Negotiations at the UN High Level Summit on drugs in Vienna last week fell flat. Although 25 countries officially stated their support for proven methods such as needle exchange and overdose prevention, the summit’s outcome was a watered-down political declaration that fails to acknowledge crucial lessons that have been learned over the last decade.
The refusal to include the words “harm reduction” seems motivated by ideology rather than science, despite clear evidence showing that needle exchange and substitution treatment keep drug users alive and free of deadly infections.
Those who support harm reduction accept that drugs have always been a part of human history and aim to decrease the damage caused by their production and use. A vocal few disagree with this approach, labeling it, in the Vatican’s words, “anti-life.”
Those who strive for the futile goal of a “drug-free world” refuse to recognize the proven benefits of harm reduction. But the evidence against the “war on drugs” is overwhelming: Prisons swelling with non-violent drug offenders, billions of dollars spent on military action to curb production while the availability of illicit drugs increases and prices drop, and increasing HIV rates throughout the former Soviet Union and parts of Asia.
Elsewhere, the stories of futility in the “war on drugs are more brutal: capital punishment for drug-related offenses; extra-judicial killings in the name of creating drug-free societies; drug users sent to labor camps as a form of “treatment”; and drug-using women handcuffed to beds during childbirth. The list goes on.
But there is reason for hope.
Since assuming office, US President Barack Obama has made clear his desire to lift the federal ban on needle exchange in the US. Indeed, while the previous administration of George W. Bush led the global opposition to harm reduction, the US delegation struck a more conciliatory tone at the Vienna summit, indicating what some perceive as a fresh start to drug policy.
Ten years ago, when a “drug-free world” became the global drug-policy mantra, no one imagined that this year, 2 million people in the former Soviet Union and more than 1 million in Asia would be infected with HIV through intravenous drug use. Also missing from Vienna was a discussion about increased numbers of destabilized countries becoming narco-states.
Moreover, there is still an important region where drug use has not contributed significantly to HIV infection rates: Africa. Sadly, when we meet again in 10 years, this will no longer hold true. Even though no African countries voiced their support in Vienna for harm reduction, African leaders should take heed of those countries with pragmatic and humane drug policies.
Instead of signaling a new way forward for international drug policy, the Vienna declaration represents the same, failed politics of the past. Unless that changes quickly, the result will be continued suffering and death for millions of people around the world.
Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch is the director of the Open Society Institute’s Global Drug Policy Program. She coauthored Poland’s first National AIDS program.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS