Dr Patricia Lewis
Welcome everybody. My name is Patricia Lewis and I’m the Research Director here at Chatham House for International Security, and it’s my great pleasure to have such a fantastic panel with us here tonight, who are all members of the Global Commission on Drug Policy. And we’re here launching the report: the World Drug Perception Problem, countering prejudices about people who use drugs, which has just been released. We’re very lucky to have with us here tonight people who have real experience in changing the way people think about very big issues.
Before we start, what I’d like to ask you to do is make sure that you have your phones switched to silent. If you could also remember to tweet a lot, if you’re a tweeter, that would be great. And if you could also participate in the Q&A, as soon as we’ve heard from each of the panellists, and participate as much as you possibly can. I want to see lots and lots of hands up, lots of interaction, lots of discussion over what is such an important issue.
We have with us here tonight Helen Clark, who’s the Former Prime Minister of New Zealand and the Former Administrator for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). We have Nick Clegg, who’s the Deputy Prime Minister of the UK – Former Deputy Prime Minister of the UK.
Nick Clegg
Cheers for reminding me.
Dr Patricia Lewis
And Former Leader of the Liberal Democrats. Ruth Dreifuss, who is the Former President of Switzerland and the Chair of the Global Commission on Drug Policy. We have Asma Jahangir, who is the – was the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion. We have Michel Kazatchkine, who’s the Executive Dir – was the Executive Director of the Global Fight – Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. and we have Olusegun Obasanjo, who was the Former President of Nigeria.
So, as you can see, this is a very heavyweight line-up today and what they want to talk to you about is how we perceive people who use drugs, and that’s an awful lot of us. It’s – I remember Ruth, when you were here before, one of the things you said is that, “When we look at the number of people who use drugs and we look at our policies on drugs, what we’re often doing is punishing people for being human,” and that stuck with me. I remember thinking about it and I remember thinking a lot about the way in which we view people who take drugs and what sort of drugs we allow people to take and what sort of drugs we don’t allow people to take. And I think what this report does is, it opens up that debate and it makes us think differently about how we are perceiving people who take drugs.
So, to get this conversation going what I’m going to do is, I’m going to talk to each of the panellists in turn and each of them is going to speak for only five minutes, maximum. Less if you can do it. That would be great, and then I’m going to open up the floor to discussion. We are being livestreamed, so I’m welcoming all the people who are listening online right now, and I’m going to start with you first, Ruth, as the Chair. So, if you could tell us, please, the reason behind the establishment of the Global Commission and what has been its role in global drug control discussions and how did it get to address drug policy as a social topic, rather than as a criminal justice or just a medical issue? How has it been framed within the Commission?
Ruth Dreifuss
Thank you so much and good evening everybody. It’s a great pleasure to be again here in Chatham House and you know, this house is also a house where in all discussion all over the world, there is always a moment when we speak about the Chatham Rules. And so that here we are in the centre of a free discussion where everybody can really speak out without being afraid of being quoted and without being restrained by their position or their political mission, or, yeah, commitments. So, it’s a great pleasure to be here.
The Global Commission on Drug Policy is a self-committed commission. We receive the mandate from our self, and it was a deep need for all of us to continue, based on our experience, based on the leadership we had, or still perhaps have, to become an actor in the reform of drug policy. So, we are co-opted or co-opting each other. We are now 25 members. We want to enlarge it to more members also from Africa and Asia, even if we are very happy about those members who are coming from this region. But we still feel that the origin of the Global Commission was, on one side, Latin America, where the problem of corruption, of the threat the war on drugs had on the functioning of normal democracy, through corruption, through violence and so on, and on the other side, the experience of European countries, taking it from another point of view, the point of view of the epidemics of AIDS and the way drug policy was wrong. Drug policy was also fuelling the epidemic. So, the encounter between these two, kind of experience is at the origin of this group called the Global Commission on Drug Policy.
We are citizen of the world, committed to change the world, because this – or to be a part of the change of the world. We are also a learning group, and this is something that makes me very happy, also, to be a member, since the beginning of the Global Commission. We are learning, I would say, every day, our self, to understand better what are the problem linked with drugs and criminal organisation in the world and we are progressing also, I would say, from one report to the other.
Reports is one of the way we try to advocate for change, from the beginning, from breaking the taboo, to this report we are publishing today. We began, probably, with an analysis about how to better, pragmatically, drug policies, through health policy, public health, harm reduction, a larger scale of treatment. Dealing also, with access to controlled medicine like morphine, for people in pain, which are often having no access to what they need because of the strong prohibition of the substance and the negation and of the double purpose of opiates. And we continue, really, in this learning process, I would say, to see the criminalisation as one of the main difficulty to change policy, to change the way people can have access to what they need, the services they need, they – the social integration they need, and so on. And from this point, we went to the need, not only to decriminalise the consumption on a very solid, philosophic basis, in the sense of how could the state punish people because they are people, because they are human and not harming others and building obstacles to what their real needs are? But we went to the need to be really coherent, to take off the market of illicit substance from criminal hands, which is to end prohibition, to regulate the markets of all drugs, to take control by the state.
At this point, we saw that one of the obstacles to change policy is the perception of the problem, so that we thought that it is our duty also, as opinion leaders, to address the problem of the perception of the substance them self and the people who are using them, and this is the reason why we publish now, this report.
Our influence, just to finish, is difficult to measure. I let it more to my colleagues, because I have always a little bit doubts and know that we need a lot of time to change the things. But our means to act this report, our conversation at the highest level in different countries. Our bridging also, between the NGOs and the authorities, because we have access to both sides, I would say, of this very important conversation, to give the possibility of people who come – who use drugs also, to become vocal and we give them also, the platform to express their needs and who they are. So, this is what we are doing, I would say, every day, as a personal and collective commitment.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thank you, and I think one of the things that really stood out for me, in reading the report, was the stories that are in here and there are some really moving and very thought-provoking stories in the report. Helen…
Ruth Dreifuss
Don’t speak about the people. Let them speak…
Dr Patricia Lewis
Let them speak, yes.
Ruth Dreifuss
…is very important, yeah?
Dr Patricia Lewis
Exactly and their experience. So, Helen, you’re fairly new to the Commission and so, you have a very different view, perhaps, and having seen it from afar when you were working in the UN, and what are some of the things that being on the Commission has changed, in terms of your perceptions of the problem? How do you now view it, having come onto the Commission and perhaps what have you learnt, as a result, that you think could help other people think, perhaps, differently about this topic?
Helen Clark ONZ PC
Well, firstly, I think what’s very important about the Commission is that it is a commission of senior and serious people who will be listened to. And in my previous capacity at UNDP, and UNDP, under my leadership, was prepared to take a stand on these issues, it mattered a great deal to have the Commission and its voice being heard. So, the issue couldn’t just be relegated out to a fringe. There were senior and serious people who were taking it up. And my own engagement with it really goes back to being a young Health Minister about close to 30 years ago and the entry point was the response to HIV, because with HIV in Western countries generally, you had three key populations that were particularly at risk. One was gay men, a second was sex workers and the third, were people using drugs, particularly those who injected drugs. So, if you didn’t deal with the needs and concerns of those populations in a very practical way, if you didn’t put any, you know, particular views you had, or anyone had, about these particular behaviours aside, you could not have a pragmatic response to the epidemic, and I think generally, in Western countries, the response was pragmatic. So, in my country, going back to the mid-80s, not long before I became Minister, needle exchanges were introduced and so on.
I find it interesting, though, as I reflect, that in the response to HIV, New Zealand Parliament did move to decriminalise male gay sex, right? That was 84. When I was Prime Minister, we decriminalised sex work. We have not decriminalised drugs. It’s somehow the hardest of all the issues.
Dr Patricia Lewis
And why do you think that is?
Helen Clark ONZ PC
So, why is this? I think it comes back to the problem of the UN Conventions, the problem of these certain categories of drugs being seen as criminal activity if you use them and so, it follows from that that there’s a narrative that says bad people do these things because it is criminal. That’s why decriminalisation is really so critical to getting more and better and evidence-based approaches.
So, this report deals with perceptions. The perceptions are grounded, I think, in the criminalisation. If you are a person using drugs, you’re a bad person because you’re breaking the law and therefore, there will be punishment associated with that. When, actually, the use of drugs requires a health and safety approach, a social policy approach, a safe spaces approach. So, you know, generally, the settings are all wrong and I think, you know, many of our countries can learn a lot from those like Portugal, who’ve stepped up and said, “We’ve got a problem. We have a lot of people dying from using drugs. They shouldn’t be dying.” There is quite a spike in drug deaths in this country, which could be dealt with by different public policy approaches. But really, dealing with the perceptions of the people who use drugs is critical to getting through this barrier to better public policy.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thank you. Nick, so we’re seeing quite a different range of public views in Europe, in the United States, in other parts of the world and we’re seeing big changes in those public perceptions. What about here, are we seeing a change in public perceptions here about drug policy, and is there even a really open debate taking place in our political structures about this issue?
Nick Clegg
So, the curious thing here is that, at least right now, there’s absolutely no interest in – I mean, Theresa May is famously uninterested in reopening this issue, even, as Helen just mentioned, there’s been a shocking spike of drug related deaths, at unprecedented levels, in the United Kingdom recently. So, that Central Government, Number 10, are completely uninterested. We have these very powerful, rather vituperative, vested interests in the national press, who act as, sort of guard dogs that snarl at any whiff of reform. So, in the, sort of, centre, nothing’s happening.
Now, it might happen, and we have some distinguished Parliamentarians here we will look to in the years to come to promote more sensible reform. But the interesting thing is that, notwithstanding that, sort of, stasis at the centre, at the top of Government, there’s a, sort of, pincer movement of reform from below, and not quite above, but and around. I mean, if you look on the ground, some remarkable things are happening. If you look at what’s happening in Durham, the Chief Constable and the Police and Crime Commissioner in Durham has basically introduced decriminalisation. They’ve introduced a programme, what’s it called? I’ve forgot its name now. Checkpoint, that’s right.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Checkpoint.
Nick Clegg
Which is basically a diversion scheme. So, people who are caught with drugs, for their own personal use, are given a choice. You either go down the criminal justice route or you go down a diversion route. That’s now being emulated in Bristol. Other Police and Crime Commissioners are looking very closely at what’s happening in Durham. Actually, the Durham Police Force is one of the best performing in the country, so they can’t be criticised for somehow being soft on crime. They’re actually extending it to individuals who sell very hard drugs: heroin, one to the other, those who already are using heroin.
So, some quite radical things are happening. There are initiatives underway. Well, the one in Glasgow’s got slightly blocked for legal reasons, but in Wales as well. So, you’ve got a, sort of, grassroots innovation happening, regardless of the indifference at the centre. Then, of course, around us internationally the scene is changing utterly. Not only the reforms that we’re familiar with in Switzerland, the Czech Republic and Portugal, but we now have reforms underway on production, drug production in the Netherlands. Germany is moving apace, in terms on the medical use of cannabis and cannaboids [cannabinoids]. There’s a review on decriminalisation in Ireland. As Helen was explaining to all of us earlier, there’s a referendum in New Zealand, in the next period of time, on the regulated sale of cannabis.
Of course, North America, you can now travel from the Arctic Circle down to the Mexican border and be in jurisdictions all the way along the west coast, in areas uninterrupted, which now have regulated, controlled markets for the sale of cannabis. The sale – the market, which is now – the regulated market, which has now come live since last week in California, is the largest of its kind anywhere on the planet. It’s the sixth largest economy and, of course, Canada is framing, in my view, from what I can make out from a distance, very intelligently, a new regulated market as well.
So – and the interesting thing throughout all of – in the international experience is that the advocacy of regulated, controlled sale of drugs, of cannabis, which used to have a, sort of, whiff of laissez-faire libertarian ideology around it, has now, quite rightly, evolved into a – in a more mature way, as a evidence-based way of actually asserting control where there is no control and reducing harm where harm is otherwise escalating. I think that’s a really powerful development, and surely, it just defies logic that we can have these innovations taking place under our nose here in the United Kingdom, have all of these reforms taking place across the developed world, from New Zealand to California, across the mainland of Europe, and we somehow remain utterly immune to these reforms in our national debate. I just don’t believe that’s going to happen.
Now, there’s rumblings in Westminster undergrowth that the two larger parties, or parts of the two larger parties, might wish to, it’s very British, this, reach for a Royal Commission as a way forward, which is generally, the way that one inches towards reform, in a slightly peculiar way. If you call it royal then it all seems okay to everybody.
Dr Patricia Lewis
We agree. We agree.
Nick Clegg
Well, it’s the Royal Institute of International Affairs, so I feel we’re in good…
Dr Patricia Lewis
Absolutely.
Nick Clegg
…company to talk about a Royal Commission.
So, I believe that notwithstanding the resistance to change at the heart of Government and large parts of the national press, I think the pressure from below and above and around will lead to reform in this country as well.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Hmmm, thank you. Olu, how do you see what’s going on in the continent of Africa, do you see big differences in policies between different African countries? Do you see the type of policies that we’ve seen in some, for example, European countries, Asian countries, on much more, sort of, hard line approaches, or do you see an adoption, perhaps, and a discussion about more public good type of approaches to drug policies in African countries and what are the differences in – between African countries and the debate that’s going on?
Olusegun Obasanjo
Well, thank you very much. I got deeply involved and later on, I became a member of the Global Commission after I had been the Chair of West Africa Commission on Drug. And what we got from that was stunning to all the members of that Commission, because the thinking, in that part of the world, had always been that we are not producers, we are not consumers, we were just transit and leave the producers and consumers alone to do their thing. And the first thing we found was that we are becoming more and more consumers than even some of the countries that we tag as consumers. That the first revelation from that Commission.
The second, which really brings one to the report that we are launching today, is the understanding, or should I say lack of understanding, of the issue by leaders: political leaders, leaders in almost all walks of life, traditional leaders and the media. The feeling and believing that if you are somebody using drug, it because you’re a reject of the society, you are a never do well, you haven’t been well brought up and society and nobody should really worry about you and so, why should you worry about that sort of person? The belief similar to some people who believe that if you are poor it is your problem. You are poor because you are lazy. You are poor because you haven’t taken advantage of opportunities that were there. Not really thinking of the distribution, the Governors and all the – that greeted the situation of poverty, were. Now, the – as a result of this perception, both by leaders and the media, the attention that you’d be giving was not really given and we term that with the – we called our report Not Just in Transit. It’s just to make sure – to make people know that we are really in a serious problem.
Now, the situation in African countries differ from country-to-country and from the composition of the country. Some likely Islamic countries will say to us, “Please, don’t talk of decriminalisation, because if you say that, our clergy, our religious leaders, will see that as you advocating that everybody should be a user of drug, that should be people are using drug.” Now, there are other countries that are taking the issue seriously, at least they are getting involved in harm, what do you call it? Harm reduction actions and programmes. Like, in a country like Senegal, where they now publicly allow people – they provide needle, so that they will be – the people who use drug can be safe and they provide some form of injection, safe injection rooms. And that is taking place not only in Senegal, but in countries like Kenya and Tanzania, but more in the Eastern part of Africa than in the West. Then there are countries like Ghana, who are, in fact, now at the point of considering decriminalisation and law and that is coming up.
So, if I can sum up the question you asked, Patricia. It is this, that I believe the awareness, the understanding and the knowledge that we are advocating that should be there, by leaders at the political level, by leaders at the traditional level, by community leaders, will make people to realise that petty users, or petty people who use drug, should not be regarded as criminals. Their cases should be treated as health cases, rather than criminal justice cases and in such a way that when we did – we carried out our job of our Commission, we found that in no country is the issue of drug under the Minister of Health. They are all under the Minister of Justice, or the Attorney General, which straightaway means that, yeah, he – we take him, we put him in jail.
The third point that I want to make is that the big drug barons get away. It is the small fries that are picked and put in jail, and Patricia, I was in jail, so I met these boys in jail. I wasn’t in jail for a drug offence, not even for a criminal offence. I was in jail because I opened my mouth too wide and I said a military leader should get out of the politics and go home and rather than go home, he put me in jail, and I met these boys in jail and their position is pathetic. You find a boy, who what all young people do, experimental and experimenting with smoking, whatever it is they can’t get, or even going to some form of adventure and then you put – you pick them and put them in jail. They come out more hardened than when they go in and yet, we think that it is working. It is not working. This perception has to be changed and when the perception changes at the leadership level, it will permeate through our society…
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thank you.
Olusegun Obasanjo
…and we will move forward.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thank you very much. Asma, you’ve also been in jail, you’ve also been in prison for your – what you’ve said and your commitment to human rights and if you look at the issues of human rights and the issues of drug use and drug policies, we’ve seen a number of violations of human rights reported by, for example, the High Commissioner for Human Rights. And so, how would you say that this relates to the perceptions that we see about drug use and what we consider to be legal, illegal, criminal or not criminal and the way in which then, human rights becomes central to that debate?
Asma Jahangir
I think human rights is central. But I would like to start with my experience, not in jail, but in Honduras, where I went as Special Rapporteur, UN on Extrajudicial Killings and there were – street children were taking drugs and a number of them were killed by the Police as indispensable, and it really broke my heart. I went to see them in prison and I was thinking all day today about it and it was in my report as well, how those children felt outcasted, how they were remembering the love of their mother, because they felt even the parents would not accept them, and it is this stigmatisation because of the criminalisation of it. And wherever you have prohibition, whether it is on drugs, or whether, in many Muslim countries, on drinks, this is how it happens where the more marginalised and the more vulnerable are exploited, are stigmatised, while, you know, there is a class of people that enjoys it and has access to health services. By criminalising it, you are refusing a person to even have access to health services, so it’s a denial of human rights, in my view.
If you also look at the fact that there has been no drug policy, which has looked at it from the rights perspective, human rights perspective, either internationally, regionally or domestically, I mean, it’s a crime put people in, without looking at many facets of crime. As a Lawyer, I believe that anything that’s a crime, which is a victimless crime, where you cannot have a direct victim to it, is really something that will always be exploited. I mean, if you’re drunk and driving, of course you will be penalised. If you’re drugged and you commit murder, of course you’ll be penalised for murder, but not per se for the – for a person to use drugs, not per se for a person to take alcohol. So, this is – I think this mindset needs to be changed.
I also find that when you have a total ban and you criminalise it, you deny the possibility of a state or a Government to regulate it, which is extremely essential. Regulate, open up services, not only health, but others as well, to people who are – who feel that they want to use it in a particular way or not use it, or to get out of it, they need help, assistance. That assistance is completely denied to them and I really do feel, especially when I think about, not only the children in Honduras, but also, people that I met in jail, the criminalisation is indigni – it indignifies persons who use drugs and I don’t think that that is fair, that that is human, towards people who are not harming anyone else, but themselves in a – if, at all, in some cases.
My last point is that by placing a ban and prohibiting something of a nature, which as I said earlier, is a victimless crime, raises prices, makes cartels, pushes it underground and that is where crime, in fact, generates itself. And as our friend, Mr Obasanjo, said this morning, that now there is a connection that you can make, not of people who use drugs, but of people who have exploited the prohibition with politics. And I can make a connection between underground economy in that and not only underground economy, I think sustainability of deep states within the state, because of the prohibition of drugs and the economy that goes around – that settles around that prohibition. So, I think that very seriously, not only globally, but even regionally and every country, has to relook at its drug policy from a more discriminatory – non-discriminatory manner, from the rights perspective, and from looking at it that prohibition has spiralled off crime, rather than the other way round.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Michel, so the issue of drug reform is often framed as a public health issue, and you’ve travelled all around the world in your capacity as a medical professional, and you interacted a great deal with public health workers on this issue and what would you say the role was of public health iss – public health workers and what are their perceptions and how do they play into this debate on how we engage with people and hear these stories of people who are using drugs?
Michel Kazatchkine
Thank you. I must say, as a Physician, I’m sorry to say that the healthcare settings are not immune from prejudice, from this stigma and discrimination. I’ve been travelling in many parts of the world, as you just said. I’ve seen shining examples of individuals working in very difficult context: Doctors, Nurses, Social Workers. But wherever I have been, I have always heard, from people using drugs, that they have been facing stigma and discrimination in society and stigma and discrimination in healthcare settings. So, I have seen, in many countries, people being denied access to treatment, let’s say to AIDS treatment, to hepatitis treatment, or even to urgent hospitalisation, because they were not “clean”. “Please come back when you will not be using or injecting anymore and we will then take care of you,” based on myths, you know. One being that people who inject drugs or use drugs do not care about their health, or that they wouldn’t be compliant to treatment, and the evidence in the literature is absolutely opposite to that. People who inject drugs, just as anyone, are very much taking care of their health and these people are also some of the most compliant patients.
There are trials, in hepatitis C treatment, showing that it is as effective as in peop – among people using drugs as it would be with anyone. So, myths, misperceptions. I’ve seen, of course, also, people who would be denied options for treatment because the Physicians would think that abstinence is the only goal of treatment and I have seen people, Physicians, healthcare settings, in highly ideologically politicised environments, who would not be able to deliver the healthcare. I was in South East Ukraine, in the separatist regions, a few months after – in Crimea and then in Donetsk and Luhansk, people who were on substitution therapy were then denied access to substitution therapy, leading to hundreds of deaths. And of course, in Eastern Europe and in many parts of Asia, if you look back at the history, there’s been hundreds of thousands of people, who died of HIV or hepatitis because of lack of proper access to treatment.
The other point I’d like to make is that the complexity of access to controlled medicines, because of the international drug control system, and the lack of proper education of Physicians, in many parts of the world, are also a source of under-prescription of opioids, let’s say for pain management, when they’re needed. And not only do many countries in the world do not access well enough these drugs, but patients, within many countries, do not access properly enough these drugs when they’re needed, or they’re inappropriately prescribed, as we saw in the US with the opioid epidemic.
So, I’m, sort of – again, while I’ve seen extraordinary example of people working in difficult settings, I’m also really, you know, sorry about the state of affairs, because first, the healthcare setting is one of the – is the, sort of, port of entry for the person who uses drugs, who inject drugs, to the care and to the social support system. And if they’re rejected at the very entry, then there’s just no way they can go further in the system and then, of course, Doctors are also people who are listened to in the society and I would expect them, rather than being discriminating people injecting drugs, to be at the forefront of our fight for reforms.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Hmmm, thank you. Well, I think that was a fantastic start to the discussion, but I suspect that in the minds of many people in this audience, that there are many other questions that have been raised. I mean, not least of which is how do we change the perceptions of people about the issue of drugs and what impact that these changes might have on the way we approach the issue? So, I’m going to open up the floor now. I’m going to stop myself from asking further questions, although I have many, to people who wish to take the floor. Particularly interested in questions from younger people in our audience and I see there are quite a few, which is brilliant. And I’m wondering if some people might bring different perceptions, from their own experiences, some of their friends, some of their family experiences, into the room. So, who would like to ask the first question? Claire, and I think I ought to give you the first question. I introduce Claire Yorke, who worked on this issue in Chatham House for many years, so welcome back, Claire.
Claire Yorke
Thank you. Yes, Claire Yorke. I’m now at King’s College in London and I thought, looking at the executive summary of report, what’s really striking, as Dr Lewis also said, is the importance of people’s stories and of understanding different people’s experiences and relationships with drugs. My own work is on empathy in international relations and so, very much about this value of understanding different people and their experiences, but one of the challenges that there is with empathetic discourse is, is it also has to be balanced with ideas of strength and credibility and a beneficial context to enable understanding, to be articulated in a way that will be understand – and understood. Given the dominant narratives we’ve had about drugs being associated with criminality and insecurity and immoral behaviour, how do you think Politicians can communicate a new narrative and something different that balances this need for understanding with the same need for strength and credibility that they are doing something that is in the interest of the people and the communities that they are serving?
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thank you. Well, we’ve got a number of Politicians and former Politicians amongst us, so who’d like to go first on that issue?
Ruth Dreifuss
Well…
Dr Patricia Lewis
Ruth?
Ruth Dreifuss
…I would say the most important is really to show that you are entering into the conversation with the people you want really, to have integrated in the society and not marginalised. To take example of what my predecessor began and what I could do, for instance, in Switzerland, was, for instance, to have huge conferences with the people using drug, with their families, with Police, with Social Workers and so, altogether it was in the Parliament Room with a huge attendance. But it was also, visiting the places where the people are living, and if they agreed with that, to take also, the media with me for this conversation. Because when you have a Minister or a President just going to the – to have this conversation face-to-face, which means that you show, perhaps, your face, but what is more important, you show the real human face of your counterpart, is, I think, something very important. And what was also, I think, a way to change the perception was just to have a very serene, serious, evidence-based discourse about what the substance is, who are the people who use them and what can be done and, as you know, Switzerland is fortunate. I don’t think every time that it is a great chance, because from time-to-time the decision of the voters are not exactly what I would like to have as an answer, but because we have every three months, more or less, the possibility to have a referendum, many of these referendum, we had, I think, in Switzerland, 15 referendum on local, cantonal or national level on drug issue. So, there was a real obligation to inform the people in a very quiet way and they follow, generally, what we proposed. So, yes, we have to show that we are just face-to-face with these people, that they are on our eye level.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Hmmm, thank you. Please?
Edmund Goldrick
Thank you. G’day, Edmund Goldrick, International Institute of Strategic Studies and Freelance Journalist. Now, I appreciate this is being streamed and so, that might hamper responses, but firstly, to Sir Nick, what are the UK press elements that have vested interests against reform and what are those interests? And for the other panel members, what are the vested interests that you encountered, sort of, resisting reform methods?
Dr Patricia Lewis
And vest – by vested interests you mean?
Edmund Goldrick
Interests with a perhaps financial interest in opposing reform.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thank you. So, Nick, do you want to…
Nick Clegg
No, no, no, sorry…
Dr Patricia Lewis
…step up and…?
Nick Clegg
…that I mis-expressed, or I didn’t express, I’m not saying there are financial vested interests related to a prohibition ideology, which run parts of the British press. I said there are vested interests, politically vested interests, in the press, who take a – I mean, if you look at the – I mean, it’s, actually it’s become quite more interesting. So, the Daily Mail is just, kind of like, about as, sort of, aggressive and obstructive on this as you can possibly – and vilify and savage any Government that tries to do anything. In fact, it was the Daily Mail that bullied Gordon Brown into take that ludicrous decision, against all evidence, to reclassify cannabis a few years ago. Do you remember? And this, by the way, despite the fact that in Britain, probably the most reformist Government on drugs policy, oddly enough, because of the HIV crisis at the time, was the Thatcher Government at the time. So, it doesn’t map onto a right/left thing, actually, this policy.
Whereas The Sun, I don’t know what’s happened recently, but certainly when I was in Government and I used to try and, kind of, lift the lid on this by talking about the need to stop, you know, incarcerating people who have used drugs for their own, you know, for their own purposes and with no other effect on anybody else, actually, The Sun, interestingly enough, beca – was supportive of reform. I don’t know what’s happened since. So, it may be shifting a bit, but trad – you know, traditionally, you know, papers like the Mail, who have got this, sort of, abnormally firm grip on, particularly, the Conservative Party, are remarkably ferocious in seeking to thwart any moves towards reform, which is why, in the British political context, a lot of that reform is now taking place, as I described earlier, in an almost, sort of, subterranean way. It’s, sort of, happening in an ad-hoc, haphazard, devolved way, just because there isn’t the political space nationally, at the moment and hopefully, that’ll change.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Michel?
Michel Kazatchkine
Let’s also be clear, there are countries and in Eastern Europe, in Asia, where corrupted Police are – is actually lobbying and pressuring for not moving into reforms and in the US, there is resistance to reform from a lobby of people involved in the private prison industry, just to be clear.
Dr Patricia Lewis
So, Asma, you talked about vested interests, Olu, you talked…
Asma Jahangir
Well, even…
Dr Patricia Lewis
…about vested interests.
Asma Jahangir
Yeah, I mean, even Parliamentarians, I mean, we have an election to Senate in Pakistan and a lot of drug money is used to buy votes. So – and it’s very open. If you go to the FATA area, which is the tribal area in Pakistan, people will tell you this is Drug Lord so and so and for a whole two miles you will see his wall, outside wall of his house and then, another place there’s Drug Lord so and so, another five miles he has a house. So, it’s – and people go there and Politicians go there, it’s all kosher. Journalists go there, it’s fine.
Olusegun Obasanjo
We’ve found, when we looked at the situation in West Africa, that drug money is gradually going into politics and Drug Barons are also becoming Politicians. We have, in Nigeria, a Senator who is a wanted Drug Baron in America and is a member of the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. That’s how bad the situation is getting in our part of the world. So, there’s money involved.
Asma Jahangir
I think also, a lot of terrorist groups yields drug money, so I think we – and because there are reports on it. So, we should not underestimate the exploitation of criminalisation of drugs.
Dr Patricia Lewis
So, if I can take the lady here in the scarf, please.
Angelica
Thank you. My name’s Angelica. I’m from Colombia and I’m currently working on a production of a theoretical play that looks at – is called Stardust, you’re all invited, that looks into the production of cocaine. Obviously, being a Colombian, that has affected us a lot. But also, it looks – it’s a journey that it looks also to people, the persons that actually have no alternative, but growing coca. And also, how we have been carrying the stigma of being the producer, the largest producer of cocaine around the world, but also, it looks at how coca has been actually used, barring the UNESCO communities, as medicine, with – because it’s considered sacred by them. So, I just wondering how the Commission is actually looking at those patients that are actually producing coca because they have no option and how decriminalisation is actually – can benefit them as well, not just the consumer, but also, those who have no choice?
Dr Patricia Lewis
So, one of the things in the report that I think is very powerful is, it looks at traditional use as well and around the world. But I’m going to take a couple of other questions and one here and then, one there, please.
John Warren
And John Warren, Physician. Do you think there’s much to learn from the history of alcohol? Alcohol still causes a lot of addiction, morbidity, mortality, yet there’s very inconsistent worldwide approach to prohibition, let alone regulation. Do you think the title should all be involved drug and alcohol?
Dr Patricia Lewis
Hmmm, please.
Adesoji Adeniyi
Thank you very much. Adesoji Adeniyi is my name. I just want to know, after this report, what next?
Dr Patricia Lewis
What next?
Adesoji Adeniyi
What practical steps are you taking to influence opinions, especially at the leadership level in Africa? And President Obasanjo, you’ve been the Head of State of Nigeria twice and you have a very strong influence on leaders across West Africa. What practical steps are you taking as a father, as a grandfather, to make sure that these issues are addressed? Thank you.
Dr Patricia Lewis
And I would add into that again, what’s the discussion, within the African Union, as well as within…
Asma Jahangir
Well, the first question…
Dr Patricia Lewis
…the region of West…?
Asma Jahangir
…I’d like to answer first and I would really caution against it, because as the world is becoming more conservative, you may have prohibition on alcohol as well.
Dr Patricia Lewis
But we do have prohibition of alcohol still in some countries, right?
Asma Jahangir
But you’ll have it in more countries.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Yeah, hmmm. So…
Olusegun Obasanjo
Well, let me…
Dr Patricia Lewis
…Olu, why don’t you start?
Olusegun Obasanjo
You are right, but let me say what came out almost as we were producing our report from the West African Commission on Drug. The ECOWAS countries then came out with a policy, an ECOWAS policy on drug. The AU have followed with an AU policy on drug. I won’t attribute all that to our effort, but our effort must be part of that. What we do – what we have done, of course, was we have sent our report, not only to West African countries, but leaders all over Africa and this report, the one that you are waving at me now, we are going to do the same through the instrumentality of Professor Okebukola, who is here with me and who runs what we call Centre for Human Security. We will have – normally, we call people, we’ll have discussion of this at the national level and at the regional level. And we will, of course, formally send it to the Government, through the Ministry that we believe should have this: Minister of Justice, Minister of Education, Minister of Health, and that’s what we do.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Helen, on the crop production issue and development issues?
Helen Clark ONZ PC
Well, my understanding, and I’m not so familiar with Colombia, but if you take the economics of it in Afghanistan, a least developed country, with very poor transportation infrastructure, from the point of view of the small producer, and yes, they could grow things other than poppies, but there isn’t a distribution system. What there’s always a distribution system for is drugs, because you have people, you know, very significant criminal and terrorist networks, which have an interest in getting this good to market, when they don’t have the same interest in getting carrots to market, or coriander, or something. So, you know, you can destroy all the crops you like, but unless people have practical alternative livelihoods based on, you know, a level of development, which will get goods to market, you’re not going to have any impact that way.
I was just also reflecting back to, I guess, the very first question about what narrative do we need in our societies to get reform? And I think it is very much about putting the human face on the issues, and often families get their awareness raised if one of their family members is caught up in the criminalisation, you know, the person who goes to jail and, you know, the student who was doing well, has a drug offence, a record, criminal record and so on. If you think of what really prompted brave responses to HIV, it was people dying. Now, people are dying from bad drug policy, in effect and I would hope that, you know, there can be some reflection on that, and in the United Kingdom, which I understand has drug induced deaths at about three times the European average, is this the sort of statistic the UK wants? I don’t think so. So, the human face will be incredibly important in changing hearts and minds among legislators and decision-makers that something needs to be done.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Can I just go to Michel a moment, because Michel, you mentioned earlier about the need for opioids and the need for the sorts of drugs that we’re actually trying to stop being produced in some places. Why aren’t we being smarter about the production of those types of drugs in our medical profession, where there, as I understand it, there’s a shortage, in many countries, of these types of drugs?
Michel Kazatchkine
Yeah, and what should we also keep in mind that the production of the growing crops, you know, for medical purposes, is strictly limited to rich countries somehow. So, those countries that are harsh on the others because they grow illegally, are the countries that grow illegally. Australia, France is actually supplying Switzerland, if I’m not wrong.
But let me just – I’d like to go back for a second to the question on Colombia, because as you’re – I’m sure you’re aware, President Gaviria is a part of our Commission and we’ve been discussing this a lot within the Commission. In our latest report on decriminalisation, we have been calling for re – from – for removing from criminal justice offences such as the – for those in minor drug related work, including, of course, the farmers who grow out of economic pressure and have no alternative. We have also been always supporting all efforts for finding economic alternatives for these people.
UNDP has done a lot of work in Colombia. We have also been denouncing, and particularly in a publication on health, the negative impact of spraying on the people in Colombia and in these regions where drugs were sprayed and we’re even, as a Global Commission, quoted in the Peace Agreement in Colombia as a potential mediator. So, our position is very clear, and it is that in no way should these farmers that have no economic alternative at this time, be considered as criminal and fall under criminal justice law.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thank you. Ruth, did you want to come in?
Ruth Dreifuss
Well, did I have to answer about the next steps?
Dr Patricia Lewis
Yes.
Ruth Dreifuss
On one side, the next steps for this report is really to advocate at all level. I mean, my friend, Obasanjo, spoke about advocating at the highest authorities. But also, to enter into a discussion with the media to change the vocabulary. I mean, all this is an activity we want to continue. We are launching today and it is important, I think, that we put the emphasis about the need to change the language and to change the perception and so, to break this vicious circle, that element repressive policy and the repressive policy is elementing the stigma and so on. So, that is really something that we have to break. As for years, we said our first ambition is to break the taboo and to speak about drugs. Now, our ambition is to break the vicious circle from stigma to criminalisation and to speak, not only with authorities, but all opinion leaders.
Now, the next steps also for the Commission is to go more in-depth on the question of regulation, because we feel, and from the beginning, we saw the only way to be really coherent is not only to have a public health approach, to have a decriminalisation and so on, but to take the market, the whole business, from criminal hands and to put it in the responsible hands of the state. But this is very easy to say. It’s not so easy to propose the different models, different from one substance to the other, different from one country and culture to the other. So, this is the huge task we have put for us.
Now, perhaps to come back to the perception also, as you know, probably, the international community will have the opportunity, in 2019, to review, and we hope it will be a serious review, about the ten-last year of the plan of action. And we will work, also, in pushing for a real assessment, which will be not just the general worlds and the seizure of – and the number of arrest and so on, but a matrix that will really tell us what are the consequences of this policy. But it is also to change the vocabulary on the international level. If you think that in the convention you are speaking about the evil, the substance is an evil and if the substance is an evil, you can imagine who is the person who is in touch with this evil? So, I mean, we have also to fight for more serene, evidence-based, calm vocabulary on the international level and this is one of our activity for the next months and for the next year to come.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thank you. Well, we’ve still got some time for some questions, so I’m going to go to the lady at the back with her hand raised and then, these two gentlemen here. Thank you.
Professor Val Curran
And just to echo Ruth’s point there, I think it’s really important that instead of seeing these things as…
Dr Patricia Lewis
Could you introduce yourself, sorry?
Professor Val Curran
Sorry?
Dr Patricia Lewis
Could you introduce yourself?
Professor Val Curran
Sorry, my name’s Prof Val Curran from UCL. I’m a Scientist working on medical uses…
Dr Patricia Lewis
Thank you.
Professor Val Curran
…of various kinds of drugs. And one of the most exciting developments in this field have been that drugs that are perceived as street drugs and evil have actually been found to have more important medical uses. I mean, a lot of what’s been happening in the States, in terms of changed perceptions, has been that analysis of the cannabis plant, in terms of over 100 different cannabinoids, one of which is showing extremely effective in children with very severe epilepsies, and that began in Colorado, when a very clever parent decided to take this up himself with a little girl called Charlotte and her epilepsy episodes were reduced by 90%. And it would be another two years before that drug, called Epidiolex now, a cannabinoid, is widely available, but a lot of parents are giving it to their children anyway. Similarly, something like ketamine has now been shown to be an effective antidepressant and next year, it will go before the Federal Drug Agency in the States to be recognised as a medicine.
