Businessman wrote on his blog that the UN office of drugs and crime was poised to embrace decriminalising personal possession and use

Richard Branson has been involved in a bruising clash with the United Nations following his claim that the organisation is poised to endorse a global policy of decriminalising drugs.

Branson, a member of the global commission on drugs policy, wrote on his personal blog on the Virgin website on Monday that the UN’s office of drugs and crime (UNODC), which has been a bastion of the “war on drugs”, was poised to publish a statement endorsing the decriminalisation of the personal possession and use of drugs.

The entrepreneur described the move as a refreshing shift from a “body that has shaped much of global drugs policy for decades”, and said he was breaking an embargo on an expected statement because he feared that political pressure would lead it to be withdrawn at the last minute.

Branson said he and his colleagues on the drugs policy commission could not be more delighted at the move, given that he had argued for years that drug use should be treated as a health issue rather than a crime.

Within hours of his claim, however, UNODC made it clear that no such change in policy was imminent and said it regretted an “unfortunate misunderstanding” over the nature of a two-page briefing paper written by one of its senior officials. The paper by its head of HIV/Aids was scheduled to be delivered at a international harm reduction conference in Malaysia.

“The briefing paper on decriminalisation mentioned in many of today’s media reports, and intended for dissemination and discussion at a conference in Kuala Lumpur, is neither a final nor formal document … and cannot be read as a statement of UNODC policy,” a spokesperson said.

“It remains under review and UNODC regrets that, on this occasion, there has been an unfortunate misunderstanding about the nature and intent of this briefing paper. UNODC emphatically denies reports that there has been pressure on UNODC to withdraw the document. But it is not possible to withdraw what is not yet ready.”



The paper, seen by the Guardian, says that it clarifies UNODC’s position and explains that decriminalising drug use and possession for personal consumption is consistent with international drug control conventions.



The paper also highlights the imprisonment of “millions of people” for minor, non-violent drug-related offences despite legal alternatives, and emphasises that the threat of arrest and criminal sanctions have been widely shown to obstruct access to lifesaving health services such as sterile needles and opioid substitution therapy.

It also makes clear, however, that it is asking states to consider decriminalising personal drug use and possession “as a key element of the HIV response among people who use drugs”.

Read the UNODC briefing paper in full

United Nations sources stressed that the briefing paper did not mark a major change in UN policy. They pointed out that such a historic shift would not have been announced at another organisation’s conference and would have had to gone through its policymaking process first.

Branson appears to have anticipated that the UN body would not back a global decriminalisation call. “As I’m writing this I am hearing that at least one government is putting an inordinate amount of pressure on the UNODC. Let us hope the UNODC, a global organisation that is part of the UN and supposed to do what is right for the people of the world, does not do a remarkable volte-face at the last possible moment and bow to pressure by not going ahead with this important move,” he said.



Danny Kushlik of Transform, a drug legalisation campaign, claimed that UNODC had been blocked from announcing its support and at least one member state had prevented or delayed a planned announcement.

He said the leaked briefing paper showed that while UNODC had previously conceded that decriminalisation was allowed under international law, a senior UN official was now arguing it was essential, and may even “be required to meet obligations under international human rights law”.