Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
2
Table of Contents Introduction to Committee Directors ............................................................................................... 3
Topic A: Drug Liberalization............................................................................................................ 5
Overview of the topic................................................................................................................... 5
Legalization and Decriminalization ............................................................................................. 6
The Economics of Drug Liberalization ...................................................................................... 10
Legalizing Cannabis .................................................................................................................. 12
Case Study: Portugal ................................................................................................................ 14
Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 18
Questions a Resolution Must Answer .......................................................................................... 19
References .................................................................................................................................... 20
Topic B: Prevention of illicit drug trade and production of counterfeit drugs through
reinforcement of global drug policies............................................................................................ 21
What are counterfeits? .............................................................................................................. 21
International and Regional Framework..................................................................................... 22
Role of International Organizations .......................................................................................... 23
The Market for Counterfeit Drugs ............................................................................................. 24
Case Studies ............................................................................................................................. 25
Cambodia .................................................................................................................................. 26
Vietnam ..................................................................................................................................... 27
Thailand ..................................................................................................................................... 27
Border Controls ......................................................................................................................... 28
Adapting Policy to the Current Global Situation ....................................................................... 28
Questions a Resolution must Answer .......................................................................................... 30
Further Reading ............................................................................................................................ 30
3
Introduction to Committee Directors
Omer Farooq Ahmed
Dear delegates,
It gives me great pleasure to serve as the Committee Director for the United Nations
Commission on Narcotic Drugs. I have been participating in MUNs in various capacities for the
past seven years and after my last two outings at Harvard WorldMUN, I feel I have much to
impart in terms of what the actual objectives of the United Nations are and why we should do
MUNs in the first place. Primarily, MUNs should inspire us to research the various
intergovernmental agencies around the world working to solve our most pressing issues and to
understand their organizational apparatus so as to perhaps contribute to them in our own
capacities or to replicate their functions to solve our own domestic problems. Ultimately, an
MUN should incite delegates to become change agents and to institute that change through a
diplomatic and systematic manner, a rarity in our country and indeed the world.
I invite you all to thoroughly research the drug control policies of your own country and the
significant trend setters in the world and to analyze-with respect to your stance-the best direction
you should take. We are at the forefront of a massive paradigm shift in drug legalization policies
and we owe it to the millions of drug abuse sufferers around the world to critically analyze such
policies and come up with the best way to rid our world of this horrendous epidemic.
Your experience will only be fruitful if you research well. The study guide only serves as a
direction and roadmap for research. Make sure you explore the entire reference list provided on
the guide as well as other prominent journals that have amassed decades of research into the
narcotics epidemic in order to become a truly effective delegate. Above all, treat this committee
as a learning experience and you will have lots of fun. Drop me an email for any further queries
4
Sakina Azeem Qureashi
Assalamualaikum, delegates. It’s a pleasure to welcome you all to MUNIK. I’ve been a part
ofthe debating circuit for quite some time and it’s been a life-changing experience as of yet. I
want
to make you all go through this experience as well and so during these four days, I will be thereto
guide you through it all. Look forward to make sense of some of the most pressing issues
facing our kind today, as well as to making unforgettable memories with your fellow delegates.
Research well, dress well, and speak without fear and brownie points for those who offer me
chai.
Don’t hesitate to ask me if you have any questions. My email is: [email protected].
Happy Munning!
5
Topic A: Drug Liberalization
Overview of the topic
Drug liberalization pertains to a bold new
strategy in the war against drugs that is
sweeping the globe and is becoming
especially prevalent in western democracies.
Drug liberalization is a relatively new
process of lowering or eliminating the
restrictions on drug use, manufacture and
distribution. It includes such policies as drug
legalization, drug re-legalization and drug
criminalization. These policies are by no
means novel, and have been tested and are
currently being implemented in numerous
places around the world. Liberalization
policies ultimately aim to ensure responsible
drug use as their proponents’ paradigm in
the battle against drugs is to reduce the
medical, physical and psychological harm
drug abuse comes part and parcel with.
Opponents also aim to deter substance
abusers from using said substances in the
first place so that the habit of addiction can
be curbed altogether, and the harms
mentioned above do not arise; thus, it is
obvious why they wouldn’t agree to
liberalization policies. The ultimate aim of
the war on drugs is to reduce the illegal drug
trade and to prohibit private production,
distribution and consumption of
psychoactive drugs as defined by the United
Nations. Obviously, with a history of being
inseparably intertwined with violence, the
illegal drug trade needs to be solved fast.
The problem is that after decades of
conventional policy implementation, the
drug problem persists, despite countries like
the United States spending approximately 51
billion dollars on the war on drugs annually
[1]. After years of failed drug policies that
have not curbed the violence associated with
the illegal drug trade, or decreased the
6
number of overdoses and other health
related issues associated with drug abuse, or
in fact decreased addiction in general,
progressive policy makers have set their
sights on alternatives such as liberalization.
