Saturday, March 24, 2018
Last week, the Drug Policy Futures network made a presentation at the 61st session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna.
The following is their document spelling out what they consider the best formula for sensible and workable drug policy.
Ten Steps for Successful National Action on Drugs
The 2016 UNGASS Outcome Document provides a comprehensive menu for a broad, balanced and effective drug policy, based on public health, human rights and the three international drug conventions.
Member states and civil society organizations from all over the world should use the years leading up to the next milestone in 2019 for one thing: action and implementation at the national and local level. We don’t need more words, documents, or commissions. We need action.
The Drug Policy Futures network appeals to all Member States to prioritize the following ten areas when addressing the Outcome Document, consistent with the social and political context of their respective nations. These steps, if well-implemented, will greatly improve national drug policies and yield to a substantial reduction in drug-related harms.
1) Reduce drug use prevalence
The overarching goal of every Member State’s drug policy should be reducing the prevalence of drug use. This will lead to lower numbers of problematic drug users, as well as a reduction in numbers of adolescents who are exposed to drug use in their peer group. Member States should monitor drug use prevalence regularly and adjust policies based on results to make prevention programmes more efficient.
2) Mobilize a million communities
Effective prevention efforts are even more effective when they are synergistic and implemented by local communities. Local initiatives should involve local authorities and public services, schools, police, parent groups, community-based organisations, sports clubs, religious groups etc. The UNODC International Standards on Drug Use Prevention list a broad selection of recommended interventions that can be used in community programmes.
3) Programmes for better parenting
Parents can make a big difference as agents for prevention. They have a great influence on the behaviour of and the future of their own children, as well as other children in their community. All countries should therefore develop and implement culturally sensitive support programmes for better parenting. Such programmes can serve to build self-confidence for parents, build networks, and disseminate knowledge about the impact of drugs on young people’s development and their peer group.
4)Prioritize early intervention and assistance to vulnerable groups
Schools and local communities should set up systems to assist vulnerable groups, particularly children. Identifying and helping youth who struggle with childhood trauma, family problems, abuse, school attendance, and other problems is important. At such an early stage, even simple interventions by teachers, health or social workers, and family and neighbours can make a great difference.
5)Offer treatment, rehabilitation, and harm-reduction alternatives
Based on the principle of non-discrimination, all people with drug use disorders must have access to a wide range of services. Treatment, harm reduction, and rehabilitation should be integrated. Such services must also aim at maximizing the affected individuals’ possibility for recovery, and include family and friends. Empowering those struggling with drug abuse through connecting the individuals’ own resources with health care providers is essential to limiting mortality and morbidity while preserving dignity and self-respect.
6)Organize local support systems after specialized treatment
Failing to reintegrate those who have completed specialized treatment back into their communities wastes resources and causes human suffering. Treatment programmes must plan for reintegration with society afterwards; a place to live, meaningful work, a social network, and meaningful leisure activities. Treatment centres and local municipalities must coordinate reintegration from the very start of the treatment programme.
7)Support self-help groups for drug users and those in recovery
Across the globe, self-help groups for drug users (current users as well as those in recovery), have proven successful as a tool for escaping from drug abuse and reintegration into society after treatment. Such groups are therefore a very useful complement to more formal treatment services, and should be integrated into the totality of treatment and recovery services in all countries.
8)Support alternative development
A development approach aimed at improving people’s quality of life is needed to mobilize local communities where illicit drugs are produced. Governments in these countries should fund alternative development programmes in drug-producing areas. The most conflict-ridden countries in Latin America and Asia need support from the international community. Good governance is also a critical part of alternative development; if corruption is not controlled, drug-related crime cannot be controlled.
9)Develop and implement alternatives to incarceration
Several countries have already implemented an array of diversion programs to replace incarceration or fines as reaction to minor drug offences, including dissuasion commissions, youth contracts, drug courts, and rehabilitation programs for drug users. More countries should follow suit and experiences should be shared internationally, organized through UNODC.
