Feb 26, 2010

UN INCB's Annual Report oversteps mandate and interferes with countries' sovereignty


The UN's International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) annual report released today pointedly criticizes Argentina, Brazil and Mexico for moving to decriminalize the possession of drugs for personal consumption, cautioning that such moves may "send the wrong message." The INCB report expresses concern over "the growing movement to decriminalize the possession of controlled drugs" and calls for this movement to be "resolutely countered" by the governments of Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and the United States.

According to the Transnational Institute (TNI) and the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), the criticisms leveled today clearly overstep the INCB's mandate and constitute unwarranted intrusions into these countries' sovereign decision-making. TNI and WOLA are non-governmental organizations with expertise in both the UN drug control system and Latin American drug policy developments.

In August 2009, Argentina's Supreme Court of Justice declared unconstitutional the punishment of possession of cannabis for personal use. Last year, Mexico, through legislation, decriminalized the possession of drugs for personal consumption. In 2006, Brazil moved to partial decriminalization, replacing prison sentences with treatment and educational measures.

"There are too many consumers and small-time drug offenders overcrowding Latin American jails. This is not only inhumane, it also means justice systems are diverting their scarce resources and attention away from big traffickers," said Pien Metaal, TNI Drugs and Democracy Program Researcher. "Part of the overcrowding problem stems from disproportionate prison sentences for non-violent offenders."

Experiences so far with decriminalization of possession of drugs for personal use have not led to significant increases in drug use. In 2001, Portugal decriminalized the possession of all drugs for personal use, and has since seen a decrease in heroin use and in related adverse consequences, such as the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Created in 1968, the INCB monitors implementation of the UN's 1961 and 1971 international drug control conventions, and of the precursor control system established under the 1988 convention. According to TNI and WOLA, the INCB is clearly acting beyond its mandate by criticizing countries' jurisprudence and policies regarding decriminalization.

"In the case of the Argentine Supreme Court ruling, it is arrogant interference by the INCB to question the judgment of the highest judicial authority of a sovereign State. The INCB has neither the mandate nor the expertise to challenge such a decision," said Martin Jelsma, TNI Drugs and Democracy Program Coordinator.

The INCB justifies its call to 'resolutely counter' the decriminalization trend by 'reminding' governments of provisions in the 1988 Convention. "But apparently it's the INCB that needs reminding, both about the limits of its own role and about what the treaties actually require," said John Walsh, WOLA Senior Associate. "Not only does the INCB lack the mandate to raise such issues, the INCB misreads the 1988 Convention itself, asserting an absolute obligation to criminalize drug possession when the Convention explicitly affords some flexibility on this matter."

Specifically, the INCB report states that the 1988 Convention requires each party to "establish as a criminal offence [...] the possession, purchase or cultivation of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances for personal consumption..." However, the INCB report neglects to mention a phrase that is crucial to interpreting the Convention. Article 3, paragraph 2 plicitly states that measures to criminalize possession for personal consumption are subject to each country's "constitutional principles and the basic concepts of its legal system." Therefore, subscribing to the 1988 Convention only obligates a country to criminalize possession for personal consumption when that does not present a conflict with a nation's constitutional and legal principles, leaving governments with a certain latitude within the Conventions to reform their laws accordingly. For more information on the Conventions and the INCB's mandate, click here

Like last year, the INCB uses its annual report to reprimand Bolivia for the continuation of coca chewing and other traditional uses of coca. In 2008, Bolivia enshrined in its Constitution the coca leaf as a cultural heritage. "The INCB again shows itself to be out of touch with reality by demanding that Bolivia stamp out coca use, also wrongfully prohibited in the Conventions," said TNI's Pien Metaal. "The controversies around Article 3 of the 1988 Convention and the erroneous treatment of the coca leaf in the 1961 Convention are two examples of why the drug control treaty system, including the role played by the INCB, needs to be revised."

For more information on Latin America's trend toward decriminalization, click here

For more information on the INCB Annual Report, click here

Contact Kristel Mucino for further information: kmucino@wola.org

Added on 24 February 2010

Fonte: www.idpc.net


Leia mais!
comments (1)

Feb 25, 2010

Conclusões da Audiênca Pública sobre políticas de drogas na União Europeia


Veja abaixo o relato e as conclusões da audiência pública promovida pela ENCOD e membros do Parlamento Europeu.

