Advertisement

Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 27–53 | Cite as

Getting High on the Policy Agenda: Europe, the us and the Future of the Global Drug Prohibition Regime

  • David Bewley-Taylor
Article

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Brace Cronin, “The Paradox of Hegemony: America’s Ambiguous Relationship with the United Nations,” European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 7(1), 2001, pp. 103–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cindy S. J. Fazey, “The Commission on Narcotic Drugs and the United Nations Internationai Drug Control Programme: politics, policies and prospect for change,” The International Journal of Drug Policy, Volume 14, Issue 2, April 2003, pp. 155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 2a.
    and Martin Jelsma, “Drugs in the UN system: the unwritten history of the 1998 United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs,” The International Journal of Drug Policy, Volume 14, Issue 2, April 2003, pp. 181–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 3.
    Ethan A. Nadelmann, “Global Prohibition Regimes: The Evolution of Norms in International Society,” International Organization 44(4), 1990, p.503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 4.
    Marcus Roberts, Axel Klein and Mike Trace, Towards a Review of Global Policies on Illegal Drugs, The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme/Drugscope Report One, p. 2.Google Scholar
  6. 5.
    Martin Elvins, Anti-Drugs Policies of the European Union: Transnational Decision-Making and the Politics of Expertise, Palgrave Macmillan, 2003, p. 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 6.
    While not the focus of this article, differences in approach towards supply side policies, notably crop eradication and alternative development, are also increasingly evident. This is particularly the case regarding policies in Latin America and to a certain extent in Afghanistan.Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    Ethan A. Nadelmann, op. cit.Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    David F. Musto, The American Disease, Oxford University Press, 1987, p. 248.Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    H. W. Brands, Wliat America Owes the World; The Struggle for lhe Soul of Foreign Policy, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. vii.Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    Robert O. Keohane, “The Analysis of International Regimes,” in Volker Rittberger (Ed.), Regime Theory and International Relations, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995, p.43.Google Scholar
  12. 11.
    William O. Walker III, “An analytical overview,” in Raphael Perl (Ed), Drugs and Foreign Policy: A Critical Review, (Boulder: Westview Press, 1994), pp. 10–11.Google Scholar
  13. 12.
    The Dutch were perhaps the first to implement the notion of user licenses. The government established an opium monopoly in the late Nineteenth century and began licensing addicts in the late 1910s, a system that only ended in 1944. Robert J. MacCoun and Peter Reuter, Drug War Heresies: Learning from Other Vices, Times and Places, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 13.
    David F. Musto, The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 65.Google Scholar
  15. 14.
    Eva Bertram, Morris Blachman, Kenneth Sharpe, Peter Andreas, Drug War Politics: The Price of Denial, University of California Press, 1996, p.69.Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    David F. Musto, The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control, Oxford University Press, 1999, p 65 & 68.Google Scholar
  17. 15a.
    Also see Arnold S. Trebach, The Heroin Solution, Yale University Press, 1982 pp. 119–170 for a discussion of the Act and the debates surrounding interpretation of the legislation’s original aims.Google Scholar
  18. 16.
    Eva Bertram, Morris Blachman, Kenneth Sharpe, Peter Andreas, Drug War Politics: The Price of Denial, University of California Press, 1996, p.68.Google Scholar
  19. 17.
    Joy Mott and Philip Bean, “The Development of Drug Control in Britain,” in Ross Coomber (Ed), The Control of Drugs and Drug Users: Reason or Reaction?, Harwood Academic Publshers, 1998, pp. 34–5Google Scholar
  20. 18.
    Rolleston Report, Ministry of Health, Departmental Committee on Morphine and Heroin Addiction (London HMSO, 1926), p. 18.Google Scholar
  21. 19.
    D. K. Whynes “Drug Problems and Policies,” in D. K. Whynes and P.T Bean (Eds), Policing and Prescribing: The British System of Drug Control, Macmillan, Basingstoke, 1991 p.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 20.
    Robert J. MacCoun and Peter Reuter, Drug War Heresies: Learning from Other Vices, Times and Places, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 21.
    For UK examples see Joy Mott and Philip Bean, “The Development of Drug Control in Britain,” in Ross Coomber (Ed), The Control of Drugs and Drug Users: Reason or Reaction?, Harwood Academic Publishers, 1998, pp. 38–9Google Scholar
  24. 22.
    The 1924–1925 Geneva Conventions and the 1931 Limitation ConventionGoogle Scholar
  25. 23.
    The 1936 Illicit Trafficking ConventionGoogle Scholar
  26. 24.
    Alan A. Block, “European Drug Traffic and Traffickers between the Wars: The Policy of Suppression and its Consequences,” Journal of Social History, (23) 1989–1990, p. 331.Google Scholar
  27. 25.
    S. K. Chatterjee, Legal Aspects of International Drug Control, Martinus Nijhoff, 1981, p. 201.Google Scholar
  28. 26.
    Mandy Bentham, The Politics of Drug Control, Macmillan Press Ltd, 1998, pp. 119–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 27.
    Mandy Bentham, op. cit., pp. 126-7.Google Scholar
  30. 28.
    Kratochwil F Kratochwil, ‘The Force of prescriptions,’ International Organization Vol, 38 No.4, Autumn 1984, p. 686.Google Scholar
  31. 29.
    Robert W, Gregg, About Face? The United States and The United Nations, Lyme Rienner Publishers, 1993, p. 5.Google Scholar
  32. 30.
    See Phyllis Bennis, Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today’s UN, Olive Branch Press, 2000, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
  33. 31.
    Robert W. Gregg, op. cit., p. 5.Google Scholar
  34. 32.
    See David R. Bewley-Taylor, The United States and International Drug Control, 1909-1997, Continuum, 2001Google Scholar
  35. 32a.
    William B. McAllister, Drug Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century: An International History, Routledge, 2000.Google Scholar
  36. 32b.
    and Kettil Bruun, Lynn Pan and Ingemar Rexed,The Gentleman’s Club: International. Control of Drugs and Alcohol, University of Chicago Press, 1975, pp. 132–148.Google Scholar
  37. 33.
    Judith Goldstein, ‘The political economy of trade; institutions of protection,’ American Political Science Review, 80 (1986), pp. 161–84.Google Scholar
  38. 34.
    See David R. Bewley-Taylor, The United States and International Drug Control, 1909-1997, Continuum 2001, pp. 54–101.Google Scholar
  39. 35.
    See William B. McAllister, Drug Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century; An International History, Routledge, 2000, pp. 156–211.Google Scholar
  40. 36.
    Ibid, p. 183 and David R. Bewley-Taylor, ‘The Cost of Containment: The Cold War and US International Drug Control at the UN, 1950-58,’ Diplomacy and Statecraft, Volume 10. March 1999, Number 1, pp. 147–171.Google Scholar
  41. 37.
    Rufus King, The Drug Hang-Up America’s Fifn—Year Folly, Charles C. Thomas, 1974. pp. 218–219 and UN Conference for the Adoption of a Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Vol. 1, New York UN Publications, 1964, p. 6.Google Scholar
  42. 38.
    While the treaty strengthened the prohibitive nature of the international system, the US position on the Single Convention was greatly complicated by a difference in opinion between the State Department and the head of the American delegation to the CND, Harry J. Anslinger. Anslinger, also head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, supported the early drafts of the Convention only to oppose the final draft due to what he perceived to be shortcomings in the control of opium. See William B. McAllister, op. cit., pp. 204- 218 and David R. Bewley-Taylor, The United States and International Drug Control, 1909-1997, op. cit., pp. 136–164.Google Scholar
  43. 39.
    K. Krajewski, “How flexible are the United Nations drug Conventions?” International Journal of Drug Policy, Volume 10, 1999Google Scholar
  44. 39a.
    N. Dom & A. Jamieson, Room for Manoeuvre; Overview of comparative legal research into national drug laws of France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Sweden and their relation to three international drug conventions. A study of DrugScope, London, 2000, for The Independent Inquiry on the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and B. De Ruyver, G. Vermeulen, T. Vander Beken, F. Vander Laenen, & K. Geenens, Multidisciplinary Drug Policies and the UN Drug Treaties. Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy Ghent University, (IRCP), Maklu, Antwerpen/Apeldoorn, 2002.Google Scholar
  45. 40.