The core philosophy that divides proponents
and opponents of drug liberalization is that
drug addiction should be viewed as a
disease, with the government being
responsible for treating that disease, as
opposed to drug addiction being viewed as
criminal offence. The need for newer and
perhaps even more radical drug policies can
be reflected by this 2011 declaration in a
report published by the Global Commission
on Drug Policy: “The global war on drugs
has failed, with devastating consequences
for individuals and societies around the
world. Fifty years after the initiation of the
UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs
and years after President Nixon launched the
US government's war on drugs fundamental
reforms in national and global drug control
policies are urgently needed.” This report
was sharply criticized by opponents of drug
liberalization.
Legalization and
Decriminalization
On the outset it is important to establish the
difference between legalization and
decriminalization. These two terms are often
used interchangeably to indicate a liberal
approach towards drug usage and towards the
changing drug policy landscape. However, for
the purposes of this committee, we will
differentiate the two terms and use them where
appropriate. Decriminalization refers to the
loosening of penalties associated with drug use,
even though the manufacturing and mass
distribution remains a criminal offense. Thus,
in situations where decriminalization is
instituted, law enforcement is expected to often
look the other way, or at least treat small
amounts of possession with leniency. In certain
7
situations, small amounts of possession are
even allowed and a threshold establishes the
amount that can get users treated to a
rehabilitation facility. One important factor to
remember is that, under decriminalization, the
manufacture and sale of the drug in question
remains unregulated by the state and those
caught abusing the substances are usually fined
or serve community service hours, rather than
being incarcerated and receiving a criminal
record. Key facets of drug decriminalization
are reduced control over drug use and penalties
as opposed to prison terms and criminal
records that can haunt a user/abuser in a variety
of social situations even after their prison term
or sentence. The central feature in the drug
decriminalization argument is the concept of
Harm Reduction. Harm Reduction or Harm
Minimization is a range of public health
policies designed to reduce the negative social
and/or physical consequences of various
human behaviors, both legal and illegal, such
as recreational drug use and sexual activity.
Opponents of these policies believe that
tolerating such harmful behavior sends the
wrong message to those prone to abuse that it
is ok to indulge as long as you indulge
responsibly. These critics also cite research that
suggests that there are no long-term benefits of
these policies. An example of a harm reduction
policy is the Needle and Syringe Program
(NSP) where Injecting Drug Users (IDUs)
receive hypodermic needles and associated
paraphernalia at little to no cost. The purpose
of this program is to reduce the risk factors for
diseases such as HIV/AIDS and hepatitis which
are easily transmitted through shared needle
use, a common problem associated with drug
users. Similar programs also provide sterilized
equipment and facilities for IDUs to use the
drug without contracting a deadly disease.
While the associated harms are minimized, the
habit of drug abuse remains widespread. Yet
another program is Opioid Substitution
Therapy (OST), where a potent opioid such as
heroin is replaced with a longer lasting, but less
8
euphoric opioid. One major noted advantage of
decriminalization is that substance abusers stop
making or purchasing makeshift drugs that
aren’t on law enforcement radars but are
similar to those that are banned. Consuming
such makeshift drugs can be very dangerous
and decriminalization can essentially cripple
the trade of these dangerous, often life-
threatening drugs (relatively speaking). The
ultimate aim of decriminalization is therefore
managing the associated side effects of drug
abuse. Whether it can successfully get people
off of drugs is a question subject to more
research and something you as delegates must
consider while making policy.
Decriminalization is often considered the
middle ground between complete prohibition
and legalization and some opponents consider
it the worst option. This is because drug
manufacturing and distribution would still be
illegal and thus the harms associated with
cartels and the drug criminal underworld would
still persist. Furthermore, this approach will
also fail to deter users against buying drugs.
Removing, or at least reducing the criminal
penalties associated with drug use would
hamper one of the biggest reasons governments
often want to completely ban drugs: deterrence.
Deterrence, however instituted, is a powerful
concept. It ensures that there are examples set
that discourage people from engaging in
substance abuse. These examples are often
cruel and brutal, but the concept espouses this
cruelty to maintain a sense of fear in the user
from ever using the drug again. The efficacy of
deterrence through conventional techniques
could be questioned, but it nonetheless remains
a major factor while drafting drug policy.
Legalization is the complete abolishment of all
laws that ban the use, manufacture and
distribution of an otherwise illegal drug. In this
scenario, there is absolutely no fine,
incarceration or any censure associated with
drug use, although there may be a restriction on
9
the amount under possession. Legalization
allows people to freely use the drug in question
and even set up private ventures to
manufacture and sell the drug. This allows the
government to regulate the distribution of the
drug as well as to tax it on private vendors and
distributors. Most proponents of this technique
argue that despite the existence of a tax, the
taxpayer is ultimately saved millions of dollars
due to the alleviation of small amount
possession offenders from the criminal justice
system. Essentially, drug legalization calls for
the situation where all drugs are made legal.