10)Implement the principle of proportionality in sanctions
Sanctions for drug-related offences must be proportional to the crime committed. The international drug conventions do not demand incarceration for drug users. Rather, they encourage prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation as alternatives. These approaches focus on treating the substance abuse disorder underlying criminal activity. Additionally, militarization of law enforcement, capital punishment and other inhumane and disproportionate methods should be abolished as they are not in accordance with the spirit of UN conventions.
This ten point statement is supported by an alliance of networks that include more than 300 NGOs from all over the world.
Drug Policy Futures is a global platform for a new drug policy debate based on health. We reject the simple dichotomy between ”a war on drugs” on the one hand and ”legalization” on the other.
Instead we believe in engaging in an open dialogue about the strengths and weaknesses of global drug policies. We will advocate for evidence based strategies to promote public health, safety and and the well-being of society, including those addicted to drugs and their families.
Download the document: (Click Here)
ERRONEOUS STUDY ON VANCOUVER INJECTION SITE EXPOSED
DPNC
M E D I A R E L E A S E
For immediate Release September 22, 2011
ERRONEOUS STUDY ON VANCOUVER INJECTION SITE EXPOSED
Three Australian doctors, a Canadian Ph.D., and Dr. Robert Dupont, the President of the US National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), are part of an international team, which has exposed major, inexcusable errors in a highly influential 2011 Lancet study on Vancouver’s Insite injecting facility. The study had claimed that the site has reduced overdose deaths in the immediate surrounding area (Down Town East Side-DTES). This recent analysis nullifies the Lancet study’s claims, which are found to be unsustainable. According to data from the British Columbia’s Coroner’s office, the number of deaths from drug overdose in the drug injection area has not decreased, but increased each year from 2002 – 2007, despite Insite’s commencement in 2003 (see endnote).
See analysis at www.drugfree.org.au/fileadmin/Media/Global/Lancet_2011_Insite_Analysis.pdf
The erroneous Lancet study was conducted by the same researchers who had previously completed over two dozen other, well publicized, positive, studies on the drug injection site. These researchers however, have a conflict of interest, in that they were also the lobbyists for the establishment of the drug injection site over a decade ago.
A complaint about this questionable research has now been filed with the University of British Columbia, who employs the Lancet study researchers.
The Lancet article, published on 18 April 2011, may be influential in the Canadian Supreme Court hearings on the drug injection site held on May 12 this year, having been strategically timed to be distributed to the media the week the case was argued before the court. The Court reserved its decision on whether the Canadian government can close the facility, having been hampered from doing so by the court action launched by the operators and supporters of the site.
This exposure of the erroneous study points out that activists cannot be relied on to provide objective science. The dozens of other studies on Insite provided by these activists are now also under a cloud, as a result of the errors found in 2011 Lancet study.
Contact:
C. Gwendolyn Landolt Chuck Doucette
President Vice President
(905) 787-0348 (778) 838-0201
Al Arsenault
Board Member
(604) 788-7051
MR 2011-01
BACKGROUNDER
The Lancet article on Insite by Brandon D L Marshall, M-J Milloy, Evan Wood, Julio S G Montaner and Thomas Kerr titled “Reduction in overdose mortality after the opening of North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility: a retrospective population-based study” can be found at http://www.communityinsite.ca/injfacility.pdf.
The Coroner’s data for British Columbia, Vancouver and the Downtown Eastside (where Insite is located) is as follows:
|
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
|
| Vancouver |
140 |
191 |
108 |
87 |
90 |
49 |
51 |
67 |
56 |
54 |
55 |
| All BC |
310 |
417 |
278 |
248 |
246 |
170 |
189 |
194 |
218 |
228 |
200 |
| DTES |
76 |
38 |
38 |
31 |
27 |
28 |
32 |
37 |
38 |
46 |
Coroner’s data for BC and Vancouver: http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/coroners/publications/docs/stats-illicitdrugdeaths-1997-2007.pdf
DTES data only for each year at Table 45, BC Vital Statistics Agency, Annual Reports: http://www.vs.gov.bc.ca/stats/annual/