E

C

ImfPnio(

catsldwrhtic

tctcoj

wtm

miodtjei

petot

0d

International Journal of Drug Policy 23 (2012) 1– 2

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Drug Policy

jo ur n al homep age: www.elsev ier .com/ locate /drugpo

ditorial

age disaggregated data on these phenomena.

hildren and drug law reform

In June 2011 the Global Commission on Drug Policy, of which am proud to be the chair, released its report calling for funda-

ental reforms to drug policies. Together with my colleagues –ormer and serving heads of state including Ruth Dreifuss, Georgeapandreou, Ernesto Zedillo and Cesar Gaviria, prominent busi-ess people and intellectuals, and former high level UN officials

ncluding Kofi Annan – we called for urgent action to stem the tidef drug-related harm, organised crime and drug-related violenceGlobal Commission on Drug Policy, 2011).

Our key recommendations were to end the stigmatisation andriminalisation of drug users who do no harm to others and encour-ge governments to experiment with models of legal regulationo undermine organised crime and safeguard people’s health andecurity. We see them as common sense measures based on our col-ective experiences and scientific evidence documented over manyecades. Many of them are mainstream ideas now, even if theyere not some years ago. They will certainly not be unfamiliar to

eaders of this journal, many of whom conduct the research thatas shown the need for these reforms. They do involve fundamen-al changes to drug policy and law, yet our recommendations aren many cases simple and self-evident, addressing widely sharedoncerns around drugs and drug policy.

I am also clear that there is a lot more to do in developinghe concepts presented by the Commission. This is especially thease when it comes to children and young people, so often athe centre of our fears about drugs and the drug trade, and justifi-ations for whatever responses are adopted by governments. Tooften, rather than acting as a catalyst for debate, these fears andustifications can shut it down.

A new book, ‘Children of the Drug War’ (Barrett, 2011), showshat is at stake for children and young people, while at the same

ime illustrating the dizzying complexity of drug policy and howany areas of public policy are involved.But in only one of our eleven recommendations did the Com-

ission focus explicitly on young people. It related to increasednvestment in targeted prevention measures. While all of our rec-mmendations are relevant to children we did not directly addressrug use among them or children’s involvement in production andrade. Nor did we look specifically at children of drug using parents,uvenile justice standards and many other concerns. Our report cov-rs massive ground, and to try to include issues related to childrennto this report would not do justice to their complexity.

But children, in drug policy as in every other arena of law andolicy, require specific attention. If we believe that the best inter-sts of the child should be a primary consideration in all policies

hat affect them, as enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rightsf the Child (United Nations, 1989, article 3), then children havehe right to be placed front and centre in drug policy discussions.

955-3959/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2011.10.004

Indeed, the Convention itself demands this (United Nations, 1989,article 33).

I am convinced that the recommendations of the GlobalCommission will have significant benefits for children and youngpeople. Let me consider four of the recommendations here verybriefly.

Offering a wide range of evidence based options fortreatment and harm reduction

The fact is that in the world’s most populous nations, we simplydo not have a clear picture of drug use and drug-related harmsamong children and young people. This demands research so thatour collective understanding of the problem is not based on simpleguesswork.

Even where we do have data, our methodologies of collectingthis information may exclude some of those most at risk. Considerhome and school based surveys – useful, uniform and cheap. Butthose not in school and not in the home are not captured. Far greatersupport is needed for those working to understand the situation ofthe most marginalised youth including street children and thosewithout adequate parental care, or those excluded from or withoutaccess to education, because here is where targeted interventionsare required.

There are many taboos in drug policy, prominent among themare children using drugs and the provision of harm reduction ser-vices to them. No matter what we do in terms of drug law reform,young people will continue to experiment with drugs and use them.Providing treatment and harm reduction for those in need will bevery difficult, as will the development of a deeper understandingabout drug use among young people. I urge policy-makers to sup-port researchers and service providers working to meeting thesechallenges.

Adopting better metrics and indicators to measure successand failure

If a primary goal of drug policies is to protect children, thenindicators that can look at success or failure in child protectionand well-being are required. Traditional drug control metrics can-not do this. Certain statistics about patterns of use among youngpeople are valuable, of course, but what about drug-related harmsamong children and young people? Many countries fail to collect

Then, of course, there are supply-side policies and lawenforcement. Consider aerial fumigation of coca, set against theexperiences of the children affected in Colombia, the ongoing

2 nal of

ecctf

miqfor

Ec

ccupoBacirlckt

pptfrm

ntsiIt

Cmd

wpcwesavgtlrs

Editorial / International Jour

xposure of Mexican children to violence, or the inability of somehildren with life limiting illnesses to access opiates for palliativeare due in part to overly restrictive narcotics laws. What about sen-encing primary caregivers of children to lengthy prison sentencesor non-violent drug offences?

