At the second congress of INPUD in Warsaw, Fredy (indonesia) and Anan (Nepal) elected as INPUD Board Member from Asia Region. Before Become Board member of INPUD, we contributed as INPUD working group to build the governance infrastructure to allow INPUD to become a legal Not for profit NGO and meet the requirements for International registration.
A group of two volunteers from 6 agreed global regions were invited to participate in the process. The election mechanism is minimum 2 PUD Activist from each regional vote their voice to the regional nominations
Promoting INPUD in Asia is the 1st steps; promotions accomplished by send emails to Asian PUD, mailing list, activist/organisation in several countries in Asia and other PUD activist outside Asia to become potential ally.
Once promoting efforts accomplished, We launched INPUD Asia at The International Conference AIDS of Asia Pacific (ICAAP 8th ) - Colombo (2007 August 22)
INPUD Asia launching held during dinner in Grand Oriental Hotel Restaurant. The dinner attended by Asian PUD from Indonesia, Nepal, India, and Malaysia.
— The results from that meeting were;
Ø INPUD Asia needs Mailing list (Moderators for this mailing list are Anan and Fredy)
Ø The need for INPUD Asia Congress (no funding yet)
INPUD Asia conduct Session: Why User Network Need to be Involve in Advocacy Efforts in ICAAP 8th
IHRD support INPUD Asia to fund;
Ø Scholarships for 3 Asian PUDs to Goa Conference.
Ø Skill Building Session-Overdose in Goa Conference
INPUD Asia also contributes as consultation committee to prepare the 1st Asian Consultation on the prevention HIV related of Drugs in Goa, India.
INPUD Asia invited to The Regional Civil Society Consultation (“Beyond 2008”) that held in Macau (Fredy) and Dhaka (Anan) to review UNGASS on Drugs 1998
At Goa consultation meeting, INPUD member agreed to merge with Pacific region. Currently INPUD Asia known as INPUD Asia Pacific.
INPUD AP created and published a Declaration in Goa Consultation Meeting named Goa Declaration.
INPUD Asia Pacific has several future plans:
— propose to INPUD head office to be regional/branch office,
— INPUD AP Congress
INPUD AP Invited to attend Beyond 2008 meeting in Vienna next July, Fredy will be INPUD representative at that meeting
As an emerging regional network, INPUD Asia Pacific is growing fast. Nowadays INPUD Asia Pacific already had members from several countries in Asia Pacific Region
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Kongres Internasional Pengguna Napza III dan Konferensi Internasional Harm Reduction IXX di Barcelona
Pada tanggal 11 Mei 2008 Kongres Internasional Pengguna Napza III dan Konferensi Internasional Harm Reduction IXX di Barcelona dibuka.
Kongres Internasional Pengguna Napza III
Pembukaan dilakukan oleh kata sambutan dari Anan Pun perwakilan INPUD (Internasional Network of People Who use Drugs). Kemudian dilanjutkan Laporan kegiatan INPUD Asia oleh Fredy, dan keterlibatan INPUD dalam advokasi global oleh Stijn Gossen. Jaringan pengguna napza barcelona juga memberikan kata sambutan pada kogres ini.Dalam kongres ini juga dibahas tentang rencana INPUD untuk membuat kantor regional. Dan saat ini region Asia Pasifik adalah region yang paling siap untuk didirikan kantor regional.Acara kemudian dilajutkan presentasi2 oleh para Aktivis INPUD.
Konferensi Internasional Harm Reduction IXX di Barcelona Hari I
Pembukaan dilakukan pada jam 16.30. Kata sambutan oleh IHRA diwakili oleh Mukta Sharma dan Presiden IHRA Gerry Stimson, Sebelum acara pembukaan ada beberapa satelit meeting yang dilakukan.
Kongres Internasional Pengguna Napza III
Pembukaan dilakukan oleh kata sambutan dari Anan Pun perwakilan INPUD (Internasional Network of People Who use Drugs). Kemudian dilanjutkan Laporan kegiatan INPUD Asia oleh Fredy, dan keterlibatan INPUD dalam advokasi global oleh Stijn Gossen. Jaringan pengguna napza barcelona juga memberikan kata sambutan pada kogres ini.Dalam kongres ini juga dibahas tentang rencana INPUD untuk membuat kantor regional. Dan saat ini region Asia Pasifik adalah region yang paling siap untuk didirikan kantor regional.Acara kemudian dilajutkan presentasi2 oleh para Aktivis INPUD.
Konferensi Internasional Harm Reduction IXX di Barcelona Hari I
Pembukaan dilakukan pada jam 16.30. Kata sambutan oleh IHRA diwakili oleh Mukta Sharma dan Presiden IHRA Gerry Stimson, Sebelum acara pembukaan ada beberapa satelit meeting yang dilakukan.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
The 19th International Harm Reduction Conference
Pada tanggal 15-19 May ini konferensi Harm Reduction yang ke 19 akan diadakan di Barcelona, Spanyol. Tema kali ini adalah " Toward to Global Approach". Kontingen Indonesia kali ini adalah sebagi berikut;
1. Perwakilan KPA (3 orang) : (2 oral presntasi)
2. Fredy (oral presntasi)
3. Yvonne Sibuea (oral presntasi)
4. Rara (oral presntasi)
5. Wulan(Peserta)
6.Denovan (Poster presntasi)
7. Maya (Peserta).
Semoga hasil konferensi ini akan mambuat pelaksanaan HR di negeri kita semakin maju.
1. Perwakilan KPA (3 orang) : (2 oral presntasi)
2. Fredy (oral presntasi)
3. Yvonne Sibuea (oral presntasi)
4. Rara (oral presntasi)
5. Wulan(Peserta)
6.Denovan (Poster presntasi)
7. Maya (Peserta).
Semoga hasil konferensi ini akan mambuat pelaksanaan HR di negeri kita semakin maju.
Why drug user activists need an international network
We are people from around the world who use drugs. We are people who have been marginalized and discriminated against; we have been killed, unnecessarily harmed, jailed, and denied our basic human rights; we have been depicted as evil, dangerous and irresponsible, and treated as disposable. With this declaration, we raise our collective voices as citizens, seeking to establish our human rights and to reclaim the right to be our own spokespersons striving for self-representation and self-empowerment
We seek to:
· enable and empower people worldwide who use drugs currently deemed illegal to survive, thrive and exert their voices as human beings, and by so doing, demand to have meaningful input into all decisions that affect our lives
· promote a better understanding of the experiences of people who use illegal drugs, and particularly of the needlessly destructive impact that current drug policies have, not just upon drug users, but also upon our non-using fellow-citizens. We consider this to be a key element in the development, at local, national, regional and international levels, of equitable social policies.
· use our own skills and knowledge to train and educate others, particularly our peers and any other fellow-citizens concerned with the impact of drugs, and the health of drug users in their communities.
· advocate for universal access to all the tools available to reduce the harm that people who use drugs face in their day-to-day lives, including, i) access to appropriate medical care without stigmatisation, ii) regulated access to the pharmaceutical quality drugs we need, iii) universal availability of safer consumption equipment and paraphernalia, including syringes, needles and pipes as well as, iv) facilities for their safe disposal, v) peer outreach and honest up-to-date information about drugs and their safer use, and vi) safe consumption facilities which are especially important for homeless drug users.
· establish our right to evidence-based and objective information about drugs, and the means to protect ourselves against the potential negative impacts of drug use, not just through universal access to harm reducing paraphernalia, but also through universal access to equitable and comprehensive health and social services, safe, affordable, supportive housing and employment opportunities.
· provide support to established local, national, regional, and international networks of people living with HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis and other harm reduction groups, making sure that active drug users are included at every level of decision-making, and specifically that we are able to serve on the boards (of directors) of such organizations and be fairly reimbursed for our expenses, time and skills.
· challenge the national legislation and international conventions that currently criminalise and stigmatise us preventing most of us from living safe, secure and healthy lives.
Well aware of the potential challenges of building such a network, we strive to:
· value and respect diversity and recognize each other's different backgrounds, knowledge, skills and capabilities, and cultivate a safe and supportive environment within the network regardless of which drugs we use or how we use them
· spread information about our work as widely as possible in order to support and encourage the development of user organizations in communities/countries where no such organizations exist
· promote tolerance, cooperation and collaboration, thus fostering a culture of inclusion and active participation
· build democratic principles and a structure that promotes maximum participation in decision making
· include and involve as broad a group of drug users as possible, with special focus on those who are disproportionately vulnerable to oppression on the basis of their gender identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religion, etc.
· ensure that people are not incarcerated solely for their drug use and that those who are incarcerated have an equal right to healthy and humane conditions and treatment, including drug treatment and access to health-promoting, harm reducing supplies such as syringes and condoms, and medical treatment of a quality that is equal to that which they would receive outside
· challenge the execution and other barbaric forms of punishment meted out to people who use drugs worldwide
Ultimately, the most profound need to establish such a network arises from the fact that historically no group of oppressed people has ever attained liberation without their direct involvement in the struggle against their oppression. Through collective action, we will fight to change existing local, national, regional and international drug laws and formulate an evidence-based drug policy that respects people's human rights and dignity instead of one fuelled by moralism, stereotypes and lies.
The International Network of People Who Use Drugs
30 April 2006, Vancouver Canada
We seek to:
· enable and empower people worldwide who use drugs currently deemed illegal to survive, thrive and exert their voices as human beings, and by so doing, demand to have meaningful input into all decisions that affect our lives
· promote a better understanding of the experiences of people who use illegal drugs, and particularly of the needlessly destructive impact that current drug policies have, not just upon drug users, but also upon our non-using fellow-citizens. We consider this to be a key element in the development, at local, national, regional and international levels, of equitable social policies.
· use our own skills and knowledge to train and educate others, particularly our peers and any other fellow-citizens concerned with the impact of drugs, and the health of drug users in their communities.
· advocate for universal access to all the tools available to reduce the harm that people who use drugs face in their day-to-day lives, including, i) access to appropriate medical care without stigmatisation, ii) regulated access to the pharmaceutical quality drugs we need, iii) universal availability of safer consumption equipment and paraphernalia, including syringes, needles and pipes as well as, iv) facilities for their safe disposal, v) peer outreach and honest up-to-date information about drugs and their safer use, and vi) safe consumption facilities which are especially important for homeless drug users.
· establish our right to evidence-based and objective information about drugs, and the means to protect ourselves against the potential negative impacts of drug use, not just through universal access to harm reducing paraphernalia, but also through universal access to equitable and comprehensive health and social services, safe, affordable, supportive housing and employment opportunities.
· provide support to established local, national, regional, and international networks of people living with HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis and other harm reduction groups, making sure that active drug users are included at every level of decision-making, and specifically that we are able to serve on the boards (of directors) of such organizations and be fairly reimbursed for our expenses, time and skills.
· challenge the national legislation and international conventions that currently criminalise and stigmatise us preventing most of us from living safe, secure and healthy lives.
Well aware of the potential challenges of building such a network, we strive to:
· value and respect diversity and recognize each other's different backgrounds, knowledge, skills and capabilities, and cultivate a safe and supportive environment within the network regardless of which drugs we use or how we use them
· spread information about our work as widely as possible in order to support and encourage the development of user organizations in communities/countries where no such organizations exist
· promote tolerance, cooperation and collaboration, thus fostering a culture of inclusion and active participation
· build democratic principles and a structure that promotes maximum participation in decision making
· include and involve as broad a group of drug users as possible, with special focus on those who are disproportionately vulnerable to oppression on the basis of their gender identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religion, etc.
· ensure that people are not incarcerated solely for their drug use and that those who are incarcerated have an equal right to healthy and humane conditions and treatment, including drug treatment and access to health-promoting, harm reducing supplies such as syringes and condoms, and medical treatment of a quality that is equal to that which they would receive outside
· challenge the execution and other barbaric forms of punishment meted out to people who use drugs worldwide
Ultimately, the most profound need to establish such a network arises from the fact that historically no group of oppressed people has ever attained liberation without their direct involvement in the struggle against their oppression. Through collective action, we will fight to change existing local, national, regional and international drug laws and formulate an evidence-based drug policy that respects people's human rights and dignity instead of one fuelled by moralism, stereotypes and lies.
The International Network of People Who Use Drugs
30 April 2006, Vancouver Canada
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
UNGASS on Drugs Problem1988: “A Failure of Policy”
The United Nations General Assembly Special Session on the World Drug Problem (UNGASS) was held in New York on June 8-10, 1998. It was a disappointing event. No evaluation of current repressive drug policies took place whatsoever. It was devoted to, as a New York Times editorial phrased it, "recycling unrealistic pledges". Originally, Mexico had called to convene an UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on drugs aimed to create a moment of global reflection, ten years after the adoption of the third UN anti-drugs convention, the Vienna Convention of 1988. The Vienna Convention had established stricter obligations to criminalize all aspects of cultivation, production, distribution and possession of illicit drugs in comparison to the previous 1961 and 1971 conventions.
The main objectives of the 1998 UNGASS were to eliminate or significantly reduce the illicit cultivation of coca, cannabis and opium poppy, as well as the illicit manufacture and trafficking of synthetic drugs, and achieve significant and measurable results in the field of drug demand reduction, by the year 2008.
Antonio Maria Costa, referred to “encouraging progress distant goals in respect to” towards still the 2008 targets. While one might have agreed that the goals were still distant, the conclusion that there was encouraging progress could not be substantiated. Cultivation of coca and opium poppy as well as the supply of cocaine and heroin showed fluctuations, but no indications pointed at any sustainable decline. The supply of cannabis and synthetic drugs had even increased. Nonetheless, the goals and targets of the UNGASS were simply re affirmed. The result was a distorted picture of virtual progress.
In 2003 there were some examples of encouraging progress, especially in the field of harm reduction. A reduction in the number of drug-related deaths and a slowing down of the spread of HIV/AIDS and other diseases as well as a better variety of treatment options available were clearly apparent in some parts of the world. However, in spite of the direct contribution in terms of alleviating human suffering, this encouraging progress was considered problematic by the fierce defenders of zero-tolerance. Instead of applauding these positive developments, attacks were made during the Mid-Term Review to condemn harm reduction and to turn the clock back. Even on established successful interventions, such as needle ex change and methadone treatment, no basic agreement could be found.
Consequently, more controversial drug control measures based on harm reduction may be considered in a negative light. As is now well documented, needle ex change, methadone treatment, user rooms, etc. have a scientifically con firmed positive impact in particular on reducing drug-related blood-borne diseases such as HIV/AIDS and hepatitis.
In October 2007 to 2 November 2007, Macau SAR, China "Beyond 2008"
Regional Civil Society Consultation for East and South East Asia and the Pacific was held. The aim of this consultation is to gather NGO ideas and experience for the UNGASS review. This consultation meeting is part of preparation for design UNGASS 2008.
The consultation process for “Beyond 2008” is at two levels. There will be nine regional consultations, which will be held between September 2007 and February 2008, followed by an international consultation in Vienna in July 2008. These nine regions are
Each regional consultation is intended to elicit the experience and ideas of a representative sample of NGOs from that region. The results will be brought to the international consultation in Vienna and will contribute to the documents to be submitted to the CND in 2008 and 2009. The regional consultation is the most important mechanism for gathering qualitative information from a representative sample of NGOs working in a particular region.
Recommendations from East and South East Asia and the Pacific region meeting;
-Integration of human rights
-Evidence driven responses – what works versus what is popular
-Recognition of exceptionality of HIV/AIDS
-Role of civil society in complementing government and UN efforts
-Link UNGASS processes (HIV, drugs, children)
-Meaningful involvement of people who use drugs
We can’t let UNGASS 2008 repeat the same mistake of UNGASS 1998. We as Civil Society and PUD Activists must unify our voice to reform it. IF not we lose our chance for the next 10 years to liberate us from a policy that has been prove failed.
Compile by: Fredy
Reference:
· The UNGASS Evaluation Process evaluated- Tom Blickman and Dave Bewley-Taylor
· Transnational institute-article UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) 1998
· “Beyond 2008” East and South East Asia and the Pacific region-Participant booklet
· NOT SO SILENT PARTNERS NGO Contributions to the 1998 UNGASS targets at the 2008 CND By Pascal Tanguay (AHRN) on behalf of YCAB and IFNGO
Harm Reduction “Sebuah Perjalanan Ruang dan Waktu”
Dari Rotterdam Menuju Warsaw
Kelompok pengguna napza yang pertama di dunia berasal dari negeri Belanda. Kelompok tersebut bernama Junkiebonden. Junkiebonden berdiri pada awal 1970. Junkiebonden berpandangan bahwa kriminalisasi adalah pendekatan yang sama sekali bukan solusi untuk permasalahan Napza.
Fokus dari perjuangan Junkiebonden ialah menentang kebijakan napza yang represif di Belanda pada saat itu, karena kelompok ini muncul jauh sebelum krisis AIDS muncul. Selain Junkiebond di Amsterdam juga ada kelompok pengguna napza yang bernama MDHG, Kelompok ini merupakan kelompok pengguna napza pertama yang mendisribusikan jarum suntik sebagai upaya pencegahan HIV/AIDS pada 1984.
Aktvisme ini terus berkembang di berbagai Negara, misalnya Vancouver Drug User Network (VANDU) berhasil mewujudkan tuntutan mereka kepada Walikota Vancouver agar segera mendirikan “Safe Injecting Room”, Karena setiap hari selalu ada IDU yang meninggal karena AIDS. Perjuangan yang tidak mudah, karena VANDU tidak saja harus berhadapan dengan Dewan kota Vancouver yang konservatif tapi juga warga east hasting (disana terdapat lokalisasi pengguna napza) di Vancouver yang tidak menginginkan Safe Injecting Room di tempat mereka. Bentrok aksi masa terjadi antara warga East Hasting (3000-5000) orang) dan anggota VANDU yang jumlahnya tidak sampai 1000 orang. Akhirnya VANDU berhasil memenangkan pertikaian ini. Walikota Vancouver akhirnya mengeluarkan PERDA Napza yang dikenal “Vancouver 4 Pilar” :
Prevention,
Treatment,
Law Enforcement
Harm Reduction.
Dan “Safe Injecting Room” akhirnya disediakan oleh Pemerintah kota Vancouver.
Pembantaian oleh pemerintah Thailand yang menewaskan hampir 3000 Pengguna Napza Thailand membuat dunia Internasional marah. Sebuah kebijakan yang sangat tidak manusiawi dan melanggar HAM ini akhirnya mendapatkan perlawanan dari para Pengguna Napza di Thailand yang tergabung dalam Thai Drug User Network (TDN). TDN mendapat dukungan dari dunia internasional untuk memaksa pemerintah Thailand menghentikan kebijakan ini. Untuk sementara waktu kebijakan Thai War On Drugs “dihentikan”. Namun sayangnya utusan Thailand dalam Pertemuan Comission Narcotics and Drugs (CND) beberapa waktu lalu memberikan pernyataan bahwa pemerintah Thailand akan kembali menerapkan Thai War on Drugs.
Tahun 2005 pada Konferensi Internasional Harm Reduction (HR) ke 16 di Belfast. Para aktivis Pengguna Napza di Eropa (tergabung dalam forum yag bernama DPFU) dan Aktivis Napza dari Amerika ( tergabung dalam forum yang bernama LARIX) melakukan pertemuan informal untuk membentuk sebuah Jaringan Internasional untuk para pengguna napza. Di kota Belfast inilah embrio International People Who Use Drug (INPUD) mulai jadi wacana.
Sebagai tindak lanjut dari pertemuan di Belfast sebuah Deklarasi akhirnya lahir yaitu “Vancouver Declaration”. Deklarasi ini dipublikasikan di Kongres Internasional Pengguna Napza yang pertama dan Konferensi Internasional HR ke 17 yang diadakan di Vancouver.
Implikasinya membangkitkan kesadaran kritis para aktivis pengguna napza yang hadir pada saat itu. Mereka mendirikan Ikatan Persaudaraan Pengguna Napza Indonesia (IPPNI) yang bertujuan untuk “memanusiakan” pengguna napza di Indonesia.
INPUD resmi “lahir” pada Kongres International Pengguna Napza yang kedua dan Konferensi Internasional HR ke 18 yang diadakan di Warsawa-Polandia.
Dari Liverpool menuju Barcelona
Konferensi Internasional HR diadakan pertama kali di Liverpol Inggris pada 1991. Pada konferensi ini mayoritas dihadiri oleh aktivis grass root. Jumlah peserta saat itu hanya sekitar 250 orang. Ideolgy para aktivis grass root dibalik konferensi tersebut ialah tentang legalisasi walaupun saat itu belum disebutkan secara transparan. Selain itu isu lain yang dibahas ialah mengurangi risiko dan kerugian dari penggunaan Napza secara ilmiah. Dan saat itu isu HR belum menjadi perhatian dunia internasional.
Setelah krisis AIDS meledak pendekatan HR mulai menjadi perhatian dunia internasional, hal ini terasa kental sekali pada saat sesi-sesi (mayoritas tentang intervensi terkait AIDS) yang ada pada Konferensi Internasional HR ke 14 2003 di Chiang Mai Bangkok.
Saat Konferensi Internasional HR ke 17 2006 di Vancouver adalah titik balik yang signifikan yaitu Kembalinya HR pada “fitrahnya”. Sesi-sesi yang ada saat itu mayoritas mengakomodir isu napza secara keseluruhan (bukan hanya isu IDU dan Penanggulangan HIV/AIDS saja).
Dan Konferensi Internasional HR ke 19 di Barcelona nanti sesuai temanya “Menuju Pendekatan Global” , jika dilihat dari jadwal sesi yang sudah diedarkan, sesi-sesi yang ada mayoritas membahas isu napza secara global (semua jenis napza baik yang legal maupun ilegal dan juga tentang isu upaya-upaya Regulasi Napza).
Jika dilihat dari aspek politis maka kontroversi HR adalah arena perseteruan antara mereka yang pro legalisasi dan yang anti legalisasi (prohibitionist). Dan disana terdapat juga pihak tengah yaitu pihak yang pro pada medikalisasi yang menolak total legalisasi dan total pelarangan.
Referensi
Manual User Organizing Training-Flynn
Form Rotterdam to Warsaw- Grant McNally-dipresentasikan pada Kongres Internasional Pengguna Napza di Warsaw 2007-
Film berjudul FIX
TDN/TTAG Press Release 14 February 2008
Final Schedule IHRC 19-Barcelona
THE IDEOLOGIES BEHIND HARM REDUCTION-Peter Cohen
Kelompok pengguna napza yang pertama di dunia berasal dari negeri Belanda. Kelompok tersebut bernama Junkiebonden. Junkiebonden berdiri pada awal 1970. Junkiebonden berpandangan bahwa kriminalisasi adalah pendekatan yang sama sekali bukan solusi untuk permasalahan Napza.
Fokus dari perjuangan Junkiebonden ialah menentang kebijakan napza yang represif di Belanda pada saat itu, karena kelompok ini muncul jauh sebelum krisis AIDS muncul. Selain Junkiebond di Amsterdam juga ada kelompok pengguna napza yang bernama MDHG, Kelompok ini merupakan kelompok pengguna napza pertama yang mendisribusikan jarum suntik sebagai upaya pencegahan HIV/AIDS pada 1984.
Aktvisme ini terus berkembang di berbagai Negara, misalnya Vancouver Drug User Network (VANDU) berhasil mewujudkan tuntutan mereka kepada Walikota Vancouver agar segera mendirikan “Safe Injecting Room”, Karena setiap hari selalu ada IDU yang meninggal karena AIDS. Perjuangan yang tidak mudah, karena VANDU tidak saja harus berhadapan dengan Dewan kota Vancouver yang konservatif tapi juga warga east hasting (disana terdapat lokalisasi pengguna napza) di Vancouver yang tidak menginginkan Safe Injecting Room di tempat mereka. Bentrok aksi masa terjadi antara warga East Hasting (3000-5000) orang) dan anggota VANDU yang jumlahnya tidak sampai 1000 orang. Akhirnya VANDU berhasil memenangkan pertikaian ini. Walikota Vancouver akhirnya mengeluarkan PERDA Napza yang dikenal “Vancouver 4 Pilar” :
Prevention,
Treatment,
Law Enforcement
Harm Reduction.
Dan “Safe Injecting Room” akhirnya disediakan oleh Pemerintah kota Vancouver.
Pembantaian oleh pemerintah Thailand yang menewaskan hampir 3000 Pengguna Napza Thailand membuat dunia Internasional marah. Sebuah kebijakan yang sangat tidak manusiawi dan melanggar HAM ini akhirnya mendapatkan perlawanan dari para Pengguna Napza di Thailand yang tergabung dalam Thai Drug User Network (TDN). TDN mendapat dukungan dari dunia internasional untuk memaksa pemerintah Thailand menghentikan kebijakan ini. Untuk sementara waktu kebijakan Thai War On Drugs “dihentikan”. Namun sayangnya utusan Thailand dalam Pertemuan Comission Narcotics and Drugs (CND) beberapa waktu lalu memberikan pernyataan bahwa pemerintah Thailand akan kembali menerapkan Thai War on Drugs.
Tahun 2005 pada Konferensi Internasional Harm Reduction (HR) ke 16 di Belfast. Para aktivis Pengguna Napza di Eropa (tergabung dalam forum yag bernama DPFU) dan Aktivis Napza dari Amerika ( tergabung dalam forum yang bernama LARIX) melakukan pertemuan informal untuk membentuk sebuah Jaringan Internasional untuk para pengguna napza. Di kota Belfast inilah embrio International People Who Use Drug (INPUD) mulai jadi wacana.
Sebagai tindak lanjut dari pertemuan di Belfast sebuah Deklarasi akhirnya lahir yaitu “Vancouver Declaration”. Deklarasi ini dipublikasikan di Kongres Internasional Pengguna Napza yang pertama dan Konferensi Internasional HR ke 17 yang diadakan di Vancouver.
Implikasinya membangkitkan kesadaran kritis para aktivis pengguna napza yang hadir pada saat itu. Mereka mendirikan Ikatan Persaudaraan Pengguna Napza Indonesia (IPPNI) yang bertujuan untuk “memanusiakan” pengguna napza di Indonesia.
INPUD resmi “lahir” pada Kongres International Pengguna Napza yang kedua dan Konferensi Internasional HR ke 18 yang diadakan di Warsawa-Polandia.
Dari Liverpool menuju Barcelona
Konferensi Internasional HR diadakan pertama kali di Liverpol Inggris pada 1991. Pada konferensi ini mayoritas dihadiri oleh aktivis grass root. Jumlah peserta saat itu hanya sekitar 250 orang. Ideolgy para aktivis grass root dibalik konferensi tersebut ialah tentang legalisasi walaupun saat itu belum disebutkan secara transparan. Selain itu isu lain yang dibahas ialah mengurangi risiko dan kerugian dari penggunaan Napza secara ilmiah. Dan saat itu isu HR belum menjadi perhatian dunia internasional.
Setelah krisis AIDS meledak pendekatan HR mulai menjadi perhatian dunia internasional, hal ini terasa kental sekali pada saat sesi-sesi (mayoritas tentang intervensi terkait AIDS) yang ada pada Konferensi Internasional HR ke 14 2003 di Chiang Mai Bangkok.
