Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:08 am
Time: 12:08 am
Results for drug control policy
51 results foundAuthor: Rolles, Stephen Title: After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation Summary: Heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, cannabis, prescription and over-the-counter medicines, alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea - we are all people who use drugs. Our refusal to acknowledge this comes from a deep-seated fear that 'we' might become, or be seen as, one of 'them'. What we really need to focus on is the difference between drug use and drug addiction or dependency. Global prohibitionist drug policy continues to focus efforts primarily on the substances alone. This is wrong. Of course, the harms associated with some drugs are worse than others. Sometimes these are due to the degree of addictiveness of a particular drug. But most of the harms are due to the way that a particular drug is acquired (for example, in a dark alley versus from a pharmacy), the way in which it is used (as a pill, for example, versus smoking, snorting or injecting), and, even more importantly, the way in which society treats people who use drugs. The vast majority of the horrific harms associated with drug use-crime, HIV and other blood-borne infections, violence, incarceration, death-are clearly fueled by the prohibitionist drug policies our governments pursue. The use of non-medical drugs, and more importantly the 'War on Drugs' itself, have had a profound influence on the global HIV epidemic over the past 25 years. Today, injecting drug use accounts for 30% of HIV infections worldwide outside of sub-Saharan Africa. In the Eastern Europe/Central Asia region as a whole over 60% of HIV infections are due to injecting drug use. Global normative guidance on HIV prevention, treatment, care and support for people who inject drugs emphasises the use of a comprehensive set of evidence-based interventions aimed at reducing the harms associated with drug use. This normative guidance, as endorsed by the World Health Organization, the United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS, the International AIDS Society and other organisations, is in direct contrast to global drug control policy, as set out in the three major UN drug conventions of 1961, 1971 and 1988. These call for a strict prohibitionist stance on the production, distribution and use of nonmedical drugs. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to show that criminalising drugs and drug use has directly and indirectly led to a dramatic increase in drugrelated harms, and that controlling and regulating the production and distribution of all drugs would go a long way towards reducing those harms. So long as we continue to define the drug user as 'other' and define the drug itself as the problem, we will be trapped in our misguided and harm-inducing programmes and policies. 'After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation' lays out, for the first time, a set of practical and pragmatic options for a global regulatory system for non-medical drugs. It comes at a critical time. A number of Latin American governments, including Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia and Mexico have moved, or are moving, towards decriminalisation of drug possession and are shifting to a public health model to prevent and treat misuse of drugs. They are no longer able to tolerate the damage done to their societies by the War on Drugs. Portugal decriminalised possession of all drugs in 2001. There are signs that the US government, under the new US 'Drug Czar' Gil Kerlikowske, is ready to review its position on the War on Drugs. Given that prohibitionist policy has been dominated by the US, and to some extent Russia, Japan and Sweden, any shifts in US policy could have dramatic effects at the global level. This is not a radical book, nor does it posit radical approaches to global drug policy. In fact, as it points out, the prohibitionist model is the radical approach, in that it is based exclusively on a moral judgment against drug use and drug users and not on an evidence based approach to reducing drug-related harms. Underscoring a century of prohibitionist policy is a deep-seated fear that moving from prohibition to a regulatory approach will lead to a 'free-for-all' situation vis-a-vis drug availability and use. 'Blueprint' outlines clearly that this fear is irrational and that reform of any kind will be vastly superior to the status quo. Details: London: Transform Drug Policy Foundation, 2009. 232p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 17, 2018 at: https://www.tdpf.org.uk/sites/default/files/Blueprint.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.tdpf.org.uk/sites/default/files/Blueprint.pdf Shelf Number: 117126 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug ControlDrug Control PolicyDrug EnforcementDrug Policy Reform |
Author: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Regional Office for East Asia and the Pacific. ASEAN Title: Drug-free ASEAN 2015: Status and Recommendations Summary: At the Thirty-third ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Bangkok in 2000, Ministers "took note of the threat from drug abuse and drug trafficking on the security and stability of the ASEAN region, particularly its relations with transnational crime" and called for a drug-free ASEAN by 2015.1 Recent documented shifts in illicit drug manufacturing and production, trafficking patterns and abuse trends make it clear that countries in the region must increase their collaborative efforts if this goal is to be realized. "Drug-Free ASEAN 2015: Status and Recommendations" serves as a timely mid-term progress report for the region and is loosely structured under three questions: 'Is the commitment achievable?' 'Is the region on track towards achieving it?' 'What can be done to accelerate progress?' In the report, national/regional overviews of the illicit drug situation since 2000 include the latest information available via data collection mechanisms established by various UNODC Regional Centre projects, official Government reports and interviews with national counterpart agencies and other drug control stakeholders from throughout the region and beyond. Based upon clearly identified response gaps, the report then proposes a series of benchmarks and recommendations for Governments to better monitor the overall progress of their drug prevention and control efforts. A final section of the report deals with emerging challenges posed by the accelerated development of trade and transportation networks in the region. To adequately address the anticipated surge of goods and persons through new and more heavily trafficked border crossings, an effective regional response will require a common strategy and coordinated actions. In October 2007, ASEAN Senior Officials on Drug Matters (ASOD) met to review "Drug-Free ASEAN 2015: Status and Recommendations". Selected recommendations from the report were then endorsed at the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Transnational Crime (AMMTC) in November 2007 in Brunei Darussalam. It is expected that "Drug-Free ASEAN 2015: Status and Recommendations" will serve as a key reference document in the development of an ASEAN-wide work plan by ASOD in the near future. As a collaborative undertaking, this report also highlights the growing cooperation between the ASEAN Secretariat and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Regional Centre for East Asia and the Pacific. This not only fosters linkages between various, ongoing drug control frameworks in the region but also ensures closer collaboration between ASEAN and UNODC in the delivery of technical assistance, capacity building initiatives and expert advice. The Regional Centre looks forward to further close collaboration with the ASEAN Secretariat in the future while progressing towards a Drug-Free ASEAN 2015. Details: Bangkok, Thailand: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2008. 121p. Source: https://www.unodc.org/documents/southeastasiaandpacific/Publications/ASEAN_2015.pdf Year: 2008 Country: Asia URL: https://www.unodc.org/documents/southeastasiaandpacific/Publications/ASEAN_2015.pdf Shelf Number: 116655 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Control PolicyDrug Trafficking ControlIllicit Drugs |
Author: Seelke, Clare Ribando Title: Merida Initiative for Mexico and Central America: Funding and Policy Issues Summary: On October 22, 2007, the United States and Mexico announced the Merida Initiative, a multi-year proposal for $1.4 billion in U.S. assistance to Mexico and Central America aimed at combating drug trafficking and organized crime. This report provides an overview of the funding provided for the Initiative and a discussion of some policy issues that Congress may consider as it oversees implemention of the Initiative. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 2009. 28p. Source: Serial Publication; CRS Report for Congress; R40135 Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117767 Keywords: Drug Control PolicyDrug TraffickingMerida InitiativeOrganized Crime |
Author: Brombacher, Daniel Title: The Transatlantic Cocaine Business: Europe's Options as it Confronts New Drug Trafficking Routes (WP) Summary: For traffickers, the risk of getting caught increases with the amount of levels of control they must dodge. This increase in risk is reflected in the price of the drug. At the international level, there tends to be intervention at each point in the chain of production, using both penal and legal tools as well as political ones and others based on development: control of chemical precursors, forced eradication of coca crops, alternative development measures and transit control. This Working Paper aims to analyse the intervention measures recently reaffirmed by the CND. Using drug prices as a starting point, we analyse the problem of drug trafficking and assess the efficiency of policies to control supply. But no drug control policy can be based solely on limiting supply. It must also feature measures to reduce demand. However, the goal of this study is to review European foreign policy tools involved in controlling supply, leaving aside domestic policy measures designed to cut demand, the efficiency of which is widely recognised in most countries of the EU. Details: Madrid: Elcano Royal Institute, 2009. 40p. Source: Internet Resource; Working Paper 45/2009 Year: 2009 Country: Europe URL: Shelf Number: 117635 Keywords: CocaineDrug Control PolicyDrug Trafficking |
Author: U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy Title: US/Mexico Bi-National Cooperation Against Illicit Drugs: Main Results and Performance Measures of Effectiveness Summary: This document contains two reports. The first one entitled Main Results of the U.S.–Mexico Bi-national Cooperation Against Illicit Drugs (1995–2000), approved at the VIII HLCG meeting held in Mexico City in August 8th 2000 and second, the Performance Measures of Effectiveness Report. The Performance Measures of Effectiveness Report describes accomplishments by the United States and Mexico in the first eighteen months (February 1998–August 1999) in which the US/Mexico Bi-National Drug Control Strategy was in effect. It is an attempt to review the status of the Action Items contributing to the achievement of the Strategy goals that were detailed within the initial PME publication. The Main Results of the Bi-national Cooperation Against Illicit Drugs is an effort to provide a general assessment and a more current account of our cooperation efforts. The purpose of the two documents is to provide information to policy makers so that they can evaluate what parts of the bi-national strategy have been achievable, what parts need more effort, and what parts ought to be changed. The two reports will permit the reader to evaluate whether we have completed our actions, and how those actions contribute to achieving the Strategy objectives. Details: Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2010. 182p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 14, 2010 at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/international/binational_1995_to_2000/binational_1995_to_2000.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/international/binational_1995_to_2000/binational_1995_to_2000.pdf Shelf Number: 120494 Keywords: Drug Control PolicyDrug EnforcementIllegal DrugsIllegal FirearmsTrafficking in Weapons |
Author: Olson, Eric L. Title: Shared Responsibility: U.S.-Mexico Policy Options for Confronting Organized Crime Summary: The research for this volume is the product of a project on U.S.-Mexico Security Cooperation jointly coordinated by the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center and the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego. As part of the project, a number of research papers were commissioned that provide background information on organized crime in Mexico, the United States, and Central America, and analyze specific challenges for cooperation between the United States and Mexico, including efforts to address the consumption of narcotics, money laundering, arms trafficking, intelligence sharing, police strengthening, judicial reform, and the protection of journalists. Each chapter in this volume was first released in a preliminary form as part of a “Working Paper Series” throughout 2010. Contents include the following: Introduction, by Eric L. Olson, David A. Shirk, and Andrew Selee; Drug Trafficking Organizations and Counter-Drug Strategies in the U.S.-Mexican Context by Luis Astorga and David A. Shirk; Drug Trafficking Organizations in Central America: Transportistas, Mexican Cartels and Maras by Steven S. Dudley; Crossing the Mississippi: How Black Tar Heroin Moved Into the Eastern United States by José Díaz-Briseño; How Can Domestic U.S. Drug Policy Help Mexico? by Peter Reuter; Money Laundering and Bulk Cash Smuggling: Challenges for the Mérida Initiative by Douglas Farah; Justice Reform in Mexico: Change & Challenges in the Judicial Sector by David A. Shirk; Police Reform in Mexico: Advances and Persistent Obstacles by Daniel Sabet; Protecting Press Freedom in an Environment of Violence and Impunity by Dolia Estévez; Armed Forces and Drugs: Public Perceptions and Institutional Challenges by Roderic Ai Camp; Combating Organized Crime and Drug Trafficking in Mexico: What are Mexican and U.S. Strategies? Are They Working? by John Bailey; and U.S.-Mexico Security Collaboration: Intelligence Sharing and Law Enforcement Cooperation by Sigrid Arzt. Details: Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Mexico Institute: San Diego, CA: University of San Diego, Trans-Border Institute, 2010. 376p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 20, 2010 at: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/Shared%20Responsibility--Olson,%20Shirk,%20Selee.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Mexico URL: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/Shared%20Responsibility--Olson,%20Shirk,%20Selee.pdf Shelf Number: 120552 Keywords: Drug Control PolicyDrug TraffickingMoney LaunderingOrganized Crime (United States and Mexico) |
Author: Bewley-Taylor, David: Jelsma, Martin Title: Fifty Years of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs: A Reinterpretation Summary: This year marks the 50th anniversary of the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, signed on 30 March 1961. 73 countries were represented at the conference that took place in New York from 24 January to 25 March 1961, which sought to lay a new solid foundation for drug control in the post-war United Nations era. The aim was to replace the multiple existing multilateral treaties in the field with a single instrument as well as to reduce the number of international treaty organs concerned with the control of narcotic drugs, and to make provisions for the control of the production of raw materials of narcotic drugs. The Single Convention entered into force on 13 December 1964, having met the requirement of forty state ratifications. Couched with the lofty aim of concern for “the health and welfare of mankind,” the guiding principle of the treaty was to limit the use of drugs exclusively to medical and scientific purposes, because, as the preamble continues, “addiction to narcotic drugs constitutes a serious evil for the individual and is fraught with social and economic danger to mankind.” At the same time, the Convention recognized “that the medical use of narcotic drugs continues to be indispensable for the relief of pain and suffering and that adequate provision must be made to ensure the availability of narcotic drugs for such purposes”. Fifty years on, it is time for a critical reflection on the validity of the Single Convention today: a reinterpretation of its historical significance and an assessment of its aims, its strengths and its weaknesses. Indeed, while there is often a tendency to interpret the treaty as part of an unbroken continuum dating back to the first decade of the last century, the Single Convention must rather be seen as a significant change in way the international community approached drug control. Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that the original ambition for the ‘Single’ Convention to become the ‘convention to end all conventions’ failed when the control regime developed further with conventions in 1971 and 1988 giving rise to new inconsistencies within the current global drug control treaty system. This policy briefing analyses the origins and negotiations of the Single Convention, examines the way it broke with the previous drug control system by introducing a more prohibitive ethos, penal obligations, controls on plants and abolition of traditional uses of plants like coca, and concludes that a revision of its outdated provisions is required. Details: Amsterdam: Transnational Institute, 2011. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies No. 12: Accessed April 8, 2011 at: http://www.druglawreform.info/images/stories/documents/dlr12.pdf Year: 2011 Country: International URL: http://www.druglawreform.info/images/stories/documents/dlr12.pdf Shelf Number: 121285 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Abuse PolicyDrug Control Policy |
Author: U.S. Senate. Caucus on International Narcotics Control Title: U.S. and Mexican Responses to Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations Summary: Violence in Mexico continues unhindered without any signs of slowing. This report outlines a series of concrete steps the United States can take to support the Mexican government in its fight against drug trafficking organizations and drug-related violence. While our security partnership with Mexico has deepened in recent years, more can be done to help. The attached report synthesizes information gathered by Caucus staff through a country visit, briefings, interviews, and a review of documents from both government and non-government subject matter experts. The report describes the current strategy and provides important recommendations for policymakers and stakeholders. Details: Washington, DC: The Caucus, 2011. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 27, 2011 at: http://drugcaucus.senate.gov/Mexico-Report-Final-5-2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Mexico URL: http://drugcaucus.senate.gov/Mexico-Report-Final-5-2011.pdf Shelf Number: 121837 Keywords: Drug CartelsDrug Control PolicyDrug Trafficking (Mexico)Drug Trafficking ControlDrug-Related ViolenceOrganized Crime |
Author: Ruiz, German Andres Quimbayo Title: Crops for Illicit Use and Ecocide. Are Illicit Crops Really the Main Cause oe Damage to the Ecosystem in Colombia? Summary: According to the Colombian government, cocaine consumers are unaware of the ecological disaster caused by production of the alkaloid. If they knew that cocaine is perpetrating ecocide in the country that leads on world production of the drug – Colombia – they would stop consuming it. Based on this premise, the government has organised an information campaign called Shared Responsibility, which uses pictures and statistics to tell people about the destruction caused by coca and cocaine production in the country. The campaign, which has the support of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), amongst others, has mainly taken the form of a travelling exhibition that has visited different countries in Europe. As a heading on its website, the campaign states that “The first source of air pollution in the Colombian jungle is smoke from the burning of trees to grow coca.” This indicates – right from the start and without any supporting analysis whatsoever – who the campaign believes is mainly to blame for the catastrophe: the small farmer who grows coca. For decades, Colombia has been implementing supply-side strategies that aim to solve the problem of coca and cocaine production. These strategies have been ineffective and counter-productive. They have failed to reduce production, caused humanitarian crises and worsened the armed conflict that has afflicted the country for so long. In response to the failure of policies to reduce the supply, the government has started to insist that consumer countries need to strengthen policies to curb the demand. This is where the Shared Responsibility campaign seeks to play a role. Again without any analysis whatsoever, it focuses on the other scapegoat in this affair: the consumer. And so the small farmer and the consumer are portrayed as sharing responsibility for ecocide. This ignores the complexity of a problem that is global in scope and involves numerous different players on both the legal and the illegal sides. Details: Amsterdam: Transnational Institute, 2008. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Drug Policy Briefing Nr. 28 Year: 2008 Country: Colombia URL: Shelf Number: 121494 Keywords: Drug Abuse and Addiction(Colombia)Drug Control PolicyOffenses Against the Environment |
