Memorandum submitted by International
Drug Policy Consortium
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Repressive strategies to reduce the demand
and supply of cocaine have failed and have resulted in unintended
negative consequences in the UK. In many "producer"
or "trafficker" countries international collaboration
or outside pressure towards repressive strategies have also contributed
to violence and drug related crime, politicized crime, and corruption
at intolerable levels such that democracies have been undermined.
2. An objective and open debate of alternative
paradigms is now required, not least with regards to law enforcement
approaches.
3. Any new paradigm should involve: users
being treated as a matter of public health; efforts to reduce
consumption taking the form of information, education and prevention
schemes, and proportionate repression being limited to organised
crime.
4. All policies should be evidence based
and further resources should be allocated to a cost-benefit analysis
and an impact assessment of current strategies.
INTRODUCTION TO
THE SUBMITTER
5. The International Drug Policy Consortium
(IDPC) is a global network of NGOs and professional networks that
specialise in issues related to illegal drug production and use.
The Consortium aims to promote objective and open debate on the
effectiveness, direction and content of drug policies at national
and international level, and supports evidence-based policies
that are effective in reducing drug-related harm. It produces
occasional briefing papers, disseminates the reports of its member
organisations about particular drug-related matters, and offers
expert consultancy services to policymakers and officials around
the world. This memorandum draws on the work of our members.
TERMS OF
THE INQUIRY
6. Because of the high-level focus of IDPC
this memorandum is limited to those terms of inquiry appropriate
to our expertise.
Whether cocaine powder is now a street drug rather
than just one used recreationally by the relatively well-to-do
7. Both in the UK and abroad, cocaine powder
straddles both the street drug and the recreational market.
The Influence of "celebrity cocaine culture"
as criticised in the UNODC's critical report on the UK last year
8. The influence of celebrity drug offenders
was actually criticized in the report of the International Narcotics
Control Board ("INCB") in 2007. Whatever the merits
of this criticism, IDPC noted with much disappointment the absence
from this report of more pertinent issues. For example, an essential
aspect of the role of the INCB is to ensure the adequate supply
of licit "medical and scientific" uses of substances
controlled under the 1961 and 1971 treaties, yet the report made
no comment on the shortage or illegality of methadone or buprenorphine
treatment for addiction (both essential medicines according to
the World Health Organisation) in countries across the former
Soviet Union and Asia. Likewise, despite its mandate, the INCB
remained silent in this report on the human rights abuses perpetrated
in Thailand in the preceding years as well as the many deaths
caused to children and others unconnected with drug-trafficking
that resulted from police incursions into Rio's favelas to fight
Brasil's "war on drugs".
9. Unfortunately, international collaboration
on drug policy cannot be safely delegated to the United Nations.
The high level review of international drug policy which took
place between 2008 and 2009 under the auspices of the United Nations
Office on Drugs and Crime was extremely disappointing, notwithstanding
the best efforts of the UK delegation and a small minority of
others. In particular, there was a total unwillingness to confront
the real policy dilemmas or acknowledge the situation on the ground
with respect to the drug problem. The resulting political declaration
was weak and inconclusive and belied the system wide incoherence
of the UN. Individual states must therefore take individual responsibility
for their part in causing as well as for resolving the cocaine
and other drugs problems.
The effectiveness of advertising campaigns in
deterring use
10. There is a desperate scarcity of research
or evidence on this topic and indeed on other prevention methods,
nevertheless huge amounts of money are spent on advertising and
other such schemes. On the other hand, enforcement efforts having
failed and the only hope of solving the drug problem lies within
reducing consumer demand. Rectifying this problem by way of commissioning
research and impact assessments of prevention strategies (and
allocating appropriate resources for this task) is therefore imperative.
Trends in the use of crack cocaine
11. In the UK, the retail trade in crack
at low street-prices has been a fixture since the early 1990s;
a decade that saw a rapid increase in users which now appears
to have slowed. Crack use and trade takes place in three contexts:
crack houses, delivery markets, and open street dealing. Vulnerable
users who are tenants can have their homes taken over by dealers
or engage in sex work or low-level dealing to fund their addictions.
These abusive situations, which are also detrimental in public
health terms, are a clear example of the negative unintended consequences
of the repressive strategies in the UK. Vulnerable people are
criminalised by virtue of their addiction and are therefore unable
to obtain support without fear of recrimination.
12. High levels of violence surrounding
crack markets and houses have been reported by the media and others.
This is a logical connection because of the nature of crack and
its use as well as the black-market trade and correlating efforts
at repression by police. This is another example of one of the
negative unintended consequences of the repressive drug control
strategies in the UK.
13. On the other hand—drawing on the
Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme Report Markets and
Urban Violence: Can Tackling One Reduce the Other? Closed
markets (ie less crack dealing from fixed locations and dealers
preferring to sell only to people that they already know) have
been seen to significantly reduce the violence associated with
the trade and use of crack. Also as socio-economically deprived
neighbourhoods and individuals are more susceptible to crack related
problems, gentrification/community development schemes have been
seen to have a beneficial effect on the problems associated with
cocaine trade and use.
14. The effectiveness of the relatively
recent UK diversion scheme for crack users into treatment via
the criminal justice system and the closure order facility is
yet to be assessed or subject to a cost-benefit analysis. Such
assessment should be undertaken and should also include a human
rights and civil liberty impact assessment, particularly as these
schemes raise concerns about informed consent, proportionality,
and the right to a private and family life.
International collaboration: the responses of
the producer countries
15. The disaggregation of countries into
the categories of producer, consumer, or trafficker must be undone.
Such disaggregation belies a lack of understanding that where
trafficking is disrupted or difficult, consumer demand is such
that production is displaced and will appear in a country that
might otherwise consider itself a consumer (including production
of precursor chemicals). In addition, where supply reduction measures
such as crop eradication are stringently employed, cultivation
will move to another area (this is known as the "balloon
effect"—squeezing a balloon in one place makes it expand
in another). Such measures have been shown not to reduce the supply
of cocaine on the world market but simply to displace cultivation
away from targeted areas.
16. What is required is an understanding
that responsibility is shared between the different actors of
the production, traffic and supply country-chains.
17. There is no doubt, that the "producer
countries" have sought to meet their side of this responsibility,
prioritising it, in many cases, over environmental, democratic,
and human rights concerns—see Plan Columbia. Despite these
many sacrifices, the countries involved have not seen a sustainable
reduction in their production and export of cocaine.
18. IDPC has long called for a shift in
attitude as to the merits of international collaboration, focused
as it currently is on the goal of eliminating or significantly
reducing the cultivation of coca leaf. There should be instead:
(a) An alternative livelihoods approach which
puts socio-economic development and human rights protections at
the core of international efforts. These efforts should be "main
streamed" into the broader development agendas of national
and local governments, donor countries and international financial
institutions for both improving overall quality of life (access
to health care, education, etc) and promoting economic development
to increase opportunities for employment and income generation.
(b) A long term international commitment to address
the root causes that are driving illicit crop cultivation, such
as armed conflict, human insecurity and poverty, in order to achieve
sustainable alternatives for communities in the affected areas.
(c) Support for the decriminalization of farmers
involved in the development of coca-crops and willingness to work
in partnership in development with them.
(d) An end for forced eradication (including
aerial spraying) and for the adoption of the principle that development
assistance should not be made conditional on reductions in illicit
drug crop cultivation. Once alternative livelihoods are in place,
then work can begin in collaboration with local community organizations
and members to reduce and if possible eliminate crops destined
for the illicit market.
(e) Recognition of the traditional cultural and
beneficial attributes of the coca leaf and support for its continued
use for such purposes.
(f) An assessment of the impact of international
trade agreements, high tariffs and national subsidy schemes to
identify obstacles for legal agricultural products from illicit
drug producing countries to enter the international market.
19. IDPC therefore supports the call of
Bolivia at the 2009 Commission on Narcotic Drugs that coca should
be removed from Schedule One of the 1961 Convention on Narcotic
Drugs as well as the findings of the Latin American Commission
on Drugs and Democracy.
