Skip to main content

Special Report

LEAP's Annual Report

 


              Legalization and the War on Drugs:
        How 2009 Became the Year That Got Everyone Talking


ABOUT LEAP:

Founded in 2002 by five cops, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) is run and represented solely by those who fought on the front lines of the "war on drugs" and who know firsthand that prohibition only worsens drug addiction and street violence.

Today, LEAP has more than 30,000 supporters including police, prosecutors, judges, FBI/DEA agents, corrections officials, military personnel and civilians.

LEAP has members in 76 countries and its 100 speakers have helped to put a credible face on the modern anti-prohibition movement by giving more than 5,500 presentations to civic groups, public officials, members of the media and others. More information about LEAP is online at:

www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com

Acknowledgements:
Report coordinator: Kristin Daley
Many thanks are due to the following individuals who provided invaluable assistance in the creation of this report: Tom Angell, Jack Cole, Peter Donna, Roger Falcón, Bill Fried, Michael Genovese, Antoinette Hartung and Shaleen Title


INTRODUCTION

At the end of 2008, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition released a report underscoring the feasibility of ending drug prohibition by pointing to a time 75 years earlier when our grandparents had the wisdom to legalize alcohol in order to stop violence and corruption, improve the economy and bolster public health. LEAP's Repeat Repeal report examined the parallels between alcohol prohibition and today's drug prohibition, calling on policymakers to consider drug legalization and regulation. As we look back on 2009 and the first months of 2010, it is clear that our message is really beginning to stick.

In 2009 it seemed that almost everyone was talking about legalizing drugs as a possible solution to the abysmal failure of the "war on drugs." Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Senator Jim Webb, former Mexican president Vicente Fox, Mexico's current ambassador to the United States, Representative Charlie Rangel, Representative Barney Frank and political commentators Glenn Beck and Patrick Buchanan, among many others, said last year that legalization must be put on the table for discussion.

Yet we've seen much resistance from the White House, with Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske first claiming, in response to questioning by LEAP, that legalization wasn't even in his vocabulary and then, only months later, attempting to undermine legalization arguments via reference to a LEAP Washington Post op-ed during his remarks to the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

There has been a palpable shift away from the attitude that legalization won't or can't happen because it is somehow politically dangerous to acknowledge that the obvious solution to the "war on drugs" is to stop waging it, and we know - as many polls now bear out - that legalization can happen and that voters are much more ready for reform than even the most supportive politicians are prepared to understand. As we show below, there is substantial evidence that the old "drug war politics" are beginning to crumble. But if we are to clear the hurdles that stand between us and the end of prohibition, including important pending reforms, we will have to convince even more opinion leaders to reject the conventional wisdom about the perceived political danger associated with drug policy reform.

In fact, more and more people have begun talking about drug legalization, numerous incremental reforms are moving forward on the state and federal levels and we are beginning to see real models of effective regulation of marijuana distribution in California through the medical cannabis model, with the Obama administration voicing opposition to federal raids on medical marijuana distributors. Several countries around the world have decriminalized drug possession altogether. And yet the sky has not fallen; no politicians have been voted out of office because of their drug policy votes; in fact, drug abuse and problems tend to fall with the removal of punitive policies. It is increasingly clear that the debate on legalization has undergone a seismic shift and is moving forward.

LEAP has played a pivotal role in that shift.

NEW REPORT -- A cautionary tale: The impact of incarceration on Baltimore City

JPI header

 
 

Baltimore City residents share their experiences and hopes for the future

Advocates say new report is "a cautionary tale" for the nation's leaders

 

 

Contact: LaWanda Johnson
202-558-7974 x308
202-320-1029

BALTIMORE, MD--Teens spending their free time comforting parents who have lost their own children to violence; a woman fighting to break the cycle of addiction while fighting to keep her family together; a man struggling to keep his job while trying to comply with parole reporting requirements; a formerly incarcerated single mother making her daughter proud by getting her degree; and a woman grappling with the murder of her son and forgiving his assailant. These are some of the people who share their experiences in a new report, Bearing Witness: Baltimore City's residents give voice to what's needed to fix the criminal justice system, released today by the Justice Policy Institute.  In a brilliant blend of narratives and policy recommendations, Bearing Witness lays bare the facts around crime and punishment in Maryland's largest city, while shining a light on the hope and resiliency of those most affected by decades of failed policies. This report was supported by the Open Society Institute.

"Bearing Witness provides a glimpse not only of the impact the criminal justice system has had on communities, but also on the hope and determination of Baltimore City residents," said Shakti Belway, the author of the report.  "Each person's narrative demonstrates their perseverance in the face of incredible obstacles and their willingness to provide support and opportunity for others in similar circumstances."

Compared to the rest of Maryland, Baltimore City faces a concentrated impact of the criminal justice system. Although home to roughly 600,000 people, in 2006 the Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Center processed nearly 100,000 arrests and detained 44,825 individuals.  In 2008, 61 percent of newly-incarcerated people in Maryland prisons were from Baltimore City.  This intense involvement has taken its toll over the years on people, families, and neighborhoods.

"We felt that it was important for people most affected by the criminal justice system to have their voices heard, and a chance to talk about what they believe should be done to change the system for the better," said Tracy Velázquez, executive director of the Justice Policy Institute. "Their comments and conclusions underscore that more treatment, comprehensive services for families and individuals, and alternatives to incarceration--including those rooted in the principles of restorative justice--benefit people and their communities."

Bearing Witness, a collaborative effort of community members and organizations, not only documents Baltimore City's experiences, it also serves as a cautionary tale about the consequences of relying on the criminal justice system to solve social problems.The report identifies five areas that are critical to Baltimore City becoming a safer and healthier community:

  • Women and families have unique needs.  When a woman is sent to prison, her entire family also feels the punishment.  Treatment, interventions, and wrap-around services should be designed with the needs of women and their families in mind. 
  • Parole and probation serve as a revolving door that sends people back to prison.  The parole and probation system is too focused on catching people who are not meeting the conditions of release.  Instead, these systems should concentrate on ensuring that people get the support they need to stay out of prison.
  • A public health approach to drug addiction would eliminate the practice of sending people to prison who, in reality, need treatment.  Community-based treatment options that include the family and are available on demand would make this approach a reality.
  • Expanding opportunities and investing in solutions will preserve public safety and strengthen Baltimore City for years to come.  Rather than putting money into prisons and the criminal justice system, the community would benefit from stronger education and re-entry programs, job training, youth-oriented programs, and other community-based initiatives. 
  • Restorative justice and community conferencing are effective and less costly alternatives to incarceration.  The criminal justice system, as it is currently designed, does not meet the complex needs of victims, the community or the people who caused harm.

For more information about Bearing Witness or to schedule an interview, contact Lawanda Johnson at (202) 558-7974 x308 or [email protected].
 

 

 

The Justice Policy Institute is a non-profit public policy and research institute dedicated to ending society's reliance on incarceration and promoting effective and just solutions to social problems. To learn more about our research and publications visit www.justicepolicy.org

ENCOD Final Report: "Drugs and Diplomacy"

Dear friends, We proudly present the final report on the "Drugs and Diplomacy" research - it is online at http://www.encod.org/info/DRUGS-AND-DIPLOMACY-AN.html Best wishes, Joep -- EUROPEAN COALITION FOR JUST AND EFFECTIVE DRUG POLICIES Lange Lozanastraat 14 - 2018 Antwerpen - Belgium Tel. + 32 (0)3 293 0886 / Mob. + 32 (0)495 122644 / +31 (0)6 30210357 E-mail: [email protected] / www.encod.org

Compact for Racial Justice: An Agenda for Fairness and Unity, New Report Released

[Courtesy of The Sentencing Project] 

Dear Friends,
 
We're pleased to call your attention to a newly released report, Compact for Racial Justice: An Agenda for Fairness and Unity.  The publication was produced by the Applied Research Center as a proactive agenda for fairness and unity in communities, politics, and the law. 
 
