For many years, Amnesty International has been addressing numerous human rights violations caused by the war on drugs, without truly tackling the core of the problem. This year, the Time for Change report finally directly addressed this issue, rejecting the war on drugs altogether. In the report, Amnesty clearly advocates for the regulation of drug markets. Spuit 11 spoke with Daniel Joloy, who worked on the report.

From the tortures and corruption in Cambodia, to extrajudicial executions in Bangladesh, and to brutal state terror in the Philippines: over the past decades, Amnesty has highlighted many human rights abuses committed in the name of the drug prohibition. Daniel Joloy can speak from experience: ever since soldiers in his home country of Mexico were tasked in late 2006 with violently eradicating drug cartels, 400.000 drug-related murders and 60.000 disappearances have been reported.

It’s the First Time Amnesty Directly Addresses the War on Drugs

Amnesty has conducted research for many years on human rights abuses associated with the war on drugs. We have come to realize that the criminalization of drugs and drug users is at the heart of the problem and is also central to the war on drugs.

Your report talks about regulating drugs in terms of production, distribution, and consumption, but never actually uses the word “legalization.”

Some activists and experts talk about legalization, while others speak of regulation. Legalization means changing laws. What we aim for is a complete regulatory system. When the prohibition on drugs is lifted, the state can take control of the entire chain of drug production, distribution, and consumption. In this way, it’s possible to determine who has access to which drugs and in what manner, depending on factors like the risks associated with each drug, or, for example, the user’s age. We don’t believe that everyone should have unrestricted access to every drug.

According to the report, members of religious minorities should have the right to use drugs to practice their spiritual traditions. But isn’t drug use in itself always a spiritual act and therefore a human right?

Amnesty takes what is settled in international treaties and agreements as its starting point —in this case, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This document states that, among other things, religious minorities should be able to follow their spiritual traditions, even if drug use is part of that. So far, no court or international forum has ruled on the right of non-minority individuals to use drugs for reasons like those you mention. But international law is evolving, partly thanks to the work of activists worldwide, and Amnesty is working to push the boundaries of international law.

Your report refers to a report by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who already took a fairly radical stance on drug regulation in 2023 and called for an end to the war on drugs. What happens with that now?

That was indeed a groundbreaking report, also in its recommendations. We and other organizations present this report to governments and say: the United Nations is telling you that your policy is wrong and needs to change. And now, nearly a year later, you can see how it is starting to influence policy.

Can we now approach our government to push for legalization?

I believe so. The report addresses so many different issues that it can serve as a blueprint for ending the war on drugs. It contains many good recommendations that practically pave the way for reforms.

However, many countries say that changes to drug policy are impossible because of international treaties.

The international drug regime is highly polarized, making it nearly impossible to change the UN drug treaties at this time. But we aren’t calling on states to simply ignore those drug treaties, as that would effectively undermine the entire framework of international law. There are, however, ways within the UN drug treaties, to incorporate new regulatory systems. Decriminalization, for instance, is not in conflict with the UN drug conventions. Around 50 countries have now taken steps in this direction. Portugal is a famous example; over 20 years ago, the nation stopped imprisoning drug users and instead offered them medical and social assistance. Since then, many countries have followed this path—not only in Europe but also, for example, in the United States, where all drugs were decriminalized a few years ago. And some countries have started to regulate certain drugs for human rights reasons. Uruguay is the best example of this, as it regulated the entire cannabis supply chain, from production and distribution to sale. Regulation is therefore possible without the need to withdraw from or alter the UN drug treaties.

Has Amnesty received many responses to the report yet?

Personally, I’m especially glad to see Amnesty welcomed by the global movement of organizations that have long been fighting against the war on drugs. Amnesty took a long time to adopt this position, while organizations like yours have been advocating it for years. So I hope we can continue to contribute to this cause moving forward.

Amnesty International is urging countries to create new models for drug policy that put the protection of people’s health and other human rights at the center. They recommend decriminalizing the use, possession, cultivation, and acquisition of drugs for personal use, as well as the establishment of legal, safe channels for accessing drugs. This approach should be paired with an expansion of healthcare and social services to address drug-related problems. They also call for additional measures to tackle the underlying socio-economic factors that increase drug use risks and lead people to participate in the illegal drug trade, such as poverty, discrimination, unemployment, illness, lack of education, or lack of housing.

Excerpt from: TIME FOR CHANGE: ADVANCING NEW DRUG POLICIES THAT UPHOLD HUMAN RIGHTS, Amnesty International report 2024.

By Geert Battjes and Dennis Lahey