

The World Health Organization calls for the decriminalisation of drug use



Post Date:

17th Jul 2014



The United Nations' leading health agency, the World Health Organization, has called on countries around the world to end the criminalisation of people who use drugs. The call was made in a report published this month that looked at policy responses for dealing with HIV among key populations – men who have sex with men, people who inject drugs, people in prisons and other closed settings, sex workers and transgender people. The WHO's unambiguous recommendation is clearly grounded in concerns for public health and human rights. Whilst the call is made in the context of the policy response to HIV specifically, it clearly has broader ramifications, specifically including drug use other than injecting.



In the report, the WHO says:



“Countries should work toward developing policies and laws that decriminalize injection and other use of drugs and, thereby, reduce incarceration.

Countries should work toward developing policies and laws that decriminalize the use of clean needles and syringes (and that permit NSPs[needle and syringe programs]) and that legalize OST [opiate substitution treatment] for people who are opioid-dependent.

Countries should ban compulsory treatment for people who use and/or inject drugs ”



The report also highlights Portugal's success in decriminalising personal drug possession and treating drug use as a health, rather than a criminal justice, issue. (You can find out more about this approach here.)



This is perhaps the clearest call for such far-reaching reform from within the UN community.



The executive director of UNAIDS has also made similar statements in the past. Here he is (on the left) agreeing to a resolution calling for decriminalisation at the International AIDS Conference in Vienna in 2010:



This latest call from a UN agency is likely to have been informed by recommendations made in 2012 by the Global Commission on HIV and the Law (pdf), an independent body convened by the United Nations Development Programme and UNAIDS to explore the discrimination experienced by people living with HIV. The Commission's final report contained the folowing statement:



“Reform approaches towards drug use. Rather than punishing people who use drugs but do no harm to others, governments must offer them access to effective HIV and health services, including harm reduction programmes and voluntary, evidence-based treatment for drug dependence”



The growing chorus of UN voices calling for the same progressive drug policy reform offers some hope that the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the body that oversees the current international drug control regime, will adopt a similarly pragmatic and humane approach to dealing with people who use drugs. Ending criminalisation remains something that the UNODC has hinted at but so far never called for as explicitly as their UN colleagues. Given that the WHO, UNAIDS and UNODC share responsibility for HIV policy, it is surely only a matter of time.



For more on decriminalisation, what it means, who is doing it, why, and how, see this chapter written by Transform's Steve Rolles, and Niamh Eastwood from Release, in the HRI Global State of Harm Reduction 2012 report.



--------------------

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers



Post Extras:



I would trust WHO a little more than the Catholic church when it comes to their morality. But not much.



--------------------

Anxiety is what you make it.



Post Extras:



Great news.



Post Extras:



Decriminalization of drug use is cool.

Real cool.

But what about selling drugs?

This is interesting news regardless, but use is only half the problem.



--------------------

Did you know the pen

Is stronger than the knife?

And they can kill you once

But they can't kill you twice

Did you know destruction of the flesh is not the ending to life

Fear not of the Anti-Christ

- Damian Marley -



Post Extras:



My drug world is so casual it might as well be legal. I call a number and whatever drug I want is at my house in an hour. Decrim would not effect me really. I do drugs at home not while driving around or sitting in a park so getting busted is just not going to happen. I do feel bad for all the young people who don't have a place to do drugs, homeless people too, or the non white pot head because these people are way over represented in justice system for minor drug offenses.

You know what is going to suck? When all these IV using junkies get their shit legal before LSD users. It's going to happen that way too. Their AIDS and their criminal lifestyle and their homelessness are making them such a nuisance to Joe Public that even suburban soccer moms want it legal.

We aren't a nuisance, we don't have to rob people to buy our drugs, we don't have a health crisis. The problem is psychedelic users are invisible whereas hard drugs users are a constant menace in every big city. Mark my words heroin and cocaine will be legal before LSD.



Post Extras:



Wow, your 999th post...and a good one at that...yeah, that would suck! And along with LSD being one of those substances that will still be illegal will probably be all the other psychedelics. However, people often forget that ol' Mary Jane can be seen as a mild psychedelic, which I see as the beginning.



You've brought up such a good point; I think psychs might be, as you say, legalized even after hard drugs like heroine not only because of the lack of the public nuisance aspect, but also because the legalization of "true" psychedelics might require an even more drastic shift of consciousness or public opinion.