Saat Konferensi Internasional HR ke 17 2006 di Vancouver adalah titik balik yang signifikan yaitu Kembalinya HR pada “fitrahnya”. Sesi-sesi yang ada saat itu mayoritas mengakomodir isu napza secara keseluruhan (bukan hanya isu IDU dan Penanggulangan HIV/AIDS saja).
Dan Konferensi Internasional HR ke 19 di Barcelona nanti sesuai temanya “Menuju Pendekatan Global” , jika dilihat dari jadwal sesi yang sudah diedarkan, sesi-sesi yang ada mayoritas membahas isu napza secara global (semua jenis napza baik yang legal maupun ilegal dan juga tentang isu upaya-upaya Regulasi Napza).
Jika dilihat dari aspek politis maka kontroversi HR adalah arena perseteruan antara mereka yang pro legalisasi dan yang anti legalisasi (prohibitionist). Dan disana terdapat juga pihak tengah yaitu pihak yang pro pada medikalisasi yang menolak total legalisasi dan total pelarangan.
Referensi
Manual User Organizing Training-Flynn
Form Rotterdam to Warsaw- Grant McNally-dipresentasikan pada Kongres Internasional Pengguna Napza di Warsaw 2007-
Film berjudul FIX
TDN/TTAG Press Release 14 February 2008
Final Schedule IHRC 19-Barcelona
THE IDEOLOGIES BEHIND HARM REDUCTION-Peter Cohen
Death Penalty for Drug Offenders in Asia Countries
According to Amnesty International, the death penalty has been abolished in law or practice in 133 states. Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the use of capital punishment, while not prohibited, is restricted in several ways. One of the key restrictions is contained in Article 6(2), which states that the penalty of death may only be applied for the ‘most serious crimes’.
However, many retentionist states continue to argue that drug crimes fall under the umbrella of ‘most serious crimes’ and claim that the use of capital punishment for drug offences is justified.
According Article 6(2) of the ICCPR the penaltyof death may only be applied to the ‘most serious crimes’. These include:
‘Most serious crimes’ should be interpreted in the most restrictive and exceptional manner possible.
The death penalty should only be considered in cases where the crime is intentional and results in lethal or extremely grave consequences.
States should repeal
Legislation prescribing capital punishment for economic, non-violent or victimless offences.
Over the past twenty-five years, human rights bodies have interpreted Article 6(2) in a manner that limits the number and types of offences for which execution is allowable under international human rights law.
In 1985, the death penalty for drug offences was in force in twenty-two countries. Ten years later, in 1995, this number had increased to twenty-six. By the end of 2000, at least thirty four states had enacted legislation providing for capital punishment for drug crimes, the majority of these being in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia Pacific regions. In a number of these countries, certain drug offences carry a mandatory sentence of death.
A review of various reports from UN agencies, non-governmental organizations and media outlets shows that in recent year executions for drug offences have been carried out in countries including China, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.
Thailand
“More than 50 journalists, ministers and officials [in Thailand] witnessed the execution in April [2001] of four men convicted of drug offences and one of murder. The men were only given two hours’ notice that they were to die
that day. Suranit Chaugyampin, advisor to the prime minister’s office, was quoted as saying that it was being done for psychological reasons, to let those involved in the drug trade see that the government was serious in their efforts to stamp it out”. (Amnesty International The Death Penalty Worldwide: Developments in 2001 April 2002).
Human Rights Watch (HRW) recently provided unpublished data from the previous government’s investigation into the 2003 war on drugs, which found that 2,819 people were killed in 2,559 murder cases between February and April in 2003. Of those killed, more than half had no relation to drug dealing or had no apparent reason for their deaths.
On 2003 February 1st Brutal campaign had been published. In fact purpose of this campaign is to wipe out methamphetamine trafficking in 3 months. Four Component of this campaign are;
Drug user need treatment
Drug dealer is the main target
Each Province assign to have target of arresting and amount of drugs seize. Senior government officer (Governor, Head of Police Dept, etc) if they can’t achieve the target they will be fired.
Police and other government officers will be rewarded a lot of money for each arrest and % from drugs confiscation.
Government collect information for those who has been suspect engage on drugs trafficking and put it on the list known as “Black List”. Mean while drug dealers must surrender them self and sworn to quit.
Seven weeks later, news from the press state that around 2700 people has been murder. Almost everyone shoot form short distance with gun. Every night government TV, shows scene of people die with their body cover by full of blood.
Indonesia
Based on Indonesia National Narcotic Board -2007 data, there are 72 “Drug Offenders” face Death Penalty. This number means nothing caused drug use in Indonesia keeps increasing.
As we can see from table above, each year % of drugs seized keep increasing. As part of law enforcement Police has implemented a failure Policy. A policy that not solved the problem but
make it even worse. Indonesia Narcotic & Psychotropic Law still doesn’t have specific measurement to differentiate whether a person should be charged as drug user or drug dealer.
Malaysia
Possession of 1kg of opium can bring execution in Malaysia. A 1991 examination of the use of the mandatory death penalty for drugs in Malaysia concluded that ‘The actual data…shows that Malaysia’s solution to the drug problem is not effective’, highlighting that, despite the introduction of the death penalty for drugs in 1975, data on drug use suggest Malaysia ‘has one of the world’s highest per capita populations of drug addicts and users’, a point ‘vehemently denied by the government, but supported by its own official statistics’. The research asks whether the lack of convenient international fight connections through Malaysia may actually have a greater impact than the mandatory death penalty on reducing the level of drug trafficking. More recently, member of the ruling government party in Malaysia stated during a 2005 parliamentary debate on drug policy that ‘the mandatory death sentence…has not been effective in curtailing drug trafficking’. The problem that the official data pose for utilitarian rationales in Malaysia may explain why the government of Singapore ceased regular publication of crime statistics in the 1980s, thereby making its claims of the death penalty’s effectiveness impossible to test. Between July 2004 and July 2005, thirty-six of the fifty-two executions carried out were for drug trafficking. In April 2005, the Internal Security Ministry reported to the Malaysian parliament that 229 people had been executed for drug trafficking over the previous thirty years.
Singapore
Singapore’s narcotics legislation does not prohibit ‘heroin’ but specifies ‘diamorphine’(the pharmaceutical name for prescription-grade heroin) instead. On this basis, the government of Singapore has claimed, in response to criticism, that its law only imposes the death penalty for persons convicted of possessing or trafficking more than 15g of pure heroin, which in its calculations is equivalent to ‘a slab of approximately 750g of street heroin’. If the intention of this statement is to imply that Singapore maintains a higher threshold for death penalty crimes than countries whose laws only proscribe heroin, this claim opens up further regional inconsistencies as, for example, it legislates a threshold fifty times greater than neighboring Malaysia, whose legislation prohibits 15g of ‘heroin’ rather than of ‘diamorphine’.
