On Thursday 21st November 2024, after months of negotiations, Member States gathered at the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly to 

 the latest drugs ‘omnibus’ resolution (draft resolution 

This omnibus resolution aims to collate and summarise all developments around drugs across the UN system.

 live streaming of adoption of the drugs omnibus resolution

The pressure was high as, two years ago, the adoption of the previous drugs omnibus resolution (

) had been mired in diplomatic tensions. At the time, Mexico - the ‘penholder’ for these resolutions - had streamlined, shortened and rebalanced the text by placing an unprecedented focus on human rights, while removing the call for a ‘society free of drug abuse’.

In 2022, this approach faced significant resistance from more conservative countries - with Russia eventually 

 on the resolution. For the first time in decades, the consensus was broken on a UN drug-related resolution. In the end, it was an overwhelming victory even though a number of delegates abstained, criticising the opaque proceedings, lack of consultations and delayed information sharing during the negotiations process, leading to a vote of 124 States in favour, only 9 against, and 45 abstentions.

The pressure on the international drug control regime then continued to escalate at the 67th session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) in March 2024, where Member States adopted 

two of the four tabled resolutions by vote

 for the first time since 1985 - with the term ‘harm reduction’ being at the 

In this unprecedented context, Mexico made huge efforts to ensure a transparent, inclusive and conciliatory process for the 2024 drugs omnibus resolution, initiating preliminary consultations early in the year to understand the divergent positions and red lines of delegates, and discuss how these could be reconciled in an attempt to return to consensus.

And, after 28 hours of intense negotiations in the UN General Assembly Third Committee in New York and countless side consultations to find a compromise on the most contentious issues, this year’s resolution was eventually adopted by consensus, and supported by 71 co-sponsors from all continents*.

Positively, early on in the process, Member States had agreed with Mexico’s approach to take the 2022 omnibus resolution as the basis for this new text, rather than reverting to the 2021 resolution as was originally called for by various delegations led by Russia. As a result, the final omnibus resolution is mostly a repeat of the 2022 omnibus resolution (but this time adopted by consensus), with various improvements alongside inevitable compromises.

This year, and in the aftermath of the 67th session of the CND, the main controversies related to whether or not to explicitly mention ‘harm reduction’, and whether to allow the reintroduction of ‘drug-free world’ language in the omnibus resolution. The latter was resisted and is a key win of these negotiations, as the 2024 omnibus does not reiterate the harmful and unrealistic goal of achieving a ‘society free of drug abuse’ and was adopted by consensus.

Traditionally, human rights language had been included in drug-related resolutions, both at the CND and the UN General Assembly, in exchange for the inclusion of this ‘drug-free world’ language. The departure from this tradition by Mexico in the 2022 omnibus resolution had been one of the main reasons why Russia had decided to call for a vote at the time.

This year, the debate had shifted away from a focus on human rights, and focused on two red lines: the more conservative Member States refused any mention of ‘harm reduction’, while on the other hand, ‘drug-free world’ language was deemed unacceptable by progressive States, including Colombia, Switzerland and the EU.

At the end of the day, as a compromise, Mexico produced a final draft that included neither. And although it would have of course been useful to crystallise the wins of the 67th CND at the General Assembly, it is important to remember that ‘harm reduction’ has been 

 at the UN in New York for more than two decades, since the adoption of the 2001 Political Declaration on HIV and AIDS.

Because most of the negotiations revolved around the controversies above, progressive Member States managed to push through various paragraphs related to human rights. Importantly, the 2024 omnibus resolution restates the 

 that had already featured in its predecessor, including on systemic racism in law enforcement and criminal justice systems, on addressing impunity for human rights abuses, on Indigenous Peoples’ rights, on the need for non-custodial measures and proportionate sentencing, on HIV prevention and treatment (including funding for these critical services), and on the need to secure alternative sources of income before any crop eradication takes place as part of alternative development programmes.

Going further, the 2024 resolution ‘takes note of’ the landmark reports produced by the Office of the 

UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health

 - a first for a drugs omnibus resolution which had historically been unable to welcome any of the previous reports produced by OHCHR on drug policy.

Perhaps as an attempt to echo the reports on harm reduction produced by the Special Rapporteur on the right to health earlier this year, the resolution now also includes a separate paragraph reaffirming the right to health for ‘drug users’, ‘regardless of whether they are imprisoned, detained or incarcerated’. This paragraph also refers to the right to health for ‘their children and other family members’ - a wording which could be problematic if it perpetuates the 

 laid out in the UNODC’s World Drug Report 2024, as it could be used by some Member States to justify the criminalisation and stigmatisation of people who use drugs in the name of protecting their children, families and communities more broadly.

Finally, the 2024 omnibus resolution also emphasizes the need to ensure access to controlled medicines, with a new paragraph acknowledging that ‘availability remains low to non-existent in many countries, in particular in developing countries’ and recognising the major issues related to ‘affordability’ and access for children - issues that also came up at the 67th session of the CND.

A ‘rebalancing’ of the resolution towards supply reduction

The drive to achieve consensus inevitably led to difficult compromises from the co-sponsors of the resolution. This translated into the inclusion of a number of paragraphs relating to various aspects of supply reduction which had been omitted in 2022 (some of which were drawn from the 2021 omnibus resolution), including language on new technologies (i.e., the darknet, electronic payment systems and virtual assets), money laundering, criminal intelligence sharing and cooperation, and two mentions of INTERPOL.

The adoption of the resolution by consensus at the UN General Assembly Third Committee was followed by a number of country statements. Various delegates from across the board (including Algeria, Egypt, Malaysia, Peru, South Africa and Switzerland) praised Mexico for the constructive nature of the negotiations, which enabled a return to consensus-based decision-making on drug policy. Similarly, the Mexican Ambassador declared: ‘Today, we have sent a message of unity, of a deeply transborder nature. It is a joint and global response, and this must be celebrated… We can all speak with a single voice’.

However, several statements seemed to undermine this consensus. The delegates’ speeches clearly showed divergent positions on whether to emphasize a society free of drug abuse (as did Algeria, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Singapore), or whether to move away from the goal of a drug-free world and promote harm reduction and human rights instead (as was the case for Brazil, Canada, Colombia, South Africa, Switzerland and the EU).

Even more problematically, Member States including Argentina, Egypt, Iran, Russia and Saudi Arabia, made statements to ‘disassociate’ themselves from a number of the agreed paragraphs (most commonly those relating to the contributions of UN human rights entities, referring to the Political Declaration on HIV and AIDS, or to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development). Argentina even questioned the language on Indigenous Peoples’ rights, expressing concerns that this could ‘be used as a veiled questioning of the international drug control system’ - no doubt referring to the WHO critical review of the coca leaf which was, in fact, initiated by Bolivia in an effort to decolonise the international drug control regime and align it with human rights.

This seemingly new trend of Member States ‘disassociating’ themselves from various paragraphs within a resolution adopted by consensus again raises questions as to what the future of multilateral drug policy holds. Does this mean that Member States can now choose à-la-carte what they want to be bound by? Or is it simply a way to perpetuate an illusion of consensus (or avoid embarrassing vote losses) despite the fact that government positions on drugs are becoming increasingly irreconcilable? Our attention turns now to the 68th session of the CND and how these dynamics will play out in Vienna.

* Co-sponsors: Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, United States of America.

The drugs omnibus resolution 2024: The cold war between ‘drug-free world’ and ‘harm reduction’

The 79th Session of the UNGA Third Committee will jointly cover agenda items 107 on “Crime prevention and criminal justice," 108 on “Countering the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes,” and 109 on “International drug control” will be discussed jointly. 

The Third Committee will discuss and negotiate the omnibus resolution, which  includes a summary of the latest developments in international drug policy and control by UN bodies.

The Third Committee's Allocation of Agenda Items, Organization of Work, and Calendar of Meetings for the 79th session, is available

UN General Assembly 79th session - Third Committee

For decades, debates and political commitments on drug policy at the United Nations have been plagued by the goal of 'achieving a society free of drugs' (or 'drug abuse'). Who could forget the slogan of the big UN drugs event in 1998 - “

!”?. This fantastical notion has underpinned unimaginable harm as governments all over the world have strived to eradicate drugs through draconian measures. Despite these efforts, the global market in illegal drugs grows ever larger, more robust and with a greater diversity of substances. In parallel, the human cost of the so-called ‘war on drugs’ continues to grow exponentially - 

a devastating crisis of mass incarceration, overdose deaths, extrajudicial killings and a litany of human rights violations

 that have impacted some of society’s most marginalised.

