Civil and Human Rights

(civil rights - rights of drug users) "Certain fundamental principles underpin all aspects of national and international policy. These are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and many international treaties that have followed. Of particular relevance to drug policy are the rights to life, to health, to due process and a fair trial, to be free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, from slavery, and from discrimination. These rights are inalienable, and commitment to them takes precedence over other international agreements, including the drug control conventions. As the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navanethem Pillay, has stated, “Individuals who use drugs do not forfeit their human rights. Too often, drug users suffer discrimination, are forced to accept treatment, marginalized and often harmed by approaches which over-emphasize criminalization and punishment while under-emphasizing harm reduction and respect for human rights.⁵”

(civil rights - civil rights claim) "A civil rights claim arises when an individual or group asserts they have been discriminated against on the basis of their race, sex, religion, age, physical limitation, or previous condition of servitude. Most litigants in civil rights disputes are required to seek administrative remedies involving federal agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), in the case of employment discrimination, or the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), in the case of housing discrimination. Litigants not satisfied with these administrative outcomes can file a civil rights lawsuit in the federal courts to seek monetary or injunctive relief."

(civil rights - consequences of a criminal conviction) "Collateral consequences are those legal, non-criminal penalties that attach to a conviction, but that were not part of the punishment at sentencing. These penalties have been called the “invisible punishment”⁴ because they are civil penalties that do not fall within the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system. Collateral consequences can make an individual with a criminal history ineligible for various types of employment and occupational licenses, rendering a job search nearly futile."

(civil rights - biased law enforcement) "Our criminal laws, while facially neutral, are enforced in a manner that is massively and pervasively biased. The injustices of the criminal justice system threaten to render irrelevant fifty years of hard-fought civil rights progress."

(civil rights - racial disparities) "Black and Hispanic Americans, and other minority groups as well, are victimized by disproportionate targeting and unfair treatment by police and other front-line law enforcement officials; by racially skewed charging and plea bargaining decisions of prosecutors; by discriminatory sentencing practices; and by the failure of judges, elected officials and other criminal justice policy makers to redress the inequities that become more glaring every day."

Civil Rights - Data

(2010 - civil rights - death penalty) "Of the fifty-eight states worldwide that retain the death penalty, about half – thirty-two jurisdictions in all³⁷⁶ – maintain laws that prescribe the death penalty for drug offences. In some states, drug offenders make up a significant portion – if not the outright majority – of those executed each year. In a few countries, Malaysia for example, it would seem that capital punishment is maintained solely to punish drug-related offences.

"The figures collected for the Global Overview 2010 demonstrate that the number of executions worldwide each year for drug offences is at least in the hundreds, and is likely well over a thousand when factoring in estimates from countries such as China, Singapore and Viet Nam, which keep their death penalty data secret."

(2010 - civil rights - laws restricting rights of people with criminal records) "People with criminal records now confront unprecedented employment challenges that are not solely the result of a weak labor market. States, for example, have collectively adopted more than 30,000 laws that significantly restrict access to employment and other basic rights and benefits for people with criminal records, according to an exhaustive analysis² by the American Bar Association."

(2005 - civil rights - traffic stops) "In both 2002 and 2005, white, black, and Hispanic drivers were stopped by police at similar rates, while blacks and Hispanics were more likely than whites to be searched by police. About 5% of all stopped drivers were searched by police during a traffic stop. Police found evidence of criminal wrong-doing (such as drugs, illegal weapons, or other evidence of a possible crime) in 11.6% of searches in 2005."

(2005 - civil rights - racial disparities in use of force) "Of the 43.5 million persons who had contact with police in 2005, an estimated 1.6% had force used or threatened against them during their most recent contact, a rate relatively unchanged from 2002 (1.5%). In both 2002 and 2005, blacks and Hispanics experienced police use of force at higher rates than whites. Of persons who had force used against them in 2005, an estimated 83% felt the force was excessive."

(2005 - civil rights - traffic stop searches) "In both 2002 and 2005, about 5% of stopped drivers were searched by police during the traffic stop. The 5% includes searches of the vehicle only, the driver only, and both the vehicle and the driver.

"In both years, male drivers were more likely than female drivers to be searched by police during a traffic stop.

"In 2005 black (9.5%) and Hispanic (8.8%) motorists stopped by police were searched at higher rates than whites (3.6%). The likelihood of experiencing a search did not change for whites, blacks, or Hispanics from 2002 to 2005."

(2005 - civil rights - traffic stops resulting in arrest) "Police issued tickets to more than half of all stopped drivers and arrested about 2.4% of drivers. Male drivers were 3 times more likely than female drivers to be arrested, and black drivers were twice as likely as white drivers to be arrested."

(2005 - civil rights - police behavior during contact) "Of persons who had contact with the police in 2005, about 9 in 10 felt the officer or officers behaved properly (table 4). Blacks (82.2%) were less likely than whites (91.6%) to feel the police acted properly during a contact. Racial differences in opinion about police behavior were not found across all types of contacts. No differences were found in the percentages of whites and blacks who felt the police behaved properly when helping with a traffic accident or providing assistance, such as giving directions. Blacks were less likely than whites to believe law enforcement acted properly during traffic stops and contacts occurring because police were investigating a crime or suspected the person of wrong-doing."

(2005 - civil rights - use of force disparities) "The differences found among gender, race, and age groups who experienced force in 2005 were consistent with the 2002 PPCS [Police-Public Contact Survey]. Among the persons who had police contact in 2005, females (1.0%) were less likely than males (2.2%) to have had contact with police that resulted in force (table 9). Males accounted for a larger percentage (72.4%) of contacts involving force compared to their percentage of all contacts (53.6%) (table 10).

"Blacks (4.4%) and Hispanics (2.3%) were more likely than whites (1.2%) to experience use of force during contact with police in 2005. Blacks accounted for 1 out of 10 contacts with police but 1 out of 4 contacts where force was used.

"Persons age 16 to 29 (2.8%) who had contact with police were more likely than those over age 29 (1.0%) to have had force used against them. Persons age 16 to 29 made up a smaller percentage of persons who had a police contact (34.5%) compared to the percentage of persons experiencing force during a contact (60.3%). The median age of those experiencing force was 26."

(2005 - civil rights - sexual violence in prison) "Reports of sexual violence varied across systems and sampled facilities, with every State prison system except New Mexico reporting at least one allegation of sexual violence. Among the 347 sampled local jails, 131 (38%) reported an allegation. About 42% of the 36 sampled privately operated prisons and jails reported at least one allegation.

"Combined, the 2005 survey recorded 5,247 allegations of sexual violence. Taking into account weights for sampled facilities, the estimated total number of allegations for the Nation was 6,241. Expressed in terms of rates, there were 2.83 allegations of sexual violence per 1,000 inmates held in 2005, up from 2.43 per 1,000 inmates held in prisons, jails, and other adult correctional facilities in 2004. Prison systems reported 74% of all allegations; local jails, 22%; private prisons and jails, 3%; and other adult facilities, 1%."

(2001 - civil rights - collecting racial data at traffic stops) "As of March 2001, 16 of the 49 State police agencies with patrol duties required officers to collect the race or ethnicity of all drivers involved in a traffic stop (table 1). Thirty-seven State agencies collected the race or ethnicity of motorists when an arrest was made, and 22 agencies did so following a vehicle or occupant search. Ten State police agencies — Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Utah — did not require their State troopers to collect race or ethnicity data."