However, mark MY words lol...pot IS a gateway drug, but not to hard drugs...it's a gateway drug to psychedelics. Once pot has been legal everywhere for a while and everybody's used to it, people will say, "so if pot is not the devil's weed and it doesn't make you want to kill your friends, then what about the other natural substances that have been most demonized (psychs)..." but many may argue that that would be too logical, haha...and of course LSD is not naturally occurring like the others, but it was synthesized early enough to be one of the "classical psychedelics." It's also as benign.



--------------------

"Music is liquid architecture; architecture is frozen music." -Johann Wolfgang Goethe



"Slow is the experience of all deep fountains: long have they to wait until they know what has fallen into their depths." -Nietzsche



My avatar is called "Inner Sanctum" by Luke Brown.



Post Extras:



Hard drugs are a "menace to society" because of their illegality, not because of their inherent traits.



Please don't demonize drugs you don't prefer while bitching about others demonizing your drug of choice.



--------------------

Everybody's a ninja...



Post Extras:



Quote:

KrishnaDreamer said:

Hard drugs are a "menace to society" because of their illegality, not because of their inherent traits.





Of course you could say that about any illegal substance. I think the same way, ultimately. Statistically however, for whatever reason, hard drug users happen to commit more crime than users of other drugs and not just because of possession, manufacturing, intent to distribute, etc. And of course, this does not mean that all or even most hard drug users are criminals. I've had and still do have relations with people who have too often resorted to crimes of violence and theft, indirectly or directly caused by their hard drug use, and I don't live on an "island." And these were not impoverished people from the ghetto who had/have minimal options for sources of pleasure in life. They "fell into" criminal behavior...so maybe of these non-impoverished types of hard drug using menaces, you could say they had highly addictive personalities...I just feel there are differences beyond what you're saying that, maybe subtly, do have to do with their inherent traits.

Quote:

Please don't demonize drugs you don't prefer while bitching about others demonizing your drug of choice.





Again, this makes all drugs sound the same. Funny enough, now that you brought it up and I wrote this post, I feel you read too much into my post (if this was directed at me). I only mentioned a "public nuisance aspect" regarding hard drugs, which is simply how it is perceived, sure because there are many who add to this perception, but like you mentioned, the root-cause is ultimately illegality, but I don't think you got what I was saying. In referring to the public nuisance part of hard drugs is not "demonizing," but referring to the mass-perception and statistics, while pot and psychedelics really were "demonized." This had less to do with practical things like health and crime but more to do with downright "evil," or the notion thereof.



Oh and if your post was directed toward me, I don't think I mentioned anywhere which drugs I personally prefer.



--------------------

"Music is liquid architecture; architecture is frozen music." -Johann Wolfgang Goethe



"Slow is the experience of all deep fountains: long have they to wait until they know what has fallen into their depths." -Nietzsche



My avatar is called "Inner Sanctum" by Luke Brown.



Post Extras:



You're redirecting the problems of illegality onto the drugs themselves. If we had safe areas to shoot heroin or other drugs like they do in Amsterdam and other Nordic countries I guarantee you nobody would be stealing because of their addiction.



Please support the argument that using specific drugs directly causes you to commit crime.



--------------------

Everybody's a ninja...



Post Extras:

rawrrawr





Posts: 148

Last seen: 3 years, 5 days StrangerLast seen: 3 years, 5 days Re: The World Health Organization calls for the decriminalisation of drug use [Re: KrishnaDreamer] 1

#20309928 - 07/22/14 09:17 AM (6 years, 2 months ago) Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply



Quote:

KrishnaDreamer said:

You're redirecting the problems of illegality onto the drugs themselves. If we had safe areas to shoot heroin or other drugs like they do in Amsterdam and other Nordic countries I guarantee you nobody would be stealing because of their addiction.



Please support the argument that using specific drugs directly causes you to commit crime.







Ugh. Another one of those ignorantly pious 'everything bad about drugs is cuz theyre illegal maaaaaaaaaan.' Think about it for a second. Alcohol is legal and is a huge menace to society. The only way a hard drug addict with a history of violence and robbery would not commit crimes to support a habit would be if the national government chose to give the drugs out for free. Keep in mind the drugs would also have to be extremely easy to access, in a nonshameful manner, and in the quantity desired. If these conditions are not met and a man has stolen for drugs in the past, it will likely happen again.



Edited by rawrrawr (07/22/14 09:20 AM)



Post Extras:



I agree that using "drug" as an umbrella term is inappropriate and furthers the stigma.



Heroin and LSD affect people in profoundly different ways and using a term that relates them to one another so closely is ignorant. science backs up that LSD won't harm you physically. quite the contrary for heroin.



--------------------

The hotter the battle, the sweeter Jah victory.

Put the heathen's back upon the wall.



Post Extras:



That's exactly what they do in the places I mentioned - they give out free heroin, and are offered therapy and are able to maintain a steady job. It's called heroin maintence therapy.



Let's take the example of people who are prescribed benzos or chronic pain patients, how are they a menace to society?



Many people have jobs to support their habit and do not rely on crime.



--------------------

Everybody's a ninja...



Post Extras:



Let me first say again that I agree that illegality is the root of the problem. However, the differences must be acknowledged. Not enough space on this forum, but I just wanted to press the issue that hard drugs are called "hard drugs" because...of how HARD they are...people who use those are the only ones who will go through the lengths they go through to get more. Many will drain every one around them dry. Again, maybe it's because they have highly addictive personalities and as they often see it, they can't help it that they like it that much and that they're hooked...Why should they get it for free when nobody else gets anything for free? Also, I don't know about Norway, but in Amsterdam I think it's not totally free; they have to walk around and pick up trash, chores like that for their daily doses. I think the harm reduction stuff works, but all drugs are different, with different effects, and cause varying levels of harm/benefit, depending on the use. The more a substance is removed from the natural process, the more potential risk is involved (I'm still working on how to word this last sentence. The idea also still needs refining). Anyway, it will be that much more difficult to return to normal...so for those people with highly addictive personalities and trying to escape something traumatic, after they get that first taste, it is usually very difficult for them to abstain or to use in moderation...illegal or not.



The harmfulness of some drugs notwithstanding, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY believe that ALL SUBSTANCES should be legal. Users should be punished for their actions, just as anybody else, rather than for whatever drug they might be carrying or might be on.



--------------------

"Music is liquid architecture; architecture is frozen music." -Johann Wolfgang Goethe



"Slow is the experience of all deep fountains: long have they to wait until they know what has fallen into their depths." -Nietzsche



My avatar is called "Inner Sanctum" by Luke Brown.



Post Extras:



Quote:

people who use those are the only ones who will go through the lengths they go through to get more. Many will drain every one around them dry.







I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself, but the reason for that is because of prohibition. I will again bring up the cases of chronic pain patients and prescribed benzos - which are arguably the most addictive drugs, and ask how you think they are destructive to society.



Quote:

Why should they get it for free when nobody else gets anything for free? Also, I don't know about Norway, but in Amsterdam I think it's not totally free; they have to walk around and pick up trash, chores like that for their daily doses.







1. Why should they get it for free? Because their society has determined that the pros outweigh the cons.



2. Picking up trash? That's pretty much free in my eyes. Sign me up.



Quote:

.so for those people with highly addictive personalities and trying to escape something traumatic, after they get that first taste, it is usually very difficult for them to abstain or to use in moderation...illegal or not.







And what's wrong with having a habit? You would not arbitrarily deny a medicinal benzo user their meds because you deem him an addict.



Ps. I just used heroin, please excuse me while I go drain everyone around me dry.



--------------------

Everybody's a ninja...



Post Extras:



Quote:

KrishnaDreamer said:

Quote:

people who use those are the only ones who will go through the lengths they go through to get more. Many will drain every one around them dry.







I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself, but the reason for that is because of prohibition. I will again bring up the cases of chronic pain patients and prescribed benzos - which are arguably the most addictive drugs, and ask how you think they are destructive to society.





You don't know why you have to keep repeating yourself that the reason why people who use other prohibited drugs won't go through the lengths that users of hard drugs like heroine (the only one you're referring to), "crack," and "crystal meth" will go through to get more is because of prohibition? Why aren't users of pot and psychedelics, both prohibited/illegal substances with few exceptions, wreaking the same havoc to get more if it has nothing to do with the drug's inherent traits?



Those chronic pain patients are not necessarily those people I was talking about with "highly addictive personalities" and who are often (sub)consciously trying to escape some past trauma. Also, are you sure benzos are as addictive as those ones I just mentioned? So maybe heroine might not be as destructive as crack and crystal meth, but how come so many people in Russia are shooting up this flesh-rotting "krokodil" supposedly because the effect is heroin-like and because they can't get real heroine. Sure, once again, I AGREE that it should be legalized, then they might not have to resort to substances like krokodil, but these people are very directly and acutely destroying their bodies for their fix...?



Quote:

Quote:

Why should they get it for free when nobody else gets anything for free? Also, I don't know about Norway, but in Amsterdam I think it's not totally free; they have to walk around and pick up trash, chores like that for their daily doses.







1. Why should they get it for free? Because their society has determined that the pros outweigh the cons.



2. Picking up trash? That's pretty much free in my eyes. Sign me up.





Those people picking up trash for their doses --which is in-fact working for it-- are slaves to their addictions. THEIR JOB IS MAINTAINING THEIR DRUG HABIT. After weighing the pros and cons, society decided that they need to find something for them to do for it and pay workers to ration and possibly administer the users' daily doses; this was necessary to keep them from crime and from rationing and administering their own doses.

Quote:

Quote:

.so for those people with highly addictive personalities and trying to escape something traumatic, after they get that first taste, it is usually very difficult for them to abstain or to use in moderation...illegal or not.







And what's wrong with having a habit? You would not arbitrarily deny a medicinal benzo user their meds because you deem him an addict.



Ps. I just used heroin, please excuse me while I go drain everyone around me dry.





You think I'm saying that doing a given substance directly causes one to commit crime, that they shoot up and suddenly feel the need to steal and commit acts of violence. No. That's lame and from the 1940's. I didn't say that and don't know where you got it. What I am getting at is that the addictive nature of some substances combined with certain methods of injestion is just both extreme and extremely unnatural.

Maybe illegality cuts back on availability and purity, but in areas with a thriving black market for these drugs, availability is a non-issue. Yet people still drive themselves into ruin and milk others dry to get more or because abstinence/self-moderation is "not an option." Perhaps this is a new form of psychosis deriving from social engineering measures from decades ago, possibly rooting in prohibition. Also, it possibly happened that crack was planted in the ghetto by the DEA, CIA or one of those government institutions; this would hinder development, making sure that the ghetto would stay "ghetto." They did not know this would happen simply because of the illegality of possession, selling, buying, having it in your blood, etc, but because of the extremity of the drug and that it would most likely have a detrimental effect. Right now, North Korea has government sanctioned crystal meth factories; they send the product to China and anybody else who will take it not because they want to help other countries out.



Illegality/prohibition for sure doesn't help out with the perception of how detrimental the effects on society are, but some substances' inherent effects are more extreme and will take more of a toll, in general. Some people are more susceptible to this toll; some know they are and simply try to stay away from any drug-temptation, as they like it too much, making it hard for them to use in moderation.



--------------------

"Music is liquid architecture; architecture is frozen music." -Johann Wolfgang Goethe



"Slow is the experience of all deep fountains: long have they to wait until they know what has fallen into their depths." -Nietzsche



My avatar is called "Inner Sanctum" by Luke Brown.



Edited by dwnlw2slw (07/23/14 04:45 PM)



Post Extras:



Quote:

Why aren't users of pot and psychedelics, both prohibited/illegal substances with few exceptions, wreaking the same havoc...







Exactly what havoc are hard drug users wreaking and what is the cause of it? I've already pointed it out several times.



Quote:

Those chronic pain patients are not necessarily those people I was talking about with "highly addictive personalities"







What's the difference? In the end they're both groups of people who are addicted to essentially the same drug, or even worse, in the case of fentanyl.



Quote:

Also, are you sure benzos are as addictive as those ones I just mentioned?







Umm... Yes, I'm absolutely sure.



Quote:

how come so many people in Russia are shooting up this flesh-rotting "krokodil" supposedly because the effect is heroin-like and because they can't get real heroine.







Again, because of prohibition, come on man. Also, the destructive properties of this cocktail are not because of the active drug. Do some more research if you want to learn more.



Quote:

Sure, once again, I AGREE that it should be legalized, then they might not have to resort to substances like krokodil, but these people are very directly and acutely destroying their bodies for their fix...?







Sorry, but I never said hard drugs weren't destructive to the body. I said that hard drugs do not directly correlate to crime, that if addicts could function in society and are provided cheap/pure drugs that addicts would not resort to crime. My whole stance is that the effects of prohibition are what causes crime.



--------------------

Everybody's a ninja...