This means one of two things. The more
impractical of those being the removal of all
forms of government control. The other
situation, which is more pragmatic and being
enforced to an extent, is regulated legalization.
Regulated legalization would legalize drugs
with certain caveats enforced by the
government such as drugs being distrusted with
labels carrying medical warnings and dosage
recommendations; restrictions based on age
and amount purchased in a given time frame;
ban on resale and repercussions of violating
this clause; special license requirements to
purchase some drugs; special medically
approved settings for administration of IV
(intravenous) drugs and what have you.
It is obviously foolish to think legalization
would entail complete legalization. This would
defeat the end goal of this entire exercise in
policy making: to get rid of the opioid
epidemic and similar epidemics targeting the
health of citizens. Legalization would ideally
categorize drugs into different levels. Some of
these relatively harmless drugs will be sold as
over the counter, non-prescription drugs, like
marijuana for pain treatment for example.
Others might be sold only to those holding a
license to consume that drug. For example,
after appropriate medical examinations, a
licensing apparatus might determine whether a
specific user can consume a certain amount of
the drug without any lethal side effects.
10
Distributors may also require licensing to sell
the drug in question. This scenario isn’t too
different from the already regulated
legalization of such drugs as caffeine (in coffee
and tea), alcoholic beverages and tobacco.
Drug liberalization proponents fall under two
camps. Those who endorse full legalization do
so, on the basis of a moral argument that
humans should be allowed the agency to
choose for themselves what they consume as
long as it is not to the detriment of others.
Opponents of this argument state that the
overall human resource of society is affected
adversely when people are left to their own
devices with regards to drug use. They claim
that if most people were allowed complete
agency, they would indulge and that this will
incur a burden on the social setup of a state,
where the medical institutions will be choked
to constantly keep treating abusers, and society
will have to deal with the consequences of
abuse such as providing basic incomes to
abusers who do not work and therefore do not
contribute to the society which actively works
for their welfare. The people who advocate full
legalization are usually from the libertarian
camp and have gained little traction in political
systems for their views. The other camp
consists of groups like the Law Enforcement
Action Partnership, who propose regulated
legalization. They base their arguments over
the lack of the status quo policies having
produced any positive outcome and they often
accuse the current stringent policies to have
exacerbated the epidemic. While their claims
require years of research and validation, such
research and experiments are now emerging
and we will take a look at a few in some detail.
The Economics of Drug
Liberalization
Opponents of the drug liberalization policies
usually base their arguments around the shape
of the demand curve for illegal drugs and the
sensitivity of consumers to changes in the
11
prices of illegal drugs. Proponents of
liberalization policies naively assume that the
drug consumption rate is not dependent or
responsive to changes in price and therefore, a
decrease in price for example, will not
necessarily increase consumption. This is
sharply opposed by opponents who have more
research to back their claims that consumption
is responsive to changes in price. Studies
around alcohol and tobacco show that
consumption can be quite responsive to
changes in price [2]. A specific research by
economist Michael Grossman and Frank J.
Chaloupka estimates that a 10% reduction in
the prices of cocaine would lead to a 14%
increase in the frequency of cocaine use [2].
There is also evidence to suggest that in the
long run, this increase in consumption will
itself increase. Thus, it is obvious that if drugs
were decriminalized or indeed, legalized,
following the standard economic model, prices
would decrease sharply due to an increase in
supply. This suggests that consumption would
also increase. Economist Andrew E. Clark
presents a solution to this quandary. He
suggests that a specific tax, like a sin tax, could
keep consumption rates in check.
The associated costs with drug abuse can
sometimes be stunting to the economy.
Legalization opponents argue that drug use
brings external costs such as increased burden
on emergency health care, environmental
degradation and cots associated with violence.
They believe that liberalization policies will
further increase these costs. The proponents on
the other hand believe that these externalities
are due to current drug policies and that
liberalization will in fact reduce costs
associated with violence because there will be
no aspect of crime to begin with. Prominent
economist Milton Friedman believes that
prohibition leads to many negative externalities
like increased incarceration (which can be very
draining on the tax payer), disproportionate
incarceration of African Americans, corruption
12
and destruction of inner cities. Prohibition also
decreases the quality of drugs manufactured,
which can often lead to more physical harm
and burden on emergency care units.
Liberalization will enforce stricter standards of
compliance to manufacturers to produce drugs
that aren’t as harmful to users and therefore
reduce overdoses and severe effects.
Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard economist, estimated
that ending the war on drugs would inject 76.8
billion dollars into the US economy in 2010
[3]. He estimated that the government would
save 41.3 billion dollars for law enforcement
and the government would gain up to 46.7
billion dollars in tax revenue. Since the Nixon
administration, when the war on drugs began,
The US has increased its drug countermeasures
budget from 100 million dollars to 15.1 billion
dollars. In the last 40 years, over 1 trillion
dollars have been spent on the war on drugs
with 37 non-violent drug offenders having been
incarcerated and 121 billion dollars being spent
to arrest these offenders [4].
According to the United Nations Office on
Drugs and Crime and EUROPOL, the annual
global drug trade is worth 435 billion dollars a
year. Proponents of liberalization argue that if
this amount could be taxed, it would provide
generous benefits to the economies of countries
where the trade exists. There obviously exist
more ramifications here, including those on
moral grounds, but that argument is for you, as
delegates of your country, to make or ignore.
Legalizing Cannabis
In the fight over legalization, the most
consequential debate has revolved around
the legalization of marijuana, also known by
various other names such as cannabis (the
plant genus from which marijuana is
grown), weed, hemp etc. In the United
States, the efforts to legalize marijuana go
13
back to the late 20th century and in fact
organization such as Marijuana Policy
Project have been working to influence
policy to decriminalize possession, use,
cultivation and sale of marijuana, by adults
for both medical and recreational purposes
for a long time. The case for marijuana is
especially significant because research
remains inconclusive to the extent to which
the drug is addictive and to its negative
impact. On the other hand, marijuana is a
potent pain killer, and is often used to
alleviate pain occurring from arthritis. Thus,
although certain negative symptoms such as
increased blood pressure are established, the
science is still nascent in determining
whether marijuana is extremely addictive,
for example more so than caffeine or
tobacco. Due to this reason, most advocates
of drug liberalization, other advocate for
marijuana legalization or at least
decriminalization only. In the US, in 1996,
56% of California voters voted for
California proposition 215, legalizing the
growing and use of marijuana for medical
purposes. Since then, 20 more states have
followed suit. In 2012, Colorado and
Washington state legalized possession of
small amount of marijuana for private
recreational use and in 2016, California
Proposition 64 passed, allowing recreational
use of small amounts of marijuana for those
21 years of age or older. The following chart
shows the distribution of cannabis
legalization/decriminalization in the world
[5]. Proponents of legalization believe it
only makes sense, especially for marijuana,
because it will remove the industry from the
hands of criminals, crippling a large part of
the worldwide drug cartel and hitting them
where it hurts the most, in their pockets!
Local industry will flourish and can be taxed
to the social benefit of the state. Since the
harms associated with Cannabis aren’t
nearly as strong as those associated with
hallucinogens, opiates, amphetamines and
14
other psychedelic and psychotropic drugs,
proponents hope that their opponents might
be more open towards liberalization of
cannabis at least. There are proponents of
decriminalization only who believe that
legalization sends mined messages. On the
one hand, the government is completely
allowing drug use, while instituting
countless campaigns to stay away from
drugs. Decriminalization proponents believe
this will not solve the issue of abuse.
Case Study: Portugal
Portugal started an ambitious and highly
controversial drug decriminalization process in
2001, where the government decided to
decriminalize all drugs, not just marijuana.
They decided to treat possession and use of
small quantities of drugs as a public health
issue rather than a criminal one. These drugs
were still illegal, but offenders using them now
only had to pay a fine and may be referred to a
treatment and rehabilitation program, rather
than get jailtime or a permanent criminal
record. The numbers amassed since 2001 are
noteworthy. Among Portuguese adults, there
are only 3 drug overdose deaths a year for
every 1,000,000 citizens. Other countries have
15
staggering values like 10.2 per million in the
Netherlands and 126.8 million in Estonia. The
EU average is 17.3 per million [6]. A report
suggests that the use of ‘legal highs’ using so-
called ‘synthetic marijuana’ and bath salts is
much lower in Portugal. Despite this, Dr. Joao
Goulao, the architect of the country’s
decriminalization policy has remarked that, “it
is very difficult to identify a causal link
between decriminalization by itself and the
positive tendencies we have seen.” [6] Thus,
even the father of Portuguese decriminalization
agrees that correlation does not necessarily
imply causation. However, as this chart from
the Transform Drug Policy Foundation shows,
the proportion of the population that reports
having used drugs at some point saw an initial
increase after decriminalization, but then a
decline [7]: Lifetime prevalence means the
percentage of people who report having used a
drug at some point in their life, past-year
prevalence indicates having used within the last
year, and past-month prevalence means those
who've used within the last month. Generally,
the shorter the time frame the more reliable the
measure [7]. Furthermore, drug use among the
16
most vulnerable, 15 to 24-year-old population
has also declined. There has also been a sharp
decline in the percentage of the population who
has ever used a drug and then continues to do
so [7]:
17
Finally, HIV infection rates within the
population of Portuguese IDUs (Injecting
Drug Users) have decreased steadily as
compared to other countries and the problem
has become more manageable, as can be
seen in this chart from a 2014 report by the
European Monitoring Center for Drugs and
Drug Addiction Policy [7]:
18
Once again, some social scientists caution
against attributing all of this success to the
decriminalization policy alone as there are
many other factors at play. In the early
2000s, Portugal decided to shift drug control
from the Department of Justice to the
Ministry of Health and instituted a grand
public health policy that has had its own
significance in the outstanding numbers
witnessed above. The welfare system of the
country also received a boost with a
guaranteed minimum income and again, this
contributes greatly to the decrease in the
overdoses, disease and usage of and from
drugs.
