For a new approach to the drugs problem

During my years as a police officer I personally experienced how much time and efforts the law enforcement system puts into drug related criminality and other problems associated with the use of drugs. I also experienced how little result we achieved.

It is obvious that the current approach to the drug problem does not lead to the desired result of a decrease in supply and use. And the people dealing with the results of this malfunctioning system, the police officers in the streets, the treatment counsellors, the doctors, the mayors, are swimming against the tide. Throughout the world the use of illegal drugs is increasing and so are the problems that come with it. We now have to cope with a huge illegal economy, drug related violence and criminality and an epidemic of blood borne diseases.

In some countries especially in Europe, policy makers have been looking for innovative practices to tackle the problems society encounters. Despite their effectiveness in alleviating health problems and reducing social nuisance, the question remains on how do these measures fit into the international drug control framework?

An ill adapted approach international drug control framework
Over the years three UN drug control treaties have been adopted. In short the main purpose of the first two treaties is to set international control measures to ensure the availability of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances for medical and scientific purposes, and to prevent their diversion into illicit channels. They were drafted in 1961 and 1971, a time when the drug issue was not looked at as a social problem of the individual but more as a communal problem of availability.

The 1988 Convention has a different aim: This Convention provides comprehensive measures against drug trafficking, including provisions against money laundering and the diversion of precursor chemicals. It provides for international cooperation through, for example, extradition of drug traffickers, controlled deliveries and transfer of proceedings.

We should not underestimate the effect of the three conventions on the everyday work of a police officer. In fact the UN conventions oblige to establish, subject to Parties’ constitutional principles, as a criminal offence possession or purchase for personal use of any illicit drugs contrary to the 1961 and 1971 Conventions. But despite the dedicated efforts of police men all around the world drug use, production and trafficking is still on the rise.

Why? Because the “war on drugs” is simply not the right approach to solve the drug problem. It allocates most law enforcement resources to the least harmful crimes, like small possession, and leaves little resources to the most serious crimes like trans-national organized crime. The criminalisation of users increases their social problems; it has an immediate negative effect on their jobs and on the lives of their family and friends, their precious social environment.

Alternatives to control the drugs problem
Police officers have been trying to develop new alternatives. I have heard for instance of an initiative in the UK, where the police, medical doctors and social workers work side by side in a center providing aid to the most problematic drug users. Drug use is after all a complex problem that requires a broad specter answer. And such an approach has proven to be effective. These initiatives are exceptions; they take time and a lot of convincing to develop and transfer to new cities, new regions or new countries. This is because the international drug control conventions do not encourage such initiatives; they just leave them in a grey area. There is something dysfunctional in a regime when effective practices are neglected and in some cases discouraged by this very system.

Paralysis in the international institutions
Unfortunately a change in the international drug control system is not in the hands of the police or any other person who directly has to deal with the flaws of the system. It is the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the CND, that decides. As a functional Commission of the Economic and Social Council, the Commission assists the Council in supervising the application of international conventions and agreements dealing with narcotic drugs. It also advises the Council on all matters relating to the control of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and their precursors.

The Commission meets in Vienna annually to analyse the world drug situation and to decide on a way forward. Over the years these meetings have turned into a ritual without results; rhetorics are trying to cover up the lack of progress towards the targets set in the political declaration of the 1998 Special Session of the UN General Assembly on the world drug problem. Even though these targets are quite straightforward; I’ll name two of them: to eliminate or reduce significantly the illicit cultivation of the coca bush, the cannabis plant and the opium poppy, and to reach significant and measurable results in the field of demand reduction by the year 2008. I think you will agree these targets are almost surreal if you look at the current global illicit drug trends.

The Secretariat of the CND is the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, the UNODC. This Office is also in charge of implementing the UN drug program. It has field offices in many parts of the world implementing and supervising different drug projects. The Office advocates a “balanced approach” with equal attention to the demand and the supply side of the drug problem.

Sadly also the UNODC is caught up in the failing system. Firstly, it faces one of the biggest social challenges of our time but it has budget of approximately only $100 million a year. Secondly, ninety percent of UNODC’s budget comes from voluntary funding by a few, mainly repression oriented, countries. These donor states determine on what projects their funds are spent; politics rule, not expertise.

During his speech at the UN 3rd Committee Mr. Antonio Costa, the Executive Director of UNODC, was asked to compare the amount spent globally on law enforcement as opposed to reducing demand for narcotics, in reply he said he did not know exactly how many billions of dollars had been spent fighting the supply-side of the question, but noted that much more had been spent on repression and law enforcement than on demand control. His Office wished to draw attention to the need to augment therapy for users and, perhaps, downsize the amount spent on law enforcement. But because of their dependence on the voluntary funding the Donors decide on the priorities of the program.

It is clear that the current international framework does not provide an adequate reply to the evolving problems. Some countries, mainly European, have been looking for new alternative measures. Often these methods have shown positive results not only for the users themselves but also for the whole community surrounding them. They have helped creating a safer society, had a positive effect on the crime rates and helped to decrease the number of drug related death. In addition a recent UK research shows that every pound spends on drug treatment saves three pounds in the criminal justice system.

Unfortunately the International Narcotics Control Board, the control organ for the implementation for the UN drug conventions, does not look frankly at the effectiveness of these measures. The Board holds on to a very narrow interpretation of the spirit of the Conventions. In its yearly report it rules harshly on countries implementing innovative approaches touching the limits of the Conventions.

Seizing the opportunity for a new drug policy consensus
In all, the international drug control system is holding onto a policy based on ideology and obsolete conventions. The results are devastating results; it is time to break out of this paralysis. In 2008 the CND will have to evaluate the progress made towards the targets defined at the UNGASS in 1998. It will be a moment Europe has to seize, to set the records and move towards a new global consensus on international drug policy away from the US led War on Drugs.

And I know that together with me many police officers around the world are hoping for such a change. The current system impairs their work in the field; they need clearer and better conditions to do their job, to make the world a safer place.

After university studies at Oxford University from 1953 to 1956 and Military Service in the Royal Air Force, Raymond Kendall started his police career as officer in charge of crime in the Uganda Police. Mr Kendall joined the Metropolitan Police - New Scotland Yard in 1962, reaching the London rank of Deputy Assistant Commissioner and spending most of his service in Special Branch. In 1971, he became Assistant Director of Drugs at the International Criminal Police Organisation (ICPO)-Interpol, and was promoted to Director four years later. Mr. Kendall was elected Secretary General of the ICPO-Interpol at the 54th Session of the General Assembly in October 1985. He was re-elected in 1990 and in 1995 and is now Honorary Secretary General.

Presentation given at the 47th International Conference of the International Council on Alcohol and Addiction, 2 November 2004, Venice, Italy