International collaboration: the EU's external
borders
20. With reference to the EU drug strategy
2005-12, the EU remains the only region in which a defined, and
relatively strong, structure exists for comprehensive drug policy
development and review and this is welcome. Nevertheless, the
2007 Report of the Annual Report of the European Monitoring Centre
on Drugs and Drug addiction reveals that despite a significant
increase in drug seizures and arrests in the EU in recent years,
drug supply and use in the EU has remained generally stable since
2004, and there have been worrying increases in other areas, particularly
with regards to cocaine.
21. The movement of drugs to markets in
Europe is associated with very high levels of violence in the
transit regions and lessons should be learned from the experience
of others. For example, we know that the collaboration between
Mexico and the United States (the military crackdown on the back
of the promised Mérida initiative) has led to a very high
death toll from extreme drug related violence and has caused the
opening up of new trafficking routes via West Africa. The problem
has not been resolved, merely (at best) displaced and this is
not, therefore, a responsible strategy.
The police response: possession and dealing
22. Looking to other jurisdictions, it is
clear that repressive models have not been effective in reducing
crack/cocaine use or the harms caused by the drug. Certainly efforts
which fill prisons with low-level crack dealers and users make
little impact on the drug trade and cannot be justified. Indeed,
it is clear that state action itself can be a major contributor
or cause of urban violence and human rights abuses. Furthermore,
heavy handed policing can undermine confidence in the state as
well as reduce the collective ability of communities to control
disorder. The police response must therefore be proportionate
and combined with efforts to reduce socio-economic disadvantage,
as well as harm reduction and prevention strategies.
23. DPC has initiated a project whereby
senior law enforcement professionals are brought together from
different jurisdictions to discuss and develop more effective
drug law enforcement programmes. The preliminary conclusions of
this project are that:
(a) a consequence of current policing strategies
is the creation of a massive and lucrative black market that can
be and is exploited by organized crime, significantly increasing
its power and reach. Law enforcement actions against these markets
can create the conditions that favour the most violent and ruthless
criminals;
(b) successful operations against a particular
dealing network leads inevitably to an upsurge in violence as
new dealing groups fight over the turf left vacant (the balloon
effect);
(c) finite resources are wasted on ineffective
strategies and tactics—the result, of course, is that there
are fewer resources available for more effective actions; and
(d) drug users are marginalized. Law enforcement
action against users, and the surrounding social disapproval of
their behaviour, is often counterproductive to our objective of
reintegrating them into mainstream society. Criminalising, arresting
and imprisoning drug users has not been shown to deter drug use,
but does have the effect of breaking up their positive family
and community ties, and undermining their access to health services,
jobs and education.
24. The IDPC effective drug law enforcement
project therefore recommends a new set of objectives and priorities
for law enforcement action against drug markets and drug use which
focus on outcome indicators, measuring drug related crime, and
its contribution to health and social programmes. In particular,
priorities should be to refocus the fight against organized crime;
reduce market market-related violence; refer dependent drug users
into treatment; and support public health programmes.
RECOMMENDATIONS
25. Further to the recommendations contained
in the discussion of the terms of inquiry above, IDPC would echo
some of the recommendations of the European Commission mid-term
evaluation of EU drug strategy:
(a) The evidence base regarding supply reduction
interventions needs to be strengthened, and law enforcement actions
that aim to reduce the negative consequences of the drug trade,
as opposed to its scale, need to be given more emphasis.
(b) All engagement with other countries (through
multilateral forums and funding programmes) should emphasise the
EU commitment to a balanced approach to drug policy, based on
adherence to fundamental human rights standards.
(c) More effort should be made to address the
current gaps in information and policy analysis, to ensure that
future policies are based on sound evidence.
26. IDPC would further recommend:
(d) A clear framework be created for analyzing
the effectiveness of law enforcement activities in reducing the
supply and availability of cocaine;
(e) Investment in statistical research to test
reports of cocaine and crack related violence;
(f) Government should seek to reduce the levels
of economic disadvantage and inequality in UK cities, especially
within those most affected by the drug trade, as well as abroad
in "producer countries" in order to meet its duties
of alternative development.
(g) The focus of efforts should shift from reducing
the cocaine trade to reducing the harms caused by the cocaine
trade.
June 2009
| 