Conclusion
The takeaway from this study guide is that drug
policy is a complicated beast. There are too
many factors and too many precedents that
advocate for the conventional model of the war
against drugs. However, the ineffectiveness of
this model, no matter how morally sound (or
not) it may seem on paper, is significant.
Newer models that have found success in other
parts of the world do not necessarily guarantee
success in other parts and in fact can often be
attributed to complex social, political and
economic factors rather than just liberalization.
However, they entail lesser investment, a
potential reduction in crime and violence and a
definite blow to the international drug cartel.
Whether these perceived benefits are worth the
risk to destroy the stigma associated with drug
use is a determination that should not just be
made by reviewing the numbers, but should be
a moral and social determination as well. To
what extent this determination will be balanced
out, keeping in mind the aforementioned
parameters, can only be assessed by the
individual delegate, based on their countries’
priorities. Thus, it is absolutely crucial for
delegates to know their countries’ drug policy
19
and attitudes towards drug use inside out. Only
of the basis of this knowledge can delegates
start drafting a global drug policy based on
what they feel is the right move forward and
representative of their government’s stance. It
is expected that delegates will base their policy
of drug liberalization (or de liberalization)
based on a myriad of factors such as
healthcare, economics, social factors, crime
and violence and overall utility of the society
and the individual. The real challenge will be
to justify your government’s often stringent
and conservative approach to this issue in a
world where overall worldwide drug
consumption is increasing, though not rapidly.
Please keep in mind that in order to be an
effective delegate, this study guide should
not be considered your research material.
This guide is just that, a guide. Research needs
to be independent and this guide should only
help you to keep it focused to the things
discussed. Please refer to the various articles
and academic papers that have amassed
decades of research on this topic, often freely
available on Google Scholar. Also consider the
Documentation and reports frequently
published by the United Nations Office on
Drugs and Crime and the UNCND websites.
These reports contain appropriate facts, figures
and opinions from world leaders in the race for
drug liberalization. They also contain the
appropriate jargon and nomenclature that will
guide you to draft a professional policy
document. Make sure to also review you own
country’s legislation on drug policy to
understand how policy frameworks are drafted.
Good luck!
Questions a Resolution Must
Answer
1. Is decriminalization of specific drugs the
route forward in controlling unlawful drug
exchange?
2. Should all drugs be decriminalized or only
some?
3. Should drugs be legalized completely;
should only marijuana be legalized?
20
4. How would the state health and justice
apparatus adjust to legalization or
decriminalization?
5. What unifying policy guidelines can be
made for drug liberalization that all
countries can follow?
6. How would the economic and financial
institutions of the country adjust to drug
liberalization?
7. What would be the social implications of
liberalization policies and should they
shape policy?
8. Is current research adequate to guide
liberalization policies? If not, how can it be
encouraged?
9. And much more. I’ll leave you all to use
your imagination
References
1. "Drug War Statistics". Drug Policy
Alliance. Retrieved February 25,
2014.
2. Grossman, Michael; Frank J.
Chaloupka (1998). "The Demand for
Cocaine by Young Adults: a
Rational Addiction Approach".
Journal of Health Economics (17):
428.
3. Debusmann, Bernd (12/3/08).
"Einstein, Insanity and the War on
Drugs". Reuter. Retrieved 4/1/12.
4. The Associated Press (5/13/10).
"After 40 years, $1 trillion, US War
on Drugs Has Failed to Meet Any of
its Goals". The Associated Press.
Retrieved 4/1/12
5. Brown Hill, Kegler (2016). “Weed’s
Worldwide Impact on the
Workplace: The Employer’s Guide
to Marijuana in the Workplace, Part
Three”. Lexology.
6. Ingraham, Chris (2015). “Portugal
decriminalized drugs 14 years ago-
and now hardly anyone dies from
overdosing”. The Independent.
7. Aleem, Zeeshan. “14 Years After
Decriminalizing All Drugs, Here's
What Portugal Looks Like”. MIC.
21
Topic B: Prevention of illicit
drug trade and production of
counterfeit drugs through
reinforcement of global drug
policies
What are counterfeits?
Counterfeit good is a copy or imitation of a
good that is intended to be taken as authentic
and genuine in order to deceive another. In
recent years, the production of counterfeit
goods has increased rapidly in goods such as
apparels, food, medication, tobacco,
electronics, media and even military items.
According to the International Trademark
Association, $460 billion worth of
counterfeit goods were bought and sold in
2016. This booming trade and production of
counterfeit goods have severe effects on
economic well-being, health, environment,
safety and security due to the threat of
unsafe and ineffective products. According
to a recent report of World Health
Organization (WHO), an estimated 1 in 10
medical products circulating in low- and
middle-income countries is either
substandard or falsified1. In many situations
the trafficking of counterfeit goods is far
more profitable than other illicit activities
that include the trafficking of narcotic drugs,
weapons and people. Not only trafficking
but also production of such goods is widely
labeled as a matter of intellectual property
theft yet often perceived as a ‘lesser crime’.
The illicit trafficking of counterfeit goods
offers criminals a complementary source of
income and a way through which they can
launder money which leads to revenue cuts
for government and industries.
Counterfeit Drugs are ones which are
deliberately and fraudulently mislabeled
with respect to identity and/or source.
Counterfeiting can apply to both branded
1 “Substandard and Falsified Medical Products”,
WHO Factsheets, November 2017.
22
and generic products and products may
include products with the correct ingredient,
wrong ingredients, without active
ingredients, with insufficient quantity of
active ingredient or with fake packaging.
International and Regional
Framework
Modern drug policy has emerged from the
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs
(1961)2. This convention limits the
possession, use, and trade in narcotic drugs
to only those which is necessary for medical
and scientific purposes. It aimed to
discourage drug traffickers through
international pressure and punitive measures
by placing restrictions and sanctions on
countries found involved in it. In 1971, the
international community adopted the
Convention on Psychotropic Substances in
response to the escalating use of new
2“Final Act Of The United Nations Conference For The Adoption Of A Single Convention On
Narcotic Drugs”, https://www.unodc.org.
synthetic drugs as well as exacerbating
situation of the drugs’ impact on society.
Much like the 1961 Convention, the 1971
Convention banned the supply and
possession of these new drugs, and called
for international action in curbing their
distribution. The third convention was
adopted in 1988 which was called the UN
Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. This
convention ensured enforcement
mechanisms for the two previous
conventions, extending its focus on curbing
the trafficking, supply, and use of narcotic
drugs.
Together, these documents constitute an
integral part of the international framework
and further address the need for international
cooperation in tackling organized crime,
including international drug trafficking,
primarily aiming at minimizing corruption
that inhibits efforts to curb such crime. It's
23
been frequently noted that drug control had
the inadvertent side effect of compromising
development, because criminalizing drug
use and trade created a large black market
under which traffickers could grow and
prosper. This declaration was reviewed
during CND’s High-Level Review in 2014,
resulting in a Joint Ministerial Statement
that detailed achievements and challenges in
implementation, such as shifting trafficking
routes, and changes in drug use trends.
Recently, the UNGASS 2016 outcome
document provided a new focus on
mitigating the challenges that the world drug
problem presents to the “health, safety, and
well-being of humanity.” 3This document
not only consolidated seven operational
recommendations to the international
community in order to analyze all the
ramifications of the world drug problem and
reinforced commitments made under the
3 “Special Session Of The United Nations General Assembly On The World Drug
Problem”, https://www.unodc.org
three main conventions on drugs, but also
marked the necessity for a regulated access
for medicinal and scientific drugs, a
recommendation which had not been
included in the three prior conventions. This
is in alignment with aims mentioned in the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
which focuses on achieving good public
health, strong institutions, inclusive global
partnerships, and sustainable development.
Role of International
Organizations
CND, one of UNODC’s two governing
bodies, is the custodian of international drug
policy and the primary driver of the
implementation of the new international
drug strategy. The 60th session of CND
which was held on March 2017 in Vienna,
Austria shed light on ways to adopt the
recommendations of UNGASS 2016. The
main focus is on strengthening international
cooperation, building capacity in service
24
sectors, and promoting evidence-based
prevention strategies access the globe
encouraging the states to share ideas on drug
policy through special events and
intercessional meetings hosted by CND to
discuss the best practices going forward.
CND works with relevant organizations,
including Civil Society Organizations and
other UN entities, to raise awareness and
implement programs on the prevention of
narcotic drugs. One such partner is the
World Health Organization (WHO), with
which CND has recently signed a
Memorandum of Understanding on
strengthening the working relationship of
organizations in addressing the public health
aspect of the world drug problem
The Market for Counterfeit Drugs
Counterfeit drugs are a worldwide concern.
This organized crime has adversely affects
public health and pharmaceutical business
across the globe. Lack of a detailed and a
standardized definition of counterfeit drugs
with global acceptance, higher benefits of
cost ratio and inter complexity of market
and globalized network are the major
reasons behind this. Unawareness among the
stakeholders, lack of intellectual knowledge
on the grave consequences and socio-
economic factor also resulted in flourished
market of fake drugs. Despite several
attempts made by global regulatory
agencies, inefficient regulations, lax
enforcement of existing legislation and lack
of commitment by involved authorities still
remain major loopholes, exacerbating this
issue particularly in the developing areas
with poor law and order situation. Although,
various techniques have been adopted by
pharmaceutical industries in order to
authenticate genuine product, their impact
curtailed the problem to a negligible extent.
25
In order to curb and regulate the organized
crime of flooding local markets with
counterfeit drugs, collaborative efforts of
pharmaceutical industries, law regulatory
agencies and the public sector are of
essence. Strict legal enforcement,
applications of comprehensive database to
ensure transparency, an integrated network
of information sharing and technological
advancement are need of the hour in order to
correctly identify its magnitude and ensure
effectiveness of existing measures to
provide a roadmap to overcome the problem
through a unanimous and unidirectional
global approach.
Case Studies
Drug counterfeiting is globally referred to as
an illegal activity, which is hard to detect
and investigate. It is hard to even estimate
the true extent of the plight. It occurs in
almost all countries and is more widespread
in the third world countries. Available
information illustrates the gravity of the
situation, which persists despite continuous
national and regional efforts to curb it.
While counterfeit drugs have been reported
in all regions of the world, the prevalence of
drug counterfeiting in various countries
throughout Southeast Asia appears to be
escalating. Those found in the region entail
antibiotics, anti-malarial agents, anti-
tubercular drugs, anti-retroviral agents,
vitamins, painkillers, hormones, and
steroids.5 particularly, the quantities of
available fake articulate, a drug for the
treatment of multi-drug resistant
Plasmodium falciparum malaria, are
strikingly high in the region and were found
in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand and
Vietnam and have created an alarming
solution in the wake of globalization4.
4“Combatting Counterfeit Drugs: Case Studies of Cambodia, Vietnam, and Thailand” By Jakkrit Kuanpoth,
http://www.tilleke.com/sites/default/files/2017
26
Cambodia
Cambodia, one of the three nations
examined, shares territory with Thailand,
Laos, and Vietnam. Although Cambodia is
not a noteworthy producer of counterfeit
medications, it heavily bears the burden of
the issue because of the fast increment in the
creation of these drugs in the neighboring
Asian countries. The expansion of fake
medications in the nation can be attributed
to the financial incentives of these high cost
drugs, unregulated drug transport,
shortcomings of the local law and
corruption. A study conducted on fake anti-
malarial drugs in Cambodia found that
patients and village health providers
preferred counterfeit drugs because they
were cheap5. The counterfeiting of drugs in
Cambodia usually appears in the form of
finished pharmaceuticals. This is due to the
country’s inability of manufacturing
capacity. There are only six drug
5 “Study Reveals High Level Of Counterfeit
Drugs”, Publication date 12 April 2002
manufacturers throughout Cambodia at
present. Counterfeit drugs are usually
illegally imported into the country.
However, Cambodian authorities believe
that a notable quantity of these drug
products may be produced locally.
In Cambodia, criminal activities pertaining
to drug counterfeiting have become an
exacerbating problem with many illegal
drug outlets functioning without license.
Drug outlets and pharmacy shops are the
country’s most critical distribution channels.
The drug outlets, most of which are
wholesalers, acquire drug products directly
from manufacturers and importers and then
sell those drugs directly to consumers.
While there are 1,014 licensed drug outlets
consisting of 393 pharmacies, the number of
illegal outlets is approximated to be 2,461.
Both licensed and unlicensed drug outlets
and pharmacy shops may knowingly or
unknowingly distribute counterfeit drugs
27
and the volume of counterfeit drugs sold by
illegal outlets is suspected to be much higher
than that supplied through the licensed
channels. Cambodia needs stricter
regulations against illegal drug distributors
and an effective law and order
implementation.
Vietnam
In Vietnam, the quantity of fake medications
is very high. As per a review attempted by
the National Institute of Drug Quality
Control of Vietnam, 7 percent of the 25,000
specimens gathered from 20 regions were
observed to be counterfeit. The fake
medications, especially against intestinal
sickness drugs, are common in Vietnam. For
instance, 64 percent of articulate drugs
purchased in the nation were observed to be
counterfeits. A report of the EU-Vietnam
Business Network (EVBN)6 affirms that
6 “International Cooperation and Development Building Partnerships For Change In Developing
Countries”,
Vietnam's pharmaceutical market
experiences the expansion of fake
medications and an absence of guaranteed
drug stores and drug specialists.
Thailand
Forging of drugs is an aggravating issue in
Thailand. In spite of the fact that there is no
gathered information on counterfeit drugs,
fake medicines have been found in the Thai
market occasionally. The drug authority of
the country has unveiled large-scale
counterfeiting activities involving both
production and smuggling. It has been
reported that 11 percent of articulate drugs
taken from the local shops were found to be
counterfeit. In 1989, a licensed manufacturer
was caught in the production of unregistered
antibiotics with little active ingredients. In
1998, the drug authority collaborated with
the police and arrested a number of
unauthorized manufacturers involved in
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/projects/europea
n-asean-business-network-vietnam-evbn_en
28
illegally producing counterfeit drugs. In
2001, two companies selling counterfeit
Viagra medication were subsequently
prosecuted. In 2002, a drug store in
Bangkok was charged for selling counterfeit
drugs. An investigation in 2015 by Al
Jazeera showed that counterfeit drugs were
being blatantly sold on the streets of
Thailand.
Border Controls
In spite of the fact that the nations'
administrative experts are completely
mindful that the larger part of counterfeit
drugs originate from abroad, the challenge
of ensuring protection of the civil society
against the dangerous impact of such
medicines is troublesome on the grounds
that there are myriads of channels through
which these drugs can be transported over
the outskirts. Since the forging of
medications has now turned into a local
issue, influencing all nations in the
Southeast Asian area7, a compelling
territorial cooperation, like the one identified
with opiate drugs, is recommended and
demands an immediate response. The local
governments additionally need to regulate
border controls to battle against counterfeit
drugs.
Adapting Policy to the Current
Global Situation
Promoting sustainable development, with its
fundamental elements of social, economic
and environmental development, together
with peace, justice and transparent
institutions, remains the best response to the
issue of illicit drug counterfeiting. Only the
strengthening of the rule of law, lasting
peace and the provision of alternative
sources of income can disrupt the vicious
circle of poverty, lack of security and illicit
trading of these drugs. Research therefore
continues to be instrumental in the
7 :”Main Global Cocaine Flows”, 2008.https://www.unodc.org/southeastasiaandp
acific/
29
understanding the dynamics of this
multifaceted issue and analyzing the factors
contributing to the rising threat of the
production and supply of counterfeit drugs,
as highlighted in the outcome document of
the special session of the General
Assembly8. That knowledge, along with
continuous monitoring and impact
assessment, is a prerequisite for the
implementation of effective alternative
development programs.
Corruption and drugs indubitably reinforce
each other with corruption facilitating the
production of and trafficking in drugs.
Corruption occurs at all levels of the illegal
drug supply chain, from production and
trafficking to consumption, and has an
impact on a wide range of institutions:
eradication teams, alternative development
projects, law enforcement agencies, the
8“ General Assembly Sixty-Third Session Item 67 (B) Of The Provisional Agenda”, http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/human_right
s/A63_263.pdf
criminal justice system and the health sector,
as well as private companies, including
chemical companies, pharmacies and
transport companies. The UN Convention
against Corruption provides the instruments
to disrupt this vicious circle and review
mechanisms that can support countries in
identifying practical steps to reduce
corruption. Actions that have proved
effective in reducing drug related corruption
entail thorough scrutiny of key personnel,
anti-corruption training, the payment of a
decent income to those prone to fall prey
corruption, rotation of officers in vulnerable
units to avoid creating permanent links with
organized crime groups, legal sanctions
against corruption and the creation of an
overall climate in which corruption is not
tolerated at any cost, including effective and
transparent systems to allow for the
anonymous reporting of corruption and for
witness protection.
30
Questions a Resolution must
Answer
1. How do digital channels allow
criminals to elude security barriers
designed for traditional drug
distribution networks?
2. What is the impact of drug
trafficking and counterfeit drugs on
developing countries and why is it
worsening there?
3. How has the trade of counterfeit
drugs impacted the global economic
markets?
4. How have previous efforts to tackle
the issue of counterfeit drugs failed
in the past?
5. Which countries play a major role in
the production and trade of
counterfeit products?
6. How can the international
community ensure transparency in
the trade of medicinal drugs around
the world?
Further Reading
● http://www.tilleke.com/sites/default/f
iles/2017_Sep_Combatting%20Coun
terfeit%20Drugs%20-
%20Case%20Studies%20of%20Cam
bodia%20Vietnam%20and%20Thail
and.pdf
● http://www.tilleke.com/resources/co
mbatting-counterfeit-drugs-case-
studies-cambodia-vietnam-and-
thailand
http://www.pacificbridgemedical.com/news-
brief/increased-penalties-for-counterfeit-
drugs-in-thailand/