(2000 - civil rights - sexual violence in prison) "In December 2000, the Prison Journal published a study based on a survey of inmates in seven men's prison facilities in four states. The results showed that 21 percent of the inmates had experienced at least one episode of pressured or forced sexual contact since being incarcerated, and at least 7 percent had been raped in their facility. A 1996 study of the Nebraska prison system produced similar findings, with 22 percent of male inmates reporting that they had been pressured or forced to have sexual contact against their will while incarcerated. Of these, over 50 percent had submitted to forced anal sex at least once. Extrapolating these findings to the national level gives a total of at least 140,000 inmates who have been raped."

(1999 - civil rights - minorities and traffic stops) "... blacks are just 12 percent of the population and 13 percent of the drug users, and despite the fact that traffic stops and similar enforcement yield equal arrest rates for minorities and whites alike, blacks are 38 percent of those arrested for drug offenses and 59 percent of those convicted of drug offenses. Moreover, more frequent stops, and therefore arrests, of minorities will also result in longer average prison terms for minorities because patterns of disproportionate arrests generate more extensive criminal histories for minorities, which in turn influence sentencing outcomes."

(1999 - civil rights - racial disparities in state prison "Our research shows that blacks comprise 62.7 percent and whites 36.7 percent of all drug offenders admitted to state prison, even though federal surveys and other data detailed in this report show clearly that this racial disparity bears scant relation to racial differences in drug offending. There are, for example, five times more white drug users than black. Relative to population, black men are admitted to state prison on drug charges at a rate that is 13.4 times greater than that of white men. In large part because of the extraordinary racial disparities in incarceration for drug offenses, blacks are incarcerated for all offenses at 8.2 times the rate of whites. One in every 20 black men over the age of 18 in the United States is in state or federal prison, compared to one in 180 white men."

(1998 - civil rights - racial disparities in federal prison) "Because of their extraordinary rate of incarceration, one in every 20 black men over the age of 18 is in a state or federal prison, compared to one in every 180 whites." In five states, between one in 13 and one in 14 black men are in prison.

Civil Rights - Voting, Elections and Disenfranchisement

(civil rights - right to vote) "The basic principles for electoral democracy are laid out in international law. Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) declares that “Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:. . .(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors. . .”; Article 2 sets out that this applies “without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” Although international law does not always form part of a nation’s domestic law, it does tend to influence domestic law and be used as a benchmark by which to evaluate these laws."

(civil rights - presidential election voting) "In the 2008 presidential election, 64 percent of voting-age citizens voted, an estimate not statistically different from the percent that turned out in 2004, but higher than the presidential elections of 2000 and 1996.

"Overall, 131 million people voted in 2008, a turnout increase of about 5 million people since 2004. During this same 4-year period, the voting-age citizen population in the United States increased by roughly 9 million people.³"

(civil rights - voting by young people) "Citizens between the ages of 18 to 24 were the only age group to show a statistically significant increase in turnout in the most recent election, reaching 49 percent in 2008, compared with 47 percent in 2004. Citizens between the ages of 45 to 64 saw their voting rates decrease to 69 percent in 2008, down slightly from 70 percent in 2004. Voting rates for citizens aged 25 to 44 and 65 years or older were statistically unchanged between 2004 and 2008.

"This represents the second straight presidential election where young citizens significantly increased their voting rates. Over the last two presidential elections, young citizens have increased their voting rate by a total of 12 percent, compared to 4 percent for 25- to 44-year-olds and 1 percent for 45-to 64-year-olds.⁹"

(civil rights - minority voting) "These voting margins [in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections] become magnified when we consider that minorities comprised a larger part of the voter base in 2008. Two million more blacks voted in 2008 than in 2004, as well as almost 2 million more Hispanics and close to a million more Asians. ... About a half million fewer whites voted in 2008 than in 2004.. So the composition of the voting population shifted more to minorities. ... minority voter representation has increased since 2004 because of an increase in the turnout rates (voters per eligible voters) for Hispanics, blacks and Asians with the 2008 election. ... there were almost 1 in 4 voters who were minorities in 2008."