So, maybe a bit of change in the perception about drugs being evil is actually to capitalise on what science is showing, in terms of these drugs can have benefits, if we can get rid of the scheduling at international level and promote research. But at the moment, Schedule 1 defines these drugs as having no medical use.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Hmmm, thank you. So, at the front here, please, and then, behind. Thank you. Okay, that way round is fine.
Male Delegate
Hi, my name is [inaudible – 69:42] from the Institute of Economic Affairs and my question is directed at Former President Obasanjo, on taking the observation that most of Sub-Saharan countries in Africa are Christian Fundamentalist. Do you think that there’s a role for Pastors in these organisations to educate the masses in lowering the stigma?
Dr Patricia Lewis
So, the role of faith communities…
Male Delegate
Correct.
Dr Patricia Lewis
…generally, and changing perceptions?
Male Delegate
Correct.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Yes, thank you.
Anthony Newton
Anthony Newton. Two short questions, if I may? They really are short. First of all, has the Commission or its members ever been intimidated, threatened or induced in any way and if so, what have they done about it? And second…
Dr Patricia Lewis
Is that just this evening, or…?
Anthony Newton
And secondly, where does the funding come from?
Dr Patricia Lewis
The funding for the Commission?
Anthony Newton
Yes.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Good question.
Anthony Newton
Thank you.
Ruth Dreifuss
Okay, I can answer this…
Dr Patricia Lewis
You can answer that last one.
Ruth Dreifuss
…question very easily. I think we were never a threat. Even if we think that if all our programme will be realised, some people will lose a lot of money from the criminal organisation and a lot of power, but okay, no, we are safe. Now, the funding is also very clear. We are funded by three foundation. One is the Open Society Foundation, and I must say, the Open Society is perhaps the main funder for reform all over the world in drug policy.
The second is Unite, the foundation created by our member, Sir Richard, Richard Branson, and the third foundation is a foundation called Oak, which was created by a family from Denmark, if I remember, family Parker, which is also, really eager to support open society, in the broad sense of the world, policies. And the Swiss Confederation is also supporting us, because for now, a year and a half, a little bit more, our Secretariat is in Geneva and Switzerland is eager to support NGOs and agencies from the UN and to have, in Geneva a platform, which focus is on health, on human rights and on security, in a broader sense, also. So, that we are really considered as one of these ecosystem, a part of the eco – Geneva International Ecosystem, as on the side more of the NGOs, but we are a special kind – special animal. We are not exactly a NGO. We are just a club of, as I told before, world citizen.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Michel, do you want to address the medical use of drugs, and other…
Michel Kazatchkine
Yes, well…
Dr Patricia Lewis
…than just…?
Michel Kazatchkine
…I have little to add. Just thank you for your comment. Obviously, you know, the paradox is that the same substance will be looked totally different on whether it’s used in a medical context, let’s say diamorphine, and as a street drug, heroin. But it’s the same substance and for many, if not actually most of the drugs that we’re discussing today, they have this duo, either activity or at – or potential. And we’re certainly very open and very supportive of every attempt now to use the many potential benefits that we could have from the medical use of some of these psychoactive substances that so far, have only been, sort of, used illegally. But research is itself prevented by the fact that they’re illegal and by the international control system. How can you perform a clinical – a randomised clinical trial, you know, in a setting where the substance is illegal? So, that’s one of the things we’re certainly denouncing.
And also, the fact, which was somehow implicit in some of what you said, that the current classification of how dangerous the drugs are in the UN system, in the scheduling, has nothing to do, as first shown here in Britain by David Nutt and others, nothing to do with the actual dangerosity, when measured on the ground. So, we’re also calling for a revision of the scheduling system. Just for the anecdote, you know, cannabis was last reviewed by WHO in 1935.
Dr Patricia Lewis
Faith based issues, Olu?
Olusegun Obasanjo
The faith is a effort. When we – our commission went round, one of the best rehabilitation centre that we found, and we found quite a lot, but the best was faith-based rehabilitational centre. The problem of clergy, either of Christian or Muslim, going forward, is the fact that they cannot be seen to be encouraging criminality. And we were told this, that if they would do what they have been doing, trying to build rehabilitation centres, look, they can – people out of the street and all that. But they can’t join us.
Now, in this idea of changing the perception, using the correct language, and you saying they’re not as evil, not as criminal issue, but as health issue, and we are going to engage them, we have done that in the past. Some of them kept away and said, “We do not want to be seen as encouraging criminality.” And – but if we start moving away from seeing this as criminal, you’ll see it as health issue and we debated and talk about it as health issue. Surely, Faith Ministers, Religious Ministers and community leaders will be the people who will help us tremendously.
Dr Patricia Lewis
And that’s a great note on which to end. I wish we could carry on and I know there are many more questions that people have, but we have to end it here, I’m afraid. We are serving a legal drug, which I’m told, in moderation, and we’re – that is up for us to decide, is very good for you, but in excess, is very bad for you. So, I invite you all to come upstairs, where I hope that some of our panel here tonight will be here to answer further questions, engage in further conversation, and I welcome you all upstairs, and I’m sorry for those that I couldn’t call on to ask questions. Thank you very much. Thank you [applause].
