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 Outdated drug conventions, enforced by the International Narcotics Board (INCB) and the United Nations Narcotics Control Board (NCB), are in constant conflict with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.
As we define the human rights questions around Insite and similar safe injection sites, I'd like to pay special attention to the intersection of addiction and the law. Do the medical necessities that accompany addiction present governments with different considerations when treating addicts under the law? Can addiction be considered a compelling reason for a person to break local or federal statutes involving narcotics use, and should concerns about a greater societal good be weighed against the rights of an addict? For example, to what degree should the change in the rate of violent crime, for better or worse, be factored into the policy decision to allow or forbid drug use? And does a venue such as Insite – which in practice becomes a social center for intravenous drug users in addition to a purely medical facility – address a human rights concern that would fall outside the purview of other narcotics laws?