Tive o privilégio de presenciar esta importante manifestação da sociedade civil europeia e pude observar, entre outras coisas, que a turma proibicionista está ficando sem argumentos. Um dos pontos que mais me chamou a atenção foi a opinião expressa pelos representantes das organizações que suportam o atual sistema proibicionista. Afirmaram que não acreditam nas estatísticas, que os resultados do relatório (produzido pela RAND e Trimbos a pedido da CE) não podem ser aceitos pois os dados e a neutralidade dos institutos de pesquisa não são confiáveis.

Ahaha! Esta foi boa, né?! Quado as pesquisas começam a mostrar o que já dizemos há tempos, eles passam a não acreditar na ciência. Enfim, preferem acreditar que com a continuidade deste sistema, um dia, nossas crianças estarão definitivamente salvas da "ameaça das drogas". Realmente, tenho que concordar com o novo slogan da ENCOD (apropriado de Einstein): "Loucura é fazer o mesmo de novo e de novo e esperar resultados diferentes".

* * *

Conclusiones de la audiencia pública en políticas de drogas de la Unión europea

23 de febrero de 2010

Parlamento Europeo, Bruselas


Cuarenta representantes de la sociedad civil de 15 países de la Unión Europea acudieron al encuentro

El 23 de febrero de 2010 ha tenido lugar una audiencia pública en el Parlamento Europeo sobre el tema de las políticas de drogas en la Unión Europea.

A través de la invitación del parlamentario griego Michail Tremopoulus y ENCOD (Coalición Europea para Políticas de Drogas justas y eficaces), cuarenta representantes de la sociedad civil de quince países diferentes acudieron al encuentro para formular sus recomendaciones a los miembros del parlamento europeo, la comisión europea y el Consejo, para un futuro acercamiento que la Unión Europea debe realizar en relación a las drogas ilegales.

Al encuentro acudieron representantes de la Unidad sobre Drogas de la Comisión Europea sobre drogas y los parlamentarios Dennis De Jong (Holanda – GUE) y Michail Tremopoulus (Grecia – Los Verdes).

La Audiencia ha tenido lugar dos semanas antes de la reunión anual del Comité sobre Narcóticos de las Naciones Unidas en Viena.

El principal tema en la agenda de la Audiencia Pública fue el [“Informe sobre Mercados de Drogas Ilegales 1998 – 2007”>doc1216] que fue financiado por la Comisión Europea en 2008. Este estudio se llevó a cabo por un grupo de investigación presidido por el profesor Peter Reuter de RAND Corporation (USA) y el señor Franz Trautmann del Instituto Trimbos (Holanda).

El encargo de este informe ha sido posible tras varios años en los que muchas organizaciones de la sociedad civil reclamaron una evaluación independiente del impacto mundial de la prohibición de las drogas. El informe fue presentado por la Unidad de Drogas de la Comisión Europea. Sus conclusiones prueban la falsedad de la teoría de la prohibición de las drogas (enfocada a la reducción de la producción, distribución y el consumo de las drogas controladas).

Carel Edwards (Comisión Europea), Michail Tremopoulos (MEP), Fredrick Polak (ENCOD) y George Oikonomopoulos (Elefsyna, Grecia)

Según el informe los esfuerzos controladores tienen unos efectos mínimos en los mercados globales de las drogas ilegales. Se calcula un gasto anual de 300 billones de dólares americanos. Los controles de la producción han tenido algunos mínimos éxitos locales pero no han afectado al grado de disposición y el tráfico de drogas, en cuyos campos no han tenido ningún éxito.

Los tratamientos de Reducción de Daños tienen un importante impacto en la sociedad actual. Los esfuerzos en prevención están paralizados por la ausencia de programas eficaces que hayan sido suficientemente probados. La Reducción de Daños ha ayudado a una gran cantidad de países pero esta orientada a un problema de drogas. Los esfuerzos realizados estos últimos años, definitivamente han fracasado, causando, sin embargo, daños no impidiendo la distribución a través de los países. Estos problemas son responsables de la muerte y enfermedades y serio deterioro en la vida de millones de personas consumidoras, su entorno y en general la sociedad.

Dennis de Jong (MEP)

En pocas palabras, la conclusión del informe es que las políticas de drogas basadas en la prohibición han provocado un enorme daño y muy poco o nada de bueno. La Unión Europea debería estar muy agradecida de haber conseguido llegar, a través de este informe, a dichas conclusiones. Ahora debería de actuar de acuerdo con esta información. Ignorarlo podría suponer una negligencia criminal.

Así pues la Audiencia Pública reclama a las instituciones de la Unión Europea adoptar las siguientes iniciativas:

1. Organizar tan pronto sea posible una Cumbre Europea sobre el futuro de las políticas de drogas, en la que autoridades nacionales y locales, parlamentarios europeos y representantes de la sociedad civil de los veintisiete Estados Miembros deberían ser invitados. El objetivo de esta Cumbre debería ser explorar este campo para aplicar políticas de drogas innovadoras, no basadas en la prohibición, sino en las lecciones del informe Reuter – Trautmann y en las experiencias de las autoridades locales y las organizaciones de la sociedad civil.

2. Incentivar como prioridad política una recomendación general a los Estados Miembros para revisar sus políticas de drogas. La Unión Europea debería permitir a cada país elegir la política de drogas que considere adecuadas, dentro de un contexto de respeto a los derechos humanos, libertad individual y cohesión social que cause el menor daño colateral.

Bruno Valkeneers (Liaison Antiprohibitioniste, Bruselas)

3. Usar la oportunidad de la próxima reunión de la Comisión de Narcóticos de la ONU en Viena para enfatizar la importancia de la Reducción de Daños y lanzar un debate sobre la revisión de las Convenciones de la ONU para facilitar caminos alternativos para regular los mercados de droga no basados en la prohibición.

4. Explorar vías para incrementar los márgenes de la tolerancia hacia iniciativas adoptadas por ciudadanos de la Unión Europea con la intención de crear circuitos cerrados para la producción y distribución de una cantidad de cannabis que sea necesaria para su consumo personal, como un esfuerzo para reducir los daños y la dependencia de un mercado negro.



Leia mais!
comments (1)

Feb 19, 2010

ENCOD e Parlamento Europeu promovem audiência pública


Abaixo segue a nota de imprensa sobre a audiência que a ENCOD está co-promovendo no Parlamento Europeu no próximo dia 23. Este evento será uma discussão com os parlamentares e com a unidade responsável pela política de drogas da Comissão Europeia.

O assunto principal será o relatório preparado, a pedido da Comissão, por Reuter e Trautman e lançado logo antes da CND do ano passado. As conclusões do relatório caíram como uma bomba, mas o documento foi incapaz de provocar qualquer mudança de atitude dos governantes europeus e da própria Comissão, que até hoje se recusa a discutir o assunto em profundidade.

O debate terá como conclusão uma série de recomendações para a Comissão e para o Parlamento Europeu.

O evento poderá ser acompanhado ao vivo (horário de Bruxelas) pela Internet (links abaixo).

Para maiores informações e para baixar o relatório de Reuter e Trautman, acessem o site da ENCOD - www.encod.org.

"La audiencia pública sobre la política de Drogas que ENCOD organizara el proximo 23 de febrero de 10.00 a 17.00 será transmitido en directo en Internet ern los proximos canales:

GREEN MEDIA->http://greenmediabox.eu/live/

ECOGREENS.TV - LIVESTREAM->http://www.livestream.com/ecogreenstv

ECOGREENS.TV->http://ecogreens.tv

LE NOUVEAU 20 HEURES->http://lenouveau20h.blog-video.tv (en este canal sera posible de mandar preguntas y comentarios que pueden ser tratados por los moderadores de la audiencia..


PRESS RELEASE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON EU DRUG POLICIES ON 23 FEBRUARY 2010

EUROPE KNOWS THAT DRUG PROHIBITION IS A FAILURE – NOW IT SHOULD ACT UPON THAT KNOWLEDGE

On 23 February 2010, a Public Hearing will take place in the European Parliament on the issue of Drug Policy in the European Union. Upon the invitation of Greek MEP Michail Tremopoulos and ENCOD (European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies), approximately 40 representatives of European civil society organisations from 15 different countries will come together to formulate their recommendations to Members of the European Parliament, the European Commission and the European Council on the future approach that the European Union should take regarding criminalised drugs.

The hearing is held two weeks before the annual meeting of the United Nations Committee on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna. According to the organisers of the hearing, the EU representatives should use the opportunity of the CND meeting to start a serious debate on alternative ways to regulate the drugs market that are not based on prohibition.

The main issue on the agenda of the public hearing will be the “Report on Global Illicit Drugs Markets 1998 – 2007” that was financed by the European Commission in 2008. The study was carried out by a team of respected drug researchers chaired by Prof. Peter Reuter of Rand Corporation, USA and Mr. Franz Trautmann of the Trimbos Institute, Netherlands. It came about after many years in which ENCOD and other civil society organisations had called for an independent evaluation of the impact of worldwide drug prohibition.

The report was published on 10 March 2009. Its conclusions proved the rationale of drug prohibition – as a tool to reduce production, distribution and consumption of “controlled” drugs – to be false. According to the report, control efforts have minimal effects on the global illegal drugs market, the annual value of which is estimated at 300 billion US dollars. At the same time prohibition is a major cause of the increase in violence, corruption, environmental and health damage. These problems are responsible for the death, disease and serious deterioration of life standards of millions of people, consumers, their surroundings and society at large.

In short, the conclusion of the report is that drug policy based on prohibition has done enormous harm and little, if any, good. Prohibition is unjust, ineffective and inhumane. The European Union should be congratulated for having provided the research to establish this conclusion. It should now act upon this knowledge. Ignoring it would be equal to criminal negligence.

Therefore the Public Hearing will call upon European Union institutions to discuss alternative ways to control drugs. Drug policy can be humane, just and effective.

WHEN: 23 February 2010, from 10.00 to 16.00

WHERE: European Parliament, Brussels, Room A1E-3

PROGRAMME OF THE HEARING

10.00 - 12.00: Presentation of the Reuter-Trautmann report

Introductory speeches by Mr. Michail Tremopoulos, MEP GREENS/EFA, Mr. Carel Edwards, head of the Drugs Coordination Unit of the European Commission and Mr. Joep Oomen, ENCOD, followed by debate with the floor.

13.00 - 16.00: Roundtable with Members of European Parliament

Chairs: Mrs. Marisa Felicissimo and Mr. Pedro Quesada

Introductory speech: Mr. Frederick Polak, ENCOD

All participants are invited to give their feedback on the conclusions of the Reuter - Trautmann report and present their own input to the discussion on European drug policy. To this roundtable, various Members of European Parliament of the Committee on Civil Liberties will be invited to participate.

16.30 - 17.00: Press conference, presentation of the results of the hearing.

Press Briefing Room Anna Politkovskaya PHS 0 A 50

More information:

Michalis Theodoropoulos (assistant to MEP Michail Tremopoulos) (tel +32 2 - 2847402, +32 2 - 2875402)

Joep Oomen (ENCOD): (tel +32 495 122 644)


Leia mais!
comments (0)

Jan 7, 2010

The unbearable argument for drug legalization

ENCOD BULLETIN ON DRUG POLICIES IN EUROPE

NR 59 JANUARY 2010

THE UNBEARABLE ARGUMENT FOR DRUG LEGALIZATION

RECREATIONAL DRUG USE AS A MORAL RIGH

Marisa Felicissimo

This year more than ever, we have seen a growing support for drug legalization. Important political figures, former presidents and The Economist joined the international drug policy reform movement which has been calling for an end to the decades-long failed war on drugs. Some of them even dare to say that legalization of drugs would do more good than bad to society.

Many arguments have been used by these important figures to convince governments, UN bodies and the general public that the focus of drug policies should shift from criminal justice to a public health approach.

Those arguments that could be categorized as “utilitarian” can expose many reasons why drugs should be legal. Even the most conservative politicians must ultimately surrender to data showing that the current system is not working. Little can be said against the argument that billions have been spent on law enforcement while drugs remain widely available; that millions could be generated through tax revenues and failed state budgets could be saved by simply legalizing marijuana; that tax money could be redirected to finance drug treatment to thousands of addicts; that the decriminalization of drug users would drive them to health care, improve public safety and prevent infectious diseases; that drug prohibition is denying patients access to substances with important medical properties.

Little disagreement can be posed against those economic and health arguments. And it is probably because of those arguments that discussions about drug legalization reach the mainstream of public debate as we see today. It is also not by chance that more conservative advocates choose those arguments to make their point. Whoever uses “utilitarian” arguments is walking on the safe grounds of rationality and evidence while avoiding confrontation with moral values and concepts like liberty, autonomy and the right to choice.

Drug use is incomprehensible to most people, many regard it as unbearable. One can not say categorically that drugs are either good or bad. All will depend on how and by whom they are used. One thing is sure however: people use drugs for reasons. Some use drugs out of curiosity or for religious purposes, others do to relieve physical or emotional pain and others use drugs simply “to feel good, to feel better and to do better”.

No use of drugs is so misunderstood and so hard to accept as the latter, the "recreational use". This form of drug use, intended to promote pleasure, happiness, or euphoria, is by far the most widely practiced, and even well accepted when legal drugs are considered. But when we are talking about recreational use of so called illegal drugs, the tone of the conversation changes.

It is easy to prove that humans have been using drugs for the sole purpose of amusing themselves for centuries and, in doing so, they have not endangered the future of the species or society. Therefore it should not be that difficult to acknowledge that adults have the right to continue using their drug of choice in the privacy of their homes (see "Drug Use and the Rights of the Person), if they are not harming anyone else. So why is this form of drug use often considered illegitimate and therefore neglected as a valuable argument?

Is it because the pursuit of fun is perceived to be so shallow and trivial that many people feel obliged to find some other basis to defend their choice? Is it because many drug users express guilt about their indulgence, and then have the necessity to insist that they use drugs only for "serious" purposes? Or is it because getting “high” has been considered by our society to be sinful and “morally wrong” and the use of drugs goes against the “ideal of human excellence”?

All those popular objections, usually expressed in the strongest possible terms, have been subjecting drug use to moral criticism for decades now. This has made the argument of recreational drug use as a moral right virtually taboo to most drug policy reform advocates.

If it is so difficult to convince others that drugs should be legal because adults have the right to legally obtain drugs for recreational use, why should drug legalization advocates use this argument at all? I can find at least three good reasons. Firstly, those who use drugs recreationnally are unlikely to support a defense that portrays their behavior as responsive to an underlying disease or symptom. Secondly, no empirical evidence can falsify the fact that users sincerely believe that drugs are pleasurable. And thirdly of course, because this is a matter of principle and respect for other people’s choices, states should not rule over decisions people make over their own bodies.

In 2009 I have seen “utilitarian” arguments been used much too often in this debate, but I also have seen many brave people challenging governments and authorities, simply because they believe in the moral right to use drugs. For the coming year I wish to see more! I wish to see more Polaks defying Costas, more Marijuana Marches and protests in front of UN buildings, more Nice People Take Drugs riding on buses, more speeches like the ones from Marcus Day at CND, Craig McClure at IHRA and Ethan Nadelmann and Liese Recke at Reform, more blueprints and creative ideas to regulate markets like the ones from Transform and FAC, more audacious initiatives coming from developing countries and from people who use drugs.

Because it is thanks to their efforts and to the efforts of other thousands of anonymous activists around the world, that the drug legalization debate is gaining each day more space and important allies, making the end of drug prohibition an achievable goal rather then a utopic dream.


Leia mais!
comments (0)

Dec 22, 2009

Crack: mais uma campanha assustadora.

Realmente assustador! Só faltava aparecer aquela cena clássica de Psicose (Hitchcock), só que desta vez com uma pedra de crack esfaqueando o usuário no chuveiro.

Quando veremos campanhas que não usam o medo para tentar afastar as pessoas da droga? Já não provaram que isso não funciona?!

O Coletivo DAR publicou excelente crítica à campanha e a toda essa contraproducente histeria em torno do crack no Brasil. Reconhecemos que o crack é uma droga que causa muitos danos, principalmente aos usuários mais vulneráveis (jovens, pobres, moradores de rua), mas está longe de ser o demônio que pintam.

Uma droga não pode receber a culpa de todas as mazelas da sociedade e temos sempre que lembrar que o crack provavelmente nem existiria se não vivêssemos sob o sistema proibicionista (veja detalhes da história do surgimento do crack no texto do DAR).

Campanhas e ações deveriam ser focadas na redução da vulnerabilidade, da pobreza, do abandono e das inúmeras carências. Deveriam promover a auto-estima, a autonomia o poder de decisão e de resiliência e não o medo. Pois a final, como já dizia o ganhador do Nobel e defensor dos direitos humanos Aung San Suu Kyi: "o medo não é o estado natural de povos civilizados."






Leia mais!
comments (1)


Regulamentação do mercado de drogas

Assistam a mais um excelente vídeo produzido pela HCLU. Desta vez a conversa é sobre regulamentação do mercado de drogas com especialistas presentes na conferência Reform nos EUA.

Não falam especificamente da regulamentação do auto-cultivo, mas este é um assunto que está bombando por todos os cantos.

Recentemente a República Checa regulamentou o cultivo de diversas plantas inclusive alucinógenos e ainda despenalizou o porte de drogas estabelecendo limites precisos na lei. Veja a notícia.

Mais detalhes sobre as opções para regulamentação do mercado de drogas podem ser encontradas no Blueprint lançado pela organização inglesa Transform em novembro. Um resumo está disponível em Português no site, bem como o link para download do livro completo. A Pscicotropicus fará o lançamento oficial do Blueprint no Brasil em evento que está sendo programado para a primeira semana de fevereiro. Enviaremos mais notícias em breve.


Leia mais!
comments (0)


Reform 2009 - Reflections from outside.

From Marisa Felicissimo to Drug Policy Alliance and Open Society Institute on November 30th, 2009.

“Of course, treaties and norms don't restrain the outlaws”, James Traub, once wrote in The New York Times Magazine, referring to Saddam Husseins' invasion of Kuwait. Some time later, on his book “What We Say Goes”, Noam Chomsky wisely rebated Traub's statement saying: “The United Sates is a leading outlaw state, totally unconstrained by international law, and it openly says so”.

I chose to introduce my article with quotes of important players at the international political scene, to show that we don't need to be a professor of linguistics or a famous writer to conclude that the United States is a outlaw state. If we look back and follow the tracks of history, we will find out that the US has been disregarding many United Nations decisions and not signing so many other important conventions, like the ones on Human Rights and the rights of child. So why the US is such a strong follower of the single convention, that established this unfair and harmful drug prohibitionist system, and that has been consistently proven to be a blatant failure?

In his excellent presentation at the 2009 Reform Conference Alex Wodak, Australian psychiatrist, raised some questions on way prohibition has survived despite all odds. He said: “Is it because there is no alternative plan? Or advocacy is poor? Is it because self-motivated interests prevail? Or is it because prohibition is one of the major political Viagras of our time?”. Looking at the drug policy reform movement, at least one answer is clear to me: it is not because of lack of alternatives or poor advocacy.

Once again, during the biannual Reform Conference, Drug Policy Alliance and its partners managed to gather advocates from nearly all US states and dozens of different countries, to prove that activists, scientists, drug users, students, people who hate drugs, people who love drugs, and even religious people and some politicians are all, in their own individual or collective ways, fighting for the same cause: end this irrational war on drugs.

During the extremely busy three days of conference it was possible to see very clearly, that there are many alternatives to substitute prohibition. Good examples are all out there. From the relatively long time successful experiences of the Europeans, Canadians and Australians, with their decriminalization laws, that allows some degree of access to marijuana and sets ground to the expansion of progressive harm reduction practices, like the heroin prescription centers, to the recent experience of US medical marijuana state laws that defying its own federal law, takes the first steps toward the beginning of the end.

It is to us,“from outside the United States” as Ethan Nadelmann described at the opening plenary, and more specifically to us, from Latin America, struggling in our own ways in this war, that ultimately criminalizes poverty, corrupts governments, undermines democracies and kills and incarcerates thousands of young people, it is to us, that any step away from this drug war, that the US takes, is specially important.

Despite of the grown of the drug reform movement in Latin America, which gained important advocates and unprecedented media exposure this year, changes tend to come slowly here and geopolitical reasons are often used as an excuse to not challenge the imported American prohibitionist system. It is in this sense that I strongly believe that, only when the war on drugs ends in the US, favoring the collapse of the global drug prohibition system, that real changes will finally happen in Latin America.

Inspired by those thousands of activists, “the outlaw sate” that more then once, used its power to neglect international conventions, should realize that it is a question of principle, freedom and social justice, to repeal the single convention and once and for all, ends this war on drugs.

At the 2009 Reform conference I could see that the end is near. It was my second time at this conference and it is always an unique experience. A magnificent source of inspiration and an important moment to recharge batteries that no activist in this field should miss. I look forward to meeting you all again and hundreds more in Los Angeles 2011!


Leia mais!
comments (0)

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Subscribe