Last week the UN General Assembly made history by adopting a 

 that did not include the long-standing reference to 'actively promote a society free of drug abuse' for the first time in three decades. Not only was this overly simplistic, ‘war on drugs’-era notion absent from the text, but the resolution includes some of the strongest ever human rights language relating to drug policy, an aspect on which the main UN drug policy forum in Vienna (the Commission on Narcotic Drugs) has made 

Resolutions on drug policy at the General Assembly have always been agreed by consensus, however this resolution broke new ground as it was adopted - for the first time in history - after a vote.

The Russian Federation, unhappy with the removal of the drug-free language and that the resolution was, in their own words, ‘skewed towards the defence of human rights’ (see minute 32:00 of the debate at the 

3rd Committee of the General Assembly in mid-November

) called for a vote on the text, which it went on to lose at both the 3rd Committee and the plenary. Thus, the Russian Federation brought about the end of the revered 'Vienna consensus' that has dominated UN drug policy fora, namely the custom of adopting resolutions and political texts on drug policy through the consensus of all Member States, rather than by voting.

It was a reluctant breaking of the consensus with an unprecedented number of countries making statements before the vote in the 3rd Committee, many of them lamenting the need for a vote and noting their hope for a return to the usual consensus for future drug policy resolutions. Ultimately, when the resolution reached the plenary of the General Assembly, a total of 124 Member States voted in favour of the resolution, while 9 voted against, with 45 abstentions.

Mexico, the penholder for this annual resolution on drugs at the General Assembly (normally referred to as the ‘omnibus resolution’ because it seeks to summarise drug policy developments across the UN system) had decided not to simply present the same repetitive, largely agreed text as in previous years but instead took a new approach by cutting its length, regrouping the paragraphs thematically, and placing the focus of the resolution more solidly on the central concern of the 

: protecting the ‘health and welfare of mankind’. In their opening statement at the 3rd Committee just ahead of the vote, Mexico's Ambassador to the UN in New York stated: 'Why waste paper on reports and resolutions, which just repeat the same thing every year? We cannot continue with the bureaucratic inertia of transcribing agreed language, and still hope for different results, by repeating our same actions'.

While Mexico's 'zero-draft' was inevitably watered down in the negotiations preceding the vote, the final text marks a serious departure from past resolutions by condemning for the first time in a UN drugs resolution 'systemic racism in the law enforcement and criminal justice systems' and 'underscoring the importance of ensuring that such acts are not treated with impunity'. With respect to the deep-rooted controversy of 'alternative development’ versus forced eradication, for the first time the resolution calls on Member States 'to secure alternative livelihoods, preferably before removing existing livelihoods earned from the cultivation of illicit crops'. In addition, the document also contains strong language on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, in particular a reference to their right to traditional medicines.

The final text marks a serious departure from past resolutions by condemning for the first time in a UN drugs resolution ‘systemic racism in the law enforcement and criminal justice systems’ and ‘underscoring the importance of ensuring that such acts are not treated with impunity’.

Overall, by emphasising human rights concepts and doing away with tired and ultimately harmful ideological objectives such as 'a society free of drug abuse', the resolution goes a long way towards refocusing international cooperation away from reducing illegal cultivation, production and drug trafficking and towards reducing the negative consequences of the global drug situation on individuals and communities.

Crucially, this progressive text was adopted by an overwhelming majority of Member States, with only 9 countries voting against it. This demonstrates that the 'Vienna consensus' has been an instrument to hold back progress on drug policy making, pushing the international community towards policies and narratives that are far more conservative than those of a majority of Member States. A good example of this is that the words 'harm reduction' remain a taboo in international documents, although at least 105 countries 

 harm reduction in their national drug policies.

It is also worth recalling that the General Assembly is the '

 deliberative, policymaking and representative organ of the United Nations'. It comprises representatives of all 193 Member States, and it elects the members of the UN Economic and Social Council, of which the Vienna-based Commission on Narcotic Drugs is a functional commision.

This ground-breaking development in New York potentially heralds the beginning of the end of the consensus-based approach to drug policy at the UN, especially given that this follows a series of 

 that took place earlier this year in Vienna at the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. Russia has been at the centre of these votes, which indicates that opposition to their aggression in Ukraine has left them increasingly isolated at the UN. Broader geo-politics influences all policy issues in multilateral settings and drug policy is certainly no exception. Russia is wedded to zero-tolerance ideology on drugs and actively leads other conservative nations in rejecting any forward progress. Leveraging their isolation in New York has allowed the now persistent and deep cracks in the drugs consensus to widen and accelerate towards breaking point. Whether this fracture will reverberate in Vienna, changing the way resolutions and political documents are adopted at the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, is yet to be seen. However, many of us working towards a much more humane and enlightened drug policy hope that this outcome in New York signals the death knell of drug-free goals and the stale and retrograde UN consensus on drugs.