Author: Mansfield, David Title: Where Have All the Flowers Gone? Assessing the Sustainability of Current Reductions in Opium Production in Afghanistan Summary: Levels of opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan have fallen for two consecutive years and it now appears that cultivation will be maintained at this relatively low level for another year. While this allows for progress to be declared against more short-term, area-based counter-narcotics targets, the reasons for the continued decline in cultivation are far from clear. This paper illustrates that current reductions are the result of complex economic, political and environmental processes that are both contextspecific and difficult to maintain. It argues that the coincidence of actions and events that have led to the current fall in production have set in play their own dynamic that could further destabilise parts of rural Afghanistan if not held in check. The paper is divided into three sections. Section 1 draws on detailed fieldwork in two distinct provinces as a way of exploring the different factors that lie behind the current reductions in opium production in Afghanistan. It shows how reductions in Nangarhar are largely a consequence of the concerted efforts of the current governor and the political deals he has struck with tribal leaders, local powerbrokers and to some extent the US military, whereas in Helmand the reductions in cultivation are primarily driven by shifts in the terms of trade between wheat and poppy and continuing concerns over food security. Section 2 explores the resilience of these reductions. It initially examines what opium poppy has been replaced with and highlights that reductions based on wheat are precarious and unlikely to be sustained. The section goes on to analyse the unfolding political environment in Afghanistan and how it might impact levels of opium production in the future, suggesting that the current political settlements that have been critical for reducing opium poppy in provinces such as Nangarhar and Balkh remain fragile and highly dependent on incumbent governors. The final section looks at the current policy environment for counter-narcotics. It suggests that counter-narcotics efforts and objectives have largely been relegated in Afghanistan, where counter-insurgency reigns supreme. This is not completely unwelcome because it has forced the drug control community to evaluate their interventions not simply based on the achievement of short-term, area-based targets but to consider the complex relationship between the achievement of counter-narcotics objectives and the broader goals of improving governance, security and economic growth. However, tensions still exist and this paper suggests that the trajectory of counter-narcotics policy is far from clear, particularly if production were to rise in the 2010/11 growing season. Details: Kabul, Afghanistan: Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit, 2010. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Briefing Paper Series: Accessed July 2, 2011 at: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/cchrp/sbhrap/research/pdf/Wherehavealltheflowersgone.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Afghanistan URL: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/cchrp/sbhrap/research/pdf/Wherehavealltheflowersgone.pdf Shelf Number: 121955 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Control PolicyOpium (Afghanistan)Poppy Cultivation |
Author: Organization of American States Title: Hemispheric Report: Evaluation of Progress in Drug Control: Fifth Evaluation Round Summary: The Multilateral Evaluation Mechanism (MEM) is an instrument designed to measure the progress of actions taken by all member states of the Organization of American States (OAS) to combat the global drug problem. The Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD), as an OAS specialized agency, implemented this Mechanism in 1998, pursuant to a mandate from the Second Summit of the Americas held in Santiago, Chile in 1998. The MEM, as a diagnostic tool, has evolved to become an instrument which promotes cooperation to support member states in effectively addressing the drug problem. It catalyzes hemispheric cooperation, promotes dialogue among government authorities, and precisely channels assistance to areas requiring greater attention. It has become one of the primary achievements in implementing hemispheric mandates to strengthen multilateral cooperation. The country evaluation reports are based on the information provided by countries in response to a Questionnaire of Indicators. They are drafted by the Governmental Expert Group (GEG), a multi-disciplinary group composed of experts from the 33 OAS member states who have been designated by their country. Each functions independently from his/her government, and experts do not participate in the evaluation of their own countries. The GEG conducts its analysis using the information supplied by countries through their designated National Coordinating Entities (NCE), which are responsible for liaising with national organizations to gather data for completion of the questionnaire. The methodology used in the MEM process includes establishing dialogue with countries to analyze the information provided and to prepare national evaluative reports with conclusions and recommendations. Each country reviews and comments on the content of the evaluation, ensuring an open, participatory process. The MEM, therefore, allows member states to identify their strengths, weaknesses, progress, setbacks and shortcomings, and assists them in adjusting their policies and procedures in order to respond more effectively to the challenges posed by the international drug problem. The Hemispheric Report that follows provides a comprehensive review of the Fifth Evaluation Round reports, covering the period 2007-2009. The source of information is the MEM National Reports, approved by the CICAD Commissioners at the forty-eighth regular session of CICAD in Washington, D.C. in December 2010. The Hemispheric Report addresses the collective progress of the CICAD member states in confronting the drug problem from a hemispheric perspective, mirroring the structure of the Hemispheric Drug Strategy, which provides guidelines for integrated, coordinated and cooperative hemispheric action. Each chapter is based on the Fifth Evaluation Round national reports1, as well as contributions from the GEG and the Executive Secretariat of CICAD. The content of the Hemispheric Report was approved at the forty-ninth regular session of CICAD, in May 2011. Details: Washington, DC: Organization of American States, 2011. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 1, 2011 at: http://www.cicad.oas.org/MEM/Reports/5/Full_Eval/Informe%20Hemisferico%20-%205ta%20Ronda%20-%20ENG.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Africa URL: http://www.cicad.oas.org/MEM/Reports/5/Full_Eval/Informe%20Hemisferico%20-%205ta%20Ronda%20-%20ENG.pdf Shelf Number: 122240 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug ControlDrug Control Policy |
Author: Mansfield, David Title: Managing Concurrent and Repeated Risks: Explaining the Reductions in Opium Production in Central Helmand between 2008 and 2011 Summary: Since 2008 the amount of land cultivated with opium in Helmand province has fallen by an estimated thirty seven per cent. Further dramatic reductions are anticipated in the canal command area of the province in the 2010/11 growing season. These reductions in opium poppy cultivation in central Helmand have occurred at the same time as the deployment of a growing number of national and international troops in the province, changing levels of violence, dramatic shifts in the terms of trade between opium poppy and wheat, the disbursement of increasing amounts of development assistance and the launch of a counter narcotics effort known as the ‘Food Zone Programme’. In this complex environment where so many variables are potentially influencing farmers in their cropping choices, it is difficult to identify the underlying causes of the reduction in opium production without conducting detailed research over a number of years. This Study represents such a body of analytical work and was commissioned to answer two specific questions: (1) what has driven the recent reductions in opium poppy cultivation in Helmand province; and (2) how sustainable will these reductions be? The Study also offers a series of recommendations for policy development and the implementation of programmes that can deliver a more enduring counter narcotics outcome without undermining current stabilisation efforts. The Study draws on both remote sensing and household data collected over a three year period and focuses on twenty three distinct research sites located in the rural areas of the districts of Nahre Seraj, Nad e Ali, Lashkar Gah, Marjeh and Nawa Barakzai in central Helmand. These particular research sites offer sharply contrasting socio-economic, political and environmental conditions that allow the reductions in levels of opium poppy cultivation within the province to be examined, as well as the identification of the differing impact of these reductions on households with different resource endowments and divergent exposure to risk and uncertainty. For example, some sites located in the environs of the cities of Gereshk and Lashkar Gah have experienced an improvement in security, gained from enhanced service provision and an expansion in their portfolio of livelihood activities over the period of the Study. Other research sites are located beyond the environs of the urban areas and have been exposed to repeated and concurrent shocks, such as chronic conflict, a ban on opium production, and a dramatic increase in wheat prices, over the period of the research. Finally there are research sites where the Taliban dominate, where opium persists and where livelihood options are severely limited by environmental factors. Details: London: Independent Drug Policy Consortium, 2011. 112p. Source: Internet Resource: August 1, 2011 at: http://www.idpc.net/sites/default/files/library/Managing-concurrent-and-repeated-risks.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Afghanistan URL: http://www.idpc.net/sites/default/files/library/Managing-concurrent-and-repeated-risks.pdf Shelf Number: 122242 Keywords: Drug Control PolicyNarcoticsOpium (Afghanistan)Poppy Cultivation |
Author: U.S. Senate. Caucus on International Narcotics Control Title: Responding to Violence in Central America Summary: Violence in Central America has reached crisis levels. Throughout Central America, Mexican drug trafficking organizations, local drug traffickers, transnational youth gangs, and other illegal criminal networks are taking advantage of weak governance and underperforming justice systems. This report outlines a series of concrete steps that the United States can take to support the seven countries of Central America as they try to improve security. The report does not call for large amounts of new money but instead recommends investments in key programs with host country partners. Our report synthesizes information gathered by Caucus staff through visits to Guatemala and Honduras, briefings, interviews, and a review of documents from both government and non-government subject matter experts. The report describes the current strategy and provides important recommendations for policymakers in Congress and the Administration. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, 2011. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 19, 2011 at: http://www.grassley.senate.gov/judiciary/upload/Drug-Caucus-09-22-11-Responding-to-Violence-in-Central-America-2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Central America URL: http://www.grassley.senate.gov/judiciary/upload/Drug-Caucus-09-22-11-Responding-to-Violence-in-Central-America-2011.pdf Shelf Number: 123407 Keywords: Drug Control PolicyDrug TraffickingHomicidesViolence (Central America)Violent CrimeYouth Gangs |
Author: United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) Title: Prescription Pain Reliever Abuse: Agencies Have Begun Coordinating Education Efforts, but Need to Access Effectiveness Summary: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has declared that the United States is in the midst of an epidemic of prescription drug overdose deaths, with deaths associated with prescription pain relievers of particular concern. To address this issue, federal agencies are raising awareness by educating prescribers and the general public. In response to your request, GAO (1) described recent national trends in prescription pain reliever abuse and misuse, (2) described how federal agencies are educating prescribers, (3) assessed the extent to which federal agencies follow key practices for developing public education efforts, and (4) identified educational efforts that use similar strategies and assessed how agencies coordinate those efforts. GAO interviewed officials and reviewed documents and websites from seven agencies involved in federal drug control efforts and analyzed the most recent data from several data sources related to prescription pain reliever abuse and misuse. GAO also assessed the development of public education efforts and federal coordination efforts against key practices from prior GAO work. GAO recommends that the Director of ONDCP establish outcome metrics and implement a plan to evaluate proposed educational efforts, and ensure that agencies share lessons learned among similar efforts. ONDCP did not explicitly agree or disagree with GAO’s recommendations, but noted that it will continue to work for improved coordination of educational efforts and evaluation of outcomes. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office Source: Report to Congressional Requesters: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 27, 2012 at http://atforum.com/addiction-resources/documents/GAOReport_000.pdf Year: 0 Country: United States URL: http://atforum.com/addiction-resources/documents/GAOReport_000.pdf Shelf Number: 123839 Keywords: Drug Abuse (U.S.)Drug Abuse PolicyDrug Control PolicyPrescription Drugs |
Author: Reyes, Luis Carlos Title: Estimating the Causal Effect of Forced Eradication on Coca Cultivation in Colombian Municipalities Summary: 1 Estimating the Causal Effect of Forced Eradication on Coca Cultivation in Colombian Municipalities Luis Carlos Reyes1 Michigan State University Department of Economics East Lansing, MI 49544 reyesher@msu.edu January 26, 2011 Abstract Coca eradication has been aggressively pursued by the Colombian government to reduce the amount of land that agricultural households in the Andean country devote to this illegal crop. However, little work has been done to assess the causal effect of the policy on land allocation decisions. I use a six year panel of observations covering the entire country for the years 2001- 2006 to estimate this effect at the municipality level, exploiting exogenous sources of variation in eradication and taking an IV approach to estimation. The instruments are derived from changes in the expected cost of coca eradication as crews get far from the zone where Antinarcotics Police helicopters can protect them from the illegal armed groups that try to shoot them down. IV estimation shows that the causal effect of a one percent increase in eradication is slightly less than a one percent increase in coca cultivation. Details: Munich: Munich Personal RePEc Archive, 2011. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: MPRA Paper No. 33478: Accessed May 3, 2012 at: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/33478/ Year: 2011 Country: Colombia URL: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/33478/ Shelf Number: 125134 Keywords: Coca EradicationCocaine (Colombia)Drug Control PolicyDrugs and Crime |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Drug Control Initial Review of the National Strategy and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Programs Summary: An estimated 22.6 million Americans aged 12 or older were illicit drug users in 2010, representing 8.9 percent of the population aged 12 or older, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. This represents the highest overall rate of illicit drug users among this population group since 2002, when the rate was 8.3 percent. Abuse of illicit drugs results in significant social, public health, and economic consequences for the United States. For example, the economic impact of illicit drug use, including the costs of crime, health care, and lost productivity, was estimated at more than $193 billion in 2007, the most recent year for which data were available. The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) was established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 to, among other things, enhance national drug control planning and coordination and represent the drug policies of the executive branch before Congress. In this role, ONDCP provides advice and governmentwide oversight of drug programs and is responsible for coordinating drug control activities, including federal drug abuse prevention and treatment programs, and related funding across the federal government. ONDCP is required annually to develop the National Drug Control Strategy (Strategy), which sets forth a plan to reduce illicit drug use through prevention, treatment, and law enforcement programs, and to develop a Drug Control Budget for implementing the Strategy. ONDCP reported that for fiscal year 2012, about $25.2 billion was provided for drug control programs across 17 federal departments and independent agencies. Further, according to ONDCP, from 2004 to 2012 this signified an increase of $5.9 billion (about 31 percent) for drug control programs, including drug abuse prevention and treatment programs. The 2010 Strategy is the inaugural strategy guiding drug policy under President Obama’s administration and, according to ONDCP officials, sought a comprehensive approach to drug policy, including an emphasis on drug abuse prevention and treatment efforts and the use of evidence-based practices—approaches to prevention or treatment that are based in theory and have undergone scientific evaluation. Drug abuse prevention includes activities focused on discouraging the first-time use of controlled substances and efforts to encourage those who have begun to use illicit drugs to cease their use. Treatment includes activities focused on assisting regular users of controlled substances to become drug free through such means as counseling services, inpatient and outpatient care, and the demonstration and provision of effective treatment methods. National Drug Control Program agencies (drug control agencies) follow a detailed process in developing their annual budget submissions for inclusion in the Drug Control Budget, which provides information on the funding that the executive branch requested for drug control to implement the Strategy. Agencies submit to ONDCP the portion of their annual budget requests dedicated to drug control, which they prepare as part of their overall budget submission to the Office of Management and Budget for inclusion in the President’s annual budget request. ONDCP reviews the budget requests of the drug control agencies to determine if the agencies have acceptable methodologies for estimating their drug control budgets, and includes those that do in the Drug Control Budget . Agencies may administer programs that include drug abuse prevention and treatment activities but do not meet ONDCP’s standards for having an acceptable budget estimation methodology. Such programs are not represented in the Drug Control Budget. Part of the 2010 Strategy is a long-term policy goal for increasing the emphasis on preventing and treating substance abuse. Multiple federal departments—and their component agencies, bureaus, divisions, and offices—and independent agencies (collectively referred to as agencies), administer drug abuse prevention and treatment programs, fund these programs, or both. The drug abuse prevention and treatment programs vary and may include grants to service providers, direct services, and education and outreach activities. For example, an agency’s grant program may award block grants to grantees, such as states or local entities, to implement their own interventions through community-based drug abuse prevention or treatment programs, while direct service programs often entail interventions directly administered by an agency to a specific population. Drug abuse prevention and treatment programs target various populations and use a wide variety of interventions, which are strategies or approaches intended to prevent an undesirable outcome, such as abuse of an illicit drug; promote a desirable outcome, such as reducing the use of alcohol among youth; or alter the course of an existing condition, such as successful treatment of drug addiction. Some programs may be either jointly funded or administered by two or more agencies. In light of the increase in the rate of illicit drug use among Americans, efforts to oversee and coordinate the implementation of the Strategy and ensure that ONDCP and federal agencies invest in the most effective drug abuse prevention and treatment programs become more important. You asked us to determine the extent to which the 2010 Strategy has been implemented, review the sources of funding for federal drug abuse prevention and treatment programs as well as federal agency efforts to coordinate their programs, and examine agencies’ efforts to evaluate drug abuse prevention and treatment programs and ensure that they are effective. Specifically, in this report we (1) provide an initial review of the extent to which the 2010 Strategy has been implemented, the extent to which ONDCP coordinates its implementation across drug control agencies, and how ONDCP assesses the effectiveness of the Strategy in preventing and reducing drug use; (2) review what agencies fund drug abuse prevention and treatment programs and how agencies coordinate their programs; and (3) provide an initial review of the extent to which federal agencies evaluate their drug abuse prevention and treatment programs and the extent to which agencies assess their programs’ effectiveness. This is the first report in response to your request that we assess the implementation of the 2010 Strategy. This report describes the implementation approach, federal agencies’ drug abuse prevention and treatment programs, and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of Justice (DOJ), and Department of Education (Education) efforts to assess the effectiveness of their drug abuse prevention and treatment programs. We will continue our work on these issues and plan to evaluate the extent to which the 2010 Strategy has been implemented and coordinated across agencies and how ONDCP assesses the effectiveness of the Strategy in preventing and reducing drug use. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2012. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-12-744R: Accessed August 8, 2012 at: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-744R Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-744R Shelf Number: 125909 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Abuse Policy (U.S.)Drug Control PolicyNarcotics Control |