The Sentencing Project was the lead author of the chapter promoting criminal justice reforms (beginning at page 17). In this chapter, we discuss the failed crime policies of the past 30 years, marked by the six-fold increase in the prison population since 1972.  Much of this increase can be attributed to the War on Drugs and the consequent sentencing disparities it imposed.   In addition to calling for reforms of current policies, we caution policymakers in the new administration against repeating the mistakes of the past through enacting policies and practices that impose harsh penalties that produce disproportionate effects on minorities, youth, and immigrants. 
 
Finally, we offer four specific recommendations for immediate action: implement racial impact statements, abolish the mandatory detention of immigrants, support people in reentry and the communities where they return, and make racial equity a standard for all criminal justice policy and practice.
 
You can obtain this publication
here.   
 
We hope you find this report useful in your work.
 
                                             
           
-The Sentencing Project

Dispatch from Vienna, Day Three: A Global Consensus for Drug Policy Reform

[Courtesy of ACLU] The first-ever meeting of ordinary people, representing the entire globe and discussing the state of the world’s drug policy, concluded today in Vienna with a unanimous, united call for a new approach to drug control policy. Here are the highlights of our resolution: * We recognized "the human rights abuses against people who use drugs" * We called for "evidence-based" drug policy focused on "mitigation of short-term and long-term harms" and "full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms" * We called on the U.N. to report on the collateral consequences of the current criminal justice-based approach to drugs and to provide an "analysis of the unintended consequences of the drug control system" * We called for comprehensive "reviews of the application of criminal sanctions as a drug control measure" * We recognized harm reduction as a necessary and worthwhile response to drug abuse (harm reduction is a set of practical strategies that reduce negative consequences of drug use, incorporating a spectrum of strategies from safer use, to managed use to abstinence; harm reduction strategies meet drug users "where they’re at," addressing conditions of use along with the use itself) * We called for a shift in primary emphasis from interdiction to treatment and prevention * We called for alternatives to incarceration * We called for the provision of development aid to farmers before eradication of coca or opium crops In other words, we voiced the need for a very significant shift in direction for drug policy at just about every level. Of course, if the national governments decide to ignore this call from the grassroots, this could just be a grown-up version of the model U.N. club some of us did in high school. If you read my earlier blog posts , you’ll know about the mysterious woman with the yellow badge — she worked hard to wreck the first day, but once she was gone on the second day, the more hard-line U.S. groups became fairly pragmatic and sensible. But the mystery woman showed up again today. I decided to introduce myself to the woman with the yellow badge. Today, she had a red badge, like the rest of us — meaning that overnight she had become a delegate, not an observer. Scary thought for how the day might go. I offered her my card, and got hers. I asked that she, as an official U.S. representative, please include the ACLU in future delegations. It turns out that June Sivilli is indeed in the drug czar’s office. A quick Google search reveals that she’s a big proponent of student drug testing, which may explain why she already knew who I was (thanks to the ACLU’s heretical position that, because it’s invasive and ineffective, we shouldn’t drug test students.) She didn’t offer to include me in future delegations, but was entirely civil. And then the day started with a bang: obstruction and delay from Drug Free America’s Calvina Fay and a couple of her colleagues. What was interesting, though, was that many of her original allies were no longer going along with her tactics. Joined only by the "Drug Free Schools Coalition" and a group called Sundial , she renewed the call to remove any suggestion that current drug policies cause harm. Sivilli seemed to be at work again, mobilizing her dwindling troops. Things quickly became comical: one delegate made a motion for all official government employees (i.e., Sivilli) to reveal themselves. The chair denied the motion, but the point had been made. Then another delegate asked the chair why the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (love the name!) was no longer filming the meeting. A rumor had spread that Sivilli objected to being caught on camera whispering in the ears of the "drug-free" representatives. And I learned from one colleague that the Drug Free Schools Coalition representative had threatened to sue her for taking his picture and "reported" her to the U.N. (whatever that means), forcing her to erase the picture from her camera. Can anyone think of any other examples of the U.S. government these days trying to do its dirty work with no accountability or scrutiny, especially in the face of overwhelming opposition from ordinary people? (Yes, Drug Free Schools Coalition and Drug Free America are not actually the U.S. government, but they clearly were working hand-in-glove in the one space where the U.S. government representative could not speak for herself.) But I’m spending way too much time on the shenanigans and not enough on the tremendous promise that today brings. For almost half a century, world drug policy has focused overwhelmingly on "supply side" tactics — a euphemism for policies based on arrests and imprisonment. The U.S. has largely driven this process, in our name but without our consent and mostly without even our awareness. Other governments were initially dragged into this regime, and many have come to embrace it enthusiastically and viciously. Yet now, in this very official space, the people of the world have responded, and we say with one voice that things must change. I’ll write one more time with some thoughts about how we can make sure our government listens. And I hope you’ll all chime in with your ideas in the comments section. One more thing: thanks for taking the time to read this far. I hope it’s been useful and maybe even a little bit fun.

Dispatch from Vienna, Day Two: A Spy in the House

[Courtesy of ACLU] Intrigue and then remarkable progress marked the second day of the Vienna conference on drug policy. First, the intrigue. Throughout the first day, I kept noticing this one person who harrumphed, guffawed, and muttered every time someone spoke in ways critical of the drug policy status quo. By accent, she seemed to be from the United States. And she had a yellow badge, where everyone else had a red badge. Who was she? Why did she keep shuffling over to the U.S. groups like Drug Free America and other cheerleaders for U.S. hardline policy? She settled in right behind me, and gave instructions to her allies — tactics for blocking inclusion of harm reduction. She said "one of you needs to interject to stop the hand clapping in favor of their proposals." More and more, she seemed like some sort of puppet master. As the day concluded, she rushed up to the podium, accosted the chair, and, in the most agitated way, began lambasting the chair for various procedural points. I had to find out about the American woman with the yellow badge. At a social gathering later that evening, I described my observations to some of the NGO delegates who regularly attend these U.N. events. Turns out that the yellow-badge woman is June Sivilli, an employee of the U.S. drug czar’s office and a regular fixture at Vienna drug meetings. Until now, she has been able to speak as an official voice of the U.S. government — and the U.S. is always the most important voice on U.N. drug policy issues. Now that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are bringing the voices of ordinary people to the table for the first time ever, she was actively subverting the process, throwing every possible obstacle in the way of this quite benign process. I’d always heard that the U.S. government played a bully role in international drug policy. But it’s really ugly to see it in practice. Happily, the second morning of the conference came with no U.S. government saboteurs on the scene. Someone must have let Sivilli know that her contributions were not appropriate. As if by magic, the barrage of objections from yesterday largely evaporated. Some of the pro-status quo groups continued to raise some objections, but I realized that some of those folks have a genuine desire to make the world a better place and a desire to make the NGO consultation productive. The head of Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America offered some reasonable compromises; the representative of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) supported my calls for human rights protections; even Calvina Fay (see yesterday’s post on her deplorable statements) became fairly agreeable. I shouldn’t overstate the kumbaya spirit of the day, though. A tempest erupted when a European HIV prevention group suggested that drug users should be consulted in making drug policy because they are the most affected. He asked us to imagine if an AIDS convention were drafted without mentioning people living with HIV. The NADCP representative then brought down the house with this: "I do not believe that people who are using drugs should be part of the process," followed by, "drugs are illegal, so it can’t be compared to the civil rights movement" and a comment that people could be heard only if "they submitted themselves to treatment" first. Deborah Small from Break the Chains offered an olive branch, saying that we all share the goal of helping people, so we should exclude no one. But the point of the whole exercise was brought home by the chair of the meeting, who said that some governments hesitate to consult NGOs because