The harms of supply-side policies, interdiction and law enforce-ent are clear, and there is an urgent need to mitigate them,

ncluding applying child impact assessments to such measures. Myuestion, and my call to researchers, is which indicators to employor this task and when? I am of the view that the UN Conventionn the Rights of the Child, through its many articles, may provide aoadmap upon which to begin.

xperimenting with legal regulation and control ofurrently illicit drugs

Would legal regulation and control of drugs better protecthildren? I would not support such policies if I did not believe thaturrent approaches have singularly failed in this respect. But I amnder no illusions that there are risks associated with any legal andolicy change. Drug law reform is no different. One of the main aimsf legal regulation is to take drugs out of the hands of criminal gangs.ut into whose hands will they be placed? Our experiences withlcohol and tobacco, I believe, show that we cannot entrust suchommodities to corporations whose interests are in profit max-misation not public health – at least not without a level of Stateegulation with which businesses are not comfortable and wouldobby against. The potential risks posed by corporations controllingurrently illicit markets are particularly cogent in relation to mar-eting and sales to children but also in relation to production andrade (see for example Human Rights Watch, 2010).

But we cannot ignore business either and it is likely that in aost-prohibition world it is business that will have a major role inroduction, trade and sales of currently illicit drugs. If we are to pro-ect children from drugs I believe we need new legal and regulatoryrameworks, perhaps unlike anything before produced. We cannotelinquish drugs to the criminal market, nor to an unregulated freearket.We also need frameworks that can operate in both developed

ations as well as less developed countries where existing regula-ory systems are weak, including child labour, product controls ando on. What we cannot have is the veneer of functioning regulationn rich countries while the children of the poor remain unprotected.

would very much encourage legal scholars and regulatory expertso take on this challenge.

hallenging, rather than reinforcing, commonisconceptions about drug markets, drug use and drug

ependence

In functioning democracies the power is with the people, ande as politicians must have the courage to speak truth to thatower. Unfortunately, we often feel restricted by the politicallyharged nature of drug policy discussions. Getting tough on drugsins votes. One of the reasons for this is because it has been so

asy to portray drug users and drug sellers as different from our-elves or from the mainstream. In times of economic downturn suchs now, scapegoats are in high demand. The easiest cuts are to ser-ices for undesirables, the easiest changes are those that involveetting even tougher. But the differences in question relate not

o drugs, but mainly to other factors. For those of us in privi-eged segments of society, our children have the protection oface and class. Drug use and even drug dealing will not neces-arily expose all young people involved to the criminal justice

Drug Policy 23 (2012) 1– 2

system. Law enforcement does not always operate with an evenhand.

In addition, laws on the books are not enough to protect vul-nerable groups. We know this from Brazil where our strong andlong-standing child rights legislation has not translated into suffi-cient change on the ground for children. One of the reasons for thisis that there remain significant negative views among the publicabout poor and marginalised young people. This has an impact onour drug policies as the same young people are seen not as victimsor as in need of help, but as wilful criminals. The reality is that theybear the brunt of Brazil’s drug-related violence.

The challenge is to create an environment where it is safer toopenly discuss these issues. I believe that environment is slowlybeing developed and has existed in academia for some time. Chil-dren and young people deserve and require specific focus in drugpolicy, and if we as political leaders remain true to one of our cen-tral justifications for drug policies made in so many speeches anddocuments then it is incumbent on us to continually evaluate andalways proceed in the best interests of the child. That may meandifficult political discussions, challenging incorrect attitudes andbreaking taboos. But that is what the Global Commission on DrugPolicy was always intended for.

Let us be clear, though, that merely assuming a better worldfor children after more balanced, humane and efficient drug poli-cies replace the war on drugs is unwise. We must be better atdemonstrating potential benefits with specific attention to chil-dren’s needs and well-being and I believe that needs more work.We must be honest now about the possible risks to children of anypolicy change or initiative so we can foresee those risks, mitigatethem, and no longer be burdened with a legacy of ‘unintended con-sequences’ (UN Office on Drugs and Crime, 2008). It is a commoneuphemism in drug policy, and I no longer want to hear it. Fromwhat we already know, the ongoing and future identified harmsof current drug policies to our children must be considered notas unintended, but a result of negligence, recklessness or simpledisregard.

To protect children from drugs it is to my mind now beyonddebate that drug laws need to be reformed. But we need to workhard to ensure that those reforms do not make the mistakes of thepast. It is not enough to say things would be better, which is oftenwhere the discussion ends. To be sure, demonstrating this shouldbe enough to make the case for moving towards reform but not todesign the post-reform laws and policies.

At the same time, drug law reform alone is not enough tomeet the challenges we face. The recommendations of the GlobalCommission are a foundation, not a ceiling. For our children, weneed to build on them.

References

Barrett, D. (2011). Children of the drug war: Perspectives on the impact of drug poli-cies on young people. Amsterdam/New York: IDEA, iDebate Press. Free online at.http://www.childrenofthedrugwar.org

Global Commission on Drug Policy. (2011, June). Report of the Global Commission onDrug Policy. http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org

Human Rights Watch. (2010, July). Hellish work: Exploitation of migrant tobaccoworkers in Kazakhstan. New York: Human Rights Watch.

United Nations. (1989). UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, G.A. res. 44/25,annex, 44 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 167, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989), enteredinto force September 2, 1990.

UN Office on Drugs and Crime. (2008, March). Making drug control fit for purpose:Building on the UNGASS decade. UN Doc No E/CN.7/2008/CRP.17.

1

Fernando Henrique Cardoso1 Fernando Henrique Cardoso was President of

Brazil from 1995 to 2002. He is chair of the GlobalCommission on Drug Policy.