UNGASS 2016 in Comparative Perspective: Improving the Prospects for Success

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vanda Felbab-Brown ◽  
Harold Trinkunas

AbstractAs the international community prepares for the 2016 United Nations Special Session of the General Assembly on the World Drug Problem (UNGASS 2016), the global counternarcotics regime faces profound challenges. An increasing number of countries now find the regime’s emphasis on punitive approaches to illicit drugs to be problematic and are asking for reform. However, critical players such as Russia and China remain committed to the preservation of the existing approaches. At the global level, much has changed since 1998 that undermines the previous global consensus on punitive counternarcotics strategies: illicit markets and networks have shifted; the harms and costs of drugs are unevenly distributed; and states no longer agree on what drug policies work. This moment of global disagreement, which is reflected at UNGASS 2016, provides an important opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness and problematic side-effects of existing counternarcotics policies and to emphasize evidence-based strategies. This article argues that UNGASS 2016 should inject realism into the global discussion of drug policy objectives, instead of once again setting an unattainable goal of a drug-free world. The overall goal should be to strengthen states as they cope with the costs, harms, and threats posed by drug use and drug trade, and to do so in ways that increase, not erode, their legitimacy through policies that advance human rights and strengthen the bonds between the state and their citizens.

Subject Shift in the global fight against drugs. Significance UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will convene a UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on the World Drug Problem in 2016. The last UNGASS on the World Drug Problem was held in 1998. A ten-year review of global drug policies had previously been scheduled for 2019, but insistence by Mexico, Colombia and Nicaragua brought the session forward. Pro-reform countries are pushing to reframe UN drug policy around reducing social and economic harms of drugs, rather than eliminating their use. Impacts UN drug control policy is likely to be re-centred around development, human rights and health, as well as law enforcement. After marijuana legalisation in some states, US authorities may reiterate their call for "flexibility" in interpreting UN drug conventions. Harm reduction programmes that stem HIV/AIDS transmission among injecting drug users will gain increased international acceptance.


Subject The UN met last week to discuss global drug policies. Significance A three-day UN General Assembly Special Session on the World Drug Problem (UNGASS) in New York ended on April 21, having failed to deliver substantive changes to international drug policy. The event was brought forward from 2019 at the behest of Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico due to the severity of drug-related violence in those countries. Having failed to shift policies away from current punitive approaches, they are likely to follow the growing number of countries that are decriminalising drugs. Impacts The global schism on drug policy will deepen, seeing state policies diverge. Colombia and Mexico will take more unilateral action, starting with moves to decriminalise cannabis and legalise medical marijuana. Successful policy shifts in Colombia and Mexico will provide a strong case for more international change at the UNGASS 2019 review. However, marijuana decriminalisation in Colombia and Mexico could see armed groups increase kidnapping and extortion.


2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 599-615
Author(s):  
Chau-kiu Cheung ◽  
Steven Sek-yum Ngai

Summary Whether or not at-risk youth eschew illicit drugs because of its expected harm remains uncertain. In theory, expectancy is influential when the harm is valuable to the youth. Hence, to examine this possibility, this study employed a prospective design to collect data from 169 at-risk youths identified by social workers in Hong Kong, China. Findings Results revealed that when a youth has higher expectancy and valuation of harm in the baseline survey, he/she had considerably more drug-free days in the follow-up survey. However, neither the expectancy nor valuation alone introduced an effect on drug-free days. Applications These results sustained approaches to fostering the expectancy and valuation of harm for effective drug rehabilitation. Specifically, the approaches required to raise the expectancy of youth on the harm of drug abuse to their vigour and the value of sustaining their vigour simultaneously.


2003 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 540-544 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven D Levitt

MacCoun and Reuter's primary goal is to understand how current U.S. drug policies can be improved. They carefully describe the facts and trends regarding drug usage, criminal justice enforcement, and the harms associated with drug use, then discuss the public debate surrounding drug prohibition and give an informal treatment of the theory underlying the competing positions. The authors study policies towards other vices like gambling, cigarettes, alcohol, and prostitution, as well as drug policies in other times and places. The broader implication that emerges is that there is a desperate need for better data and increased research if there is any hope for making truly informed policy on illicit drugs.


2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark A.R. Kleiman

AbstractColorado and Washington were the first states to legalize the production and sale of cannabis without a medical recommendation; Oregon and Alaska have followed suit, and additional states will likely do so in coming years. The effects of legalization are multi-dimensional, hard to predict, difficult to measure, and dependent on policy details. The primary gains from legal availability (beyond personal liberty and enjoyment) are likely to take the form of reduced illicit activity and reduced need for enforcement, along with relatively modest revenues. The primary losses will likely involve increased problematic drug use, which may include use by minors. The extent of those gains and losses is likely sensitive to price; very high prices (substantially above prices in the illicit markets) will likely frustrate the aim of shrinking illegal production and dealing; very low prices – which are technically possible, given how inexpensive it is to produce cannabis under legal conditions – risk accentuating the increase in problematic use and generating illegal diversion of legally sold product for out-of-state sale and sale to minors. Because the systems of supply for medically recommended use in Colorado and Washington were sufficiently loose to make cannabis easily available to virtually any adult; because regulatory restrictions on commercial supplies have so far kept the commercial prices above illicit and medical-dispensary levels; and because those prices have now begun to fall and are likely to fall rapidly, the results in Colorado and Washington so far cannot be used to evaluate the effects of legalization, especially in states without readily-available quasi-medical supplies. Patience is required.


1970 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Graeme Buchanan

I am asked to discuss policy objectives, so let me first both limit and clarify my credentials to do so. I do not represent Lhe Minister of Labour or his policy advisors, nor are any views I express necessarily those of my employer, the Department of Labour. So I do not write with lhe authority of a policy maker.


Author(s):  
Lawrence S. Kaplan

Eisenhower’s reservations in December 1955 did not keep his special assistant from unveiling a new package of proposals in January 1956. As always, Stassen’s work was fast and thorough. He characterized the results as a compromise, although Dulles and the Joint Chiefs groused that they failed to find any evidence of it. His plan contained elements of both the incremental approach to disarmament that he and the president had advocated in the past and other, more extravagant ideas encompassing a wide range of steps toward disarmament. He believed that the UN General Assembly substantially endorsed his views. Stassen also justified his haste, noting that a delay “would cause a serious loss of US initiative.” Not surprisingly, he encountered the continuing hostility of Dulles, who “believed that adoption by the U.S. of the position which you recommend would not be sufficient to maintain for us our leadership in the free world coalition and to secure the essential support of world public opinion.”


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document