It might be just two pages long, but a leaked briefing paper purporting to be from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime is generating international controversy as readers debate whether it was advancing an official policy position on the part of the international agency. Did the UN just say that it thinks member nations should decriminalize drugs, or is the situation a little bit more complicated?
The paper is raising some important questions about the cost of drug policy either way, as most member nations have drug laws of varying degrees of strictness, and the social cost of such laws is considerable, eating up valuable time for police officers and the judicial system in addition to crowding jails and prisons with nonviolent offenders.
Before plunging into the specifics of the document, it’s important to remember that while the UN can make policy recommendations and encourage member nations to abide by them, it cannot set law within individual countries. For example, it can ban war crimes on an international level, but it can’t outlaw stop and frisk in New York City. This would be considered undue interference with the independence of member nations.
When the United Nations researches and develops policy documents, it does so with the intent of encouraging member nations to adopt them, and it provides supplemental materials to support them, but it’s up to individual countries to decide how they want to use the information.
At first glance, the UN seems like it might be growing more liberal. In 2012, the organization evaluated the risks of criminalizing sex work and explored the possibility of decriminalizing, thereby making it much safer for sex workers in member nations to practice their trade. This year, Amnesty International joined the call as well. In the case of both sex work and drug policy, it’s important to be aware that a significant gulf exists between “decriminalization” and “legalization,” though the terms are sometimes mistakenly used interchangeably.
When activities are decriminalized, that means they’re no longer illegal – but it doesn’t mean they’re entirely legal, either. Trends in marijuana policy in the United States are a perfect example. In California, marijuana for medical use is decriminalized, but it’s still viewed under a framework of existing legislation. There’s no legal framework, as there is in Colorado, for regulating the legal growth and sale of marijuana.
That distinction becomes important with the two page brief, which was prepared, sources allege, for a harm reduction conference in Kuala Lampur, Malaysia. It notes that the information discussed is designed to provide guidance to nations considering decriminalization, whether de facto (still illegal, but won’t be prosecuted) or de jure (reflecting actual changes in the law). UN researchers note that criminalization comes with extremely high social and economic costs, as prosecuting drug cases is expensive, and so is locking up those convicted of drug crimes.
Additionally, criminalization can increase the risk of behaviors that expose people to serious illness, such as reusing needles and transmitting blood-borne viruses like HIV, because people can’t access safe, clean sources of drugs and paraphernalia. This is one reason the paper makes sense in the context of a harm reduction conference, as this school of social work is rooted in the idea that many people will engage in given behaviors no matter their legality or risk. So, socially, it makes sense to reduce risk in order to promote overall public wellbeing – needle exchanges are a classic example of harm reduction policy.
Notably, some parts of the document go a step further, suggesting some member nations may actually have an obligation to consider decriminalization under conventions of international law. Specifically, it cites obligations to public health and wellbeing, making the argument that regressive drug policy can generate public health risks.
The United Nations would need to prepare a longer and more detailed policy paper in consultation with international lawyers to develop and support this claim. But it could prove to be an interesting argument in the push for changing drug policy around the world.
Representatives of the UN say the document was not intended as a formal policy declaration, but was rather for internal circulation and discussion. The Telegraph agrees with this commentary, noting that official policy guidelines are usually much longer, involve a variety of personnel and are typically announced by high ranking officials rather than being quietly leaked.
A policy recommendation of this magnitude would most certainly involve a formal press conference, at the very least. The BBC is claiming that the UN’s recommendations were thwarted by pressure from member nations displeased wth the proposal, but the UN also denies this, noting that it’s difficult to withdraw a formal white paper that hasn’t actually been issued. However, this may be a hint of changes to come, which could be a good sign for the decriminalization movement’s efforts around the world to promote sound drug policy.
Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn
Dear Truthout Community,
If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.
We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.
Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.
There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.
Last week, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?
It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.
We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.
We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.
Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment.
We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.
With love, rage, and solidarity,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy