UN Board of Directors supports decriminalization of drugs

A form of political inaction The confusion surrounding drug-related issues seems to be affecting the UN, partly due to the interplay among its various institutions and the lack of a unified position. Some agencies had already called for the liberalization of drug policies. Recently, 31 U.N. agencies—all represented on the Executive Board (CEB) for coordination—have unanimously in favor of a revision of these policies promoting health and human rights.

A Fresh Approach

In its official document, the CEB «recognizes that the global drug problem is complex and multifaceted and that the challenges it poses have significant collateral effects on security, human rights, and development.» The Council and the various agencies represented within it have therefore committed to a joint effort to promote cooperation on this issue. The goal is to bring about «a comprehensive mobilization of the system in support of a comprehensive, balanced, inclusive, evidence-based approach focused on development and sustainability, and respectful of human rights.».

This involves, in particular, the exchange of data between the various agencies and member states, the establishment of a working group, and the formulation of a common position. The Council adopted a progressive stance by calling for «the promotion of alternatives to conviction and punishment in appropriate cases, including decriminalization for possession for personal use.».

It also supports prevention and harm reduction programs, as well as health coverage for people struggling with addiction. It aims to address prison overcrowding and eliminate the stigma and discrimination associated with drug use. The overall goal is to «promote a shift in drug policies and interventions toward a public health approach.».

The UN and Member States: Double Standards

While pledging to rethink political approaches to drug control, the Council reaffirms the central role of the international treaties that established prohibition: «[They] are the cornerstone of the international drug control system.» An ambiguous position that is also that of the INCB – perhaps less out of ideological conviction than out of a desire not to undermine the foundations of international cooperation. The Council believes, however, that the conventions are flexible and that member states can determine their own laws based on their national context.

The Council does not stop there, as it also calls for changes to existing policies that «threaten people’s health and rights.» In terms of health, this involves access to controlled medications for the treatment of pain and addiction. To ensure respect for the dignity and rights of consumers, the Council seeks to take practical measures to prohibit arbitrary arrests, detention, torture, and the death penalty. It emphasizes the principle of proportionality. The Council even mentions «addressing impunity for serious violations of these rights,» which are known to’They take place in certain states.

The Council was unanimous on these issues. It is now preparing to establish an interagency working group, led by UNODC, within the General Secretariat of the Steering Committee. This working group will be tasked with coordinating among agencies and translating recommendations into practice. It will also be responsible for collecting, compiling, analyzing, and producing data on the global system and on progress in drug policy to assist member states in shaping their policies.

Member States remain the primary decision-makers, and it is their votes at the Commission on Narcotic Drugs—which begins its session today—that truly have the power to bring about effective reforms. However, the fact that an increasing number of UN agencies and stakeholders are advocating for reform is significant. Among them are: the WHO, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN Women, the United Nations Development Program, former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, and current Secretary-General António Guterres. Some agencies, such as UNODC, held more conservative views but eventually joined the reform movement.