‘TO HAVE THE DOCUMENT ADOPTED IN
JUST TWO MINUTES
,
prior to any serious
debate, underscores a key question –
what, indeed, was the purpose of the
meeting other than theatre? Having
said that, what followed the adoption
was encouraging since a number of
countries openly lamented the failures
of the document, from no call to abolish
the death penalty to a lack of mention
for the terms ‘harm reduction’ and
‘decriminalisation’, and complete refusal
to acknowledge emerging regulated
markets for cannabis. This in turn raises
another question – why did these
countries sign up to the document only
to criticise it immediately after?’
Niamh Eastwood
‘OUR EXPECTATIONS FOR UNGASS
WERE ALWAYS MODEST
, and we never
anticipated the kind of transformational
event that some were hoping for. Our
main priorities were always to ensure
that pre-existing commitments on
harm reduction were defended and not
rolled back, so that the UNGASS
resolution could provide a foundation to
build towards real progress at the UN
high-level meeting on HIV in June. This
must now move forward and tackle the
global funding crisis for harm reduction,
and address the fact that we have failed
to meet the 2015 target of halving HIV
infections among people who inject
drugs by a staggering 80 per cent.’
Rick Lines
‘I NEVER THOUGHT ANYTHING WOULD
HAPPEN AT UNGASS
.
They vote on the
resolution at the beginning of the
meeting and then it’s all speeches, so it
really is a talking shop.’
Keith Humphreys
‘THE MOOD OF CIVIL SOCIETY ORGAN-
ISATIONS
has been positive overall. Of
course there are frustrations with the
outcome document because it doesn’t
acknowledge that punitive drug
control has been catastrophically
damaging and unfortunately reaffirms
a commitment to society free of drug
abuse. However, there is some
progress that was hard won which we
must acknowledge, around improving
access to controlled medicines and the
need for proportionate sentencing for
drug offences.’
Ann Fordham
‘THE OUTCOME DOCUMENT
had some
welcome language on human rights,
harm reduction and access to
essential medicines but was generally
a huge disappointment because it
was watered down and heavily
caveated by the need for consensus –
any really challenging content or
progressive language was vetoed by
the more conservative member states.
This was probably most obvious with
an issue like the death penalty for
drug offences – clearly illegal under
international law to which all
member states are party to, and
already subject to a General Assembly
moratorium – yet the states that are
still doing it vetoed any mention of it
in the document. Utterly ridiculous.
Consensus policy-making can seem
like a nice idea but can also be
profoundly undemocratic, and favour
the status quo by default – achieving
change in that environment can be
almost impossible.’
Steve Rolles
‘THE MAIN AND MOST IMPORTANT
DIFFERENCE
was the huge shift in the
debate. Serious discussions of drug
reform, decriminalisation, regulation
etcetera, are all now a legitimate part
of the debate among UN member
states, and the tone of those
discussions is so different than what
was the case even five years ago at
the UN. While this is not sufficient,
clearly policy change will only come
when these issues enter the
mainstream of policy discourse, and
this is clearly happening.’
Rick Lines
‘THE DEBATE ON THE FLOOR
in the
plenary and side events was very
dynamic and positive. Country after
country stood up and criticised the
outcome document’s shortcomings,
and many raised key current issues
like decriminalisation and
legalisation, and structural reform of
the UN treaty system, which the
outcome document did not engage
with at all. The narrative was very
much moving away from a punitive
approach towards one of health and
human rights, and when old-school
drug warrior rhetoric emerged it
seemed from another time.’
Steve Rolles
May 2016 |
drinkanddrugsnews
| 7
read the full version online at:
One
small
step
NIAMH EASTWOOD,
executive director, Release
RICK LINES, executive
director, Harm Reduction
International
ANN FORDHAM, executive
director, International
Drug Policy Consortium
STEVE ROLLES,
senior policy analyst,
Transform
PAUL HAYES,
head, Collective Voice
YASMIN BATLIWALA,
chair, WDP
It may not have delivered any major shifts, but the mood remains cautiously
optimistic.
DDN
hears what some key players thought of the UNGASS