'Drug-free world' no more! Historic resolution at the UN spells end of consensus on drugs

In recent years, the historical isolation between the United Nations (UN) drug policy and human rights bodies has eroded significantly, and with accelerating speed. The human rights consequences of drug policies have become an unavoidable – if fractious – topic in global drug policy debates, and human rights bodies routinely monitor the impacts of drug responses. 

The growing convergence between the UN human rights and drug policy regimes is the result of 15 years of progress across the whole UN environment, with contributions from Geneva, Vienna, and New York-based bodies reinforcing and encouraging one another. Civil society has been a constant and necessary presence, broadening the horizon of what is possible, transmitting key information across the UN system, and consistently advocating for change. 

Despite some reluctance to engage in drug-related discussions up until the 2010s, the Genevabased human rights system has become gradually more influential in pushing for this alignment. The first call for convergence between the two regimes came from Geneva, in 2008. Since then, a large number of UN human rights bodies have regarded drug policies to be under their mandate, including the Human Rights Council, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), special mandate procedures, and human rights treaty bodies. 

A parallel shift in priorities also took place in Vienna – at least initially. The first, and so far only, resolution dedicated to human rights at the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) was adopted in 2008, thereby legitimising human rights within the agenda of the CND. In the following years, Member States began to incorporate human rights language into plenary statements; new resolutions on topics closely aligned with a human rights approach were adopted. In 2014, the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) finally condemned the use of the death penalty for drugs offences, discarding its long-standing refusal to acknowledge human rights violations connected to drug control. 

These changes were hard fought by progressive Member States and civil society alike. The 2016 UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on drugs provided an opportunity to accelerate the inclusion of a stronger human rights narrative in drug policy debates across the UN system. This included establishing human rights as a new pillar of the global response to drugs, and the adoption of the strongest negotiated language to date. In part, this progress was due to the unprecedented involvement of UN human rights bodies in the preparations for the Special Session following the first-ever Human Rights Council resolution on drugs in 2015. 

The 2015 Human Rights Council resolution was mobilised Geneva-based bodies to increase their attention to drug policies after the UNGASS. Since then, OHCHR has remained steadfastly engaged on the drugs issue, while there has been ever increasing attention from special mechanisms. In parallel, the recommendations provided by human rights treaty bodies have gained in systematicity and ambition. Recent developments such as the announcement of a forthcoming new General Comment on drug policies by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), show that this trend will intensify in the future. 

The constraints imposed by consensus-based drug policy making and the strong coordination of conservative Member States have blocked progress on human rights language at the CND. Human rights have nonetheless gained visibility and influence at the Commission, thanks to constant pressure from civil society, the increased presence of the OHCHR and human rights mechanisms in Vienna, and the now constant references to human rights by vocal Member States. The centrality of human rights to drug responses is also recognised within the UN System Common Position on drugs, which was adopted by the Chief Executives Board composed of the heads of 31 UN entities in November 2018. 

2022 might have marked a turning page in consensus-based policy making on drug-related matters at the UN. First-ever votes took place at both the CND (albeit on a procedural matter), and at the UN General Assembly, where a substantial majority of Member States supported new and strong human rights language in the yearly drugs resolution. Whether the international community is truly ready to finally end the long-standing consensus on UN drug policy on a regular basis remains to be seen. However, this does open the door for new possibilities in global drug policy debates, and shows that a majority of countries now unequivocally support a greater role for human rights and human rights bodies.

Converging universes: 20 years of human rights and drug policy at the United Nations

In accordance with the Human Rights Council’s Resolution 37/42,1 this contribution from IDPC aims to feed into the report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on the implementation of the UNGASS Outcome Document entitled ‘Our joint commitment to effectively addressing and countering the world drug problem’. This submission considers all relevant operational paragraphs (OP) within the Outcome Document and analyses their relationship with human rights, drawing from available data and experiences from the ground.

This submission initially stated that, according to the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPJ), over 80% of all people in prison for a drug offence had been sentenced for drug possession. This should be corrected to reflect the accurate interpretation of the CCPJ’s 

, which is that 83% of all recorded drug offences are offences related to possession, with no reference to sentencing. According to more recent 

 from 2019, one in five people incarcerated worldwide are detained for a drug offence, of which 21.65% (or 470,000 people) were detained for drug use and drug possession only.

IDPC submission to the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights’ report on UNGASS implementation and human rights

The public health imperative for rights-based drug control policy: A statement for the UN General Assembly Special Session on the World Drug Problem

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria welcomes the UN General Assembly Special Session on the world drug problem as an opportunity to bring public health and human rights concerns to the center of drug control policy.

The Global Fund was created as a partnership. Working together, over the past 15 years, we have contributed to great progress in the fight against HIV, as well as TB and malaria. Through a collective effort, combining the contributions of governments, civil society, the private sector and affected communities, the Global Fund disburses nearly $4 billion per year to support local programs that prevent infections and the premature deaths of millions of people from HIV, TB, and malaria.

The HIV response over the past 15 years has been tremendous. In 2000, there was no global public health response to the HIV epidemic. In 2016, almost every country around the world is implementing prevention and treatment programs. Just as important, there is widespread recognition that HIV discriminates, and does not affect people equally. The community of people who use drugs in all their diversity, including women, men, trans* and young people, have been left behind in the global response.

To end the HIV epidemic, we must do more to prevent HIV and other infections among people who use drugs, and ensure that those living with HIV and other infections have access to care, treatment and support. We need to recognize that the level of criminalization, discrimination, and violence that people who use drugs face, can only result in driving risk-taking behaviors, including in detention settings, excluding them from the social and health support systems they need. We must move toward treating everyone, including people who use drugs, as fellow human beings.

As a health financing institution that aims to invest in evidence- and rights-based programs that provide the greatest value for money, we add our voice to that of our technical partners, in particular, UNAIDS and WHO, and express our concern that current drug control policy undermines, rather than supports, the reach and impact of health programs for people who use drugs. Experience and evidence show that the International Community could do much better and dramatically improve health and human rights outcomes.

The UNGASS on the world drug problem has the opportunity to rethink policies that undermine health programs and to shape drug policy that will facilitate good health outcomes. Good drug policy can help in many ways, including:

• by ensuring adequate investment in essential, cost-effective health services for people who use drugs, including comprehensive HIV, TB, and Sexual and Reproductive Health services;

• by supporting the meaningful participation of people who use drugs in health programs;

• by ensuring that resources are used for programs that minimize health harms and protect human rights, rather than incarceration of large numbers of people who use drugs.

Essential HIV and TB services for people who use drugs :

 A large body of evidence shows that needle and syringe programs (NSP) and opioid substitution therapy (OST) are among the most effective and cost-effective prevention and treatment programs in the world – and among the most widely evaluated. (See annex to this statement for a summary of some key research.) People who inject drugs readily utilize harm reduction services when programs are welcoming and non-judgmental. NSP services have the additional benefit of refering people who wouldn't attend mainstream services to other services to address and manage their health and social needs. Many countries have found that NSP yield significant returns on investments, over reduced burden of HIV care on health systems. OST is a not only highly effective in treating opioid dependence but also helps prevent HIV and hepatitis as well as overdose by reducing the frequency of injecting. OST also reduces crime and social instability. Investment in NSP and OST – combined with HIV treatment for people living with HIV who use drugs – is good public health practice, fiscally responsible, and part of the fulfillment of states’ human rights obligations to their citizens. NSP and OST services in prisons and in the community are both crucial.

Although data are incomplete, evidence also suggests a substantial and growing population of women injecting drugs worldwide. Women and men have different experiences of injecting drug use and related risks and harms. Even within a community that faces high levels of violence and social exclusion, gender shapes the way people access and receive services. As a result, women who use drugs have significantly higher rates of morbidity and mortality ascompared to their male counterparts, and in particular higher rates of HIV infection. Gender sensitive harm reduction programs are therefore critical to ensure equitable access to services and to address the significant overlap between gender, drug use, sex work, and nonconforming gender identities. The Global Fund urges member states to deal with the issue of gender in the context of drug use as key to ensuring equitable access to services as part of their obligation to their citizens.

In spite of the preponderance of public health and economic evidence for harm reduction interventions, including some notable examples from programs implemented with Global Fund resources, investment in them remains far too low, particularly from national resources, and reliance on external resources such as the Global Fund is unsustainable in the long-term. As a result, a very small percentage of people who use drugs in the world have regular access to NSP and OST; and it is estimated that up to 86% of people who inject drugs who are living with HIV lack access to antiretroviral therapy. The Global Fund urges member states at the UNGASS to support drug policies that enable scale-up of these services.

In some countries, people who use drugs are still held in centers purporting to provide “treatment” or “rehabilitation,” with widely reported violations of human rights, little or no judicial process or medical evaluation of those held, and no evidence of effectiveness. In 2012, twelve UN agencies called for the closure of all compulsory treatment facilities, including compulsory drug detention centers. The Global Fund has made repeated calls for the closure of drug detention centers while expressing concerns that those detained illegally within them must not be denied access to essential health care. In October 2014, the Global Fund Board decided that the Global Fund would not fund any interventions in compulsory drug detention centers. The Global Fund urges member states at the UNGASS to call for the immediate closure of all drug detention centers, in line with the call made by the United Nations in 2012.

People who inject drugs are also at high risk of TB in many settings, and HIV and TB co-infection is very high among them. As WHO experts note, criminalization and penalization of minor drug offenses undermine national TB responses. People who use drugs who fear that seeking health services will put them in the path of the police are less likely to be reached by TB testing or to complete treatment. Moreover, prison and pretrial detention are very high-risk environments for TB and multi-drug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) in many countries. Overcrowding and poor sanitation and ventilation in prisons contribute to the risk of airborne transmission, and access to testing and treatment is often limited. Global Fund-supported programs have shown that the high TB risks in the prison environment can be effectively addressed by sustained investment in prevention and care, especially when there is continuity of services between prisons and the community.

Keep up-to-date with drug policy developments by subscribing to the IDPC Monthly Alert.

Global Fund submission to the UNGASS process

In April 2016, the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) will convene its 30th Special Session (or ‘UNGASS’) – and the third to focus on the ‘world drug problem’. The General Assembly has called for an ‘inclusive preparatory process that includes extensive substantive consultations, allowing organs, entities and specialized agencies of the United Nations system, relevant international and regional organizations, civil society and other relevant stakeholders to fully contribute to the process’. Through the United Nations System Task Force on Transnational Organized Crime and Drug Trafficking, UN entities were invited to make submissions on how the international drug control system impacts upon their respective mandates and the coherence of the UN more broadly.

By 1st March 2016, 15 UN entities had contributed documents to the preparatory deliberations, which have been uploaded onto the official UNGASS website.

This briefing paper examines several of the most prominent themes to emerge from the contributions of these UN entities, and their progress or otherwise into the UNGASS debates and the draft UNGASS Outcome Document.

Striving for system-wide coherence: An analysis of the official contributions of United Nations entities for the UNGASS on drugs

This submission by the International Network of People who Use Drugs (INPUD) to the Civil Society Task Force to UNGASS on Drugs 2016 is derived from INPUD’s Consensus Statement on Drug Use Under Prohibition: Human Rights, Health, and the Law. The INPUD’s Consensus Statement focusses on human rights, health, and the law in relation to people who use drugs. The document – and this submission – is informed by the perspective of those who are so catastrophically impacted by global prohibition and by the so-called ‘war on drugs’: people who use drugs themselves.

This submission stems from five consultations conducted by the INPUD in 2015 with representatives of drug user organisations internationally. Each consultation was comprised of focus groups with participants. Consultations were undertaken in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in Bangkok, Thailand, in London, England, and in Tbilisi, Georgia. A virtual consultation was also conducted. In total, representatives of 24 drug user organisations from 28 countries contributed to the consultations.

The assertions made in this submission are driven by the data, reports, and testimony gathered in these consultations; each assertion made in this document is backed up by first-hand testimony from one or several representatives of drug user organisations globally.

INPUD submission to the civil society task force to UNGASS on drugs 2016

Preparations are gathering pace for the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on drugs, to be held on the 19th to 21st April 2016 in New York. Following several months of discussion on procedural elements, attention is now focused on negotiating the content of the “short, substantive, concise and action-orientated outcome document comprising a set of operational recommendations” to be approved by the General Assembly next April.

At the CND intersessional meeting on 12th June, countries and regional groups were invited to submit their first ideas for what could be included in this Outcome Document, by a deadline of 11th September.

You will find below a list of all contributions released by UN member states and regional bodies that have been made public to date:

If you would like IDPC to publish your country's contribution on the UNGASS "zero draft", please email it to contact@idpc.net.