The year 2011 marks the 50th anniversary of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the cornerstone of the current UN drug control system. Important political actors answer the question: do the UN treaties on the use of drugs need to be changed or not?
Alison Crocket, First Secretary, Permanent Mission of United Kingdom to UN
“My view has always been that there are many things missing from the treaties. But the question should be whether or not to open the treaties up to improve them? Because if you sit and listen to the individuals in the plenary session or in the committee as a whole, you will very quickly realize that the view of many countries in the international community is much more partial and much more reactionary about drug policy than it was 50 years ago and if you try to open them up and improve them, then there is every possibility that what would happen is that they would get even worse. This does not relate to evidence or experience, it has to do with political dogma and ideology. I’m pretty convinced that opening the treaties is not the right thing to do.”
Alain Ancion, Permanent Mission of the Netherlands to UN
“When you do open the conventions or have a conference to discuss all the issues of all the conventions, there is a risk that you end up with a result that is not necessarily better than the one we have now. Countries with a very conservative view on drug policy issues and who stress the law enforcement side of addressing drug issues outnumber the ones who believe in a progressive and pragmatic approach to drug policy issues. For the same reason, the opening up of the conventions could also set a precedent for opening up other conventions, such as the human rights conventions, and that could further complicate the drug discussion. The The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) that reviews the implementation by countries of the conventions tends to have a narrow interpretation of the conventions that doesn’t always allow for countries to have policies that according to them, actually work.”
Joze Hren, Senior Advisor of Directorate for Public Health, at the Ministry of Health of Republic of Slovenia
“We think that conventions are useful and valid documents and we don’t see really that this the right moment for changing this legislation, this international framework. I must say that in our country we have prepared our legislation based on treaties but based also on other recommendations from other international organizations, like NGO’s. We’ve got the background to write, in our words, measures that support all services that are proven to be effective. So, we believe that international conventions didn’t create a major problem for us in drafting our legislation and we even believe that we have a liberal legislation concerning drugs.”
Dr Dave Bewley-Taylor, FRSA, Associate Consultant of International Drug Policy Consortium
“If we view the treaties as an international regime, it is an area where state actors converge and it’s really important to covalent this historical process with initial concern about the drug problem. Although the ’61 convention represented a change, is more like a relic of the past. Member states agreed to sign up to the treaties in a different socio-economic environment with regards to drug use. In many ways ironically the ’61 convention preceded an explosion in drug use in ‘60’s and ‘70’s. Predominantly, the conventions are very much based upon a zero tolerant law enforcement approach. International treaties are outdated and need to be revisited in terms of new scientific data, definitions of addiction, epidemiology, criminology and studies on the defectiveness of law enforcement. This is the issue of relevance to today’s international environment but also there is an increasing understanding now on how the prohibited framework has unintended consequences; the damage caused by prohibitions, the creation of a massive black market and its conflict with human rights. All these negative aspects are becoming increasingly stark and pronounced within the international community, but drug policy is never really a key area of concern for governments. If it conflicts with their formal policy, drug policy is nearly pushed in the background.”
