We’re proud to sign onto the Vienna Declaration, which calls on governments and the UN to end the criminalization of drug users and the disastrous international “war on drugs”. To understand why, read the declaration below — and please add your name to ours.
In English: https://www.viennadeclaration.com/the-declaration.html
中文: https://www.viennadeclarationchinese.com/
The Vienna Declaration
The criminalisation of illicit drug users is fuelling the HIV epidemic and
has resulted in overwhelmingly negative health and social
consequences. A full policy reorientation is needed.
In response to the health and social harms of illegal drugs, a large international
drug prohibition regime has been developed under the umbrella of the
United Nations.1
Decades of research provide a comprehensive assessment of the impacts
of the global “War on Drugs” and, as thousands of individuals gather in
Vienna at the XVIII International AIDS Conference, the international
scientific community calls for an acknowledgement of the limits and
harms of drug prohibition, and for drug policy reform to remove barriers
to effective HIV prevention, treatment and care.
The evidence that law enforcement has failed to prevent the availability of illegal
drugs, in communities where there is demand, is now unambiguous.2, 3Over the last
several decades, national and international drug surveillance systems
have demonstrated a general pattern of falling drug prices and
increasing drug purity–despite massive investments in drug law
enforcement.3,4
Furthermore, there is no evidence that increasing the ferocity of law enforcement
meaningfully reduces the prevalence of drug use.5 The data also clearly demonstrate
that the number of countries in which people inject illegal drugs is
growing, with women and children becoming increasingly affected.6 Outside of
sub-Saharan Africa, injection drug use accounts for approximately one in
three new cases of HIV.7, 8 In some areas where HIV is spreading most rapidly, such as Eastern
Europe and Central Asia, HIV prevalence can be as high as 70% among
people who inject drugs, and in some areas more than 80% of all HIV
cases are among this group.8
In the context of overwhelming evidence that drug law
enforcement has failed to achieve its stated objectives, it is important
that its harmful consequences be acknowledged and addressed. These
consequences include but are not limited to:
- HIV epidemics fuelled by the criminalisation of people who use illicit drugs
and by prohibitions on the provision of sterile needles and opioid
substitution treatment.9, 10 - HIV outbreaks among incarcerated and institutionalised drug
users as a result of punitive laws and policies and a lack of HIV
prevention services in these settings.11-13 - The undermining of public health systems when law enforcement drives drug users away from
prevention and care services and into environments where the risk of
infectious disease transmission (e.g., HIV, hepatitis C & B, and
tuberculosis) and other harms is increased.14-16 - A crisis in criminal justice systems as a result of record incarceration rates in a number of
nations.17, 18This has negatively affected the social functioning of entire
communities. While racial disparities in incarceration rates for drug
offences are evident in countries all over the world, the impact has
been particularly severe in the US, where approximately one in nine
African-American males in the age group 20 to 34 is incarcerated on any
given day, primarily as a result of drug law enforcement.19 - Stigmatowards people who use illicit drugs, which reinforces the political
popularity of criminalising drug users and undermines HIV prevention and
other health promotion efforts.20,
21 - Severe human rights violations, including
torture, forced labour, inhuman and degrading treatment, and execution
of drug offenders in a number of countries.22, 23 - A massive illicit
market worth an estimated annual value of US$320 billion.4 These profits
remain entirely outside the control of government. They fuel crime,
violence and corruption in countless urban communities and have
destabilised entire countries, such as Colombia, Mexico and Afghanistan.4 - Billions of tax dollars wasted on a “War on Drugs” approach to drug control that
does not achieve its stated objectives and, instead, directly or
indirectly contributes to the above harms.24
Unfortunately, evidence of the failure of drug prohibition to achieve its stated goals,
as well as the severe negative consequences of these policies, is often
denied by those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo.25This has created
confusion among the public and has cost countless lives. Governments
and international organisations have ethical and legal obligations to
respond to this crisis and must seek to enact alternative evidence-based
strategies that can effectively reduce the harms of drugs without
creating harms of their own. We, the undersigned, call on governments
and international organisations, including the United Nations, to:
- Undertake a transparent review of the effectiveness of current drug policies.
- Implement and evaluate a science-based public health approach to address the
individual and community harms stemming from illicit drug use. - Decriminalise drug users, scale up evidence-based drug dependence treatment options
and abolish ineffective compulsory drug treatment centres that violate
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.26 - Unequivocally endorse and scale up funding for the implementation of the comprehensive package
of HIV interventions spelled out in the WHO, UNODC and UNAIDS Target
Setting Guide.27 - Meaningfully involve members of the affected community in developing, monitoring and
implementing services and policies that affect their lives.
We further call upon the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, to urgently
implement measures to ensure that the United Nations system–including
the International Narcotics Control Board–speaks with one voice to
support the decriminalisation of drug users and the implementation of
evidence-based approaches to drug control.28
Basing drug policies on scientific evidence will not eliminate drug use or the problems stemming
from drug injecting. However, reorienting drug policies towards
evidence-based approaches that respect, protect and fulfil human rights
has the potential to reduce harms deriving from current policies and
would allow for the redirection of the vast financial resources towards
where they are needed most: implementing and evaluating evidence-based
prevention, regulatory, treatment and harm reduction interventions.
1.
William B McAllister. Drug diplomacy in the twentieth century: an
international history. Routledge, New York, 2000.
2. Reuter P. Ten
years after the United Nations General Assembly Special Session
(UNGASS): assessing drug problems, policies and reform proposals. Addiction 2009;104:510-7.
3.
United States Office of National Drug Control Policy. The Price and
Purity of Illicit Drugs: 1981 through the Second Quarter of 2003.
Executive Office of the President; Washington, DC,
2004.
4. World Drug Report 2005. Vienna: United Nations Office on
Drugs and Crime; 2005.
5. Degenhardt L, Chiu W-T, Sampson N, et al.
Toward a global view of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, and cocaine use:
Findings from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. PLOS Medicine 2008;5:1053-67.
6.
Mathers BM, Degenhardt L, Phillips B, et al. Global epidemiology of
injecting drug use and HIV among people who inject drugs: A systematic
review. Lancet 2008;372:1733-45.
7. Wolfe D, Malinowska-Sempruch K. Illicit
drug policies and the global HIV epidemic: Effects of UN and national
government approaches. New York: Open Society Institute;
2004.
8. 2008 Report on the global AIDS epidemic. The Joint United
Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS; Geneva, 2008.
9. Lurie P, Drucker E.
An opportunity lost: HIV infections associated with lack of a national
needle-exchange programme in the USA. Lancet
1997;349:604.
10. Rhodes T, Lowndes C, Judd A, et al. Explosive
spread and high prevalence of HIV infection among injecting drug users
in Togliatti City, Russia. AIDS
2002;16:F25.
11. Taylor A, Goldberg D, Emslie J, et al. Outbreak of
HIV infection in a Scottish prison. British
Medical Journal 1995;310:289.
12. Sarang A, Rhodes T, Platt
L, et al. Drug injecting and syringe use in the HIV risk environment of
Russian penitentiary institutions: qualitative study. Addiction 2006;101:1787.
13.
Jurgens R, Ball A, Verster A. Interventions to reduce HIV transmission
related to injecting drug use in prison. Lancet Infectious Disease 2009;9:57-66.
14. Davis C,
Burris S, Metzger D, Becher J, Lynch K. Effects of an intensive
street-level police intervention on syringe exchange program
utilization: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. American Journal of Public Health
2005;95:233.
15. Bluthenthal RN, Kral AH, Lorvick J, Watters JK.
Impact of law enforcement on syringe exchange programs: A look at
Oakland and San Francisco. Medical
Anthropology 1997;18:61.
16. Rhodes T,
Mikhailova L, Sarang A, et al. Situational factors influencing drug
injecting, risk reduction and syringe exchange in Togliatti City,
Russian Federation: a qualitative study of micro
risk environment. Social Science &
Medicine 2003;57:39.
17. Fellner J, Vinck P. Targeting
blacks: Drug law enforcement and race in the United States. New York:
Human Rights Watch; 2008.
18. Drucker E. Population impact under New
York’s Rockefeller drug laws: An analysis of life years lost. Journal of Urban Health
2002;79:434-44.
19. Warren J, Gelb A, Horowitz J, Riordan J. One in
100: Behind bars in America 2008. The Pew Center on the States
Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts 2008.
20. Rhodes T, Singer
M, Bourgois P, Friedman SR, Strathdee SA. The social structural
production of HIV risk among injecting drug users. Social Science & Medicine
2005;61:1026.
21. Ahern J, Stuber J, Galea S. Stigma, discrimination
and the health of illicit drug users. Drug
and Alcohol Dependence 2007;88:188.
22. Elliott R, Csete J,
Palepu A, Kerr T. Reason and rights in global drug control policy. Canadian Medical Association Journal
2005;172:655-6.
23. Edwards G, Babor T, Darke S, et al. Drug
trafficking: time to abolish the death penalty. Addiction 2009;104:3.
24. The National Centre on
Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (2001). Shoveling
up: The impact of substance abuse on State budgets.
25.
Wood E, Montaner JS, Kerr T. Illicit drug addiction, infectious disease
spread, and the need for an evidence-based response. Lancet Infectious Diseases 2008;8:142-3.
26. Klag S, O’Callaghan F, Creed P. The use
of legal coercion in the treatment of substance abusers: An overview and
critical analysis of thirty years of research. Substance Use & Misuse 2005;40:1777.
27.
WHO, UNODC, UNAIDS 2009. Technical Guide for countries to set targets
for universal access to HIV prevention, treatment and care for injection
drug users.
28. Wood E, Kerr T. Could a United
Nations organisation lead to a worsening of drug-related harms? Drug and Alcohol Review
2010;29:99-100.