    Harry G. Levine, “The Secret of World-Wide drug Prohibition; The Varieties and uses of drag prohibition in the twentieth and twenty first century,” The Independent Review, December 2002.Google Scholar
  46. 41.
    In fact, all EU states must have signed the treaties in order to join the Union. Tim Boekhout van Solinge, Drugs and Decision Making in the European Union, CEDRO, University of Amsterdam, 2000, p. 110Google Scholar
  47. 42.
    Harry G. Levine, Global Drug Prohibition: its uses and crises. International Journal of Drug Policy, 14(2003), pp. 147–148.Google Scholar
  48. 43.
    Nils Christie & Kettil Bruun, Der Nuetzliche Feind: Die Drogenpolitik and ihre Nutzniesser [The Useful Enemy: Drug Policy and Its Beneficiaries 1, Bielefeld, Germany, AJZ Verlang, 1991 cited in Jurg Gerber & Eric L. Jensen, “The Internationalization of US Policy on Illicit Drug Control,” in Jurg Gerber & Eric L. Jensen (Eds), Drug War American Style: The Internationalization of Failed Policy and Its Alternatives, Garland Publishing, 2001, p 8–9. Also see Martin Elvins, Anti-Drugs Policies of the European Union: Transnational Decision-Making and the Politics of Expertise, Palgrave Macmillan, 2003, for an excellent discussion of the relationship between anti-trafficking policies and the maintenance of state power within the EU.Google Scholar
  49. 44.
    Inis L. Claude, Jr., “Collective Legitimization as a Political Function of the United Nations,” in Frederich Kratochwil and Edward D. Mansfield, International Organization: A Reader, HarperCollins, 1994, p. 196. (First published in International Organization, 20 ( 1966), pp. 267-279Google Scholar
  50. 45.
    UN Conference for the Adoption of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Volume II, New York, UN Publications, 1964, p. 300 and Declaration of the international Conference on Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking and Comprehensive Multidisciplinary Outline on Future Activities in Drug Abuse Control, New York, United Nations, 1988, p. iii and p. 1. The UN has in recent years toned down rhetoric associated with drug control and dropped terms like “evil” and “scourge” from its vocabulary. This appears to be in line with a small deviation from the supply-side mindset so long associated with international control efforts. Nonetheless, even without such emotive phraseology the organization’s image remains important for regime adherence. Also see Robin Room, “The Rhetoric of International Drug Control.” Substance Use and Misuse, 34(12), 1689–1707. 1999.Google Scholar
  51. 46.
    Robert Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, Princeton University Press, 1984, p. 94.Google Scholar
  52. 47.
    See David R. Bewley-Taylor, The United States and International Drug Control, op. cit., pp. 171–174. Also see Peter Andreas who notes that “Open defection from the drug prohibition regime would...have severe consequences: it would place the defecting country in the category of a pariah ‘narcostate,’ generate material repercussions in the form of economic sanctions and aid cut offs, and damage the country’s moral standing in the international community.” “When Policies Collide: Market Reform, Market Prohibition, and the Narcotization of the Mexican Economy,” pp. 127–128, in H. Richard Friman and Peter Andreas (Eds), The Illicit Global Economy and State Power, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 1999.Google Scholar
  53. 48.
    See for example “Amsterdam Fall Out of Love with Coffee Shop as Liberal Stance on Drugs Begins to Crumble” The Independent 5 March 2005.Google Scholar
  54. 49.
    Diane Riley, Drugs and Drug Policy in Canada: A Brief Review and Commentary, November 1998.Google Scholar
  55. 50.
    See Charles D. Kaplan, “The Uneasy Consensus: Prohibitionist and Experimentalist Expectancies behind the International Narcotics Control System,” Tijdschrift Voor Criminlogie, 1984, Volume 26, pp. 99–109.Google Scholar
  56. 51.
    Craig Reinarman, Peter Cohen and Hendrien Kaal, “The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco,” American Journal of Public Health, May 2004, Vol. 94, No. 5, p. 836 Holland’s drug policies are forced to rely on “prosecutorial discretion and the informal development of more liberal practices “Dutch Liberalism Under Pressure,” Druglink 2 (5) September/October 1987, p. 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 52.
    Robert J. MacCoun and Peter Reuter, Drug War Heresies: Learning from Other Vices, Times and Places, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 53.
    Harry G. Levine “Global drug prohibition: its uses and crises,” The International Journal of Drug Policy, April 2003, Volume 14, Issue 2, p. 146.Google Scholar
  59. 54.
    Mike Gray, Drug Crazy: How We Got Into This Mess and How We Can Get Out, Random House, 1998, p. 168Google Scholar
  60. 54a.
    Craig Reinarman, Peter Cohen and Hendrien Kaal, “The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco,” American Journal of Public Health, May 2004, Vol. 94, No. 5Google Scholar
  61. 54b.
    and Robert J. MacCoun and Peter Reuter, Drug War Heresies: Learning from Other Vices, Times and Places, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p 263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 55.
    Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, Drug Policy in the Netherlands: Progress Report September 1997-September 1999, (The Hague: Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, November 1999), pp. 7–8. http://www.drugswarfacts.org/thenethe.pdfGoogle Scholar
  63. 56.
    Mike Gray, Drug Crazv: How We Got Into This Mess and How We Can Get Out, Random House, 1998, p. 166.Google Scholar
  64. 57.
    “Dutch Liberalism under Pressure,” Druglink 2 (5) September/October 1987, p. 5.Google Scholar
  65. 58.
    Drug Abuse and Drug Abuse Education, November-December 1991, p. 112.Google Scholar
  66. 59.
    Correspondence with Lorenz Böllinger, Professor of Criminal Law and Criminology at the Faculty of Law of Breman University, Germany.9 May 2001.Google Scholar
  67. 60.
    To be sure, “although the basic philosophical foundations of Dutch policies have not changed over the years,” we can identify since the early 1980s “an unmistakable shift towards a tougher drug policy in the Netherlands.” “An important reason for this apparent shift” says Ineke Haen Marshall, of the University of Nebraska at Omaha, “is found in strong international pressures to participate in the ‘war on drugs.’ Ineke Haen Marshall, Oscar Anjewierden, Hans van Atteveld, “Toward An ‘Americanization’ of Dutch Drug Policy’,” Justice Quarterly, Vol. 7, No. 2 June 1990, p.392.Google Scholar
  68. 61.
    Friedrich Kratochwil, “The Force of Proscriptions,” International Organization, Volume 38. Number 4. Autumn 1984, p. 706.Google Scholar
  69. 62.
    Kettil Bruun, Lynn Pan and Ingemar Rexed, The Gentlemen’s Club; International Control of Drugs and Alcohol, University of Chicago Press, 1975, p. 142.Google Scholar
  70. 63.
    Robert J. MacCoun and Peter Reuter, Drug War Heresies: Learning from Other Vices, Times and Places, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 64.
    William B. McAllister, Drug Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century: An International History, Routledge, 2000, p. 209.Google Scholar
  72. 65.
    J. Sinha, The History and Development of the Leading International Drug Control Conventions Report prepared for the Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, 2001, p. 25.Google Scholar
  73. 65a.
    William B. McAllister, Drug Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century: An International Histon?, Routledge, 2000, p 226–234Google Scholar
  74. 66.
    Kušević, Vladimir, “Drug Abuse Control and International Treaties,” Journal of Drug Issues, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1977, 47.Google Scholar
  75. 66a.
    Also see Fisher, K, “Trends in Extraterritorial Narcotics Control: Slamming the Stable Door After the Horse Has Bolted,” New York University Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 16 1984, 361 and William B. McAllister, Drug Diplomacy in the Twentieth Century: An International Histon?, Routledge, 2000, 236-7Google Scholar
  76. 67.
    J. Sinha, op. cit., p. 33Google Scholar
  77. 68.
    David P Stewart, Internationalizing the War on Drugs: The UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Denver journal of International Law Policy, 1990, (18) p. 388. Michael Woodiwiss, ‘Transnational Organized Crime: The Global Reach of an American Concept,’ in Adam Edwards and Peter Gill (Eds), Transnational Organised Crime: Perspectives on Global Security, Routledge, p. 19 and Ethan A. Nadelmann, Cops Across Borders: The Internationalization of US Criminal Law Enforcement, The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993, pp. 469-70. It has also been argued that many nations were willing to go along with US wishes in the multilateral arena because they saw it as a way of avoiding unilateral action by the United States. P. Green, Drugs, Trafficking and Criminal Policy, Waterside Press, Winchester, 1998, 36 cited in Neil Boister. Penal aspects of the UN Drug Conventions, Kluwer Law International, 2000, p. 50.Google Scholar
  78. 69.
    Caroline Chatwin, “Drug Policy Developments within the European Union: The Destabilizing Effects of Dutch and Swedish Drug Policies “ British Journal of Criminology, 43, 2003, p. 569.Google Scholar
  79. 70.
    European Governments Soften Line on Cannabis, 9 October, 2000. Craig Francis, CNN.com writer.Google Scholar
  80. 71.
    Peter Ford, “Europe Shifts out of Drug War mode,” The Christian Science Monitor, 12 March 2001.Google Scholar
  81. 72.
    See Mike Trace, Axel Klein & Marcus Roberts, Reclassification of Cannabis in the United Kingdom, Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme: A Drugscope Briefing Paper.Google Scholar
  82. 73.
    Adam J. Smith, “Drug War Retreat: England Moves to Decriminalize Narcotics,” In These Times Magazine, December 7 2001.Google Scholar
  83. 74.
    Daniel Wolfe and Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch, Illicit Drug’ Policies and the global HIV Epidemic: Effects of UN and National Government Approaches, International Harm Reduction Development, (IHRD) Open Society Institute (OSI) New York, 2004, p. 3.Google Scholar
  84. 75.
    Ethan A. Nadelmann, “Commonsense Drug Policy,” Foreign Affairs, Volume 77, Number 1, 1988, p. 115.Google Scholar
  85. 76.
    For a discussion and assessment of these policies see Neil Hunt, Mike Trace and Dave Bewley-Taylor, Reducing Drug Related Harms to Health: An Overview of the global Evidence, Report Four, The Beckley Foundation Drug Policy Programme, March 2005. http://www.internationaldrugpolic.net/reports/reportfourfinalcopy.pdfGoogle Scholar
  86. 77.
    Adam J. Smith, “Drug War Retreat: England Moves to Decriminalize Narcotics.” In These Times Magazine, December 7 2001.Google Scholar
  87. 78.
    Robert J. MacCoun and Peter Reuter, Drug War Heresies: Learning from Other Vices, Times and Places, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 210. Also see Illicit Drug Use in the EU: Legislative Approaches, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2005, p.22.Google Scholar
  88. 79.
    Neil Hunt et al, A Review of the evidence-based for harm reduction approaches to drug use, 2003, Forward Thinking on Drugs, p. 3. (Retrieved from www.forward-thinking-on-drugs.org/review2.html 13/01/04)Google Scholar
  89. 80.
    Riley et al, “Harm Reduction: Concepts and Practice. A Policy Discussion Paper,” Substance Use and Misuse, 34 (1) 1999, p. 21 and pp. 11–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 81.
    Neil Hunt, op. cit., pp 3–4.Google Scholar
  91. 82.
    Betram et al, op. cit., p. 26.Google Scholar
  92. 83.
    U.S. Congress, Press Release, September 18, 1997 “Swiss Experts warn U.S. about dangers of Needle Exchange,” report on U.S. Congress Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs and Criminal Justice.Google Scholar
  93. 84.
    Neil Hunt, op. cit., p. 4.Google Scholar
  94. 85.
    Niall Ferguson, “Three reasons why the US and Europe won’t make up,” The Guardian, 21 February 2005.Google Scholar
  95. 86.
    See David R. Bewley-Taylor, “Challenging the UN drug control conventions: problems and possibilities,” The International Journal of Drug Policy, Volume 14, Issue 2, April 2003, pp. 171–179 and “Harm Reduction and the Global Drug Control Regime: Contemporary Problems and Future Prospects,” Drug and Alcohol Review, Dec 2004, 23 pp.483-189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 87.
    Stephen Krasner, (Ed), International Regimes, Cornell University Press, 1983, p. 5Google Scholar
  97. 88.
    House of Commons Home Affairs Committee’s Report, The Government’s Drugs Policy: Is it Working’, 2002, Paragraph 267, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/318/31813.htmGoogle Scholar
  98. 89.
    Lords Hansard 11-06-2003.Google Scholar
  99. 90.
    Papandreou, G. (2002). Aims and priorities of the Greek EU-presidency, Eleftherotypia, Athens 25 November, (unofficial translation from the Greek newspaper via a third language by Jan G. van der Tas).Google Scholar
  100. 91.
    Drugnet Europe, Bi-Monthly newsletter of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, May-June 2003, p. 5Google Scholar
  101. 92.
    See “Looking Forward: Recommendations for 2003–2007,” in An Agenda for Vienna: Change of Course, Transnational Institute, Drugs and Conflict Debate Papers, March 2003, No. 6. p. 25.Google Scholar
  102. 93.
    Martin Jelsma, Diverging Trends in International Drug Policy Making: The Polarization Between Dogmatic and Pragmatic Approaches, Transnational Institute Drag Policy Paper, September 2002, www.tni.org/drugGoogle Scholar
  103. 94.
    General Secretariat of the European Council, Council of the European Union, EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012), Brussels, 22 November, 2004.Google Scholar
  104. 95.
    EU Drugs Action Plan (2005-2008) (2005/C 168/01), Official Journal of the European Union, 8.7.2005.Google Scholar
  105. 96.
    Raymond Kendall, “Drugs: Lost war. New Battles,” Le Monde, 26 October 2004.Google Scholar
  106. 97.
    See TNI Drug Policy Briefing Number 12, March 2005, The United Nations and Harm Reduction. Available on http://www.lni.org/drugs/Google Scholar
  107. 98.
    Transnational Institute, The United Nations and Harm Reduction - Revisited: An Unauthorized Report on the Outcomes of the 48th CND Session, Drug Policy Briefing, Number 13, April, 2005.Google Scholar
  108. 99.
    It has been noted that what has been called the core triangle of the United Nations Drug Control Programme (UNDCP), theCND andthe? INCB in the main follow a path that contradicts that pursued by the World Health Organization (WHO), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). These bodies atready use the harm/risk reduction concept as a matter of course See “Looking Forward: Recommendations for 2003–2007” op. cit., p. 21.Google Scholar
  109. 100.
    Oran. R. Young, international Cooperation: Building Regimes for Natural Resources and the Environment, Ithaca, New York, 1989 cited by Harald Müller, “The Internationalization of Principles, Norms and Rules by Governments; The Case of Security Regimes,” in Volker Rittberger (Ed.), Regime Theory and International Relations, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995, p. 361.Google Scholar
  110. 101.
    See David R. Bewley-Taylor, “Challenging the UN drug control conventions: problems and possibilities,” The International Journal of Drug Policy, Volume 14, Issue 2, April 2003, pp. 171–179 and “Harm Reduction and the Global Drug Control Regime: Contemporary Problems and Future Prospects,” Drug and Alcohol Review, Dec 2004, 23 pp.483–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 102.
    Polly Toynbee, “In the war on drugs, Europe must make a separate peace,” The Guardian, 3 November, 2004.Google Scholar
  112. 103.
    Adam J. Smith, “Drug War Retreat: England Moves to Decriminalize Narcotics,” In These Times Magazine, December 7 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Taylor & Francis Group 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Bewley-Taylor
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Wales SwanseaUK

Personalised recommendations