(civil rights - disenfranchisement) "In the last two presidential races, voters gave almost equal support to Democratic and Republican candidates; in 2004 less than 2.5 percentage points separated President Bush and Senator Kerry and the margin in 2000 between then-Governor Bush and Vice-President Gore was less than half a percentage point. Even more startling, as shown in Table 1, in 2000, the margin between Vice-President Al Gore and Governor George W. Bush was less than 6000 votes in four states. In this contentious political climate voting rights and participation have taken on even greater significance and more Americans are paying attention to how policies affecting offenders in turn affect the electorate. To date, this concern is reflected by the emerging debate over the disfranchisement of felons, an issue that has received much attention from interest groups, media outlets, and politicians. In particular, much of this attention was directed at Florida, a state that permanently disfranchises individuals convicted of felonies."

(civil rights - marijuana vote) The analysis below offers rough estimates of the "marijuana vote." These values reflect the number and percentage of voters in 2008 who would have had a self interest and thus a propensity to cast their ballots based on a candidate positions concerning marijuana. The 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) and the U.S. Census Current Population Reports serve as the basis for these estimates.

According to the Census, approximately 131 million U.S. citizens voted in 2008, or 63.6% of all citizens. Among minority groups, 16 million voters were Black, 12.3% of the total vote. About 8 million Hispanics and 3 million Asians cast their ballots respectively at 7.4% and 2.6% of the 2008 vote.

The youth vote, those age 18-24, had a "statistically significant increase in turnout" in 2008 and numbered 12.5 million, 9.5% of the total vote. Interestingly, the Census reported that 2008 was "the second straight presidential election where young citizens significantly increased their voting rates. Over the last two presidential elections, young citizens have increased their voting rate by a total of 12 percent, compared to 4 percent for 25- to 44-year-olds and 1 percent for 45- to 64-year-olds.⁹ ... Young people between the ages of 18 and 24 made up about 1 million of these additional voters."

The "marijuana vote" comprised about 13 million voters in 2008, with around 7.8 million making up the "medical marijuana vote." Each equaled respective 9.8% and 5.9% totals of the 2008 vote. These counts and percentages find themselves well within the ranges that define minority voting blocs like Hispanics, Asians and youth.

Further, the 18-24 cohort - with the largest increase in turnout - represents one the largest groups of marijuana users, with almost 40% reporting both past year or daily use. About one quarter of 25-34 year-olds claim similar use. Together, these two groups alone cast 3.4% of the total 2008 vote, more than the Asian community.

^{Both the Census and the NSDUH break their estimates down by age ranges to reflect patterns that vary with age. If the percentages of citizens who voted by age were roughly the same as the percentages of marijuana users (citizens according to the NSDUH) who voted by age, then the former percentages can be applied the latter’s estimates of "past year" and "monthly" marijuana users by age to compute the number and percentage of "marijuana voters." Those who consumed marijuana in the last year and especially in the past month are violating federal law. It is unlikely that these individuals would vote against their self interest - vote for a candidate who could potentially have them arrested. Consequently, they would be more likely to support candidates who take a softer stance on marijuana. These voters represent the "marijuana vote." Since voters who use cannabis therapeutically would likely do so on a regular basis, monthly marijuana use could translate into the "medical marijuana vote."}

(civil rights - disenfranchisement) "To grasp how many 'fellow citizens' are unable to vote because of a felony conviction, imagine this: If all of them congregated in a single, geographic area, it would become the nation's second largest city, right behind New York. It would be larger than Los Angeles or Chicago. If those deprived of their suffrage lived in a single state, it would be the country's twenty-sixth most populous - right after Kentucky, right before South Carolina."

(civil rights - disenfranchisement) "There is some evidence indicating that voting behavior and criminal behavior are related. In a longitudinal survey of 1,000 young adults, Uggen and Manza (2004) found that only around 5% of the voters had been arrested or incarcerated compared to the non-voters of whom 16% had been arrested and 12% had been incarcerated. And, among former arrestees, approximately 27% of the non-voters had been rearrested compared to 12% of the voters. Similar patterns emerged when examining self-reported crime such that voters reported significantly less crime than non-voters. Thus, voting appears to be part of a "package of prosocial behavior.'"

