Fit for purpose? Rethinking drug policy
The stars are in alignment. This year, as New Zealand reviews its Misuse of Drugs Act for the first time in 33 years, the international community is turning its attention to global drug control frameworks. Our Act closely reflects the international conventions, so decisions made by the international community are critical to the future of New Zealand’s drug laws and policies. In this issue of Matters of Substance, we focus on some of the critical drug policy debates underway in New Zealand and across the international community.
The present system of worldwide drug control is based upon three international conventions that were introduced with a clear purpose in mind – restricting production, distribution and use of controlled drugs. However, since there has been no significant reduction in supply or demand over the last 10 years, the question now being asked is whether the current structures are ‘fit for purpose’.
In 2009, government representatives will gather in Vienna to decide a way forward for the management of the international drug control system. The three conventions underpinning the system – the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances and the 1988 Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances – enjoy widespread adherence, with 183 states being parties to the first two conventions, and 182 to the third.
Now, many UN members, questioning the value of law enforcement and supply reduction alone, want a greater emphasis on the health and social consequences of drug marketing and use.
In New Zealand, the Law Commission has begun its review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to determine whether our law suffers the same inconsistencies and incompatibilities as the international framework.
From initial observations, the Law Commission is not shying away from the big issues. Its terms of reference include whether the long-standing policy principle of harm minimisation should be reflected in drug law and if the drug classification system should be retained in some form or another.
Our cover feature begins with a debate about drug classification. Ted Leggett, from the Vienna-based UN Office on Drugs and Crime, questions the relevance of recent research in the United Kingdom examining the rationale of the current rankings of substances based on their harms. Steve Rolles, from the drug policy reform lobby Transform, details the flaws he sees in the ‘ABC’ classification system. Both essays provide food for thought for our Law Commission colleagues.
Both our final essays are authored by Martina Melis, Senior Policy Analyst with the New Zealand Drug Foundation. Each addresses a most critical issue facing the UN drug control system; that being the unjustifiable conflict between human rights and drug control. Martina’s first essay provides an overview of these issues, and the final essay is a case study of fundamental human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings, in Thailand’s ‘war on drugs’.
The happy coincidence of the international and domestic drug control reviews represents the greatest opportunity ever to develop drug law and policy that ensures the health of all citizens, globally and locally.