they are seen as unruly or undirected, so this kind of squabble would bring delight, showing that NGOs are categorically unfit to have a seat at the table. Thus, with Sivilli gone and with our minds focused on not looking like a room of unruly school children, we finally rolled up our sleeves. By mid-day, we began accelerating through a draft resolution, adding in human rights protections, recognizing the value of harm reduction, and insisting that "success" in the drug war must account for all the human and economic costs of incarceration and law enforcement, not just a tally sheet of tons of drugs interdicted. We even agreed that the U.N. drug bodies should re-evaluate whether incarceration is an effective drug policy. (One stalwart — a fellow whose organization’s goal is to bring drug testing to every school in the U.S. and across the globe — objected that this was an attack on law enforcement. None of the law enforcement organizations agreed.) Frankly, I’m not sure what to make of all this. It seems clear that ordinary people of the world are able to do a pretty good job describing a sane drug policy, so long as the U.S. drug czar stays out the way. The problem, though, is that this wonderful set of recommendations will matter only if national governments decide to listen. Once Sivilli resumes her customary seat at the table, she’ll surely oppose the recommendations. But will the other nations of the world have the wherewithal to chart their own course? Given that U.S. aid is often made conditional on toeing the U.S. drug policy line, it’s hard to be overly optimistic. And yet, we have no choice but to find hope that other nations will join us in charting a new course. At the end of today, I talked with Deodory John. He runs program in Tanzania for young people harmed by drug use. The program, Rafiki Family, is funded by local contributions. He is certain that prisons and police would do the kids in his program no good; they need education, jobs, peer counseling and treatment. And using harm reduction interventions, he’s working to combat the spread of HIV and AIDS. (If you want to join me in supporting his program, please send an email to John for more information.) I also met Tripti Tandon, from the Lawyers Collective’s HIV/AIDS Unit in India. She told me how India had enacted draconian drug laws under pressure from the U.S. to comply with its treaty obligations. The law makes even consumption of drugs a crime, and police routinely pick up poor people, force them to take drug tests, and then convict them based on the results. A positive for marijuana lands you in jail for six months; harder drugs for a year. Meanwhile, in Indonesia, the U.S. helped design and build a remote maximum security prison, where death-row inmates are transported using CIA rendition techniques (hoods, shackles, beating), confessions are extracted under torture, and the majority of prisoners are accused solely of drug crimes. This travesty is exposed on page 45 of a March 2008 U.N. Human Rights Council report to the U.N. General Assembly. If the NGOs get our way here in Vienna, the U.N. drug bodies will start documenting the myriad human rights violations committed under the U.S.-led global war on drugs. At the ACLU, we work hard to replace the drug war with a humane, health-based approach. The millions of current, former, and would-be drug prisoners in the U.S. urgently need this change. This conference makes clear that things are as bad, and often worse, in other parts of the world, and I’m glad that our work may help atone for — maybe even correct — some of the devastation that U.S.-led drug policy has inflicted throughout all corners of the globe.

ACLU Statement to the United Nations: Adopting a Human Rights-Based Global Drug Policy

[Courtesy of ACLU] A decade ago the United Nations (U.N.) issued a declaration outlining its 10-year global strategy to “eliminate or significantly reduce” all illicit coca, marijuana, and opium plants from the earth under the motto, “A drug free world – we can do it!” This week, the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) will measure progress in this global “war on drugs” at a meeting in Vienna, Austria. The American Civil Liberties Union will join a diverse coalition of civil and human rights organizations participating in the “Beyond 2008 Forum,” an unprecedented opportunity to review the past decade of international drug policy and to shape its future course. The U.N. convened this forum to provide the non-governmental organization community the opportunity to contribute to the development of future policy, practice, and strategy. For the first time, the international drug strategy will be informed by outside voices – a sensible approach that is commonplace for other issues, but has long been taboo on issues of drug policy. The ACLU seeks an end to punitive drug policies that cause widespread constitutional and human rights violations, as well as unprecedented levels of incarceration. U.S. government insistence on incarceration as a catch-all solution to the misuse of illicit drugs has failed to reduce drug-related harm both at home and abroad, while defying the basic tenets of the U.N.’s Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The global experience of the past 10 years demonstrates that current drug policies have exacerbated – not abated – violence, health epidemics, and civil and human rights violations: * The U.N.’s 2008 World Drug Report announced that illicit coca and opium production are at an all time high. * A 2008 World Health Organization study found that America has higher rates of both cocaine and marijuana use than countries with less punitive drug laws. * The U.S. imprisons 10 times as many people for drug offenses as does the European Union, which has 200 million more inhabitants. * In the U.S., the world’s wealthiest nation, drug overdose rates have tripled since 1990, and drug treatment remains unavailable to over 20 million people in need. * The Centers for Disease Control estimates that in the U.S. injection drug use accounts for 60% of all new cases of hepatitis C, and approximately one-fourth of all new HIV/AIDS cases. * Worldwide, drugs remain the largest source of income for organized crime, and drug-related violence is visibly spiraling out of control in Mexico, Afghanistan, West Africa, and elsewhere. The time has come for the U.S. and the international community to come to terms with the clear limitations of a drug policy principally devoted to supply-side enforcement and incarceration. Some members of the international community have long acknowledged the failure of U.S.-style drug prohibition as a model for global drug policy and have turned toward health-based approaches more in line with the U.N.’s health and human rights mandates. Beyond decriminalizing some adult drug use, several nations like Canada and the Netherlands have begun to experiment with a range of promising harm reduction approaches, such as providing people with drug addictions clean needles and counseling rather than imposing lengthy prison sentences. Such policies recognize that a drug free world is presently beyond reach and focus on minimizing the dangers faced by at risk individuals and society at large. This approach has proven both effective and better aligned with international human rights and public safety mandates. Even within the U.S., support for the global “war on drugs” is waning. The foundational American values of liberty, privacy and limited government power have been severely undermined by drug war tactics. One in 100 adults in the U.S. are behind bars, largely due to drug laws, giving the U.S. the dubious distinction as the world’s leading jailer. With drug use, production and availability remaining steady, the American public is waking up to the reality that over-reliance on enforcement and incarceration is neither good for public safety nor economically sustainable. National public opinion polls bear this out, finding a sizable majority of Americans favor treatment over incarceration for nonviolent drug offenders. With this week’s meeting, the U.N. has the opportunity to move away from the counterproductive policies that have dominated U.S. and, in turn, international drug policy for the past decade. U.N. drug policy has been left to operate in a lonely silo, apparently exempt from the tenets of transparency and accountability that guide other U.N. policy-making bodies. Sadly, where the international drug control regime has conflicted with human rights, systematic discrimination, abusive law enforcement practices, mass incarceration and easily avoidable health epidemics have prevailed. The U.N., and specifically the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), have the power to take a step in the right direction by adopting resolutions acknowledging the Universal Declaration on Human Rights’ centrality to all of the U.N.’s work, and mandating that the U.N.’s drug control bodies adopt a human rights-based approach in accordance with U.N. human rights law. For this step to be effective, however, member states must also make specific resolutions mandating that U.N. drug control policy be conducted in accordance with