Edited by KrishnaDreamer (07/23/14 11:35 PM)



Post Extras:



Quote:

Those people picking up trash for their doses --which is in-fact working for it-- are slaves to their addictions. THEIR JOB IS MAINTAINING THEIR DRUG HABIT.







Ok, fine, picking up trash is a job, whatever. What's your point?



Quote:

After weighing the pros and cons, society decided that they need to find something for them to do for it and pay workers to ration and possibly administer the users' daily doses; this was necessary to keep them from crime and from rationing and administering their own doses.







Again, what's your point? The program is maintained because it not only keeps people from committing crime but also allows addicts more leisure time to pursue a job/education.



Quote:

What I am getting at is that the addictive nature of some substances combined with certain methods of injestion is just both extreme and extremely unnatural.







Wtf does this even mean?



--------------------

Everybody's a ninja...



Post Extras:



You're extracting certain words and phrases out of what you've read, arguing against what you have something to say about with a come-on-man-why-do-I-have-to-kee p-repeating-myself-to-these-imbec iles-pompous attitude, and ignoring the rest. It's a complex subject that you're trying to over-simplify.



Your arguments are decent but you can't just take the words and phrases you don't agree with out of context and think you're rendering the whole thing obsolete with your one-liners. For example, that first sentence you chopped short...what was the rest of it? Replace "wreaking the same havoc" with "committing the same crimes" or something to that effect. It's the same point. If you have an answer to the full question, I'd like to hear it.



It doesn't matter that the flesh-rotting properties of krokodil are not the active drug. You're ignoring the point again. It's that they are willing to do go that far for a fix from "x" drug. Pure or not.



I also implied that drug USE doesn't directly correlate with crime but you overlooked that. I did imply that it's a complex mixture of elements, led by prohibition, plus extremely addictive and destructive drugs that have led to the destructive and destructively selfish cravings for these substances.



You're also ignoring the part about crystal meth and crack.



Why does it have to be so cheap, if not free, in order to suffice them? Non-hard drugs go off of market value; generally speaking, the users use casually or not and if they can't afford it for a few days, weeks, or whatever, they either go without or stretch out what they have, as opposed to resorting to crime. It says something about hard drugs that their users would need special treatment, singled out from the rest of the users.



Anyway, in the not-too-distant future, at the pace we're going, I don't see why all drugs won't be legalized even for self-cultivation. So pot, psychedelics, and opium and all its derivatives, etc. should all be pretty inexpensive. But nobody gets anything for nothing. Given the right conditions, plants can grow super-easily with hardly any maintenance, but some even if minimal effort is required. Even for wildly growing plants, somebody has to harvest.



--------------------

"Music is liquid architecture; architecture is frozen music." -Johann Wolfgang Goethe



"Slow is the experience of all deep fountains: long have they to wait until they know what has fallen into their depths." -Nietzsche



My avatar is called "Inner Sanctum" by Luke Brown.



Post Extras:



Are you serious man? You're the the quoting me and replacing words and regurgitating it making it seem like you made the original statement whereas you're just repeating what I said.



List one example where I take your comment out of context.



Quote:

It doesn't matter that the flesh-rotting properties of krokodil are not the active drug. You're ignoring the point again. It's that they are willing to do go that far for a fix from "x" drug. Pure or not.







How am I ignoring the point? They are resorting to krokodil because of prohibition and high black market prices.



Quote:

I also implied that drug USE doesn't directly correlate with crime but you overlooked that.







Ok, sure, change your original position. I don't care.



Quote:

I did imply that it's a complex mixture of elements, led by prohibition, plus extremely addictive and destructive drugs that have led to the destructive and destructively selfish cravings for these substances.







Lol, again, wtf are you trying to say?



Quote:

You're also ignoring the part about crystal meth and crack.







No I didn't? People can function as meth or crack addicts the same way heroin addicts can.



Quote:

Why does it have to be so cheap, if not free, in order to suffice them? Non-hard drugs go off of market value; generally speaking, the users use casually or not and if they can't afford it for a few days, weeks, or whatever, they either go without or stretch out what they have, as opposed to resorting to crime. It says something about hard drugs that their users would need special treatment, singled out from the rest of the users.







I already explained that in those societies that have heroin maintenance therapy they have decided that the pros outweigh the cons. What are you trying to say?



--------------------

Everybody's a ninja...



Post Extras: