IDPC response to the INCB Annual Report for 2017

Dave Bewley-Taylor & Christopher Hallam

International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC)
August 2018

In the approach to the 2019 Ministerial Segment and its review of international drug control, the INCB’s Annual Report for 2017 is arguably of special importance. The INCB has chosen to stress the core importance of human rights and public health principles in the implementation of drug control. However, the Board’s conception of human rights within drug control, at times, remains arguably narrow; for example, there is no comment on the human rights impact of crop eradication and drug-policy related violence. The Board’s analysis, as represented here, has shifted to take into account the complexity of contemporary drug markets and of the differing views on the merits and otherwise of international drug policies. To some extent at least, there is a recognition of the validity of divergent visions of drug control, as opposed to a ‘black and white’ understanding of these positions.

Download the report (PDF)

In this response, IDPC analyses the 2017 INCB Annual Report, paying special attention to its foreword, its thematic chapter on treatment, as well as the cross-cutting issues of health, human rights and cannabis policies.

Key points

• In the approach to the 2019 Ministerial Segment and its review of international drug control, the INCB’s Annual Report for 2017 is arguably of special importance. The INCB has chosen to stress the core importance of human rights and public health principles in the implementation of drug control. However, the Board’s conception of human rights within drug control, at times, remains arguably narrow; for example, there is no comment on the human rights impact of crop eradication and drug-policy related violence.

• The Board’s analysis, as represented here, has shifted to take into account the complexity of contemporary drug markets and of the differing views on the merits and otherwise of international drug policies. To some extent at least, there is a recognition of the validity of divergent visions of drug control, as opposed to a ‘black and white’ understanding of these positions.

• The thematic chapter in this year’s report is concerned with drug dependence treatment. It notes that the 2016 UNGASS Outcome Document states that dependence can be treated ‘through evidence-based and voluntary treatment programmes’. The chapter, much of which is strongly positive, defines treatment as a human right, referring to the body of human rights legislation that defends it as such.

• This report maintains the Board’s position on regulated markets for cannabis such as those in Uruguay, various US states and Canada. It is perhaps restricted to this position by the terms of its mandate, as the compliance-body of the international drug control conventions. However, the INCB at times comes perilously close to inappropriately influencing the international debate. Moreover, the INCB’s role would be more helpful were it to utilise its expertise to identify ways to resolve the growing tensions over cannabis rather than simply reiterating that the conventions ‘just say no’.

• In accord with its recent strategy, the INCB uses the report to argue for the equitable access and availability to controlled medicines. The report includes an increased focus on the medicinal uses of cannabis, noting that several states have taken the regulatory steps necessary to provide cannabis and its derivatives for medical purposes. In this context, however, the Board highlights the place of cannabis in schedules I and IV of the 1961 Single Convention, a scheduling that supposedly reflects the dangerous properties of the substance. Again, the INCB walks a fine line here, as it has no role in determining the state of scientific evidence regarding medical cannabis.

• The report also adopts a more robust stance regarding the public health utility of drug consumption rooms. A subtle hardening of its position is visible, with a return to the language of ‘drug abuse’ and an emphasis on the dangers of condoning and encouraging drug use, particularly when it is obtained from illicit sources. This is a backward movement when compared with the 2016 report.

Previous reports in this series:

tags: