The world is far more progressive or regressive than the CND deliberations – but it is not what member states are allowed to see, hear and speak. It reminded us of the Gandhi’s three monkeys – See no evil, Hear no evil and Speak no evil. It is time to put people who use drugs, evidence and human rights at the center.
On March 16, 2018, an Informal NGO Dialogue with the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) was held during the 61st session on the Commission of Narcotics Drugs (CND). INCB President Dr. Viroj Sumyai, in his response to a question posed by the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC) pointed out reasons to promote access to Naloxone.
One of the unintended consequences of international drug control is the way we perceive and deal with the users of drugs that have been made illegal. A system appears to have been created in which those who fall into the web of dependence find themselves excluded and marginalized from the social mainstream, tainted with a moral stigma, and often unable to find treatment, even when they may be motivated to want it.
Anand spoke along with five other panelists at a session titled “Dying Democracy: A Public Forum on the War on Drugs and Human Rights in the Philippines” that was organized by the Advocacy Network Against Killings in the Philippines (ANAK) on October 5, 2017 at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand in Bangkok.
A systematic review and meta-analysis, conducted to inform the new World Health Organization (WHO) Consolidated Guidelines, found Dolutegravir superior to standard dose Efavirenz for both viral suppression and discontinuation rates.
The whole point of criminalizing drug use is to stigmatize drug users. Consider why particular acts are seen as crimes in the first place.
We want to change society’s perception of drug users by empowering them to lead noble and productive lives and to contribute to society.
A number of high-level dialogues and initiatives have been commissioned by UN organizations to examine and address legal and political barriers to the provision and scaling up of harm reduction related to HIV and drug use.
The acceptance, development and expansion of harm reduction programs in countries that have traditionally employed deterrence and punishment as the primary response to the use of drugs is a remarkable achievement and a triumph for public health. What is striking is that in a few countries harm reduction has been driven by law enforcement agencies responsible for the administration of drug control.
The beginnings of harm reduction in the context of drug use is difficult to clearly define, as harm reduction is now equated with HIV prevention for PWID and not as drug treatment. This is mainly the outcome of many years of concerted advocacy efforts promoting needle syringe exchange and methadone or buprenorphine substitution, much after the HIV epidemic had swept through PWID in many Asian countries.