Author: Bewley-Taylor, Dave Title: The Limits of Latitude. The UN Drug Control Conventions Summary: Faced with a complex range of drug related problems, a growing number of nations are exploring the development of nationally appropriate policies that shift away from the prohibition-oriented approach that has long dominated the field but is losing more and more legitimacy. In so doing, such countries must pay close attention to the UN based global drug control framework of which practically all nations are a part. This briefing paper outlines the international legal drug control obligations, the room for manoeuvre the regime leaves open to national policy makers and the clear limits of latitude that cannot be crossed without violating the treaties. It also covers the vast grey area lying between the latitude and limitations, including the legal ambiguities that are subject to judicial interpretation and political contestation. The paper applies the traffic light analogy to drug law reform in order to divide ongoing policy changes and emerging proposals into three categories regarding their legal tenability. Details: Amsterdam: Transnational Institute, 2012. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies Nr. 18: Accessed February 5, 2013 at: http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/dlr18.pdf Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/dlr18.pdf Shelf Number: 127514 Keywords: Drug Control PolicyDrug Reform |
Author: Colorado. Task Force on the Implementation of Amendment 64 Title: Task Force Report on the Implementation of Amendment 64 Regulation of Marijuana in Colorado Summary: The Task Force was charged with finding practical and pragmatic solutions to the challenges of implementing Amendment 64. The enclosed report offers up our recommendations, most of which now need to be enacted into law by the Colorado General Assembly or developed into administrative rules by various state departments. We fully appreciate that these recommendations will now need to be perfected through the legislative and rulemaking processes and we offer to you the support and expertise of task force members as you need them in the weeks and months ahead. The Task Force included members of the Colorado General Assembly and representatives of the Attorney General’s office, state agencies, law enforcement, the defense bar, district attorneys, the medical profession, the marijuana industry, the Amendment 64 campaign, marijuana consumers, academia, local governments and Colorado’s employers and employees. Five working groups, comprised of task force members and additional subject matter experts from around the state, met weekly during January and February. The working groups heard testimony from stakeholders and members of the public and then developed and drafted implementation recommendations, which were further vetted, revised, adopted or rejected in the meetings of the Task Force. All meetings of the Task Force and its working groups were open to the public, and there was time set aside at each of the meetings for public input and comment. Details: Denver, CO: State of Colorado, 2013. 166p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 6, 2013 at: http://www.colorado.gov/cms/forms/dor-tax/A64TaskForceFinalReport.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.colorado.gov/cms/forms/dor-tax/A64TaskForceFinalReport.pdf Shelf Number: 128309 Keywords: Drug Control PolicyDrug Legalization (Colorado)Marijuana |
Author: Organization of American States Title: The Drug Problem in the Americas: Studies. Legal and Regulatory Alternatives Summary: FINDINGS Over the past two years, the hemispheric drug policy debate has become much more active and intense. Marijuana legalization initiatives in Uruguay and two western U.S. states are drawing broad attention in the hemisphere. About a dozen OAS member states have non-criminal or reduced penalties or no penalty at all for possession of a personal amount of controlled substances, including Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico. Decriminalization of marijuana for personal use is common in many states of the United States, in practice or by law. The available evidence suggests that reducing penalties for possession of small quantities has little effect on the number of users. Legalization of controlled substances, especially if commercialized, could complicate prevention efforts, decrease prices, and thus expand use and addiction, with all the negative consequences that accompany these trends. Assuming well-functioning regulatory structures, legalization could reduce many of the negative consequences with which society is most concerned, including violence, corruption, and public disorder surrounding drug distribution; the transmission of blood-borne diseases associated with shared needles; and the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of low-level drug offenders. There is limited evidence available to accurately measure tradeoffs, and it is difficult to predict exactly to what extent legalization would reduce violence and other harms or increase the prevalence of addiction and use. The results would vary by country, by drug, and by the nature of the legalization regime adopted. No country has legalized any of these drugs, and neither historical analogies (such as to the period when cocaine was legal in many Western countries) nor comparisons to alcohol prohibition provide much insight. Details: Washington, DC: OAS, 2013. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 28, 2013 at: http://www.cicad.oas.org/main/policy/informeDrogas2013/alternativasLegales_ENG.pdf Year: 2013 Country: International URL: http://www.cicad.oas.org/main/policy/informeDrogas2013/alternativasLegales_ENG.pdf Shelf Number: 128833 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Control PolicyDrug Legalization |
Author: Rasul, Imran Title: Crime and the Depenalization of Cannabis Possession: Evidence from a Policing Experiment Summary: We evaluate the impact on crime of a localized policing experiment that depenalized the possession of small quantities of cannabis in the London borough of Lambeth. Theory suggests such a policy will: (i) impact the size of the market for cannabis in Lambeth as well as neighboring boroughs as drug users move to Lambeth to purchase cannabis; (ii) allow the police to reallocate effort towards other types of crime. We investigate whether such changing crime patterns are observed during and after the depenalization policy is introduced in Lambeth using administrative records on criminal offences by drug type, by specific drug offences that proxy demand and supply side criminal activities, and for seven types of non-drug crime. We find that depenalization in Lambeth led to an increase in cannabis possession offences that persisted well after the policy experiment ended. Half of the increase is attributable to drugs tourism into Lambeth from neighboring boroughs after depenalization. We find little evidence that the policy caused the police to reallocate effort towards Class-A drug crime, rather the evidence suggests the police in Lambeth reallocate their effort towards non-drug crime: there are significant reductions in five non-drug crime types, and significant improvements in police effectiveness against such crimes as measured by arrest and clear-up rates. These nuanced results provide new insights for the current policy debate on the regulation of illicit drugs markets. Details: London: University College London, 2011. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: Accessed July 17, 2013 at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctpimr/research/depenalization.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctpimr/research/depenalization.pdf Shelf Number: 129421 Keywords: DecriminalizationDrug Control PolicyDrug Law Enforcement (U.K.)Illegal DrugsMarijuana |
Author: U.S. Senate. Caucus on International Narcotics Control Title: Preventing a Security Crisis in the Caribbean Summary: U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), co-chairs of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, today released a bipartisan report entitled Preventing a Security Crisis in the Caribbean that provides recommendations for Congress and the Obama Administration to enhance current security efforts in the Caribbean. "The Caribbean region has come a long way since it served as the primary transit route for South American drugs entering the United States in the 1980s," said Senator Feinstein. "Despite impressive gains, drug trafficking, local drug consumption and the U.S. demand for illegal drugs remain major causes of crime and violence. As enforcement efforts in Mexico and Central America inevitably move trafficking back to the Caribbean, we must better support our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere to combat the corrosive drug trade and minimize violence." "The Caribbean continues to be a major trans-shipment zone for narcotics." said Senator Grassley. "The recent spike in the use of drug-trafficking submarines there shows the lengths smugglers are taking to get their product to U.S. shores through the area. Drug trafficking and related violence in the Caribbean have a significant impact on our national security and on the lives of the region's people. The United States has to adapt to emerging trends in shipping techniques to help keep illicit drugs out of the United States and continue to help Caribbean nations strengthen their counternarcotics efforts. This report outlines actions the United States can take to help our partners in the Caribbean combat the transshipment of illegal drugs throughout the region." The report recommends: An assessment by the State Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) of where Sensitive Investigative Units are most needed in the Caribbean. Jamaica, with the fourth highest murder rate in the world, should be considered a top candidate for one of these units. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) should send a full criminal history of all deportees to authorities in the Caribbean so they are aware of the return of any criminals or drug traffickers. Caribbean countries' authorities do not currently receive a full criminal rap sheet from ICE on deportees returning home. United States technical assistance to the countries of the Caribbean to support the drafting of asset forfeiture laws and laws controlling precursor chemicals used to make illegal drugs. The integration of Puerto Rico into working level meetings held between the State Department and countries in the Caribbean on security and narcotics issues. Strong support of Haitian counternarcotic efforts. Strengthening of U.S. anti-money laundering laws. Continued extradition of drug kingpins from the Caribbean to the United States. The return of DEA helicopters used in Operation Bahamas, Turks and Caicos to the Exumas Islands in The Bahamas. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Senate, 2012. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 15, 2014 at: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=90bb66bc-3371-4898-8415-fbfc31c0ed24 Year: 2012 Country: Caribbean URL: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=90bb66bc-3371-4898-8415-fbfc31c0ed24 Shelf Number: 131926 Keywords: Drug Control PolicyDrug EnforcementDrug TraffickingDrug Trafficking ControlWar on Drugs |
Author: Mansfield, David Title: Eyes Wide Shut: Counter-Narcotics in Transition Summary: It is now clear that the production and trade of opiates will have a significant influence on not only the economic, political and security landscape, but even the physical terrain of post-Transition Afghanistan. Levels of opium poppy cultivation are already rising; estimated cultivated area rose by 18 percent in 2012 and is likely to rise significantly over the next few years. And this trend may intensify further as politico-military actors make deals and form coalitions in response to the 2014 handover of security responsibility from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). Even while NATO forces remain, the coercive power of the Afghan state has diminished in parts of provinces previously described as "models" for counter-narcotics efforts. In provinces such as Helmand and Nangarhar, there is likely to be a return to widespread opium poppy cultivation in the more accessible and fertile areas as NATO and the ANSF cease to operate outside the areas where the state has a history of control. As security forces withdraw, the state has either relinquished control of such territory to anti-government elements (AGEs), or delegated it to local power brokers who may have little interest in reducing opium poppy cultivation, and may even encourage it. Further increases in cultivation are also likely as opium poppy returns in greater amounts to some of the provinces previously deemed "poppy free," such as Ghor, Laghman and even Balkh. Perhaps more worrying is the potential for an expansion of opium into previously uncultivated areas of desert land in the South. The adoption of new technologies-such as deep wells, herbicides and solar power-will likely aid cultivation in these areas, reducing the cost of inputs and increasing productivity. Meanwhile, ill-sequenced and poorly-targeted counter-narcotics and development efforts coupled with a continuing global demand for opiates provide additional incentives for production. Increasing levels of cultivation have wider implications for the political economy of the country. In an increasingly contested rural space, narcotics and counter-narcotics policies are both likely to be a major source of patronage and division. The Taliban have a history of actively encouraging opium poppy cultivation as part of a strategy to gain the support of the rural population and highlight the weakness of provincial administration. By provoking crop destruction as part of counter-narcotics efforts, this strategy also increases rural antipathy to the state and its international partners. The myriad different local security forces operating under the sometimes loose supervision of Afghan and international military forces are less coherent. In some areas of Kandahar and Helmand the Afghan Local Police (ALP) are pursuing an aggressive counter-narcotics effort, conscious that they may lose their salaries and patronage if they do not. In other parts of these provinces as well as in Balkh, farmers allege that members of the ALP and even the Afghan Border Police either benefit from poppy cultivation or grow it themselves. Details: Kabul, Afghanistan: Afghanistan Research And Evaluation Unit, 2013. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Briefing Paper Series: Accessed April 23, 2014 at: http://www.areu.org.af/Uploads/EditionPdfs/Opium%20BP.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Afghanistan URL: http://www.areu.org.af/Uploads/EditionPdfs/Opium%20BP.pdf Shelf Number: 132135 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Control PolicyNarcoticsOpiumPoppy Cultivation |
Author: Youngers, Coletta A. Title: The Drug Policy Reform Agenda in the Americas. Version 2. Summary: Latin America has emerged at the vanguard of efforts to promote debate on drug policy reform. For decades, Latin American governments largely followed the drug control policies and programs of Washington's so-called war on drugs. Yet two parallel trends have resulted in a dramatic change in course: the emergence of left-wing governments that have challenged Washington's historic patterns of unilateralism and interventionism and growing frustration with the failure of the prohibitionist drug control model put forward by the US government. In recent years, the regional debate on drug policy issues -- long dormant -- has surged as evident in media coverage, renewed interest on the part of academia, the emergence of grassroots initiatives such as the cannabis reform movement, and perhaps most importantly, calls for reconsideration of prevailing drug policies by a range of local and national officials. For the first time, sitting presidents are questioning the underlining premises of the international drug control paradigm and calling for debate on alternative approaches. Their actions have had repercussions internationally, as those presidents have successfully pushed for debate within the Organization of American States (OAS) and the United Nations (UN). At the national level, numerous countries have implemented or are debating drug policy reforms. Most significantly, two countries have boldly challenged the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Bolivia is the first country to denounce and return to the convention with a reservation, in this case with regards to coca leaf use within its own territory. And the Uruguayan government has proposed creating legal, state-controlled markets for cannabis. Uruguayan officials are carefully watching the regulatory frameworks being put in place in the U.S. states of Colorado and Washington where in November 2012 voters approved cannabis legalization referendums. At the local level, officials such as Bogota Mayor Gustavo Petro are forging ahead with innovative harm reduction-oriented programs designed to provide access to health services and treatment to drug users and to reduce crime and violence. However, the obstacles to reform - at the national, regional and international levels - loom large. Efforts to rewrite drug laws in Argentina and Ecuador, for example, are floundering in the face of opposition from powerful conservative political forces and some religious sectors. More often than not, public opinion continues to support mano dura, or hardline, approaches as a result of popular perceptions and fears that more flexible drug policies will lead to increased drug use and violence. Such fears are fanned by sensationalist or biased media coverage, as well as very real problems of citizen insecurity and violence in the poor neighborhoods where illicit drug use tends to be most prevalent. Regionally, while key Latin American leaders have spoken out in favor of reform, many others have remained silent or wedded to present policy. And internationally, a key group of countries, including the United States and Canada, are vociferously opposed to taking any action outside of the confines of the existing international drug control conventions. Yet while drug policy reforms will no doubt advance slowly, major fissures are evident in the international drug control architecture so carefully crafted by the United States and other countries. Perhaps nowhere is that more evident than in Latin America. After analyzing the regional debate, national level reforms and impediments to those reforms, this report concludes with concrete policy recommendations that should be undertaken to maintain the momentum and advance drug policy debates and reforms in the region Details: London: International Drug Policy Consortium, 2013. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: IDPC Briefing Paper: Accessed May 12, 2014 at: http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64663568/library/IDPC-briefing-paper_Drug-policy-reform-in-Latin-America_V2_ENGLISH.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Latin America URL: http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64663568/library/IDPC-briefing-paper_Drug-policy-reform-in-Latin-America_V2_ENGLISH.pdf Shelf Number: 132333 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Abuse and CrimeDrug Control PolicyDrug Reform (Latin America) |
Author: Rios Contreras, Viridiana Title: How Government Structure Encourages Criminal Violence: The causes of Mexico's Drug War Summary: This work advances a theory about corruption, criminal organizations, and violence to show how political institutions set incentives and constraints that lead criminal organizations behave, organize, compromise or fight one another. It is my argument that the propensity of criminal groups to deploy violence increases when formal or informal political institutions are decentralized because violent criminal organizations are less likely to be punished. Under decentralized institutional environments, understood here as those in which different levels of government fail to act cohesively as a single decision-making body, corruption agreements with one government inhibit law enforcement operations conducted by another. As a result, belligerent criminal organizations that would otherwise be punished remain untouched. My argument sheds light on why many criminal organizations are able to operate profitably without major episodes of violence, and illuminates the causes of Mexico's large increases in drug{related violence. A formal model (Chapter 2), an analytical narrative (Chapter 3), and an empirical test (Chapter 4 and 5) show that Mexican drug trafficking organizations increased their propensity to engage in injurious behavior only recently, responding to incentives set by political decentralization that inhibited Mexico's federal government from controlling the actions of its local governments, and thus from limiting trafficker's propensity to battle for turf. Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2012. 233p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed July 25, 2014 at: http://www.gov.harvard.edu/files/Rios_PhDDissertation.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Mexico URL: http://www.gov.harvard.edu/files/Rios_PhDDissertation.pdf Shelf Number: 132772 Keywords: Drug Control PolicyDrug TraffickingDrug Wars (Mexico)Drug-Related ViolenceOrganized CrimeViolenceViolent Crime |
Author: Isacson, Adam Title: Time to Listen: Trends in U.S. Security Assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean Summary: The list grows longer: sitting Latin American presidents, including the United States' principal allies; past presidents; the Organization of American States; the Summit of the Americas; civil society leaders from all nations. The clamor for drug policy reform, including for a reformed U.S. drug policy in Latin America, is growing rapidly. But Washington isn't hearing it. The Obama Administration's counternarcotics strategy has continued largely unchanged. In fact, over the past few years the United States has expanded its military, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies' direct involvement in counternarcotics operations in the Western Hemisphere. This has been particularly true in Central America, where it has had disturbing human rights impacts. Aid numbers do not tell the whole story. In dollar terms, assistance to most Latin American and Caribbean nations' militaries and police forces has declined since 2010, as Colombia's and Mexico's large aid packages wind down. Today, only aid to Central America is increasing significantly. For its part, the Defense Department is facing cuts and turning most of its attention to other regions. While the Pentagon's current approach to Latin America does not include major base construction or new massive aid packages, however, the United States is still providing significant amounts of aid and training to Latin America's armed forces and police. In addition to large-scale counter-drug operations, the region is seeing an increase in training visits from U.S. Special Forces, a greater presence of intelligence personnel and drones (while countries are obtaining drones, mostly not from the United States), and rapidly growing use of military and police trainers from third countries, especially Colombia. Much of what takes place may not show up as large budget amounts, but it is shrouded by secrecy, poor reporting to Congress and the public, and a migration of programs' management from the State Department to the Defense Department. A lack of transparency leads to a lack of debate about consequences and alternatives, for human rights, for civil-military relations, and for the United States' standing in the region. On human rights, the Obama Administration has been occasionally willing to raise tough issues with allies. It has encouraged trials in civilian, not military, courts for soldiers accused of committing gross human rights abuses, especially in Mexico and Colombia. It has supported the Rios Montt genocide trial in Guatemala, and has sided with countries and human rights groups that seek to maintain, not weaken, the current Inter-American human rights system. Details: Washington, DC: Center for International Policy, Latin America Working Group Education Fund, and Washington Office on Latin America, 2013. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 25, 2014 at: http://lawg.org/storage/documents/Time_to_Listen-Trends_in_U.S._Security_Assistance_to_Latin_America_and_the_Caribbean.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Central America URL: http://lawg.org/storage/documents/Time_to_Listen-Trends_in_U.S._Security_Assistance_to_Latin_America_and_the_Caribbean.pdf Shelf Number: 131150 Keywords: Drug Control PolicyDrug EnforcementDrug PolicyDrug TraffickingDrug-Related ViolenceHuman Rights AbusesWar on Drugs (Central America) |
Author: Global Commission on Drug Policy Title: Taking Control: Pathways to Drug Policies that Work Summary: The upcoming United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs (UNGASS) in 2016 is an unprecedented opportunity to review and re-direct national drug control policies and the future of the global drug control regime. As diplomats sit down to rethink international and domestic drug policy, they would do well to recall the mandate of the United Nations, not least to ensure security, human rights and development. Health is the thread that runs through all three of these aspirations, and the UN global drug control regime has the 'health and welfare of mankind' as its ultimate goal. But overwhelming evidence points to not just the failure of the regime to attain its stated goals but also the horrific unintended consequences of punitive and prohibitionist laws and policies. A new and improved global drug control regime is needed that better protects the health and safety of individuals and communities around the world. Harsh measures grounded in repressive ideologies must be replaced by more humane and effective policies shaped by scientific evidence, public health principles and human rights standards. This is the only way to simultaneously reduce drug-related death, disease and suffering and the violence, crime, corruption and illicit markets associated with ineffective prohibitionist policies. The fiscal implications of the policies we advocate, it must be stressed, pale in comparison to the direct costs and indirect consequences generated by the current regime. The Global Commission proposes five pathways to improve the global drug policy regime. After putting people's health and safety at the center of the picture, governments are urged to ensure access to essential medicines and pain control. The Commissioners call for an end to the criminalization and incarceration of users together with targeted prevention, harm reduction and treatment strategies for dependent users. In order to reduce drug related harms and undermine the power and profits of organized crime, the Commission recommends that governments regulate drug markets and adapt their enforcement strategies to target the most violent and disruptive criminal groups rather than punish low level players. The Global Commission's proposals are complimentary and comprehensive. They call on governments to rethink the problem, do what can and should be done immediately, and not to shy away from the transformative potential of regulation. The obstacles to drug policy reform are both daunting and diverse. Powerful and established drug control bureaucracies, both national and international, staunchly defend status quo policies. They seldom question whether their involvement and tactics in enforcing drug policy are doing more harm than good. Meanwhile, there is often a tendency to sensationalize each new "drug scare" in the media. And politicians regularly subscribe to the appealing rhetoric of "zero tolerance" and creating "drug free" societies rather than pursuing an informed approach based on evidence of what works. Popular associations of illicit drugs with ethnic and racial minorities stir fear and inspire harsh legislation. And enlightened reform advocates are routinely attacked as "soft on crime" or even "pro-drug." The good news is that change is in the air. The Global Commission is gratified that a growing number of the recommendations offered in this report are already under consideration, underway or firmly in place around the world. But we are at the beginning of the journey and governments can benefit from the accumulating experience where reforms are being pursued. Fortunately, the dated rhetoric and unrealistic goals set during the 1998 UNGASS on drugs are unlikely to be repeated in 2016. Indeed, there is growing support for more flexible interpretations and reform of the international drug control conventions aligned with human rights and harm reduction principles. Details: Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brasil: Global Commission on Drug Policy, 2014. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 12, 2014 at: http://www.gcdpsummary2014.com/#foreword-from-the-chair Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://www.gcdpsummary2014.com/#foreword-from-the-chair Shelf Number: 133289 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Control PolicyDrug Enforcement |
Author: Jelsma, Martin Title: Towards a Healthier Legal Environment: A Review of Myanmar's Drug Laws Summary: This report reviews Myanmar's drug laws and related policies, including the 1917 Burma Excise Act; the 1993 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Law; and the 1995 Rules relating to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. Since these laws were enacted several important changes have taken place inside and outside of Myanmar. The decision of the Myanmar Government to review the law is not only timely but also offers a prospect to improve the drugs legislation and to ensure that the laws address drug-related problems in the country more effectively. It is an opportunity to ensure that affected populations have access to health care and development, taking into account both national conditions and international developments and best practices. This review paper will first give an overview of Myanmar's current legal and policy framework related to drugs, followed by an overall analysis. After that it will make specific comments on a number of key articles. In addition, the review will outline some international obligations and best practices. Finally, the paper will make some overall conclusions and recommendations Details: Amsterdam: Transnational Institute, 2015. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 2, 2015 at: http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/towards_a_healthier_legal_environment.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Burma URL: http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/towards_a_healthier_legal_environment.pdf Shelf Number: 134736 Keywords: Drug Abuse and Addiction (Myanmar)Drug Control PolicyDrug Enforcement |
Author: Magson, Jessica Title: Drugs, Crime and decriminalisation: Assessing the impact of drug decriminalisation policies on the efficience and integrity of the criminal justice system Summary: In recent decades a number of countries have moved away from a prohibitionist model of drug control towards policies that prioritise harm reduction and rehabilitation, with the goal of reducing demand and minimising the social and individual harms caused by drug abuse. In Portugal and the Czech Republic, low-threshold possession of any drug is a misdemeanour rather than a criminal offence, diverting users away from the criminal justice system and in the case of Portugal, providing support through newly created Dissuasion Commissions. The authorities in Uruguay have long decriminalised drug possession and are now on the cusp of regulating the supply and distribution of cannabis. Drug use and abuse continues in all three countries but demand has remained stable and notable successes have been observed. In the UK there are also growing calls from frontline practitioners and officials in the criminal justice system for a similar process of diversion and regulation, and we have now reached a stage where significant numbers in the police, courts, prisons and probation services are critical of both the effectiveness and intellectual coherence of the drug laws they are charged with upholding. Set in this context, the report considers how the criminal justice system may be affected by the removal of criminal penalties for possession-only offences, as well as a longer-term shift to supply-side regulation. Drawing on meetings with officials in Portugal, the Czech Republic and Uruguay it explains some of the lessons we can learn from their experiences, as the government works to support recovery and reduce demand in the UK. There are four main findings to this report that together reinforce arguments in support of the diversion of possession cases away from the criminal justice system; Enhanced efficiency and streamlined processes - All the different strands of the system (police, courts, prisons, and probation) should to differing extents make efficiency gains, see a gradual fall in their caseload and a longer-term trend of enhanced trust with the individuals they are working with. The police in particular are likely to see their work dealing with drug users simplified. These improvements depend on reform being enacted with a proper prioritization of diversion to health and social support, attention to practical detail and clear strategic vision. Feasibility - A diversionary system would in the first instance require limited statutory change and fairly minor adjustments to staff procedures, and the UK is in the strong position of being able to draw on and expand existing pilots and national schemes supporting rehabilitation. Opportunities for greater strategic and structural coherence - Effective rehabilitation in Portugal was enabled by a strategic shift towards multidisciplinary oversight, reflecting the complex needs of problematic users and the diverse impact of drug abuse on areas such as health, employment, education and housing. The diversion of possession offences is unlikely to have a significant impact on rehabilitation rates unless combined with a broader set of reforms that allow health and welfare agencies to better identify and provide support to problematic users. There is a case for adjusting oversight responsibilities in the UK in a similar way, to better align policy with responses on the ground. International alignment - There is a clear international shift towards a reassessment of approaches to drug control. We know that reform is best achieved incrementally. The UK is now in a strong position to reform its possession laws, better preparing the country for a possible future of supply-side regulation. Proactive engagement would allow the UK to feed in its well known rule of law expertise in helping to shape multilateral decisions that could have a huge bearing on the nation's own domestic landscape. Details: Winston Churchill Memorial Trust, 2014. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 2, 2015 at: http://www.wcmt.org.uk/sites/default/files/migrated-reports/1200_1.pdf Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://www.wcmt.org.uk/sites/default/files/migrated-reports/1200_1.pdf Shelf Number: 134737 Keywords: Drug Control PolicyDrug DecriminalizationDrug EnforcementDrug LegalizationDrug Reform Policy |
Author: Wish, Eric D. Title: Community Drug Early Warning System: The CDEWS Pilot Summary: This report describes a pilot test of the Community Drug Early Warning System (CDEWS) in three jurisdictions in the Washington, DC and Richmond, VA, Metropolitan Areas. CDEWS was designed to provide rapid information about emerging drug use in local communities by sampling urine specimens already obtained and tested for a limited panel of drugs by local criminal justice agencies and retesting them for a larger panel of drugs. The anonymous specimens were sent to an independent laboratory for testing for a panel of more than 30 licit and illicit drugs including 12 synthetic cannabinoid (SC) metabolites. The results demonstrated that CDEWS could be successfully implemented in diverse criminal justice populations, including arrestees, probationers and parolees, and drug court participants. Most important, CDEWS proved its utility for uncovering emerging drugs. SCs were detected in the specimens from all participating sites in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. Furthermore, all of the SC positive specimens contained one or two of the metabolites (UR-144 and XLR-11) recently identified and added to the federal schedule of prohibited SC metabolites after this study began. Additional analyses of the CDEWS results identified areas of Washington, DC, where the SC positive specimens were more concentrated and where future studies of its use and availability could be focused. The report concludes with research implications of the findings and next steps for implementing CDEWS in other sites. Details: Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, 2013. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 16, 2015 at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/finalreport_with_cover_09172013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/finalreport_with_cover_09172013.pdf Shelf Number: 135655 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Control PolicyDrug EnforcementDrug TestingIllicit DrugsUrine Testing |
Author: Hallam, Christopher Title: The International Drug Control Regime and Access to Controlled Medicines Summary: The World Health Organisation estimates that some 5.5 billion people around the globe inhabit countries with low to non-existent access to controlled medicines and have inadequate access to treatment for moderate to severe pain. This figure translates to over 80 per cent of the world's population. Only in a small number of wealthy countries do citizens stand a reasonable chance of gaining adequate access to pain care, though even here room for improvement remains. According to the International Narcotics Control Board, recent data indicate that more than 90 per cent of the consumption of strong opioids takes place in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States and Western Europe. In poor and developing nations, meanwhile, and even in several industrialised states, pain remains largely uncontrolled. Africa is the least well served continent for access to analgesia. The situation affects numerous conditions: pain may go untreated for those with cancer and with HIV/AIDS, for women in childbirth, for numerous chronic conditions, for those in post-surgical settings, those who are wounded in armed conflicts, those who have suffered accidents, and so on. Conclusions and recommendations - The unacceptable situation with respect to access to controlled medicines is another indicator that the time is right to consider the revision of the international drug control treaties in order to achieve a better balance between the twin objectives of restricting nonmedical drug use and ensuring access for medical and scientific requirements. - While the treaties remain unreformed, the INCB should achieve a better understanding of the manner in which its concerns with restricting diversion and nonmedical use impacts upon the system's public health imperatives, in particular the provision of access to essential medicines. - With this in mind, the INCB should refrain from interfering in those areas of the system that are mandated to WHO, such as the scheduling of substances under the 1961 and 1971 conventions. - The WHO has demonstrated courage and leadership in its defence of public health priorities in its scheduling recommendations. It should continue to adopt this position, and should receive the commendation and support of Parties and NGOs in so doing. - Again, until the treaties are reformed to represent a better balance between their twin objectives, the INCB should consider utilising Article 14 of the Single Convention in relation to those states who fail to progressively establish access to essential medicines. In most cases, the Article should be invoked together with Article 14 bis, which would allow supportive technical and financial steps to be taken to assist non-compliant countries. - Funds to assist governments to comply with their obligation along the lines of Article 14 bis could come from individual states with an interest, or from a special group fund dedicated to the purpose. - NGOs in the field of palliative care and those working to reform the drug control system should cooperate to bring about change. Details: Amsterdam: Transnational Institute; London: International Drug Policy Consortium, 2014. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies No. 26: Accessed May 21, 2015 at: http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/dlr26-e.pdf Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/dlr26-e.pdf Shelf Number: 135739 Keywords: Drug ControlDrug Control PolicyMedical Care |
Author: Bynum, Timothy Title: Methamphetamine in Michigan: Issues and Interventions Summary: Methamphetamine abuse and manufacture has become an increasingly serious problem across the United States in recent years. Known more commonly as "meth," the drug is a type of synthetic stimulant that affects the body's central nervous system, and is highly addictive. The consequences of methamphetamine abuse are particularly serious in that not only is the drug very addictive but chronic use can result in significant and potentially irreversible damage to the brain. Methamphetamine works by stimulating excess release of dopamine, a neurotransmitter that is instrumental in regulating feelings of pleasure in the body. Users may smoke, inhale, inject or swallow meth, depending on the form of the drug at the time of use. The effects of meth may last up to 8 hours. Users often develop a tolerance to the effects and then increase the frequency and/or dosage of the drug that is needed in order to get high. According to an ONDCP report meth users tend to be white males, with an average age of 29. Users typically come from a low or low to middle socioeconomic group and many are unemployed. Methamphetamine was originally developed for treatment of respiratory problems in the 1930s. The American Medical Association approved the use of amphetamines to treat a variety of ailments including ADD, Parkinson's, depression and narcolepsy. (Hunt, et. al, 2006) The effects on sleep and fatigue were recognized by the military and the armed forces in Japan and the United States utilized amphetamines and meth to combat fatigue. Available by prescription, more extensive civilian use commenced in the 1960s and was used by women for weight loss along with college students and truck drivers needing to stay awake for work or studying. In 1970, amphetamine and methamphetamine were classified as a Schedule II drug thus making them illegal to possess without a prescription. Until recently many of the precursors necessary to make meth were legal. In 2003 ephedrine was banned under the Ephedra Prohibition Act and in 2004 Oklahoma passed legislation restricting ephedrine/pseudoephedrine products and forced buyers to identify themselves at pharmacies where the product was now only kept behind the counter. Other states have adopted similar legislation. (Hunt et. al, 2006) Despite these new laws, meth can be manufactured rather easily in clandestine or makeshift laboratories using inexpensive and readily available ingredients, allowing large quantities to be made at more affordable prices compared to other types of stimulant narcotics. The volatility of these labs creates extremely unsafe and often toxic and explosive situations. The highly addictive nature of the drug combined with the hazards associated with the makeshift labs has garnered increased attention from law enforcement agencies and treatment providers at both national and local levels. Details: East Lansing, MI: Michigan Justice Statistics Center, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, 2007. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 21, 2005 at: http://cj.msu.edu/assets/Methamphetamine-in-Michigan-Issues-and-Interventions.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://cj.msu.edu/assets/Methamphetamine-in-Michigan-Issues-and-Interventions.pdf Shelf Number: 135744 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Control PolicyMethamphetamine |
Author: Caulkins, Jonathan P. Title: After the Grand Fracture: Scenarios for the Collapse of the International Drug Control Regime Summary: Key Findings - Decriminalizing the possession of amounts of marijuana suitable for personal use has minimal repercussions beyond a nation's borders. But even one country's legalization of a commercial cocaine or heroin industry would affect global markets. - International prohibitions against cocaine and heroin create asymmetries. Production and transshipment concentrate in relatively few places that bear the bulk of the negative externalities created by the illegal production and international trade. - The impact of negative externalities has led to calls for altering the United Nations treaty framework and for individual nations to legalize outside of the existing framework. - Legalization of production in one country would attract productive activities (with their associated externalities) from the remaining illicit producers. This incentivizes current producing countries to encourage others to take the first step. - Legalization of transshipment in one country would attract transportation activities from existing jurisdictions where drugs remain illegal since it would reduce the need for traffickers to assume the risk of covert shipments or armed guards. - The impact of legalized transshipment of cocaine is different for the United States and for other regions of the world. As the United States shares a large porous border with Mexico, current covert smuggling networks would continue to operate. Transshipment to Europe and Asia would take place through regular trade routes, principally containers, given the distances involved. - If a European or Asian state with large porous land borders were to legalize transshipment, it would attract the bulk of cocaine transported to their region, producing covert smuggling networks similar to those currently existing on the U.S.-Mexico border. Details: Washington, DC: Brooking Institute, 2015. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 21, 2015 at: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2015/04/global-drug-policy/Caulkinsfinal.pdf?la=en Year: 2015 Country: International URL: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2015/04/global-drug-policy/Caulkinsfinal.pdf?la=en Shelf Number: 135752 Keywords: Criminal NetworksDrug Control PolicyDrug LegalizationDrug SmugglingDrug Trafficking |
Author: Lumpe, Lora Title: US Law Enforcement Involvement in Counternarcotics Operations in Latin America Summary: US government assistance to foreign law enforcement agencies to curb drug trafficking into the United States began in 1949. At that time, two agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics were sent to Turkey and France to try and interdict the flow of heroin. By the 1960s and 70s, federal drug law enforcement agents were conducting major international operations aimed at cutting marijuana importation across the Mexican border and curbing heroin trafficking into the US by the French mafia (the "French connection"). In 1973 the DEA was created, in what was billed as an effort to consolidate drug control functions of several offices and agencies. However, US Customs overseas enforcement operations and investigations, which date back several decades, continued. Meanwhile, the US Coast Guard became involved in overseas counterdrug enforcement and investigation, State Department-backed counternarcotics assistance to foreign police agencies began in 1978 and FBI involvement in international counternarcotics programs began in earnest the 1980s and escalated in the mid-1990s. (The September 11th attacks and the resultant shift toward a focus on countering terrorist threats to the United States have affected the role and scope of most agencies with foreign counternarcotics responsibilities.) This memo covers each of these agencies' involvement in general terms, including their mission, methods of international operation, budgetary and bureaucratic history, and oversight mechanisms. An appendix relates specific details available about these agencies' activities in WOLA's priority countries. The information is drawn largely from government documentation (wherein the various agencies self describe their operations and motivation), congressional hearings, oversight reports and investigative journalistic accounts. The intent of the document is threefold: - to provide leads or questions that in-country researchers can follow up on to discover as much as possible about the reality and local impact of these agencies' overseas operations; - to identify places where Congress' help is needed in order to force basic information on these agencies' operations into the public domain and where work by WOLA will result in greater oversight of US counternarcotics policy; and - to lay the groundwork for an overview chapter on the non-military (ie, law enforcement) aspects of the US-backed war on drugs in Latin America. Details: Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America, 2002. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 20, 2015 at: http://www.wola.org/sites/default/files/downloadable/Drug%20Policy/past/ddhr_law_enforcement_overview.pdf Year: 2002 Country: Latin America URL: http://www.wola.org/sites/default/files/downloadable/Drug%20Policy/past/ddhr_law_enforcement_overview.pdf Shelf Number: 136104 Keywords: Drug Control PolicyDrug Law EnforcementDrug TraffickingWar on Drugs |
Author: Wish, Eric D. Title: Community Drug Early Warning System: The CDEWS-2 Replication Study Summary: The Community Drug Early Warning System (CDEWS) provides rapid information about emerging drug use in local communities by sampling anonymous urine specimens already collected and tested, and ready to be discarded by local criminal justice programs. CDEWS re- tests the specimens for an expanded panel of more than 75 drugs. The most dramatic finding from the first study, CDEWS-1, completed in September 2013, was the identification of specific synthetic cannabinoids (SC) used by adult arrestee and parole/probation populations in the Washington, DC and Richmond, VA Metropolitan Areas. SC metabolites were actually equally or more likely to be detected in specimens that had passed the local criminal justice system (CJS) drug tests than in those that failed, suggesting that people were using them to avoid detection by the routine CJS testing screens. This second report on CDEWS (CDEWS-2) replicates the CDEWS results for adult parolees/probationers in Washington, DC, and studies new adult and/or juvenile criminal justice populations from Washington, DC (juveniles), Denver, Colorado (drug court adults), and Tampa, Florida (juveniles). A total of 1,026 specimens from these populations were tested as part of the CDEWS-2 study. The CDEWS-2 urinalyses showed dramatic changes from the SC metabolites detected the prior year in CDEWS-1, and shows substantial differences in SC found from site to site. For the CDEWS-2 study, we interviewed toxicologists and other experts to determine the most important drugs, including new psychoactive substances (NPS), to include on our testing panel. This shows the value of interviewing experts in order to update the CDEWS test panel to include newly discovered SC metabolites. A large number of specimens tested positive for the metabolites added during CDEWS-2. About 50% of the 21-30 year old male probationers from DC who had passed the local more limited CJS screen and about 1 in 5 of all tested juveniles in DC at all ages, from 13-17, tested positive for SC. The SC metabolites detected varied by population and site; for example, all SC positive specimens from Tampa juveniles contained only one metabolite, UR-144, but only 71% of the SC positive specimens from DC juveniles and 53% of SC positives from adults in the Denver drug court contained UR-144. In fact, among DC juveniles, 8 SC metabolites were found and among Denver adults 10 SC metabolites were found. Testing for designer stimulants was suspended after all subsamples for the 4 populations tested negative for these drugs. The CDEWS-2 results attest to the value of expanded testing of specimens already collected by local CJS drug testing programs and the difficulties inherent in keeping up with the constantly evolving nature of NPS. The results suggest that many adults and juveniles in local CJS drug testing programs likely turn to SC to avoid detection. It is also likely that programs using similar protocols to test urine specimens in other contexts, such as schools, hospitals and treatment programs are missing SC use in their populations, leading to lost opportunities for diagnosis and intervention. These risks are especially dangerous for youths being exposed to new and constantly changing NPS at an early age. Future CDEWS studies of these populations might help to address these issues. Details: Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy Executive Office of the President, 2015. 100p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 8, 2015 at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/policy-and-research/finalreport_4_8_15v3.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/policy-and-research/finalreport_4_8_15v3.pdf Shelf Number: 136354 Keywords: Drug Abuse and Addiction Drug Control Policy Drug Enforcement Drug Testing Illicit DrugsUrine Testing |
Author: Gallahue, Patrick Title: The Death Penalty for Drug Offences: Global Overview 2015. The Extreme Fringe of Global Drug Policy Summary: This report looks at the death penalty for drugs in law and practice. It also considers critical developments on the issue. Among its findings are: >> There are at least 33 countries and territories that prescribe the death penalty for drugs in law. >> At least 10 countries have the death penalty for drugs as a mandatory sanction. >> In 2013, around 549 people were believed to have been executed for drugs. This is an estimate using figures provided by human rights monitors but it cannot be considered comprehensive and it is likely there are more executions than those recorded. >> If the estimates for China are accurate and remained constant for 2014, then there would have been at least 600 executions for drugs in 2014. The actual figure is also likely to be higher when countries like North Korea, for which there is no reliable data, are included. >> Executions for drugs took place in at least seven countries since 2010. This number is possibly higher but not by much. Very few countries in the world actually execute drug offenders with any frequency. >> As of 2015, there are believed to be almost 900 people on death row for drugs in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Pakistan, and many hundreds more in China, Iran and Vietnam. While this report notes that there still are a troubling number of governments with capital drug laws in law very few states actually execute people for drugs. The number of people killed for drug-related offences is high but only because China, Iran and Saudi Arabia are aggressive executioners. The reality is that those governments that kill for drugs are an extreme fringe of the international community. One of the major developments in recent years on the death penalty for drugs, however, is that the international community is no longer standing idly by. The death penalty for drugs is distinct from many other capital offences as drug control is not confined to the borders of a particular country. The investigation, capture and prosecution of those who are executed may require assistance from partners around the world, including agencies based in countries that are opposed to the death penalty. After all, international drug control is a collective endeavour formalised by international agreements. The 1988 Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances promotes cross-border information-sharing between national agencies, joint trainings, technical and financial assistance between a variety of States Parties. The 1988 Convention formalised transnational cooperation in drug control and essentially 'internationalised' the war on drugs. In practice, this means a border control program between Iran and Pakistan could involve European Union donors, German police trainers, French equipment and British intelligence. Details: Harm Reduction International, 2015. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2015 at: http://www.ihra.net/files/2015/10/07/DeathPenaltyDrugs_Report_2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: International URL: http://www.ihra.net/files/2015/10/07/DeathPenaltyDrugs_Report_2015.pdf Shelf Number: 137193 Keywords: Capital PunishmentDeath PenaltyDrug Control PolicyDrug EnforcementDrug Offenders |
Author: Mikos, Robert A. Title: On the Limits of Federal Supremacy: When States Relax (or Abandon) Marijuana Bans Summary: he American Constitution divides governmental power between the federal government and several state governments. In the event of a conflict between federal law and state law, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2P makes it clear that state policies are subordinate to federal policies. There are, however, important limitations to the doctrine of federal supremacy. First, there must be a valid constitutional basis for the federal policy in question. The powers of the federal government are limited and enumerated, and the president and Congress must always respect the boundary lines that the Constitution created. Second, even in the areas where federal authorities may enact law, they may not use the states as instruments of federal governance. This anti-commandeering limitation upon federal power is often overlooked, but the Supreme Court will enforce that principle in appropriate cases. Using medical marijuana as a case study, I examine how the anti-commandeering principle protects the states' prerogative to legalize activity that Congress bans. The federal government has banned marijuana outright, and for years federal officials have lobbied against local efforts to legalize medical use of the drug. However, an ever-growing number of states have adopted legalization measures. I explain why these state laws, and most related regulations, have not been-and cannot be-preempted by Congress. I also develop a new framework for analyzing the boundary between the proper exercise of federal supremacy and prohibited commandeering. Although I focus on medical marijuana, the legal analysis applies to any issue pitting permissive state laws against restrictive federal regulations. Recent referenda in Colorado and Washington that legalize the recreational use of marijuana for adults will likely prompt federal officials to respond by touting the supremacy of the federal ban and challenging the constitutionality of state efforts at legalization. Such state reforms should carry the day in the event of such a legal challenge. Details: Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2012. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2016 at: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA714.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA714.pdf Shelf Number: 137840 Keywords: Drug Control PolicyDrug PolicyMarijuanaMedical Marijuana |
Author: Clark, Kyleigh M. Title: When Prohibition and Violence Collide: The Case of Mexico Summary: Some theorists have found a positive correlation between increased drug prohibition enforcement and a rise in violence. These studies focus on the United States and Colombia, arguing that prohibition amplifies violence, rather than decreasing it. Much like the United States and Colombia earlier in their histories, Mexico has recently experienced an escalation in violence. Since beginning a democratic transition in 2000, the Mexican government has intensified a war on drugs by strengthening the rule of law, battling corruption, and cooperating with the United States' drug war. This study, using a congruence method with process-tracing, will analyze the Mexican case in depth, with the goal of determining whether increased drug prohibition enforcement has escalated drug-related violence in Mexico, and what effect the violence has on the legitimacy of democracy itself in Mexico Details: Dayton, OH: Wright State University, 2011. 146p. Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed October 17, 2016 at: http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2209&context=etd_all Year: 2011 Country: Mexico URL: http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2209&context=etd_all Shelf Number: 146034 Keywords: Drug Control PolicyDrug EnforcementDrug ProhibitionDrug-Related ViolenceWar on Drugs |
Author: European Parliament. Directorate-General for Internal Policies. Policy Department C Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs Title: A Review and Assessment of EU Drug Policy Summary: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The challenges facing Europe in the field of drugs are still significant and have increased in complexity in recent years. In addition to the key issue of mortality and morbidity as a result of opioid use, new and emerging problems are being experienced across the EU. These include the creation of new psychoactive substances and the increasing dynamism of illicit drug markets. This study aims to provide evidence on international and EU approaches to drug policy, including these challenges and focusing on several case study countries. This evidence has been used to identify and develop policy proposals. Drug policy at the UN and EU levels The main tenets of the UN's approach to drugs are the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the 1971 UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances and the 1988 UN Convention against illicit traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. A key UN policy document is the 2009 'Political Declaration and Plan of Action on International Cooperation towards an Integrated and Balanced Strategy to Counter the World Drug Problem'. This document details a set of goals to be achieved by 2019, including significant and measurable progress in eliminating the illicit cultivation of opium poppy, coca bush and cannabis plant, as well as actions to be implemented by countries across three main pillars. In April 2016, the UNGASS on the World Drug Problem was convened; a UN General Assembly special session seen as an important milestone in achieving the goals set out in the 2009 policy document. The UNGASS resulted in the adoption of the outcome document 'Our joint commitment to effectively addressing and countering the world drug problem. This document provided a range of operational recommendations and broadened the original pillar structure to 7 pillars (see chapter 2). Several new themes were added including drugs and health, drugs and human rights, new drug related challenges such as NPS and use of the internet, and international and development related cooperation. At the EU level, although the primary onus for developing drug policy and legislation remains with the Member States, there are a several legal bases for EU action, as stipulated in the Treaty of Lisbon. These cover the context of adopting minimum rules on the definition of criminal offences and sanctions on serious organised crime (Article 83 TFEU), public health (Article 168 TFEU), the internal market (Article 114 TFEU) and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (Articles 82-86 TFEU). In terms of EU policy, the most prominent current instrument is the EU Drugs Strategy 2013-2020. The Strategy provides the overarching political framework and priorities for EU drug policy. The EU Drugs Strategy has 5 main objectives, namely to reduce demand and harm, disrupt the drugs market, discourse and analysis, cooperation, and research and monitoring. The implementation of the Strategy's long-term objectives have been operationalised in 4- year Action Plans. In November 2015, the Commission adopted a report on the progress of the implementation of the EU Drugs Strategy and Action Plan. The mid-term evaluation of the first Action Plan (2013-2016) is due to be completed by the end of 2016 or, at the latest, early 2017. The findings from the mid-term evaluation and the Public Consultation, which was launched by the European Commission in March 2016, will inform the Commission's decision to propose a new Action Plan for 2017-2020. Recent EU legislative developments relate to a package of two proposals regarding new psychoactive substances. These proposals were put forward by the European Commission is 2013. As Member States expressed doubts in the Council concerning the choice of Article 114 TFEU as the legal basis for the proposed Regulation, inter-institutional negotiations of this legislative package were ongoing for more than two years. As a result, the Commission withdrew its proposal on 29 August 2016 and tabled a proposal amending the founding Regulation of the EMCDDA (Regulation (EC) No 1920/2006 on the EMCDDA). Under this proposal, deadlines for decision-making on NPS will be significantly reduced and Europol will take on a more active role in the risk assessment procedure and the Early Warning System (EWS), with a view to quicker identification and assessment of the involvement of criminal groups. The new proposal was welcomed by all Member States and was backed by the European Parliament's LIBE Committee on 17 November 2016. Details: Brussels: European Parliament, 2016. 224p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2017 at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/571400/IPOL_STU(2016)571400_EN.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Europe URL: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/571400/IPOL_STU(2016)571400_EN.pdf Shelf Number: 144946 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Control PolicyDrug EnforcementDrug marketsDrug PolicyIllicit DrugsOrganized Crime |
Author: McBride, George Title: High Stakes: An Inquiry into the Drugs Crisis in English Prisons Summary: Prisons are in crisis with record levels of suicides, violence and self-harm. Traditional drugs have been replaced by a family of drugs called synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists, generically referred to as 'black mamba' or 'spice.' The government has failed to recognise the important policy implications of these new drugs, and the lack of intelligent drug policy in the new white paper risks undermining the entirety of the proposed prison reforms. This report is the first of its kind bringing together experts in drug and prison policy to examine the implications of the radical shift in prison drug markets and propose pragmatic solutions to reduce drug-related harms and improve prison safety and security. The report reviews the rise to near ubiquity of spice in men's prisons in England. These diverse and multitudinous substances have risen to prominence globally in response to international prohibition of popular illicit substances, in particular cannabis. These new substances have relatively unknown risk profiles and many induce paranoia, behavioural disturbances, violence, seizures and convulsions. They are particularly popular in prisons due to their low cost, difficulty to detect, and "bird [prison sentence] killing" effects. Too little is being done to fight drug demand within prisons. Prisoners are often left unoccupied in their cells for 23 hours a day. Many prisoners are developing drug problems during their incarceration. Overall 8% of men in prison in England and Wales report developing a drug problem since they have been in prison. In prisons with the worst regimes this is as high as 14-16%. This is increasing drug use and the frequency of dangerous incidents, which are a substantial drain on prison staff resources. This feeds a vicious cycle, further draining resources, and is leaving prisoners increasingly unoccupied and under supervised. As staff capacity is reduced this further decreases the ability of prisons to perform essential functions in disrupting the supply of drugs into prisons leaving criminal organisations able to push drugs with impunity. The supply reduction methods proposed in the White Paper are expensive distractions from the real work needed to disrupt criminal supply chains. Proposed extensions to the mandatory drug testing regime will be impracticable with the available resources, only identify a limited range of the drugs in circulation, and fail to assist in identifying those supplying drugs. New sniffer dogs will quickly become obsolete due to the rate of chemical innovation of new substances. We are currently monitoring drug use in prisons through mandatory drug testing and records of seizures. These methods give very little assistance in terms of understanding who is supplying drugs, who is using drugs, what drugs are in circulation, how drugs are getting into prisons, or the level and nature of harm associated with drug use in a given prison. Recommendations: Risk management not zero tolerance – a chasm exists between the prevailing rhetoric and policy reality. In order to manage prisons effectively efforts need to focus on disrupting supply chains, reducing demand for drugs, and improving intelligence-gathering. Reducing drug-related harms makes prisons safer places in which rehabilitation is more effective. Helping addicted drug-users who are willing to change to turn their lives around is proven to reduce re-offending rates. Reduce demand through purposeful activity – There needs to be an acceptance that supply reduction measures are there to disrupt supply, they are not there to eradicate it. A shift of emphasis towards demand reduction is required to make prisons more effective places at tackling problem drug habits and rehabilitating offenders. There is a clear link between a lack of purposeful activity and the uptake of drug use. Busy prison regimes and treatment are more effective than security measures in managing the drug problem in our prisons. The long-held emphasis on supply reduction over demand reduction creates an increased burden on staff, logistical and management difficulties, and associated difficulties in implementing new policies, supporting work, training, education and treatment schemes. These costs too often go uncounted. Overhaul monitoring of drug use – An essential part of effective management is using appropriate, reliable metrics for measuring success and failure. The Ministry of Justice’s recommendations to monitor prisons’ drug policy outcomes via drug testing prisoners on arrival and exit from prison will not provide reliable or useful data. Instead, a system should be implemented to monitor the nature and scale of the drug market and drug-related harms. Regular anonymous audits of drug use and the drug market could provide valuable information from treatment staff, prison officers, current and ex-prisoners. Overhaul monitoring of drug supply and security – Current supply-reduction and security measures are not grounded in evidence. New proposed measures focus on drones and visitors when there is no evidence that these are the primary sources of supply. There is evidence suggesting corrupt staff may be a major source of supply. Evidence gathering is needed on drug seizures to assist in determining their providence, as well as a new regional task force within the Prison Service to oversee periodic spot checks and searches of staff. Improve staff to prisoner ratio – Overseeing busy prison routines and effective treatment is a labour-intensive endeavour with no quick-fix technological solutions. In order to bring about this reform we need a better staff to prisoner ratio. To do so means that we need to either substantially reduce the prison population or substantially increase prison funding. Reducing the prison population likely has both fiscal and outcome benefits by reducing the use of a costly and ineffective intervention. Details: London: Volteface, 2016. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2017 at: http://volteface.me/app/uploads/2017/01/High-Stakes-A4-Printed-Booklet-Final-Version-1.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://volteface.me/app/uploads/2017/01/High-Stakes-A4-Printed-Booklet-Final-Version-1.pdf Shelf Number: 144834 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug ControlDrug Control PolicyDrug OffendersDrug Use in PrisonPrison ContrabandPrison PolicyPrison Violence |
Author: Ramsey, Geoff Title: Uruguay: Marijuana, Organized Crime and the Politics of Drugs Summary: Uruguay is poised to become the first country on the planet to regulate the production, sale, distribution, and consumption of marijuana. This report looks at the political, economic, and criminal challenges to Uruguay's new marijuana regulations. Details: s.l.: Insight Crime, 2013. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 15, 2017 at: http://www.insightcrime.org/images/PDFs/2016/uruguay_legalization.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Uruguay URL: http://www.insightcrime.org/images/PDFs/2016/uruguay_legalization.pdf Shelf Number: 145101 Keywords: Drug Control PolicyDrug MarketsMarijuanaOrganized Crime |
Author: Gau, Jacinta M. Title: Non-Medical Use of Prescription Drugs: Policy Change, Law Enforcement Activity, and Diversion Tactics Summary: The crisis in prescription-opioid addiction began long before it was finally brought out into the open (Inciardi et al., 2009). Southern states experienced the most notable rates of addiction and overdose. This finding was attributed to this group’s high level of involvement in manuallabor occupations and tendency to be uninsured and live in areas with few or no medical resources (Young, Havens, & Leukefeld, 2012). Many people's opioid addiction begins when they are prescribed these pills for legitimate pain. The State of Florida emerged as the epicenter of the national opioid epidemic. In 2010, the Florida Medical Examiners Commission's (FMEC) annual report revealed startling rates of deaths due to or related to oxycodone, hydrocodone, and other prescription opioids; in fact, more people died from opioids than from cocaine. The report found that, excluding alcohol, prescription drugs were 81% of all drug-related or drug-caused deaths (FMEC, 2011). In 2011, this rose to 83% (FMEC, 2012). The Florida legislature’s first contribution to the fight against prescription pill abuse was the authorization of the creation of a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) in 2009 (also known as E-FORSE; FS 893.055). The PDMP became operational in 2011. Law enforcement officers may become certified to access the PDMP directly; those who are not certified can gain access only via a certified officer or the Florida Department of Health (FDOH). The second major step occurred in 2010 with the official creation of the term "pain management clinic" (PMC) and requirement that certain medical establishments register with the FDOH as pain clinics under the law (FS 458.3265 (applicable to medical practices) and FS 459.0137 (applicable to osteopathic practice). There are two triggers which would require a medical office to register as a pain clinic: (a) if the clinic advertises in any medium that it offers pain management services; or (b) if in any month a majority of the clinic's patients are prescribed opioids, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, or carisoprodol for the treatment of chronic, nonmalignant pain. The third meaningful piece of legislation was House Bill (HB) 7095. Dubbed the "pill mill law," HB 7095 was signed into law on June 3, 2011 (and went into effect on July 1, 2011) and established several new regulations pertaining to the physical facilities of pain clinics and the acceptable minimum extent of medical examinations and follow-ups physicians must perform on patients before and after prescribing them opioids for the treatment of chronic, nonmalignant pain. HB 7095 was intended to compel physicians and clinics currently operating in a subpar manner to either improve or go out of business, while at the same time adding no burden to physicians already delivering high-quality, ethical care. This law also contained a dispensing ban, which prohibits PMCs from operating on-site pharmacies. Now, patients receiving prescriptions from PMCs must fill those prescriptions at independently operated community pharmacies (CPs). The present project is an overview of trends in PMCs occurring in the three years following the important changes to Florida law and policy that occurred primarily in 2011 (though changes began in 2009). Quantitative and qualitative data were collected. The first source of quantitative data is the FDOH, which is charged with receiving and approving applications, inspecting facilities, handling disciplinary allegations and hearings, and forcibly closing clinics found to be in persistent violation of regulatory standards. Second are three police departments serving large cities across the state, from which geocoded crime-incident data were obtained. Finally, qualitative data from in-depth interviews with law-enforcement officers around the state allow for a detailed look into the challenges law enforcement face in attempting to hold pain-management clinic physicians criminally liable. Details: Orlando, FL: Department of Criminal Justice University of Central Florida, 2017. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 21, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250603.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250603.pdf Shelf Number: 144536 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Abuse and CrimeDrug AddictionDrug Control PolicyPrescription Drug AbusePrescription Drugs |
Author: Beittel, June S. Title: Colombia's Changing Approach to Drug Policy Summary: Colombia is one of the largest producers of cocaine globally, and it also produces heroin bound for the United States. Counter-narcotics policy has long been a key component of the U.S.- Colombian relationship, which some analysts have described as "driven by drugs." Now, Colombia is changing its approach to counter-narcotics policy, which may have implications for the U.S.-Colombian relationship. U.S. concerns about illicit drug production and trafficking in Colombia arose in the 1970s but grew significantly when Colombia became the dominant producer of cocaine in the Andean region in the mid-to-late 1990s. The United States has worked closely with Colombia to eradicate drug crops and combat trafficking. Simultaneously, over the past 17 years, the United States has forged a partnership with Colombia - perhaps its closest bilateral relationship in Latin America - centered on helping Colombia recover its stability following a decades-long internal conflict with insurgencies of left-wing guerrillas and right-wing paramilitaries, whose longevity has been attributed, in part, to their role in the country's illicit drug trade. Between FY2000 and FY2016, the U.S. Congress appropriated more than $10 billion of bilateral foreign assistance to support a Colombian-written strategy known as Plan Colombia and its successor programs. In addition to counter-narcotics, the United States helped support security and development programs designed to stabilize Colombia's security situation and strengthen its democracy. A peace accord between the government of Colombia and the country's main leftist insurgent group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), was signed in late November 2016 after four years of formal peace talks. The Colombian Congress unanimously ratified the peace accord, which had been revised following the narrow rejection of an earlier accord in a national referendum in October 2016. The final peace agreement addresses important issues, such as illicit crop cultivation - a major source of FARC income-and rural development. According to President Juan Manuel Santos, the peace accord will draw former FARC members into efforts to counter illicit drug production and trafficking. In 2017, as Colombia begins to implement the final peace accord and demobilize the FARC, the country is facing a large increase in cocaine production. During the protracted peace negotiations with the FARC, the Colombian government altered its approach to drug policy. A major change was the decision to end aerial spraying to eradicate coca crops, which had been a central - albeit controversial - feature of U.S.-Colombian counter-drug cooperation for more than two decades. In addition, Colombia's counter-narcotics policies shifted in 2015 to a public health approach under President Santos. The shift was influenced by broader hemispheric trends to reform traditional anti-drug practices in ways that proponents claim can reduce human rights violations. On the supply side, Colombia's new drug policy gives significant attention to expanding alternative development and licit crop substitution while intensifying interdiction efforts. The revised drug policy approach promotes drug-use prevention and treatment for drug users. According to Colombian officials, the public health and prevention dimensions of the revised strategy will be led by Colombia's Health Ministry, in coordination with other agencies. This report examines how Colombia's drug policies have evolved in light of Colombia's peace agreement with the FARC and its changing counter-narcotics policy. It explores both policy and oversight concerns, such as - prospects for reducing coca and poppy cultivation under Colombia's new drug policy and the peace accord with the FARC; - the role of Colombian drug trafficking organizations, including powerful criminal groups containing former paramilitaries, in a post-peace accord environment; - U.S.-Colombian cooperation on counter-narcotics and Colombia's future role in regional anti-drug efforts; and - shifts in U.S. government assistance to support Colombia's revised drug policy and how Colombia's new policy converges with traditional U.S. priorities. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2017. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: R44779: Accessed May 8, 2017 at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R44779.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Colombia URL: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R44779.pdf Shelf Number: 145353 Keywords: CocaineDrug Control PolicyDrug EnforcementDrug TraffickingIllicit Drugs |
Author: Buxton, Julia Title: Dealing with Synthetics: Time to Reframe the Narrative Summary: Key Points: - Despite adjustments over its lifetime, the contemporary international drug control regime has had an historical emphasis in on 'narcotic' drugs, such as opium, heroin and cocaine, rather than on a range of synthetic substances. - Associated policy inertia has resulted in disproportionate attention on counter-narcotic policies and operations in the Global South and in many ways inadequate responses to the synthetic market, including production that is frequently located in the Global North. - Possible explanations for this focus on plant-based drugs are manifold and complex. They include the fact that the control regime began with concerns over opium-smoking in the 'orient', a concentration of drug crops in the Global South, the energies of colonialism (which have been intimately tied up with 'drug wars'), broader geo-political imperatives and the focus of policy metrics on drug crops. - The market for synthetic drugs has grown exponentially in recent years, becoming the second-most illicit drugs consumed after cannabis. In 2014, the UN estimated that there were 35.7 million users of amphetamine type stimulants (including prescription stimulants), and 19.4 million users of ecstasy. These synthetic drugs outstripped the estimated totals of opioids and cocaine combined. - Alongside this consumption is that of New Psychoactive Substances that fall outside the control regime and its schedules, which the regime is now attempting to integrate into national and international controls. - While there was some awareness of the advent of new synthetic drugs in the aftermath of the Second World War and since the 1960s, it is only over recent years, and especially in the wake of the 2016 UNGASS in New York, that a truly serious understanding of the challenges posed by proliferating synthetic drugs has begun to emerge from the international drug control regime. - This is timely since, considering its policy history and contemporary dynamics, it is now time to reframe the narrative surrounding the way the international community deals with synthetic drugs. Details: Swansea: Global Drug Policy Observatory, 2017. 49p. . Source: Internet Resource: Policy Report 6: Accessed October 19, 2017 at: http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/27909/1/Global_Drug_Synthetics_FINAL.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/27909/1/Global_Drug_Synthetics_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 147727 Keywords: Drub Abuse and Addiction Drug Control PolicyDrug Policy Illicit Drugs |
Author: Wish, Eric D. Title: Community Drug Early Warning System (CDEWS-3): Maryland - Site 4 of 4 Summary: The Community Drug Early Warning System (CDEWS) provides timely information about emerging drug use in criminal justice populations in local communities by collecting and re-testing urine specimens already obtained and tested for a limited panel of drugs by local criminal justice testing programs. CDEWS or local staff sample specimens that are ready to be discarded and send them to an independent laboratory for testing for an expanded panel of over 150 drugs. By using already collected de-identified urine specimens, CDEWS is able to provide a relatively quick and inexpensive snapshot of the types of drugs recently used by participating populations. The CDEWS methodology has now been piloted in twelve jurisdictions and the results are provided in five reports already released by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). This report presents findings from adult parolees and probationers in a single jurisdiction -- Maryland -- as part 4 of 4 sites for the third CDEWS Study, called CDEWS-3. This study was conducted somewhat differently from prior CDEWS studies. This is because we wanted to replicate the findings from a study we had conducted in Maryland in 2008. And second, because of the opioid epidemic in Maryland, the State asked us to collect and analyze a separate large sample of specimens statewide that had tested positive for opiates by the laboratory used by the Maryland Division of Parole and Probation (DPP). With the strong support of the DPP, we collected two samples of specimens: the Maryland Regional Sample (N=288) and the Opiate Positive (Opiate+) Sample (N=202 statewide). Specimens were classified as CJS+ (tested positive for any drug) or CJS- (tested negative for all drugs) according to the results from the DPP laboratory's 4-drug screen. The findings from the Maryland Regional Sample indicated that most of the persons who had tested positive for one of the drugs in the CDEWS larger test panel had also tested positive for one of the four drugs in the DPP drug screen. However, approximately one in ten CJS+ specimens also contained antidepressants, synthetic cannabinoids (SC), methadone and/or other licit pharmaceutical opioids, drugs not tested for by the limited DPP screen. The additional drugs the CDEWS lab detected may not have practical significance for the DPP, given that most of these specimens did test positive for a drug in the DPP's limited screen. It is not possible to tell from the urinalyses if the persons taking the licit drugs were doing so legally under a physician's supervision. In contrast, 15% of the specimens that the DPP screen indicated did not contain a drug (CJS-) contained an opioid. Methadone and buprenorphine were among the opioids most found in CJS specimens and it is possible that these persons were receiving treatment with these drugs. Antidepressants were identified in as many CJS- specimens as CJS+ specimens (9%). SC was found in CJS- specimens but these metabolites were less common than in CJS+ specimens. These results suggest that in this population, persons were unlikely to be using SC to avoid detection by the standard DPP tests. The comparisons of probationers/parolees in this study and our earlier study in 2008 show considerable agreement in the drugs detected. The primary changes were a decline in cocaine (36% to 17%) and buprenorphine (15% to 7%) and an increase in codeine (3% to 13%) among CJS+ specimens. The increase in codeine positives may be the result of the increased sensitivity of the tests used in the current study. The results from the Opiate+ Sample strongly indicated that probationers/parolees who had tested positive for opiates by the DPP screen were likely to be using a variety of legal and illegal opioids in addition to non-opioid drugs. About one in three also used cocaine, one fifth used marijuana and/or benzodiazepines and about one quarter used a prescription opioid other than morphine or codeine. These results therefore have important implications for the testing used by physicians and diagnosticians who need to know if patients are using other drugs. Use of multiple opioids at the same time may lead to serious health complications and even death. We also conducted special analyses of the combined specimens found in either sample to be positive for fentanyl, synthetic cannabinoids, or codeine. Perhaps some of the most meaningful results in this study were those showing the large number of opioid and non-opioid drugs found in the fentanyl+ specimens. The 21 specimens positive for fentanyl each contained an average of 5 different drugs, most prominently morphine, codeine, 6-MAM (heroin), cocaine, and/or hydromorphone. The findings for fentanyl+ specimens were similar to those described above for the entire sample of Opiate+ specimens and our recent study of 136 persons who died of a fentanyl related overdose in New Hampshire. It is clear that probationers/parolees in Maryland who screen positive for any opioids are likely to be using a variety of other opioid and non-opioid drugs. These findings suggest that treatment will be more effective if one identifies and focuses on the totality of drugs the person may be using. Our analysis of the combined sample of all specimens positive for SC supported the findings from our previous CDEWS studies that found multiple SC metabolites in specimens. Surprisingly, specimens from the current study often contained both new and older generation SC metabolites. Given the unpredictable composition of synthetic cannabinoids (also known as Spice or K2) being marketed, it is not possible for users to know what chemicals they are consuming and to predict the effects. SC was less likely to be found in the Maryland samples compared to other CDEWS study samples, and few persons who tested CJS- in the Maryland Regional Sample were found to test positive for SC. Probationers in Maryland may therefore be less likely than other populations CDEWS has studied to use SC to avoid screening positive by the CJS test screens, which do not typically test for SC. We also found that 70% of the Opiate+ specimens contained codeine and that codeine was found across the state. In addition, codeine was detected in 81% of fentanyl+ specimens from the combined Opiate+ and Maryland Regional samples. Acetylcodeine, which metabolizes into codeine, is often produced as an impurity of illicit heroin synthesis, which may explain the large percentage of specimens positive for codeine given that almost all of the specimens also contained morphine. It is also possible that some of the codeine positives were the result of the direct use of codeine. We suspected that some of the codeine detected might have been caused by the use of "Purple Drank", a mixture of codeine syrup and promethazine typically sold as a cough suppressant, that has been reported in Maryland. However, only 4% of the codeine positive specimens contained promethazine. Given that the half-life of promethazine is longer than that of codeine, one would expect to have detected promethazine in these specimens had "Purple Drank" been the source of the codeine. It is also possible that the codeine may have resulted from codeine extracted from pills containing the drug. Additional research is needed to learn more about the codeine that was detected in 60% or more of probationers across all regions of Maryland and how the use of codeine may relate to the State's current opioid epidemic. Details: Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy Executive Office of the President, 2017. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 29, 2017 at: https://ndews.umd.edu/sites/ndews.umd.edu/files/finalreport_cdews3_mdapproved.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://ndews.umd.edu/sites/ndews.umd.edu/files/finalreport_cdews3_mdapproved.pdf Shelf Number: 148578 Keywords: Drug Abuse and Addiction Drug Control Policy Drug Enforcement Drug OffendersDrug TestingIllicit Drugs ParoleesProbationersUrine Testing |
Author: Wish, Eric D. Title: Community Drug Early Warning System (CDEWS-3): Honolulu, Hawaii - Site 1 of 4 Summary: The Community Drug Early Warning System (CDEWS) provides timely information about emerging drug use in criminal justice populations in local communities by collecting and re‐testing urine specimens already obtained and tested for a limited panel of drugs by local criminal justice testing programs. CDEWS or local staff sample specimens that are ready to be discarded and send them to an independent laboratory for testing for an expanded panel of drugs. By using already collected de‐identified urine specimens, CDEWS can provide a relatively quick and inexpensive snapshot of the types of drugs recently used by participating populations. The CDEWS methodology has been implemented in five jurisdictions and the results are contained in two reports already released by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (Wish et al., 2013, 2015). We introduce here a new report format that contains the findings from a single jurisdiction - the Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) and General Supervision (GS) probationer populations in Honolulu, Hawaii - as part 1 of 4 sites for the third CDEWS Study, called CDEWS‐3. In 2004, Judge Steven Alm launched the HOPE program in Hawaii. HOPE enrolls higher risk felony probationers with serious criminal histories and extensive substance abuse histories in a program that includes frequent urine drug monitoring coupled with brief jail sanctions for drug violations (The Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc., 2015). With Judge Alm's strong support, local staff were able to provide anonymous urine specimens previously collected from a sample of adult male probationers from the HOPE program (n=194) and the neighboring GS probation program (n=143), which were then sent to the CDEWS independent laboratory for expanded testing. While the onsite screens used by the HOPE and GS probation programs only tests for 6 drugs, the CDEWS independent laboratory tested for over 150 legal and illegal drugs. The expanded testing showed that the current onsite test screens used by these programs had identified most of the drug users in the HOPE and GS probationer programs. The most common drugs found were methamphetamine and amphetamine. Any additional legal and illegal drugs detected by the CDEWS independent laboratory were primarily detected in specimens that had previously tested positive for at least one of the drugs in the standard local onsite screens. The major exception was methamphetamine, which was detected in a minority of the specimens that had tested negative for all drugs, including methamphetamine, by the onsite criminal justice system (CJS) drug screens. Subsequent analyses suggested that this under‐detection was because the onsite screens for methamphetamine were less sensitive than the tests utilized by the CDEWS independent laboratory. We had hypothesized that the HOPE probationers might be more likely than GS probationers to turn to synthetic cannabinoids (SCs) to evade detection, because of the HOPE program's focus on sanctioning people for "dirty" urines. While SCs were found only in specimens that had tested negative by the CJS onsite drug screens, few specimens (2% or less) from HOPE or GS probationers tested positive for SC. However, the SC metabolites that were detected were later generation SC metabolites recently added to the CDEWS‐3 laboratory test panel. None of these later generation metabolites could have been detected by either the onsite or laboratory SC screens used by the GS and HOPE probation programs at the time of the study. This finding attests to the need for jurisdictions to routinely update their test panels for synthetic drugs, whose formulations tend to change rapidly. Although SC use was found in some probationers in this jurisdiction in Hawaii, SCs may not be as large a problem as was found in some prior CDEWS studies. Nevertheless, the Hawaii HOPE and GS programs may want to consider expanding their SC test panel to include the newer SC metabolites (AB‐PINACA, 5F‐AB‐PINACA, AB‐CHMINACA (metab 4), 5F‐AMB) that were detected in their populations. Details: Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President, 2016 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 29, 2017 at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/policy-and-research/cdews3_hawaii_final.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/policy-and-research/cdews3_hawaii_final.pdf Shelf Number: 148580 Keywords: Drug Abuse and Addiction Drug Control Policy Drug Enforcement Drug Offenders Drug TestingUrine Testing |
Author: Wish, Eric D. Title: Community Drug Early Warning System (CDEWS-3): Ohio -- Site 2 of 4 Summary: The Community Drug Early Warning System (CDEWS) provides timely information about emerging drug use in criminal justice populations in local communities by collecting and re‐testing urine specimens already obtained and tested for a limited panel of drugs by criminal justice testing programs. CDEWS or local staff sample specimens that are ready to be discarded and send them de‐ identified to an independent laboratory for testing for an expanded panel of drugs. The CDEWS methodology has been implemented previously in five jurisdictions with non‐prison populations (Wish et al., 2013; Wish et al., 2015). This report describes the first CDEWS study of prison inmates, conducted in the Belmont and Ross Correctional Institutions for adult males in Ohio. This report is the second of 4 reports that are part of the third CDEWS Study, CDEWS‐3. Urine drug testing is conducted in these facilities on the basis of the inmate's assignment to one of three test groups: Random, For Cause, and treatment Program testing. Specimens are tested by the correctional institution for a panel of 8 drugs. Specimens that had tested positive (CJS+) or negative (CJS‐) for any drug by the prison drug screen were selected from each of the test groups for inclusion in the study. A total of 108 usable specimens were obtained from Belmont and 85 specimens from Ross. The most dramatic findings from this study involved the detection of two types of prescription drugs in both institutions, buprenorphine, a prescribed opioid used to treat substance use disorder for opioids, and antidepressants. Buprenorphine is not prescribed for treatment in these institutions and it is not clear how much of the antidepressants detected were prescribed by the physicians at the prison. While marijuana use was detected in these institutions, it is noteworthy that not a single specimen tested positive for a synthetic cannabinoid. In contrast to other criminal populations studied by CDEWS in other locations, there was no evidence of synthetic cannabinoid use to avoid detection by the prison's drug testing program. This study demonstrated that the CDEWS methodology could be adapted for prison settings. While the use of buprenorphine and marijuana was already being detected by these institutions' testing programs, the extensive use of antidepressants uncovered may be a new finding. Details: Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy Executive Office of the President, 2016. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 6, 2017 at: https://ndews.umd.edu/sites/ndews.umd.edu/files/pubs/finalreport-cdews3-oh-v31-final-for-distribution.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://ndews.umd.edu/sites/ndews.umd.edu/files/pubs/finalreport-cdews3-oh-v31-final-for-distribution.pdf Shelf Number: 148740 Keywords: Drug Abuse and Addiction Drug Control Policy Drug Enforcement Drug Testing Illicit DrugsUrine Testing |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Illicit Opioids: While Greater Attention Given to Combating Synthetic Opioids, Agencies Need to Better Assess their Efforts Summary: What GAO Found Federal agencies collaborate with foreign governments, such as China, Mexico, and Canada, as well as with international organizations, to limit the production of illicit synthetic opioids. They do this by enhancing investigations, sharing information on emerging trends, helping to expand the regulation of illicit substances, and building capacity to thwart the distribution of illicit drugs. Federal agencies have ongoing efforts to limit the domestic availability of and enhance their response to illicit synthetic opioids. For example, federal efforts include treating overdose death scenes as crime scenes where officers collect evidence to investigate and identify the drug source. Federal agencies have also documented specific strategies to combat illicit opioids. However, only one of the five strategies we reviewed included outcome, or results-oriented measures-largely due to agency perceptions that designing such measures posed challenges. The Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 directs agencies to develop goals, as well as performance indicators. Without specific outcome-oriented performance measures, federal agencies will not be able to truly assess whether their respective investments and efforts are helping them to limit the availability of and better respond to the synthetic opioid threat. We also found that while federal law enforcement agencies are increasingly coordinating with the public health sector to share overdose information, both sectors reported ongoing data sharing obstacles and related challenges with the timeliness, accuracy, and accessibility of overdose data. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that information for decision-making should be appropriate, current, complete, accurate, accessible, and provided on a timely basis. Embarking on a concerted effort, led by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), to examine and address data related concerns will enhance agencies' efforts continue to understand and respond to the opioid epidemic. Federal agencies have adapted to the opioid epidemic by, among other things, expanding prevention programs and treatment options. For example, agencies have increased engagement with medical professionals about the implications of prescribing practices to help reduce opioid abuse, and provided additional resources to states and localities to expand the distribution and use of overdose reversal and treatment options. Why GAO Did This Study Increased illicit use of synthetic (manmade) opioids has contributed to drug-related overdose deaths. Synthetic opioids like fentanyl-a substance 100 times stronger than morphine- accounted for more than 19,000 of the nearly 64,000 overdose deaths in 2016, the most recent year for which federal data are available. GAO was asked to review U.S. agency efforts to combat illicit synthetic opioids. This report examines how U.S. agencies (1) work with international partners to limit production of illicit synthetic opioids; (2) work domestically to limit the availability of and enhance their response to these drugs and how agencies can improve their effectiveness; (3) measure performance in their documented opioid response strategies; and (4) have adapted their approaches to prevention and treatment. GAO reviewed documents that described agencies' international coordination efforts, domestic opioid reduction strategies and prevention and treatment approaches, and interviewed international and federal agency officials engaged in drug control policy. GAO also interviewed state and local law enforcement and public health officials in seven states, selected in part for their high rates of overdose deaths. What GAO Recommends GAO is making six recommendations, including that agencies develop performance metrics. DHS agreed, ONDCP did not state whether they agreed or disagreed, and DOJ did not agree with GAO's recommendations. GAO continues to believe that these recommendations remain valid. Details: Washington, DC; GAO, 2018. 94p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-18-205: Accessed April 16, 2018 at: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/690972.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/690972.pdf Shelf Number: 149801 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AdditionDrug Control PolicyIllegal DrugsIllicit DrugsOpioid EpidemicOpioidsPrescription Drugs |
Author: Yeh, Brian T. Title: Legal Authorities Under the Controlled Substances Act to Combat the Opioid Crisis Summary: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the annual number of drug overdose deaths involving prescription opioids (such as hydrocodone, oxycodone, and methadone) and illicit opioids (such as heroin and non-pharmaceutical fentanyl) has more than quadrupled since 1999. A November 2017 report issued by the President's Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis also observed that "[t]he crisis in opioid overdose deaths has reached epidemic proportions in the United States ... and currently exceeds all other drug-related deaths or traffic fatalities." How the current opioid epidemic happened, and who may be responsible for fueling it, are complicated questions, though reports suggest that several parties likely played contributing roles, including pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors, doctors, health insurance companies, rogue pharmacies, and drug dealers and addicts. Many federal departments and agencies are involved in efforts to combat opioid abuse and addiction, including a law enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which is the focus of this report. The primary federal law governing the manufacture, distribution, and use of prescription and illicit opioids is the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a statute that the DEA is principally responsible for administering and enforcing. The CSA and DEA regulations promulgated thereunder establish a framework through which the federal government regulates the manufacture, distribution, importation, exportation, and use of certain substances which have the potential for abuse or psychological or physical dependence, including opioids. Congress enacted the CSA in 1970 to facilitate the availability of controlled substances for authorized medical, scientific, research, and industrial purposes, while also preventing these substances from being diverted out of legitimate channels for illegal purposes such as drug abuse and drug trafficking activities. The CSA aims to protect the public's health and safety from dangers posed by highly addictive or dangerous controlled substances that are diverted into the illicit market, while also ensuring that patients have access to pharmaceutical controlled substances for legitimate medical purposes such as the treatment of pain. This report describes the current federal legal regime governing opioids and other controlled substances under the CSA and its implementing regulations, including (1) the classification of various plants, drugs, and chemicals into one of five schedules based on the substance's medical use, potential for abuse, and safety or dependence liability; (2) who must register with the DEA in order to receive authorization to handle the substances (such as drug manufacturers, wholesale distributors, doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, and scientific researchers); (3) what obligations registrants must satisfy in order to maintain a valid registration (such as keeping records of drug inventories and transactions, submitting reports to the DEA, and providing security measures to safeguard controlled substances); and (4) the DEA's administrative, civil, and criminal authorities for enforcing regulatory compliance with the CSA (such as suspending or revoking a registrant's legal authority to handle controlled substances if the DEA Administrator finds that the registrant has "committed such acts as would render his registration ... inconsistent with the public interest."). The report then examines DEA initiatives and actions taken, pursuant to its legal authorities under the CSA, which specifically target the abuse of opioids. The report concludes by discussing selected opioid-related legislative proposals in the 115th Congress that would amend the CSA. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2018. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 19, 2018 at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45164.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45164.pdf Shelf Number: 149853 Keywords: Drug Control PolicyOpioid EpidemicOpioidsPrescription Drugs |
Author: Ramirez, Socorro Title: Drug Policy in the Andes: Seeking Humane and Effective Alternatives Summary: The Andean-United States Dialogue Forum, which is supported by the Carter Center and the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA), met in 2010 and 2011 with the participation of 35 prominent citizens who are involved in diverse social processes and the shaping of public opinion and dialogue with governments. Participants came from a variety of sectors in six countries (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, the United States and Venezuela). The working group on drug policy and organized crime was established at the first meeting of the Forum and implemented a plan for national consultations through meetings, events and interviews in the five Andean countries, to analyze drug policy successes, failures and alternatives. Two members of the working group, Socorro Ramirez and Coletta Youngers, were asked to develop a report as a contribution to the current discussion of the issue and efforts to develop effective, humane policies. Fifty years after signing the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and 40 years after the U.S. government declared a "war on drugs," many obstacles remain despite the partial successes of efforts to counter the problem. Organized crime tied to drug trafficking continues to rise, aggravating violence that involves gangs and hired assassins, murders and arms trafficking. These criminal organizations take advantage of all forms of illicit interaction with the state: corruption, impunity and infiltration. They also try to block action by police and the courts by co-opting or assassinating public officials, legislators and prosecutors. A growing symbiosis between the state and organized crime spreads insecurity and weakens democratic institutions. The election of Barack Obama raised expectations that Washington would acknowledge the urgent need for a change in drug policy. It is fair to highlight a shift in language and tone under the Obama administration, which has stopped using the term "war on drugs" and has acknowledged the need to treat drug use as a public health problem. It is also noteworthy that the White House is taking a less interventionist stance in response to alternatives emerging in the region. Specific policy reforms have yet to be defined, however. The regional dynamic has changed with the "left turn" that has occurred in the majority of South American countries, as well as the diversification in these countries' international relations. Countries are seeking their own platform, such as the Andean Community (CAN) and the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), to discuss policies and respond to priority issues on the international agenda. The limitations of the current drug policy is causing increasing frustration within and between countries and is leading policy makers, experts and activists in the region to seek new strategies to contain the escalation of illicit markets and minimize the harm done to people, communities and states by drug production and use. The work of the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy and of the Global Commission on Drug Policy has begun to break the taboo that has blocked progress in discussions of policy assessment and alternatives. In the present report, the authors describe a series of alternatives being considered and, in some cases, implemented in Latin America. These alternative policies are reflected in the following recommendations. The authors recommend that governments, shapers of public opinion and civil society in the Andean countries: Take the proposals of the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy and the Global Commission on Drug Policy as points of departure when formulating drug policy and launch an educational and media campaign to help remove ideological biases from the debate while promoting a more evidence-based and regional approach to drug policy. Include additional state institutions (not just those related to police or military activities) in this shared task, along with the widest possible range of eminent individuals, communications media, health experts, non-governmental organizations, civil society and community organizations, churches and academics. Support the Global Commission on Drug Policy's call for a deeper debate on new approaches that focus on reducing the harm caused to the most vulnerable sectors of society affected by the production, trafficking and consumption of drugs, which would benefit the Andean countries in their efforts to develop humane and effective policies. Take into consideration efforts to implement new policies based on specific national situations and local cultural or social circumstances. Support the August 10, 2009 declaration by the governments of the UNASUR countries, in which they "recognize that the chewing of coca leaves is an ancestral cultural manifestation of the Bolivian people which must be respected by the international community." Strengthen dialogue and agreements among the Andean countries and within the frameworks of CAN and UNASUR and ensure the participation of civil society in these regional entities; implement UNASUR's South American Council on the World Drug Problem; and hold a regional meeting to discuss the development of a common agenda on drug policy. Implement solid drug use prevention, treatment and harm-reduction policies that respect human rights and offer adequate care to those who need it, treat drug use as a public health problem rather than a crime, and allocate the necessary resources to achieve this goal. Support the recommendation of the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy to evaluate "the convenience of decriminalizing the possession of cannabis for personal use." Decriminalize personal consumption, use alternatives to incarceration for perpetrators of minor, non-violent crimes, and apply humanitarian considerations to confront the devastating impact the increase of women incarcerated for drug trafficking is having on their lives, their families and their communities. Advance towards an agreement among the Andean countries to end the forced eradication of small farmers' crops and redirect resources toward rural development. Adopt an "alternative livelihoods" approach that involves an appropriate sequence of actions: once other sources of income are established, crops for illegal markets can be reduced. This strategy implies decriminalizing relations with small farmers, instead making them partners in the effort to foster integrated rural development. Redirect law-enforcement efforts toward dismantling criminal organizations and networks linked to drug trafficking; improve and target intelligence activities; transform the exercise of politics; strengthen institutions; confront corruption and empower communities-especially those located in border areas. Strengthen mechanisms to protect democratic institutions from the corrosive influence of illicit political financing from drug trafficking by leveling the electoral playing field through measures such as public financing for parties and candidates, financial transparency during campaigns and sanctions against parties that include confirmed "narco-candidates" on their tickets. Details: Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance - International; Atlanta, GA: The Carter Center, 2011. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 24, 2018 at: https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/book-drug-policy-in-the-andes.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Latin America URL: https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/book-drug-policy-in-the-andes.pdf Shelf Number: 149881 Keywords: Drug Control PolicyDrug EnforcementDrug Policy ReformDrug TraffickingOrganized Crime |
Author: McGuffog, Ingrid Title: Drug Use and Drug Control Policy: Evaluating the Impact of Precursor Regulation on Drug Use Behaviour Summary: Controlling the availability of illicit drugs and their use is an exemplar of a wicked problem. Reducing the scale of the illicit drugs market through suppressing supply has proven extremely difficult. A recent systematic review of studies by Cunningham and colleagues who have produced a series of research papers examining the impact of precursor regulations on various methamphetamine outcomes in North America, argue this research represents the most compelling evidence to date that 'precursor regulations, or indeed any supply control strategy, can have significant impacts on the retail market for illicit drugs'. The review of this work concludes that the question for future research is 'not so much whether precursor regulations work, but which regulations work best and in what context'; this is the starting point for my research. The market for methamphetamine is entrenched, broad and dynamic and represents an important criminological and public health problem in Australia. Within Australia the production of methamphetamine has been concentrated in Queensland and that state government has responded by developing a coercive regulatory framework which co-opts pharmacies into a partnership with drug law enforcement that is aimed at preventing the diversion of licit precursor chemicals to the illicit market for manufacture into methamphetamine. In 2005, the Queensland Pharmacy Guild in partnership with the Queensland Police Service developed an electronic medication recording system Project STOP, - which is a real-time web based database used by police to track and apprehend 'pseudo runners' - to facilitate adherence to the compulsory requirements of recording and reporting sales of pseudoephedrine placed upon them by both health regulations and the criminal law. In my thesis, I refer to the family of innovations (legislative, policy and technological interventions) underpinning the police-pharmacy partnership as Third Party Policing (TPP). Details: Brisbane: Griffith University, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 2012. 270p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed May 7, 2018 at: https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/bitstream/handle/10072/366750/McGuffog_2013_02Thesis.pdf?sequence=1 Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/bitstream/handle/10072/366750/McGuffog_2013_02Thesis.pdf?sequence=1 Shelf Number: 150096 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Control PolicyDrug MarketsIllicit DrugsMethamphetamines |
Author: U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy Title: High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Report to Congress Summary: Pursuant to the requirements of Section 707 of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) Reauthorization Act of 1998, as amended by Section 301 of the ONDCP Reauthorization Act of 2006, P.L. 109-469, ONDCP is providing Congress with this report on the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTAs). In order to present a national overview and individual HIDTA focus, this report provides background information and addresses three Congressional reporting requirements in one cohesive and coordinated document. This document is divided into an Executive Summary, Strategic Objectives, and five primary sections: 1. HIDTA Program Background Information The HIDTA program provides assistance to Federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies operating in areas determined to be critical drug trafficking regions of the Nation. There are currently 28 regional HIDTAs which include approximately 16 percent of all counties in the United States and 60 percent of the population. HIDTA-designated counties are located in 45 states plus Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia. Through the HIDTA program, representatives of Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies in each HIDTA region coordinate and collaborate to address the specific drug threats of that region. 2. National HIDTA Program Evaluation This report provides Congress with an evaluation of HIDTA performance. ONDCP has established two goals for the HIDTA program which address program effectiveness, program efficiency, and program management. These goals also reflect the continued refinement of the process ONDCP has developed to manage and measure HIDTA performance. The first goal is to reduce drug availability by assisting Federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies participating in HIDTAs to dismantle and disrupt drug trafficking organizations. The second goal is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of HIDTA initiatives. In order to report on their achievement of these goals, each HIDTA is required to provide the following four documents pertaining to its geographical area, on which its performance evaluation is based: 1) Threat Assessment; 2) Strategy; 3) Initiative Budget Proposals; and 4) Annual Report. 3. Assessment of Law Enforcement Intelligence Sharing in the HIDTA Program This report outlines the formal processes of the HIDTA program to assess law enforcement intelligence and information sharing, and highlights the formal evaluation and review process of the HIDTA program, including policy and budget guidance; FY 2009 funding levels for intelligence; processes for sharing Federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement information; and the measures needed to achieve effective sharing of information. The HIDTA program has 57 operational intelligence and information sharing initiatives. Each HIDTA capitalizes on the combined resources of the Federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement communities. The HIDTAs prepare and review threat assessments and apply the appropriate law enforcement response to combat illegal drug activity in our Nation. 4. Assessment of Drug Enforcement Task Forces in HIDTAs Regardless of the method of funding task forces (e.g., HIDTA, Justice Action Grant (JAG)/Byrne-sponsored), the 28 HIDTAs provide a coordination umbrella for Federal, state, local, and tribal drug law enforcement efforts; foster a strategy-driven systemic approach to integrate and synchronize efforts; facilitate efficiency, effectiveness, and cooperation among and between various agencies; and focus on outcomes and impacts. Using both formal and informal methods of coordination among drug enforcement task forces, the HIDTAs act as neutral centers to manage, deconflict, analyze, and report on drug enforcement activities in their respective regions. 5. Individual HIDTA Reports To address the specific reporting requirements, an analysis of each HIDTA is included in this report. These reports are succinct descriptions of the individual HIDTAs and their responses to the Congressional report requirements. For more comprehensive information on an individual HIDTA's performance in addressing specific drug threats, ONDCP can provide, upon request, that HIDTA's Annual Report, Strategy, or Threat Assessment. Details: Washington, DC: ONDCP, 2010. 184p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 8, 2018 at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/policy-and-research/hidta_2011.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/policy-and-research/hidta_2011.pdf Shelf Number: 150507 Keywords: CollaborationDrug Control PolicyDrug EnforcementDrug TraffickingIllegal DrugsInformation Sharing |