human rights law. Directives from the U.N. General Assembly to conduct drug control efforts in compliance with human rights norms have been ignored in the past. The CND – the U.N.’s inter-state body that directs international drug policy – has never adopted a resolution with any operational human rights obligations. Meanwhile, the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), the monitoring body for the U.N. drug control conventions, has openly stated that it will not address human rights. Application of international human rights laws can address many of the flaws and inequalities of the current drug control system. As mandated in the U.N.’s Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and several other treaties, human rights standards hold a greater position of legal authority than drug control treaties. For the U.N.’s drug control system to be consistent with the requirements of its own Charter, human rights must be the starting point, not an after-thought. A human rights-based approach to global drug policy would principally (1) prioritize prevention and treatment of negative health consequences of drug misuse over criminal justice responses and supply-side reduction measures, and (2) require that U.N. bodies measure effectiveness by assessing indicators of drug-related harm, rather than relying solely on drug use and interdiction statistics. Drug-related “harm” includes overdose rates, disease transmission rates, negative drug enforcement consequences as well as individual and communal criminal justice system-related consequences. To succeed, U.N. drug policy bodies must work closely with the World Health Organization and UNAIDS, a joint program of the U.N., to adopt effective strategies for reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS and other diseases. The following specific policy proposals should be implemented in order to align U.N. drug policy with its health and human rights mandates: 1) Reform of the International Narcotics Control Board • Regular, independent evaluations of the INCB must be administered to guarantee accountability. • The INCB must clarify its position on harm reduction and human rights in relation to the U.N.’s overall goals. • The INCB must acknowledge the authority of less rigid interpretations of the drug control treaties. • The INCB must function more openly, and involve civil society in its operations. • The INCB must improve the availability of treatment for chemical dependence, and develop greater expertise on HIV, public health, and human rights. 2) Emphasis on Human Rights from the Committee on Narcotic Drugs • The CND should adopt a resolution acknowledging the Universal Declaration of Human Right’s relevance to all of its work. • Member states must make specific resolutions mandating the U.N. drug control policy be conducted in accordance with human rights law and with the aim of furthering human rights protections. • The CND should adopt a resolution that mandates that all drug control arms of the U.N. adopt a human rights-based approach to their work in accordance with the aims of the U.N. Charter and human rights treaties. 3) Focus on Drug Control-Related Human Rights Violations from U.N. Human Rights Bodies • The U.N. Human Rights Council and other human rights treaty bodies should emphasize in their work greater focus on human rights violations caused by drug control efforts. People and governments throughout the world are increasingly recognizing that the global “war on drugs” does more harm than good. The U.N. must acknowledge this reality and set a new direction in drug policy that respects and upholds the health and human rights of all people. In 1998, at the last U.N. General Assembly Special Session on Drugs then-ACLU executive director Ira Glasser joined former U.N. Chief Javier Perez de Cuellar of Peru, Nobel Laureate and ex-Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz, economist Milton Friedman, current Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and over 500 prominent academics, scientists, and political leaders, in a letter to then-U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan stating: “We believe that the global war on drugs is now causing more harm than drug abuse itself. Every decade the United Nations adopts new international conventions, focused largely on criminalization and punishment, that restrict the ability of individual nations to devise effective solutions to local drug problems. Every year governments enact more punitive and costly drug control measures… Secretary General, we appeal to you to initiate a truly open and honest dialogue regarding the future of global drug control policies – one in which fear, prejudice and punitive prohibitions yield to common sense, science, public health and human rights.” Ten years later, following the pleas of diverse segments of civil society, that “open and honest dialogue” is finally beginning. But without the U.N.’s adoption of the preceding recommendations, common sense, public health and safety, and, above all, human rights will remain hostage to ineffective and counterproductive drug policies. Universal human rights and global safety from drug-related harm are not mutually exclusive. An honest examination by the U.N. of the past 10 years, informed by diverse voices, and, most importantly, by its own voice within its Charter and human rights mandates, can yield an evolved international strategy recognizing human freedom and dignity as the ultimate goals – not enemies – of global drug policy.