56th Session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Vienna

11 to 15 March, 2013, Vienna

The world is calling for fundamental reform of drug policies.

Will the UN finally respond?

Press conference Encod delegation in Vienna: Monday 11 March, 10.00 hs, at the entrance of the Vienna International Centre, Wagramer Strasse 5, Vienna

In March 1961, the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs was signed. This Convention obliges all UN member states to prohibit the production and distribution of a number of psychoactive substances that are considered dangerous for public health.

From 11 to 15 March 2013, the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs will have its 56th Annual Meeting in Vienna. Encod will participate in this meeting and present the following request:

Why is the subject of regulation of drugs not on the agenda of the CND?

Is the global community really convinced that drug prohibition is working so well, that there is no need to even consider alternative policies? That seems improbable. We will try and answer this question. First we’ll give our opinion on the subjects of the three round tables that will be held this year.

Round Table One – Demand Reduction

In 1988 the “DECLARATION ON THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION was adopted by the United Nations. All countries that signed the UN drug conventions believed that continued prohibition plus education and prevention would reduce drug demand globally. Collectively they were very wrong. But they continued to support it, due to inertia, fear of losing the good job, pension and traveling to all these great conferences.

Among the more important findings from this year’s Monitoring the Future survey of U.S. secondary school students are the following: Marijuana use among teens rose in 2011 for the fourth straight year – a sharp contrast to the considerable decline that had occurred in the preceding decade. Daily marijuana use is now at a 30-year peak among high school seniors.

The obvious conclusion drawn from this and from a succession of other reports is this: the legal status of a drug does not influence the outcome of the demand reduction measures. That is in sharp contrast to the usage rate of cigarettes, a regulated drug, which was significantly reduced from 37% use in 1975 to less than 20% in 2011.

The bottom line: it is more effective to reduce drug demand through prevention and education of a regulated drug (like cigarettes) than to try and achieve this by prohibition.

Round Table Two – Supply reduction

In a system with legally regulated drug markets, there will be little or no need for a separate entity “supply reduction”. This term addresses the productivity of the black market which has been created by prohibition. “Supply reduction” tries to undo the direct consequences of an illusory policy.

The only way in which government policies can possibly lead to a reduction of drug supply is by an attitude of soft paternalism: providing correct information; regulating reliable and safe production and trade; discouraging drug use while accepting and even promoting the emergence of protective informal social norms surrounding drug use. Similar to the way in which cigarette smoking can, and has has been reduced, without relying on incarceration as main weapon.

Round Table Three – Countering money-laundering

This kind of presentation seems to be unavoidable or even untouchable like most dogmas that are haunting at present the Vienna International Center. Probably, no-one would dare to stand up and say there might be some advantages in money laundering. According to former UNODC executive director Antonio Costa, it keeps some banks from bankruptcy.

As international community we have the duty not to oversee several side effects of the global drug policies creating huge opportunities for an immense market, open 24 hours and fostering our direct criminal negligence stimulated by ideological campaigns surrounding the phenomenon of drug circulation as matter of fact, and not being considered as a market of commodities, even by most historical materialists.

The extent of the illegal drug money is higher than 7% of the world budget, and according to former UNODC executive director Antonio Costa it helps Western economies survive. In Italy the chief of the secret service and the chief of the Antidrug Department are brothers.
In Vienna, the war on drugs and the war against crime merged into one office: UNODC. Half of the office creates the crimes for the other half!

We repeat the question with which we opened this statement:

Why is the subject of regulation of drugs not on the agenda of the CND?

The anwer can only be that too many interests of influential people and powerful organisations are threatened by ending the war on drugs.

The organisers of the three round tables seem quite confident that nothing will change the current approach. Until recently, only former politicians dared to question the axioma that prohibition is the only way to protect mankind against the danger of drugs. Even Kofi Annan joined the list of these ex-politicians. But last year, three active presidents of Latin American countries demanded a study of drug regulation. The official UN reaction has been that the subject cannot be taken up before 2016. As if there is no urgency!

Study of drug regulation is the highest necessity for every organisation interested or involved in drug policy. There are several reasons for this.

1. The debate on the need for a study of alternative drug policies is intensifying and gaining speed at a global scale. At the level of decision makers, however, the subject simply does not figure on the agenda.

2. The experiences with (de facto) cannabis decriminalization in the Netherlands and with decriminalization of the other drugs in Portugal and other countries show that legal regulation of forbidden drugs does not increase the drug problem.

3. Continuation of drug prohibition, without considering alternative policies, must be seen as criminal negligence and dereliction of duty.

4. Future generations will want to know how it was possible that the disastrous prohibition of drugs has continued for so long, without serious thought about alternatives.

5. This is a complex issue, because it touches upon many spheres of life and many parts and aspects of society, but it should not be made more complicated than it is. Only a few of the many areas of dispute are decisive with respect to the central and most pressing question: which sort of regulation is most appropriate for drug markets?

For these reasons ENCOD demands that UNODC starts a study of models of regulation for presently prohibited drugs.

You will soon read more about the experiences of the Encod-delegates: Enrico Fletzer, Farid Ghehioueche, Frantisek Pisarik and Fredrick Polak

Republish