Emerging policy contradictions between the United Nations drug control system and the core values of the United Nations

Bewley-Taylor, David

doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2005.06.007

Cited by 27 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet the unintended consequences, such as organised crime, the criminalisation of young people, police corruption and rising prison populations, are now even being recognised as a major problem by the international drug control bureaucracy itself (McCoy, 2004;Bewley Taylor, 2003;Lines, 2007;Costa, 2008). Moreover, the experience of drug control in the main theatres of the war on drugs first declared by Richard Nixon in 1973 has been pitiful.…”

Section: Costs and Consequences Of Inappropriate Khat Control Measuresmentioning

confidence: 98%

A good chew or good riddance—How to move forward in the regulation of khat consumption

Klein

Metaal²

2010

Journal of Ethnopharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Costs and Consequences Of Inappropriate Khat Control Measuresmentioning

confidence: 98%

A good chew or good riddance—How to move forward in the regulation of khat consumption

Klein

Metaal²

2010

Journal of Ethnopharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There have been attempts to move drug policy debates onward by arguing that article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (enshrining the right to privacy) entails a right to use drugs (Hunt, 2004), or by pointing to contradictions between the enforcement of UN drug conventions and the UN Charter or other legal instruments (Barrett, Lines, Schleifer, Elliott, & Bewley-Taylor, 2008;Bewley-Taylor, 2005;Mena & Hobbs, 2010). Given the widespread governmental commitment to such codified human rights (at least in rhetoric, if not so often in practice) and the ongoing development of case law in this area, it is valid for lawyers to continue to extend the application of these standards in the area of drug policy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drug policy, harm and human rights: A rationalist approach

Stevens

2011

International Journal of Drug Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: It has recently been argued that drug-related harms cannot be compared, so making it impossible to choose rationally between various drug policy options. Attempts to apply international human rights law to this area are valid, but have found it difficult to overcome the problems in applying codified human rights to issues of drug policy. Method: This article applies the rationalist ethical argument of Gewirth (1978) to this issue. It outlines his argument to the 'principle of generic consistency' and the hierarchy of basic, nonsubtractive and additive rights that it entails. It then applies these ideas to drug policy issues, such as whether there is a right to use drugs, whether the rights of drug 'addicts' can be limited, and how different harms can be compared in choosing between policies. Result: There is an additive right to use drugs, but only insofar as this right does not conflict with the basic and nonsubtractive rights of others. People whose freedom to choose whether to use drugs is compromised by compulsion have a right to receive treatment. They retain enforceable duties not to inflict harms on others. Policies which reduce harms to basic and nonsubtractive rights should be pursued, even if they lead to harms to additive rights. Conclusion: There exists a sound, rational, extra-legal basis for the discussion of drug policy and related harms which enables commensurable discussion of drug policy options.

show abstract

“…The polarized debate between the INCB, with its prohibitionist, criminalization perspective, and those governments wishing to pursue a "harm reduction" approach to drug control, is aired yearly at the annual meeting of the INCB. 49 Although State Parties argue that such practices are consistent with the international law, the INCB, in its annual report, frequently criticizes such public health practices as conflicting with the letter and the spirit of the Single Convention. 50 Although it has received highly limited public and media attention, the strict criminal justice approach to treaty interpretation and application advanced by the global drug agencies also impinges significantly on the legal and political capacity of states to ensure access to pain medication for legitimate medical purposes.…”

Section: Public Health and The Prohibitionist Bias Of The Global Drugmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing the Global Tragedy of Needless Pain: Rethinking the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs

Taylor¹

2007

J. Law. Med. Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The lack of medical availability of effective pain medication is an enduring and expanding global health calamity. Despite important medical advances, pain remains severely under‐treated worldwide, particularly in developing countries. This article contributes to the discussion of this global health crisis by considering international legal and institutional mechanisms to promote wider accessibility to critical narcotic drugs for pain relief.

show abstract

Emerging policy contradictions between the United Nations drug control system and the core values of the United Nations

Cited by 27 publications

References 11 publications

A good chew or good riddance—How to move forward in the regulation of khat consumption

A good chew or good riddance—How to move forward in the regulation of khat consumption

Drug policy, harm and human rights: A rationalist approach

Addressing the Global Tragedy of Needless Pain: Rethinking the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About