(2010 - civil rights - disenfranchisement)
"• An estimated 5.3 million Americans, or one in forty-one adults, have currently or permanently lost their voting rights as a result of a felony conviction.

"• 1.4 million African American men, or 13% of black men, are disenfranchised, a rate seven times the national average.

"• An estimated 676,730 women are currently ineligible to vote as a result of a felony conviction.

"• Given current rates of incarceration, three in ten of the next generation of black men can expect to be disenfranchised at some point in their lifetime. In states that disenfranchise ex-offenders, as many as 40% of black men may permanently lose their right to vote."

(2010 - civil rigths - disenfranchisement) "... more than 5 million citizens will be ineligible to vote in the midterm elections in November [2010], including nearly 4 million who reside in the 35 states that still prohibit some combination of persons on probation, parole, and/or people who have completed their sentence from voting. Racial disparities in the criminal justice system also translate into higher rates of disenfranchisement in communities of color, resulting in one of every eight adult black males being ineligible to vote."

(1997 - 2004 - civil rights - disenfranchisment)
"• Since 1997, 16 states have implemented reforms to their felony disenfranchisement policies

"• These reforms have resulted in the restoration of voting rights to an estimated 621,400 persons

"• By 2004, the total number of people disenfranchised due to a felony conviction had risen to 5.3 million

"• Among those disenfranchised, 74% are currently living in the community

"• In 2004, 1 in 12 African Americans was disenfranchised because of a felony conviction, a rate nearly five times that of non-African Americans

"• Voting is linked with reduced recidivism; one study shows that 27 percent of non-voters were rearrested, compared with 12 percent of voters"

(1996 - civil rights - disenfranchisement) "Thirteen percent of all adult black men -- 1.4 million -- are disenfranchised, representing one-third of the total disenfranchised population and reflecting a rate of disenfranchisement that is seven times the national average. Election voting statistics offer an approximation of the political importance of black disenfranchisement: 1.4 million black men are disenfranchised compared to 4.6 million black men who voted in 1996."

Civil Rights - Research

(civil rights - racial profiling) "In addition to the increase in the number of States that required State law enforcement agencies to collect race and ethnicity statistics during traffic stops, States have recently enacted statutes that prohibit law enforcement officers from engaging in racial profiling (California, Connecticut, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island). these statutes generally defined racial profiling as stopping a person based solely on race or ethnicity instead of an individualized suspicion arising from the person’s behavior."

(civil rights - racial bias of traffic stops) "Under a federal court consent decree, traffic stops by the Maryland State Police on Interstate 95 were monitored. In the two year period from January 1995 to December 1997, 70 percent of the drivers stopped and searched by the police were black, while only 17.5 percent of overall drivers – as well as overall speeders – were black."

(prison - racial disparities) At the start of the 1990s, the U.S. had more Black men (between the ages of 20 and 29) under the control of the nation's criminal justice system than the total number in college. This and other factors have led some scholars to conclude that, "crime control policies are a major contributor to the disruption of the family, the prevalence of single parent families, and children raised without a father in the ghetto, and the 'inability of people to get the jobs still available.'"

(prisons - sexual assault) "It is evident that certain prisoners are targeted for sexual assault the moment they enter a penal facility: their age, looks, sexual orientation, and other characteristics mark them as candidates for abuse. Human Rights Watch's research has revealed a broad range of factors that correlate with increased vulnerability to rape. These include youth, small size, and physical weakness; being white, gay, or a first offender; possessing 'feminine' characteristics such as long hair or a high voice; being unassertive, unaggressive, shy, intellectual, not street-smart, or 'passive'; or having been convicted of a sexual offense against a minor. Prisoners with any one of these characteristics typically face an increased risk of sexual abuse, while prisoners with several overlapping characteristics are much more likely than other inmates to be targeted for abuse. Yet it would be a mistake to think that only a minority of extremely vulnerable individuals face sexual abuse. In the wrong circumstances, it should be emphasized, almost any prisoner may become a victim."

Human Rights - United Nations

(human rights - narcotics control regimes) "In recent years there has been growing attention to the human rights implications of the international narcotics control regime among non-governmental organisations⁶ and UN human rights monitors.⁷ [Special Rapporteurs] Human rights violations documented in the name of drug control in countries across the world include: the execution of hundreds of people annually for drug offences;⁸ the arbitrary detention of hundreds of thousands of people who use (or are accused of using) illicit drugs;⁹ the infliction of torture, or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, in the name of ‘drug treatment’;¹⁰ the extrajudicial killings of people suspected of being drug users or drug traffickers;¹¹ and the denial of potentially life saving health services for people who use drugs.¹²"

(human rights - United Nations drug conventions [treaties]) "The key multilateral drug conventions in force today are the 1961 United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, the 1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and the 1988 United Nations Convention Against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances."

UN Conventions on Drugs.
"The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 was set up as a universal system (replacing the various treaties signed until then) to control the cultivation, production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of narcotic substances, paying special attention to those that are plant-based: opium/heroin, coca/cocaine and cannabis. More than a hundred substances are listed in the four schedules of the convention, placing them under varying degrees of control.

"The Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971, in response to the diversification of drugs of abuse, introduces controls over the licit use of more than a hundred-largely synthetic- psychotropic drugs, like amphetamines, LSD, ecstasy, valium, etcetera, again divided over four schedules. An important purpose of the first two treaties is to codify internationally applicable control measures in order to ensure the availability of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances for medical and scientific purposes, while preventing their diversion into illicit channels. The World Health Organization (WHO) is responsible for the medical and scientific assessment of all psychoactive substances and to advise the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) about their classification into one of the schedules of the 1961 or 1971 treaties.

"In response to the increasing problem of drug abuse and trafficking during the 1970s and 1980s, the Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988 provides for comprehensive measures against drug trafficking. These include provisions against money laundering and the diversion of precursor chemicals, and agreements on mutual legal assistance. The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) is the quasi-judicial control organ for the implementation of all three United Nations drug conventions. The board consists of thirteen members, three elected from a list of candidates nominated by WHO and ten from a list nominated by Governments."

(human rights - United Nations drug control agencies) "The United Nations has four primary agencies that are responsible for the implementation and the execution of the above treaties: the INCB, CND, UNODC, and World Health Organization (WHO).²¹ The first three agencies were all established for the sole purpose of addressing the issues related to international drug trafficking and trading, whereas the WHO’s purpose is to address all global health issues, which include many issues stemming from drug trade and drug use."

1. The United Nations International Narcotic Control Board
"The INCB “is the independent and quasi-judicial monitoring body for the implementation of the United Nations international drug control conventions ... INBC itself has no power to take direct action against drug traders, manufacturers, users, or even indirect action towards countries that may condone certain practices involved in regulating and policing the drug trade.”

2. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs
"As the 'central policy-making body of the [UN] in drug related matters,' the CND focuses primarily on trafficking and circulation of illicit drugs ... the commission assists United Nations Member States to analyze the global drug situation, provide follow-up to the twentieth special session of the General Assembly on the world drug problem, and to take measures at the global level within its scope of action.³⁸ It also monitors the implementation of the three international drug control conventions and is empowered to consider all matters pertaining to the aim of the conventions, including the scheduling of substances to be brought under international control."

3. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
"The UNODC was developed to directly assist Member States in their battles against drug trafficking primarily by implementing the policies drafted by the CND.⁴⁰ The UNODC only addresses illicit drug issues such as crop monitoring, law enforcement, drug rehabilitation, abuse prevention, and assisting drug traffickers with developing new livelihoods.

4. World Health Organization
"The WHO is a large, global organization that has many duties relating to all worldwide health issues.... the WHO’s responsibility is to evaluate substances for their “abuse liability.” ... For a substance to be reviewed, a request must be made by the WHO or by a Party associated with one of the Conventions discussed earlier, to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.⁴⁴ Once a request is processed, and a substance is reviewed, the WHO then notifies the CND with its recommendations on whether the substance should or should not be controlled under the conventions."

(human rights - United Nations - Single Convention drug scheduling system) "The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs was meant to ensure two things: first, to guarantee that there was a supply of natural drugs for medical and scientific purposes, through a system in which countries would estimate their future need for certain substances; and second, to keep these substances out of the hands of drug traffickers. The Convention classifies substances in four lists, which are subject to different levels of control. Substances on List I are subject to all control measures; those on List II have fewer restrictions, especially regarding retail sale; the preparations on List III are subject to limits less restrictive than those for the narcotics they contain; and those on List IV are subject to the same restrictions as List I, plus additional restrictions because of their hazardous qualities.

The Single Convention also raises the possibility — but does not require — that countries could specifically prohibit the cultivation (Article 22) of three plants with psychoactive properties: poppies (Papaver somniferum), from which the morphine alkaloid is extracted to produce heroin; the coca leaf, (Erythroxilum coca), from which the cocaine alkaloid is extracted for subsequent concentration as cocaine sulphate or hydrochloride; and marihuana (Cannabis sativa), which is generally consumed in its natural state. The treaty therefore set up administrative systems aimed at controlling and eradicating these crops and establishing administrative and criminal prohibitions on these activities under a system governed by national bodies."

(human rights - United Nations Human Rights Council) "The special procedures of the Human Rights Council are independent human rights experts with mandates to investigate, report and advise on human rights from a thematic or country-specific perspective. The system of special procedures is a central element of the United Nations human rights machinery and covers all sets of rights: civil, cultural, economic, political, and social."

"At the end of 2009, the OHCHR [Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights] supported 39 special procedures (31 thematic mandates and eight mandates relating to countries or territories) with 55 mandate holders, as well as the system of special procedures, notably its Coordination Committee. These Special Rapporteurs, Independent Experts, Working Groups and (Special) Representatives of the Secretary-General serve in their personal capacities and undertake to uphold independence, efficiency, competence and integrity through probity, impartiality, honesty and good faith. They are not United Nations staff members and do not receive financial remuneration."

(human rights - United Nations - Preamble - Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs)
"Concerned with the health and welfare of mankind,

"Recognizing that the medical use of narcotic drugs continues to be indispensable for the relief of pain and suffering and that adequate provision must be made to ensure the availability of narcotic drugs for such purposes ..."

(human rights - Report of Special Rapporteur - right to health) "The primary goal of the international drug control regime, as set forth in the preamble of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961), is the “health and welfare of mankind”, but the current approach to controlling drug use and possession works against that aim. Widespread implementation of interventions that reduce harms associated with drug use — harm-reduction initiatives — and of decriminalization of certain laws governing drug control would improve the health and welfare of people who use drugs and the general population demonstrably. Moreover, the United Nations entities and Member States should adopt a right to health approach to drug control, encourage system-wide coherence and communication, incorporate the use of indicators and guidelines, and consider developing a new legal framework concerning certain illicit drugs, in order to ensure that the rights of people who use drugs are respected, protected and fulfilled."

(human rights - Report of Special Rapporteur - right to health) "The current international system of drug control has focused on creating a drugfree world, almost exclusively through use of law enforcement policies and criminal sanctions. Mounting evidence, however, suggests this approach has failed, primarily because it does not acknowledge the realities of drug use and dependence. While drugs may have a pernicious effect on individual lives and society, this excessively punitive regime has not achieved its stated public health goals, and has resulted in countless human rights violations."

