Chantelle Bellrichard, "Failures in International Drug Control: Solutions for the Policy Vacuum"

Paper Outline

Addiction is a complex illness that cannot be effectively addressed by piecing together different, and often opposing, pieces of international law.  As long as addiction exists, the international community will struggle to control the illicit drug trade.  Outdated drug conventions, enforced by the International Narcotics Board (INCB) and the United Nations Narcotics Control Board (NCB), are in constant conflict with current human rights rhetoric.  An overwhelming amount of evidence reveals that that 'War on Drugs' has failed.  Anand Grover, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights confirmed these sentiments in October 2010. The illicit drug trade is worth an estimated $320 billion annually, a healthy economy in contrast to the struggling licit market.  The drug market flourishes, supply and demand continue to rule. Admitting the failures of current drug policy is the first step to recovery.  International drug control needs to be reorganized around a United Nations convention that exclusively asserts the rights of the addict.  

Review of the current drug conventions.  There are currently three conventions, almost universally ratified.  No new convention since 1988.

Bodies within the United Nations that enforce drug conventions (INCB, NCB, UNODC)   

Failures of the “War on Drugs”.  

Human rights debates (harm reduction, safe injection sites vs. needle exchanges, forced treatment, torture and the death penalty)

Moving toward evidenced-based policy within a human rights framework in an attempt to restore balance between enforcement//harm reduction.  

Universal Human Rights  Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities  Right to the Highest Attainable Level of Health  Convention on the Rights of Persons with Addictions

Comments

[Chantelle]

Edit: Should be the INCB and the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) mentioned above. Not the United Nations Narcotics Control Board...

[Michael Byers]

I like this idea very much. Provocative but intellectually defensible. I foresee a term paper that could be developed further into a widely read published essay or academic article.

When talking about the failure of the war on drugs, make sure that you identify some of the major costs. The incarceration of millions of people for what are often non-violent, more-or-less socially acceptable acts. The displacement of limited police resources from other, more serious crimes. The disruption of rural livelihoods in countries such as Afghanistan and Columbia. All of which raise human rights issues of their own.

And I have one key question. You write that "International drug control needs to be reorganized around a United Nations convention that exclusively asserts the rights of the addict." The question: is a complete reorganization a necessary part of developing a convention on the rights of the addict? Or could such a convention start by being supplemental to the existing system, introducing a new dimension that could, over time, subvert and overturn the current drug control regime? The advantage of the latter approach is that it will be easier to achieve a convention if you treat the rights of the addict as an unaddressed issue, rather than as a top-to-bottom remaking of an established set of institutions and rules.

That said, you've come up with a great idea. Run with it!

[Dave Morgan]

Definitely a provocative topic. Does your argument suggest that drug policy should switch from controlling the trade to protecting the rights of addicts? As enforcement decreases, would this not open the door to increased trade, and, therefore, increased addiction? While I understand why the rights of addicts need to be protected (and completely agree with this), I don't necessarily agree that control and the protection of rights need to be mutually exclusive. I agree with Dr. Byers that a convention may be easier to establish if it supplements the existing regime, rather than starting from scratch.

[Marc]

^^ bumping the above for sure, but also just to supplement what they have in mind... I think that there's a fairly provocative normative claim nested in your argument for re-organization about the act of drug use itself. Granted hard-line stances have been ineffective to date, I worry that moving away substantially from enforcement is both politically problematic (ie a lot of people would likely take issue with it) and morally suspect, unless you want to make hard claims about people's rights to use any substance they desire.

[shannon dooling]

Hey....you probably skimmed this article in the Sun on Monday (for CUTBIRTH) but thought of you and your research. Food for thought, possibly:

t's only a matter of time until changes come to marijuana laws
by Ian Mulgrew
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/only+matter+time+until+changes+come+marijuana+laws/3793257/story.html#ixzz14rCEojDD
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/only+matter+time+until+changes+come+marijuana+laws/3793257/story.html

[Pablo Antezana]

According to the Vienna Declaration, the failure of “war on drugs” is even bigger when related to HIV Infections among injection-drug users. The Vienna Declaration, launched at the XVIII International AIDS Conference in Vienna-Austria, aims to reorient policies on injection drug use from focusing on prohibition and incarceration to focusing on treating addiction as a medical problem. The central argument is that “criminalization of illicit drug users is fuelling the HIV epidemic and has resulted in overwhelmingly negative health and social consequences”.

http://www.viennadeclaration.com/

[Hannah van Voorthuysen]

Hey Chantelle,

Research is currently being conducted which suggests that addiction is fueled by neurological predisposition. This could aid your argument that addicts deserve rights by treating this issue under a health paradigm. A similar strategy has been used within development circles re prostitution - arguing that a punitive legal environment makes the spread of HIV/AIDS in sex workers more likely due to fear of prosecution and lack of access to condoms (police have been reported to have confiscated condoms in certain countries).

