UNGASS 2016: Prospects for Treaty Reform and UN System-Wide Coherence on Drug Policy

Abstract

This paper explores key lessons from the 1990 Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on Drug Abuse (UNGASS 1990) and the 1998 Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on the World Drug Problem (UNGASS 1998), and tracks subsequent policy events and trends. It discusses the wide array of increasing tensions and cracks in the “Vienna consensus,” as well as systemic challenges and recent treaty breaches. Various options for treaty reform are explored and the following questions are considered: Given policy developments around the world this past decade, what outcomes can the 2016 Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on the World Drug Problem (UNGASS 2016) have in terms of a new political compromise? How can UNGASS 2016 contribute to more system-wide coherence where previous attempts failed? Can UNGASS 2016 realistically initiate a process of modernizing the global drug control system and breathe oxygen into a system risking asphyxiation? Finally, is there a chance that treaty reform options will be discussed at all, or do today’s political realities still block possible future regime changes?

Variation in cannabis potency and prices in a newly legal market: evidence from 30 million cannabis sales in Washington state

“…People who celebrate the undermining of our existing treaties ought to worry a little about what will replace them [8]. It is hard to get almost 200 diverse countries to agree; Saudi Arabia and Switzerland do not see eye to eye on substance abuse policy or, more generally, on how to balance individual rights with state enforcement of collective moral codes.…”

UNGASS 2016: Insights from Europe on the development of global cannabis policy and the need for reform of the global drug policy regime

“…Bewley-Taylor et al (2014) suggest that this would suit the EU because they would be able to justify the varied innovative policy strategies within their borders without becoming embroiled in contentious debates about the need for treaty reform. Jelsma (2015), however, cautions that, ultimately, the UN drug control system will be weakened by a general relaxation of the rules, as important international standards around, for example, human rights, will also be eroded.…”

“…What seems clear is that this is likely to be a gradual process akin to the ending of alcohol prohibition in the US (Bewley-Taylor et al, 2014). Jelsma (2015) suggests that a useful outcome of UNGASS 2016 discussions would be the creation of an expert group to examine the options for reform of the global drug policy regime to bring it in line with recent drug policy developments. While the EU will not directly speak out on these issues at UNGASS 2016, it may be more possible to feed into general reviews of the existing system as part of the evidence gathering process.…”

“…The developments in cannabis policy and decriminalisation of drugs for personal use outlined above have combined with other important factors dramatic changes in our understandings of drug markets and the policies aiming to control them, an appreciation of the negative unintended consequences caused by stringently prohibitive drug policies, the rise of increasingly innovative harm reduction measures such as drug consumption rooms, Although there are no built in review mechanisms for the international drug conventions (Jelsma, 2015), since the 1990s, United Nations General Assembly Special Sessions (UNGASS) on drugs have been held as a forum to discuss the future of the global drug policy The special session will be used to debate many general issues human rights, harm reduction, prohibition but some have suggested that it could also be used as a platform to consider reform of the global drug policy regime: T reaty regime should somehow show more flexibility in order to allow this irreversible dynamic of reform to influence, adapt and modernise the system. That will be the main challenge for the 2016 remains that while EU member states are generally able to get behind broad principles such as the importance of human rights or the value of public health and harm reduction as part of a balanced drug policy, they are much less able to agree on specifics such as what cannabis policy should look like or whether or not the UN conventions should be reformed.…”

Canada, cannabis legalization and uncertainty around the United Nations drug control conventions

“…Hall is right to say that the future of the three UN drug control treaties is ‘now uncertain because of decisions by Uruguay, eight US states and Canada to legalize cannabis use’. It is fair to argue that what has usefully been called the global drug prohibition regime built around these multi‐lateral conventions is currently in an unparalleled period of uncertainty and crisis . That said, readers should not come away with the impression that officials in Montevideo and Washington DC have chosen simply to disregard the treaties and provisions concerning the prohibition of cannabis for anything other than medical and scientific purposes.…”