The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency announced in late April 2024 that it plans to ease federal restrictions on cannabis, reclassifying it from a Schedule I drug to the less restricted Schedule III, which includes drugs such as Tylenol with codeine, testosterone and other anabolic steroids. This historic shift signals an acknowledgment of the promising medicinal value of cannabis.

The move comes in tandem with growing interest in the use of psilocybin, the active component in magic mushrooms, for treatment of depression, chronic pain and other conditions. In 2018 and 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted a breakthrough therapy designation to psilocybin, meant to expedite drug development given that preliminary studies suggest it may have substantial therapeutic value over currently available therapies for treatment-resistant depression and major depressive disorder.

Both of these developments represent a dramatic change from long-standing federal policy around these substances that has historically criminalized their use and blocked or delayed research efforts into their therapeutic potential.

How cannabis and psilocybin might help some of the 50 million Americans who are experiencing chronic pain

Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin may mean well in attempting to re-list cannabis as a narcotic, but his aim only attests to his mediocre knowledge about the plant and the dilemma facing the country. 

Cannabis was decriminalised in 2022 by the Prayut Chan-o-cha administration. The liberalisation of the plant was the flagship election policy of Bhumjaithai, a coalition party, ahead of the 2019 polls.

Thailand has come far regarding its cannabis policy, and there is no point in reversing it. Mr Srettha should keep the right focus and, instead of over-reacting, recognise the main problem of cannabis in this country: its unregulated usage.


Mr Srettha should keep his promise of listening to all sides, and not rush to recriminalise the plant, but instead support laws that will control its usage.


Thailand: Control weed, don't kill it

Politicians and much of the media have been lying and whipping up a moral panic. And now, decriminalization in British Columbia is all but dead. In this episode, Garth talks with Crackdown senior producer Sam Fenn and VANDU organizer Hannah Dempsey to bring you the straight goods on why drugs have been re-criminalized and what the grim implications of this move are.

Recriminalization - Episode 45 - Crackdown Podcast

A newly formed Harm Reduction Coalition Aotearoa (HRCA) from New Zealand launched with an initial action of sending an open letter to the Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, signed by national and international organisations as well as drug policy specialists calling for the legal regulation of all drugs. Launching on International Harm Reduction Day (7 May), HRCA was established to end harmful prohibitionist drug policies that are maintained through the nation’s Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, and replace it with “fit-for-purpose” drug laws that are grounded in evidence, harm reduction and human rights.

New coalition calls for drug legalisation in Aotearoa/New Zealand

Decriminalisation is based on the argument that the war on drugs has failed - that arresting people with severe addiction and seizing their drugs could increase their likelihood of overdose by forcing them to find other drugs that may be lethal. A criminal record may also bar them from finding a stable job, reducing the chance of recovery.

"I got thrown in jail for nine months for a half a gram of cocaine," said Guy Felicella, a Vancouver-based advocate for drug harm reduction and recovery, who recovered from drug addiction after overdosing six times in 2013.

Decriminalisation, he said, would have helped reduce his fear of being legally punished - a fear that forced him and others to use in private, out of view from someone who could call for help if they overdosed.

Portugal, where drugs were decriminalised in 2001, has drug death rates 

that are significantly lower than other countries.,

Its success inspired efforts in both BC and in the US state of Oregon, which decriminalised drugs in 2020.

But in all three places, the policy has faced pushback, and in Oregon, lawmakers voted in March to reverse it altogether after it was blamed for a rise in public disorder and drug use.

In BC, which has a history of harm reduction advocacy, the government's push to revise its decriminalisation policy was challenged in court over concerns it would lead to an "increased risk of overdose fatality".

For Mayor West, the courts are "out of touch with where the public is".

"This focus on 'irreparable harm' to a certain group ignores the harm that occurs to others by allowing rampant public drug use," he said.

But these sentiments have been countered by supporters of decriminalisation, like the province's outgoing chief coroner, who has said there is no evidence that suggests the general public is at risk from public drug use.

In Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, a historic neighbourhood that has long grappled with social issues like poverty and drug use, advocates have accused politicians of sowing "moral panic".

"Scapegoating and vilifying people who use drugs has [historically] been a real good vote-getter," said Garth Mullins, a member of the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users.

Success or failure? Canada's drug decriminalisation test faces scrutiny

Decriminalization is the removal of criminal sanctions for the use or possession of drugs. Specifically, B.C. allows the possession of up to 2.5 grams in total of any of the following drugs: opioids (heroin, morphine, fentanyl); crack and powder cocaine; methamphetamine; and MDMA (ecstasy). Oregon allowed drug users to possess up to one gram of certain drugs such as heroin, cocaine or meth, or up to 40 oxycodone pills. And they could still be fined $100.

That’s it. That’s all. It’s not a free-for-all.

Decriminalization of drugs does not mean drug users are exempt from all other bylaws and laws. They have rights, but they have responsibilities too, like other citizens.

Decriminalization doesn’t mean people can sell, buy and use drugs openly wherever and whenever they please. Firing up a crack pipe in a park, playground or a bus is not okay.

The law doesn’t mean drug users can camp on city streets, in parks, in merchants’ doorways or any place they choose. Drug users can’t defecate or urinate openly, or shoplift with impunity.

Decriminalization doesn’t mean we turn a blind eye to people being assaulted or threatened.

The crime and public disorder that has become all too common on city streets is unacceptable, and the public is right to be angry and demand action.

But recriminalising drug use and possession is not going to make any of those challenges disappear.

Drug decriminalisation is not to blame for all of our social woes

ISLAMABAD: Speakers at a conference organised by the Justice Project of Pakistan urged the government to introduce a drug policy that focuses on harm reduction, education, and medication to prevent deaths due to overdose and incentivise rehabilitation for substance use disorders.

Speaking at a plenary session ‘Effective Health and Harm Reduction Responses to Drug Use’, Syed Zulfiqar Hussain, a narcotics policy campaigner, said there were almost 6.7 million drug users in Pakistan and the country did not have an effective “harm reduction treatment” policy. In Lahore alone, there were over 7,000 homeless drug users with as many as 120 “hotspots”.

“There is no specialised treatment centre for women with drug dependence in Pakistan. People who use drugs deserve dignity, respect, and stigma-free care,” said Mr Hussain.

Amir Munir, additional district and sessions judge, said there was a need to develop a consensus regarding drug policy, particularly its legal aspect which treated substance users as pariahs.

Pakistan: Drug policy needs to focus on ‘harm reduction’ for effective response

MANILA - Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr said on April 15 he would not hand his predecessor Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is investigating his deadly drug war.

Thousands of people have been killed in an anti-narcotics campaign started by former president Duterte in 2016 and continued under Mr Marcos.

Asked on April 15 if he would hand Mr Duterte – who has accused him of being a drug addict and criticised his policies – to the ICC if it issued a warrant for his arrest, Mr Marcos said no.

“We don’t recognise the warrant that they will send to us. That’s a no,” he said at a forum with the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines.

“We are well within international law when we take the position of not recognising the jurisdiction of the ICC in the Philippines,” Mr Marcos said.

Mr Duterte withdrew the Philippines from the ICC in 2019 after the Hague-based tribunal started probing allegations of human rights abuses committed during his drug war.

The ICC launched a formal inquiry into Mr Duterte’s crackdown in September 2021, only to suspend it two months later after Manila said it was re-examining several hundred cases of drug operations that led to deaths at the hands of police, hitmen and vigilantes.

Philippines: Marcos says he will not hand Duterte to ICC over drug war

Mr Wilson Box, director of an organisation that seeks to alleviate drug abuse Zimbabwe, Civil Liberties and Drug Network (ZCLDN), advocates for harm reduction for drug and injecting users. His mantra is “Support, Don’t Punish”.

His organisation is a member of the Southern Africa Drug Policy and Harm Reduction Network.

“In harm reduction, we are looking at public policies, programmes and interventions. Programming entails compassion, fighting stigma and drug use education.

“It involves drug users’ communities being at the centre, with stakeholders helping in alleviating the scourge.

“In harm reduction, you don’t have to force anyone to stop using drugs, but to educate them. Highlighting the risks and dangers is pivotal to the success of harm reduction. Criminalisation drives drug users into hiding.

“Principles applied should encourage a user to come forward. Very few drug users are coming out.


“The punishing requires softening and reforming policies and laws to be non-criminalising. The users fear being arrested, and policy reform is needed urgently. As organisations working in harm reduction, we don’t judge, we don’t use coercion, we don’t stigmatise and discriminate, and we don’t use force anyone to stop using drugs. Rather, we educate by giving the benefits. We put justice and human rights as pillars in harm reduction.

“The access to anti-retroviral therapy, (ART) is important if we are to end AIDS. Access is one of the co pillars of harm reduction. The WHO approves 12 interventions, access to ART services, sexual reproductive health and rights (SRHR), agonistic therapy, sexual transmitted infections (STI) testing services, treatment, care and support, education, among many important others.

“Nurses and peer-led outreach programmes are important to harm reduction. Overdose management is effective, too. Harm reduction has proved effective in lessening the negative impacts of drug misuse. It’s high time we assist those using and injecting drugs in a compassionate manner,” he added.

Mr Box emphasised the unity of purpose being a cog in the wheel.

Drug users come from families and communities. Therefore, everyone should come on board.

“Everyone, families, the teachers, churches, community leaders and everyone influential needs to be aware of this important intervention. Our current policy, where drug users are arrested, will result in them hiding and continuing underground. It’s a no win-win for everyone if we continue on that route,” said Mr Box.

Harm reduction is a strategy meant to raise awareness.

With the internal organs being the most ravished if harm reduction is not drummed up, we stand to lose a sizeable number of our youths to substance and drug misuse.

Zimbabwe: Harm reduction strategy key in curbing liver damage from drug, substance use

 of settler colonialism by Canada, while their prohibition and attached criminalization have been used to 

Collective prohibitionist policies are key to the interlocking social relations of colonial control and capitalism under Canada. The carceral apparatus, which includes courts, prisons and provincial-level 

 systems, is largely powered by drug war-related charges, either through direct drug-related events, or the indirect violence generated by an unregulated drug market.

, Canada is overseeing a crisis of mass death due to the unregulated drug market now producing a contaminated and unpredictable supply in response to a century of shifting forms of 

 by drug opioid and stimulant drug poisonings between January 2016 and September 2023 in Canada (and 

 people died in the province of British Columbia alone from April 2016 to January 2024).

In Palestine, restrictions on substances have been employed as a tool of war by the settler state of Israel.


Undoing colonial carcerality everywhere: Palestine & the global drug war

Use of deadly nitazines is on the rise in Australia and a suite of measures is needed to prevent more fatalities, former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark says.

Health experts are warning of the looming threat of strong synthetic opioids called nitazenes among Australian drug users, as former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark said there was an urgent need for a second safe-injecting room in 

Referring to the long-mooted facility, Clark, who is the chair of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, said: “The bottom line is that people that are using drugs need to be safe.

“And that’s why a centre is so important … I hope it will go ahead. The first one is clearly 

Speaking at the World Health Summit regional meeting, Clark said there was a need for drug decriminalisation, public drug-testing facilities and safe-injecting sites to get ahead of what was described as the imminent threat posed by synthetic opioids, which are already 

causing an epidemic of drug fatalities in North America

 which is also a powerful synthetic opioid.

Australia: Experts warn of influx of synthetic opioids amid calls for second Melbourne injecting room

The recent backlash against the decriminalisation of drug use is a worrying sign of decision-makers’ short-sightedness. We, as a society, need to reconnect with marginalised people and not re-criminalise them.

Just four years after voters in Oregon approved Measure 110, a law that effectively decriminalised the use of illicit substances, legislators decided to change the law and re-criminalise drug use (

watch our interview with Theishia Naidoo, legal expert of the Drug Policy Alliance

). Furthermore, just one year after the Canadian province of British Columbia launched a 3-year experiment of decriminalising drug use, its government announced a few days ago that it will ban drug use in public spaces again.

In its 

, called decriminalisation “a qiuet revolution”, with a growing number of countries introducing various de facto and de jure alternatives to the criminalisation of drug use. Unfortunately, we cannot take the continuation of this trend for granted. We are now dangerously close to the point when re-criminalisation becomes a new trend, making the public see decriminalisation as a “failed experiment”. This will have a very harmful impact not only in the West but also in other parts of the world, where the proponents of much more repressive policies can use the “they tried it and it did not work” argument against reformers.

Decriminalisation has always been the result of decades-long advocacy efforts by professionals and activists, using arguments informed by both scientific evidence and lived experience. However, the arguments in favour of re-criminalisation are frustratingly shallow. The same old arguments for the war on drugs, which have never been backed up by evidence, are being reloaded and refurbished.

Proponents of re-criminalisation argue that, without a certain “nudge” from the criminal justice system, people who struggle with drug dependence will not be able to access treatment. However, if you look at research evidence on this issue, you will realise that coercion is not effective in boosting access to drug treatment. Furthermore, criminalisation leads to stigma, which is one of the most significant barriers to accessing services among people who use drugs. Police intervention may make people hide their drug use, but claiming that arrests are the only way to get people into treatment is nonsense. 

, the exact opposite is true: “criminalisation results in significant barriers to access to health services.”

Opponents of decriminalisation also argue that decriminalisation has not been successful in reducing drug use and related nuisances. They claim drug use is “out of control” after decriminalisation. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what decriminalisation is about. After decades of the war on drugs and its devastating effects on generations of marginalised communities, it is unfair to expect that simply removing criminal sanctions against drug users will magically solve all problems. Despite the decriminalisation of drug use, selling drugs remains illegal (they are out of control indeed, just like they have been before), with heavy consequences for public health and safety. Therefore, although decriminalisation has not led to increased drug use or overdoses, it also has not been able to reverse negative trends. The rise in overdose deaths correlates with a deadly drug toxicity crisis in North America. This crisis is dominated by extremely potent and toxic substances like fentanyl.

I believe that the single most important factor behind re-criminalisation is not a genuine concern for public health or the well-being of people who use drugs. Rather, the re-criminalisation efforts are spurred by the aesthetic concerns of upper- and middle-income people. It is not about social justice but about urban remodelling. It is no surprise that the campaign for re-criminalisation in Oregon was funded by 

 who think that the presence of marginalised people is bad for business. These businessmen realised that criminalisation of drug use would help the police get rid of these people. But people who think that re-criminalising drug use is a solution will be disappointed because the real problem is not drug use.

As a filmmaker, I had the privilege of visiting both Oregon and British Columbia in the past to document the drug situation (for instance, 

). After interviewing several professionals, activists and people with lived experience, I came to the conclusion that cities like Portland or Vancouver do not have a “drug crisis” per se. Instead, they have a social inequality and social exclusion crisis. The real problem is poverty, lack of housing, poor mental health, unresolved childhood trauma and all the suffering that comes with surviving street life. The sad truth is that drug use is the only way to ease this suffering for too many people abandoned by dysfunctional families, dysfunctional education, and dysfunctional healthcare systems.

Middle-class Europeans and Americans like me feel very uncomfortable even witnessing this suffering as passersby. We are disturbed by seeing homeless people scoring a fix in dark alleys and underground locations. Not only because we are disgusted (surely, we are), but also because we feel a certain moral insecurity in our own privileged position. We want to believe that we live in a just world where everyone gets what they deserve. We like to believe that everything we have achieved is because we are talented and virtuous. We are afraid to be reminded that the world we live in is unjust and that if we happened to be born into a less advantaged family, we could end up exactly where they are.

Although concerns about growing homelessness and street drug use can be valid, using the criminal justice system and law enforcement as tools for urban remodelling will lead to a dead end. Decriminalisation is necessary to connect marginalised people who use drugs into society; however, it will not change anything overnight, and it is not sufficient. It needs to be supplemented with a long-term strategy to improve social inclusion, invest in housing and create protected workplaces, educational institutions, treatment centres, and harm reduction programs that are sensitive to the specific needs of local communities. 

 to regulate substance use and provide controlled access to people who struggle with dependence should be introduced.

It is reasonable to expect that innovative social policies, such as decriminalisation or regulation experiments, should be carefully monitored and evaluated. However, these evaluations should be made by professionals, researchers, and people with lived experience. Policymakers should listen to those who present evidence rather than to those who can generate negative press coverage through political and business interests. The evidence is there, 

published by researchers in peer-reviewed papers

, demonstrating that the reform in Oregon has produced positive results. Thanks to Measure 110, more people can access services.

Drug policy reformers and harm reduction advocates should learn from the dangerous trends of re-criminalisation too. Educating the public about what decriminalisation is is just as important as explaining what it is not: it is not a universal panacea (IDPC has 

). We should be careful about using international examples, such as Portugal, to raise false expectations. The public should understand that the main problem is not drug use. The main problem is that large segments of society are traumatised and excluded and feel isolated, alienated, and disconnected. This is what really fuels the so-called “drug crisis”, whether it manifests in overdoses or crime.

I have learnt from Dr. Gabor Mate, a friend and mentor of mine, that trauma is disconnection, and healing from trauma is reconnection to ourselves and others. To live an authentic life and find what the renowned psychologist Viktor Frankl identified as the most important element of happiness: meaning, we need the same healing on a societal level. We, as a society, need to reconnect with marginalised people and not re-criminalise them.

Peter Sarosi

P.s.

There is a joke about a policeman who is patrolling the streets late one night when he sees a drunk man down on all fours, crawling on his hands and knees on the road, searching for something on the ground under the streetlight.

“Hello, what have you lost?” the policeman asks.
“I am searching for my key,” the drunk man answers.
“Ok, I will help you look,” says the policeman and joins the drunkard in his search.

After a while, the policeman asks, “Are you sure, sir, that you dropped your key here?”
“No, actually over there, in front of my house.”
“So why are you searching for it in the street?”
“Because there is more light here.”

When governments design drug policies, they often do the same as this drunk man. They look for an explanation and a solution where there is none. Because they feel more comfortable solving complex social problems with simplistic tools rather than exploring difficult territories where the real solutions lie: to build solidarity, social equality and justice.

News