ANYWAY this article is quite a useful resource: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/160/1/1?ijkey=854b818067bdc603bfb0b0e5a5dc1d2d97863e02&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

A friend of mine suggested it and may be able to help you out further (less jargon) if you'd like to pursue your argument along these lines.

H

[Scott Goosenberg]

As to Professor Byers's suggestion, I worry that seeking to re-formulate drug policy from the UN on down is extremely provocative, to the extent that it is entirely a normative enterprise that has little practical grounding. It is extremely important to handle the drug policy angle as a human right, rather than an attempt to force the hand of governments because you do not like their policies with respect to drugs.

In an attempt to understanding how you will ground your analysis, will there be any differentiation between "hard" and "soft" drugs, or are you going for the home run? It seems eminently plausible that states would be receptive to softening laws on drugs seen as having a smaller impact on the quality of life of others as well as the individual in question (marijuana, ecstasy in certain countries), but any umbrella policy seems perhaps out of reach. No UN resolution has the teeth to force states to downgrade their prohibitions on drugs like cocaine or heroin unless perhaps they are guilted into it via a human rights and rehabilitation argument.

Put simply, are you trying to tear the whole system down in advocating for a revolutionary change in the entire planet's drug policies? Is your hope that a significant-enough swath of the planet will embrace the policy that those who ignore it or opt-out can be offset by the level of progress? And finally, like I spoke to earlier, are you going to attempt to ease in by floating a policy vis-a-vis "soft drugs," or is it the entire enterprise of criminalizing drugs writ large that you seek to abolish?

I do not intend to quibble over details; I think these distinctions are very significant on a practical level.

[Chantelle]

Thanks for all the feedback, has given me a lot to think about and many points to clarify in my paper.

I do not plan to advocate for legalizing drugs. Nor do I plan to assert the right to abuse drugs. I am most concerned with the rights of the addict from a health and safety perspective. Moving the policy away from an enforcement platform and closer to a human rights approach.

I think this a symbolic step towards recognizing that addicts are a vulnerable population that need protection. While states have the duty and right to punish legitimate criminals (e.g. organized criminal organizations that traffic drugs), they also have a duty to protect their citizens. Drug addicts, like everyone else, should enjoy the right to the highest level of healthcare available in their given state: e.g. methadone programs, needle exchanges, safe-injection-sites. These are all effective harm reduction strategies that, despite public concern, have not resulted in a proliferation of illicit drug use.

I don't think you should have the option to buy crack at your local 7-11. But I do think you should have access to clean syringes if you find yourself sticking dope in your arm. It's more about public health than radical transformation of drug policy. There aren't THAT MANY intravenous drug users worldwide -- most reports I've come across put the number around 13 million. Addiction is not a choice. Nobody who experiments with drugs and/or alcohol plans to become an addict. Those who are unfortunate enough to battle this illness deserve medical support and effective treatment options.

[Marc]

Not sure if this is of any use to outside of footnote fodder, but there's are some serious environmental issues related to crop-spraying in Columbia to destroy cocoa, funded by the US war on drugs. Monsanto is up in that mix, too.

Here's some basic info:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto,_Agent_Orange,_Dioxins_and_Plan_Columbia#Plan_Columbia_and_the_deforestation_of_the_Amazon

and here too
http://www.rense.com/general5/monsanto.htm

[Pablo Antezana]

Chantelle:

I'm copying the link of the "Latin American Initiative on Drugs and Democracy". Probably the first two documents will be helpful.

http://www.drogasedemocracia.org/English/DocumentosComissao.asp

Pablo

[Michael Byers]

I like how you're focusing on the rights of addicts to healthcare, though part of doing that is sorting through how you can have rights associated with an illegal activity. This isn't as difficult as it might sound. The police can't engage in torture or the extra-judicial killing of criminals, even if they catch them in the act. You don't surrender your human rights by engaging in a criminal act. The real challenge might be in defining zones of policing versus health-care delivery, i.e. specifying that the police can't enter or impede entry or follow people who are leaving a safe-injection site. Just a thought. Great work so far!

[shannon dooling]

Hey Chantelle,

I forwarded a few emails from a woman that works for VCH. I met her at a public health workshop I attended a few month's ago for one of our same day stories. She sent me a ton of slides and info. on addiction. She is very passionate about helping people understand the illness and also works a great deal in DTES.

Might be a little late in the game, but I guess it couldn't hurt!