(human rights - Report of Special Rapporteur - extrajudicial executions) "The failure of States to disclose their criteria for DPH [civilians who “directly participate in hostilities”] as is deeply problematic because it gives no transparency or clarity about what conduct could subject a civilian to killing. It also leaves open the likelihood that States will unilaterally expand their concept of direct participation beyond permissible boundaries. Thus, although the US has not made public its definition of DPH, it is clear that it is more expansive than that set out by the ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross]; in Afghanistan, the US has said that drug traffickers on the “battlefield” who have links to the insurgency may be targeted and killed.¹²⁰ This is not consistent with the traditionally understood concepts under IHL [[international humanitarian law] – drug trafficking is understood as criminal conduct, not an activity that would subject someone to a targeted killing. And generating profits that might be used to fund hostile actions does not constitute DPH."

(human rights - United Nations - rights of indigenous peoples)
Article 24
"1. Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicines and to maintain their health practices, including the conservation of their vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals. Indigenous individuals also have the right to access, without any discrimination, to all social and health services.

"2. Indigenous individuals have an equal right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. States shall take the necessary steps with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of this right."

(human rights - United Nations - rights of indigenous peoples)
Article 31
"1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.

2. In conjunction with indigenous peoples, States shall take effective measures to recognize and protect the exercise of these rights."

(human rights - United Nations - incarceration) "In responding to the problem of drug use, many countries have introduced severe penalties for drug use and related crime, which have resulted in large numbers of people in prisons, compulsory treatment centres, or labour camps without significant long term impact on drug use, drug dependence or drug-related crime in the community and are in contradiction with human rights. At the same time, the long term incarceration of a large number of people who use drugs is expensive. It also results in high risk for the transmission of HIV, hepatitis, and TB, both in closed settings and beyond, that represents a significant public health risk to the community. Many countries are consequently looking for alternatives to incarceration for drug use and related crime."

(human rights - United Nations - Central Principle of Balance) "In 1998, WHO [World Health Organization], in cooperation with its collaborating center at the University of Wisconsin, elaborated the concept of the “Central Principle of Balance” in order to guide the development of national drug regulatory policies pursuant to the Single Convention.⁶⁴ According to WHO, “The Central Principle of Balance” represents the dual imperative of preventing the abuse, trafficking, and diversion of narcotic drugs while, at the same time, ensuring medical availability. As stated by WHO, “When misused, opioids pose a threat to society; a system of control is necessary to prevent abuse, trafficking, and diversion, but the system of control is not intended to diminish the medical usefulness of opioids, nor interfere in their legitimate medical uses and patient care.⁶⁵

"The concept of the Central Principle of Balance should not be limited to national regulatory policies, but should also guide the development and implementation of international drug control policies."

(human rights - United Nations - revisions to the Single Convention) "The Single Convention was presented at the time as a move to clarify and adapt the earlier treaties to the changes which had occurred over the years. Recalling this history should do much to remove the misplaced aura of sacred immutability that currently shrouds the contemporary UN drug control treaty framework. Regimes of all types undergo change during their existence and there is therefore nothing unique about reforming the current drug control regime and the Single Convention upon which it is based.

"Member states should find a way to support Bolivia in reconciling its constitutional and treaty obligations, moving away from a rigid defence of every word of the 50-year old Single Convention, to create a drug control framework that is fit for purpose for the 21st Century. The 50th anniversary of the Single Convention this year in fact is an opportune moment to start considering a revision of some of its out-dated and misplaced provisions."

Editor's Note: "On 29 June 2011, Bolivia presented a formal notification of denunciation⁸ of the Single Convention to the UN General Secretary in New York.⁹ The withdrawal enters into effect on 1 January 2012.¹⁰ Bolivia will then accede to the Convention again with a reservation on the coca leaf and its traditional uses, using the procedure established in Article 50, §3.¹¹."