The government of Singapore, for has defended its use of capital punishment because ‘tough anti-drug laws have worked well in Singapore’s context to deter and punish drug traffickers’ and are ‘necessary legislation to help us keep our country drug-free’. Since 1991, more than 400 people have been executed in Singapore, the majority for drug offences. It has been reported that between 1994 and 1999, 76 per cent of all executions were drug-related. According to media reports, Singapore executed seventeen people for drug crimes in 2000, and twenty-two in 2001.26 in 2004, Amnesty International suggested that Singapore has perhaps the highest per capita execution rate in the world.
Vietnam
The government of Vietnam admitted in a 2003 submission to the UN Human Rights Committee that, ‘over the last years, the death penalty has been mostly given to persons engaged in drug trafficking.’
According to a recent media report, ‘Around 100 people are executed by firing squad in Vietnam each year, mostly for drug-related offences.’ One UN human rights monitor commenting on the situation noted that ‘Concerns have been expressed that at least one third of all publicized death sentences in Vietnam are imposed for drug-related crimes’. In Vietnam, the quantity necessary to constitute a capital crime is double that amount (100g).
China
In recent years, China has used the UN’s International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Drug Trafficking, 26 June, to conduct public executions of drug offenders. In 2001, over fifty people were convicted and publicly executed for drug crimes at mass rallies, at least one of which was broadcast on state television. 28 In 2002, the day was marked by sixty four public executions in rallies across the country, the largest of which took place in the south-western city of Chongqing, where twenty-four people were shot. A UN human rights monitor reported ‘dozens’ of people being executed to mark the day in 2004,30 and Amnesty International recorded fifty-five executions for drug offences over a two-week period running up to 26June 2005. In China, the death penalty may be applied for possession of 50g of heroin and Possession of 1kg of opium can bring execution in China.
IRAN
In Iran, penalties for possession may be calculated cumulatively. For example, a mandatory death sentence is imposed for possession of more than 30g of heroin or 5kg of opium. Under Iranian legislation, this quantity may be based upon the amount seized during a single arrest, or may be added together over a number of cases. Therefore a person with several convictions for possession of smaller quantities may receive a mandatory death sentence if the total amount of drugs seized from all convictions exceeds the proscribed threshold. Iranian narcotics control legislation prescribing the death penalty upon a repeat conviction for ‘intentionally causing another person to be addicted to the drugs’
Saudi Arabia
In 2004, Amnesty International reported that twenty-six of the fifty executions conducted in Saudi Arabia in the previous year were for drug related offences. 19 The following year, in the same country, Amnesty reported that ‘at least’ thirty-three executions were carried out for drug offences.
India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh
The comparing the neighboring states of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, a region described by both a Bangladeshi Minister of Home Affairs and an Indian representative to the UN as a transit route between the two major opium-producing areas of the ‘Golden Triangle’ and the ‘Golden Crescent’. Under Sri Lankan legislation, the death penalty may be applied for trafficking, importing/exporting or possession of only 2g of heroin. Yet a conviction for that same quantity of heroin in Bangladesh, Pakistan or India – where the death penalty is prescribed for possession of 25g, 100g, 103 and 1kg respectively – would not nearly approach the level of a capital offence. The same legislation reveals a similar disparity in the threshold for opium: Pakistan, the most restrictive of these jurisdictions in this regard, prescribes the death penalty for possession of over 200g, a quantity far smaller than in the legislation of Sri Lanka (500g), Bangladesh (2kg) or India (10kg).
Conclusions
· Opium laws in our region are equally inconsistent. While 1kg of opium can bring execution in China, across the border in Laos the quantity is 5kg. In Singapore, a quantity of 800g of opium is a capital offence, whereas in neighboring Malaysia it is 1kg.
· Punitive, prohibitionist policies continue to drive domestic and international approaches to drug use.
· These punitive policies – including capital punishment – are typically rooted in moral rationales that entrench and exacerbate systemic discrimination against people who use drugs. As a result, in high income and low income countries across all regions of the world, people who use illegal drugs are among the most marginalized and stigmatized in.
This reading is summarized/compile by Fredy (IDUSA/INPUD) from;
“The death Penalty for Drug Offences – A Violation of Human Right” by Rick Lines (Senior Policy Advisor at IHRA)
Data from Indonesia National Narcotic Board
TTAG Press Release – February 14, 2008
Thailand Dugs Policy Profesor Pasuk Phongpaichit – Universitas Chulalongkorn, Bangkok-Presented at Senlis International Symposium on Global Drug Policy, Lisbon, Portugal, 2003.
However, many retentionist states continue to argue that drug crimes fall under the umbrella of ‘most serious crimes’ and claim that the use of capital punishment for drug offences is justified.
According Article 6(2) of the ICCPR the penaltyof death may only be applied to the ‘most serious crimes’. These include:
‘Most serious crimes’ should be interpreted in the most restrictive and exceptional manner possible.
The death penalty should only be considered in cases where the crime is intentional and results in lethal or extremely grave consequences.
States should repeal
Legislation prescribing capital punishment for economic, non-violent or victimless offences.
Over the past twenty-five years, human rights bodies have interpreted Article 6(2) in a manner that limits the number and types of offences for which execution is allowable under international human rights law.
In 1985, the death penalty for drug offences was in force in twenty-two countries. Ten years later, in 1995, this number had increased to twenty-six. By the end of 2000, at least thirty four states had enacted legislation providing for capital punishment for drug crimes, the majority of these being in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia Pacific regions. In a number of these countries, certain drug offences carry a mandatory sentence of death.
A review of various reports from UN agencies, non-governmental organizations and media outlets shows that in recent year executions for drug offences have been carried out in countries including China, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.
Thailand
“More than 50 journalists, ministers and officials [in Thailand] witnessed the execution in April [2001] of four men convicted of drug offences and one of murder. The men were only given two hours’ notice that they were to die
that day. Suranit Chaugyampin, advisor to the prime minister’s office, was quoted as saying that it was being done for psychological reasons, to let those involved in the drug trade see that the government was serious in their efforts to stamp it out”. (Amnesty International The Death Penalty Worldwide: Developments in 2001 April 2002).
Human Rights Watch (HRW) recently provided unpublished data from the previous government’s investigation into the 2003 war on drugs, which found that 2,819 people were killed in 2,559 murder cases between February and April in 2003. Of those killed, more than half had no relation to drug dealing or had no apparent reason for their deaths.
On 2003 February 1st Brutal campaign had been published. In fact purpose of this campaign is to wipe out methamphetamine trafficking in 3 months. Four Component of this campaign are;
Drug user need treatment
Drug dealer is the main target
Each Province assign to have target of arresting and amount of drugs seize. Senior government officer (Governor, Head of Police Dept, etc) if they can’t achieve the target they will be fired.
Police and other government officers will be rewarded a lot of money for each arrest and % from drugs confiscation.
Government collect information for those who has been suspect engage on drugs trafficking and put it on the list known as “Black List”. Mean while drug dealers must surrender them self and sworn to quit.
Seven weeks later, news from the press state that around 2700 people has been murder. Almost everyone shoot form short distance with gun. Every night government TV, shows scene of people die with their body cover by full of blood.
Indonesia
Based on Indonesia National Narcotic Board -2007 data, there are 72 “Drug Offenders” face Death Penalty. This number means nothing caused drug use in Indonesia keeps increasing.
As we can see from table above, each year % of drugs seized keep increasing. As part of law enforcement Police has implemented a failure Policy. A policy that not solved the problem but
make it even worse. Indonesia Narcotic & Psychotropic Law still doesn’t have specific measurement to differentiate whether a person should be charged as drug user or drug dealer.
Malaysia
Possession of 1kg of opium can bring execution in Malaysia. A 1991 examination of the use of the mandatory death penalty for drugs in Malaysia concluded that ‘The actual data…shows that Malaysia’s solution to the drug problem is not effective’, highlighting that, despite the introduction of the death penalty for drugs in 1975, data on drug use suggest Malaysia ‘has one of the world’s highest per capita populations of drug addicts and users’, a point ‘vehemently denied by the government, but supported by its own official statistics’. The research asks whether the lack of convenient international fight connections through Malaysia may actually have a greater impact than the mandatory death penalty on reducing the level of drug trafficking. More recently, member of the ruling government party in Malaysia stated during a 2005 parliamentary debate on drug policy that ‘the mandatory death sentence…has not been effective in curtailing drug trafficking’. The problem that the official data pose for utilitarian rationales in Malaysia may explain why the government of Singapore ceased regular publication of crime statistics in the 1980s, thereby making its claims of the death penalty’s effectiveness impossible to test. Between July 2004 and July 2005, thirty-six of the fifty-two executions carried out were for drug trafficking. In April 2005, the Internal Security Ministry reported to the Malaysian parliament that 229 people had been executed for drug trafficking over the previous thirty years.
Singapore
Singapore’s narcotics legislation does not prohibit ‘heroin’ but specifies ‘diamorphine’(the pharmaceutical name for prescription-grade heroin) instead. On this basis, the government of Singapore has claimed, in response to criticism, that its law only imposes the death penalty for persons convicted of possessing or trafficking more than 15g of pure heroin, which in its calculations is equivalent to ‘a slab of approximately 750g of street heroin’. If the intention of this statement is to imply that Singapore maintains a higher threshold for death penalty crimes than countries whose laws only proscribe heroin, this claim opens up further regional inconsistencies as, for example, it legislates a threshold fifty times greater than neighboring Malaysia, whose legislation prohibits 15g of ‘heroin’ rather than of ‘diamorphine’.
The government of Singapore, for has defended its use of capital punishment because ‘tough anti-drug laws have worked well in Singapore’s context to deter and punish drug traffickers’ and are ‘necessary legislation to help us keep our country drug-free’. Since 1991, more than 400 people have been executed in Singapore, the majority for drug offences. It has been reported that between 1994 and 1999, 76 per cent of all executions were drug-related. According to media reports, Singapore executed seventeen people for drug crimes in 2000, and twenty-two in 2001.26 in 2004, Amnesty International suggested that Singapore has perhaps the highest per capita execution rate in the world.
Vietnam
The government of Vietnam admitted in a 2003 submission to the UN Human Rights Committee that, ‘over the last years, the death penalty has been mostly given to persons engaged in drug trafficking.’
According to a recent media report, ‘Around 100 people are executed by firing squad in Vietnam each year, mostly for drug-related offences.’ One UN human rights monitor commenting on the situation noted that ‘Concerns have been expressed that at least one third of all publicized death sentences in Vietnam are imposed for drug-related crimes’. In Vietnam, the quantity necessary to constitute a capital crime is double that amount (100g).
China
In recent years, China has used the UN’s International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Drug Trafficking, 26 June, to conduct public executions of drug offenders. In 2001, over fifty people were convicted and publicly executed for drug crimes at mass rallies, at least one of which was broadcast on state television. 28 In 2002, the day was marked by sixty four public executions in rallies across the country, the largest of which took place in the south-western city of Chongqing, where twenty-four people were shot. A UN human rights monitor reported ‘dozens’ of people being executed to mark the day in 2004,30 and Amnesty International recorded fifty-five executions for drug offences over a two-week period running up to 26June 2005. In China, the death penalty may be applied for possession of 50g of heroin and Possession of 1kg of opium can bring execution in China.
IRAN
In Iran, penalties for possession may be calculated cumulatively. For example, a mandatory death sentence is imposed for possession of more than 30g of heroin or 5kg of opium. Under Iranian legislation, this quantity may be based upon the amount seized during a single arrest, or may be added together over a number of cases. Therefore a person with several convictions for possession of smaller quantities may receive a mandatory death sentence if the total amount of drugs seized from all convictions exceeds the proscribed threshold. Iranian narcotics control legislation prescribing the death penalty upon a repeat conviction for ‘intentionally causing another person to be addicted to the drugs’
Saudi Arabia
In 2004, Amnesty International reported that twenty-six of the fifty executions conducted in Saudi Arabia in the previous year were for drug related offences. 19 The following year, in the same country, Amnesty reported that ‘at least’ thirty-three executions were carried out for drug offences.
India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh
The comparing the neighboring states of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, a region described by both a Bangladeshi Minister of Home Affairs and an Indian representative to the UN as a transit route between the two major opium-producing areas of the ‘Golden Triangle’ and the ‘Golden Crescent’. Under Sri Lankan legislation, the death penalty may be applied for trafficking, importing/exporting or possession of only 2g of heroin. Yet a conviction for that same quantity of heroin in Bangladesh, Pakistan or India – where the death penalty is prescribed for possession of 25g, 100g, 103 and 1kg respectively – would not nearly approach the level of a capital offence. The same legislation reveals a similar disparity in the threshold for opium: Pakistan, the most restrictive of these jurisdictions in this regard, prescribes the death penalty for possession of over 200g, a quantity far smaller than in the legislation of Sri Lanka (500g), Bangladesh (2kg) or India (10kg).
Conclusions
· Opium laws in our region are equally inconsistent. While 1kg of opium can bring execution in China, across the border in Laos the quantity is 5kg. In Singapore, a quantity of 800g of opium is a capital offence, whereas in neighboring Malaysia it is 1kg.
· Punitive, prohibitionist policies continue to drive domestic and international approaches to drug use.
· These punitive policies – including capital punishment – are typically rooted in moral rationales that entrench and exacerbate systemic discrimination against people who use drugs. As a result, in high income and low income countries across all regions of the world, people who use illegal drugs are among the most marginalized and stigmatized in.
This reading is summarized/compile by Fredy (IDUSA/INPUD) from;
“The death Penalty for Drug Offences – A Violation of Human Right” by Rick Lines (Senior Policy Advisor at IHRA)
Data from Indonesia National Narcotic Board
TTAG Press Release – February 14, 2008
Thailand Dugs Policy Profesor Pasuk Phongpaichit – Universitas Chulalongkorn, Bangkok-Presented at Senlis International Symposium on Global Drug Policy, Lisbon, Portugal, 2003.
Fight against Discrimination
People Who Use Drugs (PUD) is a survivor from the “WAR”. The war called War on Drug. The war killed billion of our peers in all round the world. Dehumanization among PUD is caused by the global drugs policy.
To fight against discrimination we must conducted:
• Cultural Approach
We trained PUD, community, Lawyers, Reporters with critical education method.
• Structural Approach
Lobby/hearing session with law enforcement/legislative parliamentary and mass Action.
• Policy Content Reform
Propose Legal drafting for Indonesia Narcotic laws
Five Stages of Empowerment for Advocacy:
• Welfare : PUD can achieve they basic needs
• Access : PUD have the courage to access health and social services
• Critical Education : Trainings, public debate
• Participation : Critical consciousness to participate in advocacy efforts
• Control: Keep an eye on the results of our advocacy effort.
Discrimination among PUD caused by public opinion that influenced by drug policy.
To deal with it ideally drug policy should be:
• Based on evidence of effectiveness
• Based on reality and adapt to change circumstances
• Mainly a public health issue
• Seek to reduce drug related harm
To fight against discrimination we must conducted:
• Cultural Approach
We trained PUD, community, Lawyers, Reporters with critical education method.
• Structural Approach
Lobby/hearing session with law enforcement/legislative parliamentary and mass Action.
• Policy Content Reform
Propose Legal drafting for Indonesia Narcotic laws
Five Stages of Empowerment for Advocacy:
• Welfare : PUD can achieve they basic needs
• Access : PUD have the courage to access health and social services
• Critical Education : Trainings, public debate
• Participation : Critical consciousness to participate in advocacy efforts
• Control: Keep an eye on the results of our advocacy effort.
Discrimination among PUD caused by public opinion that influenced by drug policy.
To deal with it ideally drug policy should be:
• Based on evidence of effectiveness
• Based on reality and adapt to change circumstances
• Mainly a public health issue
• Seek to reduce drug related harm
Prohibition never ever Works!!!!
I used to believe that I’m a survivor from drugs abuse, know I realize actually I a survivor from the “WAR”. The war called War on drug. The war killed billion of my brothers and sisters in all round the world. And the name of this survivor is Fredy
In the 20th century, the United States led a major renewed surge in drug prohibition called the "War on Drugs." The Aim of drug policy is to maximize well being and minimize health and social harm related to drug use and misuse. But in reality drug use has raised faster, increase social and health problem under prohibition at any time in human history.
War on drug is war on health, in Asia the spread of HIV/AIDS among IDU’s is very fast. Prohibition oppressed people who use drugs in all aspect. We people who use drugs demand to remove all the harm created by prohibition (stop war on drugs). Even all drugs are potentially dangerous and all drugs use is intrinsically risky, the key questions are why prohibition must to stop?
1. Prohibition is not a policy based on evidence of effectiveness
2. A Policy should be based on reality and adapt to change circumstances
3. A drug policy is primarily a public health issue
4. Policy should seek to reduce drug related harm
A simple economic analysis can usefully demonstrate why absolute prohibition never works. Simply put where high demand exists along side prohibition, a criminal opportunity is inevitable created. Attempts to interrupts criminal drugs production and supply are doomed as the effects (if successful-which very rarely are) will be rising the prices; this then markets more attractive for new producer and seller to enter-which they always do no mattes how many dealer and smuggling networks we “smash” , the void is always filled by the queue of willing replacements, hungry from extra ordinary profits prohibition offered them
Does prohibition work? Let see these examples:
Success story : Myanmar heroin produce has fallen this year
Global situation : At the same time Afghanistan heroin produce has rapidly increase
So Prohibition is the same like the “balloon effect”, if we squeezed one side of the balloon at the same time the other side would be bigger.
Global drug prohibition is clearly a costly disaster. The United nation has estimated the value of the global market in illicit drugs market at $400 billion (6 % global trade). The extraordinary profits available for people willing to assume enrich criminals, terrorist, and corruption. By bringing out the market for drug out into open, legalization would radically change all that for better. Legalization is the best approach. By legalization would strip addiction down to what reality is: Health issue. Legalization would not open the flood gates to huge increases in drug abuse, caused we already leave in a world in which psychoactive drugs of all sorts are readily available. For people too poor to buy drugs resorts to sniffing gasoline, glue and other industrial products, which can be more harmful than any drugs. With legalization the legal market will fall into hand into powerful alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical companies. Still, Legalization is a far more pragmatic option than living with the corruption, violence, and organized crime of the current system.
In the 20th century, the United States led a major renewed surge in drug prohibition called the "War on Drugs." The Aim of drug policy is to maximize well being and minimize health and social harm related to drug use and misuse. But in reality drug use has raised faster, increase social and health problem under prohibition at any time in human history.
War on drug is war on health, in Asia the spread of HIV/AIDS among IDU’s is very fast. Prohibition oppressed people who use drugs in all aspect. We people who use drugs demand to remove all the harm created by prohibition (stop war on drugs). Even all drugs are potentially dangerous and all drugs use is intrinsically risky, the key questions are why prohibition must to stop?
1. Prohibition is not a policy based on evidence of effectiveness
2. A Policy should be based on reality and adapt to change circumstances
3. A drug policy is primarily a public health issue
4. Policy should seek to reduce drug related harm
A simple economic analysis can usefully demonstrate why absolute prohibition never works. Simply put where high demand exists along side prohibition, a criminal opportunity is inevitable created. Attempts to interrupts criminal drugs production and supply are doomed as the effects (if successful-which very rarely are) will be rising the prices; this then markets more attractive for new producer and seller to enter-which they always do no mattes how many dealer and smuggling networks we “smash” , the void is always filled by the queue of willing replacements, hungry from extra ordinary profits prohibition offered them
Does prohibition work? Let see these examples:
Success story : Myanmar heroin produce has fallen this year
Global situation : At the same time Afghanistan heroin produce has rapidly increase
So Prohibition is the same like the “balloon effect”, if we squeezed one side of the balloon at the same time the other side would be bigger.
Global drug prohibition is clearly a costly disaster. The United nation has estimated the value of the global market in illicit drugs market at $400 billion (6 % global trade). The extraordinary profits available for people willing to assume enrich criminals, terrorist, and corruption. By bringing out the market for drug out into open, legalization would radically change all that for better. Legalization is the best approach. By legalization would strip addiction down to what reality is: Health issue. Legalization would not open the flood gates to huge increases in drug abuse, caused we already leave in a world in which psychoactive drugs of all sorts are readily available. For people too poor to buy drugs resorts to sniffing gasoline, glue and other industrial products, which can be more harmful than any drugs. With legalization the legal market will fall into hand into powerful alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical companies. Still, Legalization is a far more pragmatic option than living with the corruption, violence, and organized crime of the current system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
