years ago, the federal parliament threw out a
similar proposal put forward by the government. Switzerland gained a
reputation for its liberal drugs policy in the late1980s, but public
opinion later changed. It remains to be seen whether this time round the
pendulum will swing back on this issue.