At the Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna this year, Mexico and Argentina object to the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB)'s criticisms as an incursion on national sovereignty, while Italy blocks the EU's planned "harm reduction" legislation. The annual Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) in Vienna in March this year was a rather uneventful event. One of the most controversial issues were the comments of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) in its 2009 Annual Report on the trend to decriminalize possession for personal use in Argentina, Brazil and Mexico. Mexico decriminalized possession of cannabis, heroine, cocaine, and other drugs found in small amounts.(1) Argentina followed with a Supreme Court ruling stating the unconstitutionality of the arrest of five youths carrying a small amount of cannabis.(2) Brazil has also introduced legislation to replace jail sentences with educational measures already in 2006. When the report was released in February, the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) and the Transnational Institute (TNI) already criticized the INCB saying the report clearly overstepped the Board’s mandate and represents “unwarranted intrusions into these countries’ sovereign decision-making.”(3) Not only does the INCB lack the mandate to raise such issues, the Board misreads the 1988 Convention itself, asserting an absolute obligation to criminalize drug possession when the Convention explicitly affords some flexibility on this matter. Article 3, paragraph 2 of the 1988 Convention explicitly states that measures to criminalize possession for personal consumption are subject to each country’s “constitutional principles and the basic concepts of its legal system.” Therefore, the 1988 Convention only obligates a country to criminalize possession for personal use when that does not present a conflict with a nation’s constitutional and legal principles. This means that if the Supreme Court of Argentina decides that punishing people for possession of drugs for personal use is against its Constitution, there is no obligation to establish it as a criminal offence. At the CND, the Argentinean delegation voiced a strong protest expressing “concern and aggravation” about the INCB’s disrespect over the country’s sovereignty and constitutional order. Argentina said the INCB offered “insufficient explication and substantiation” and announced an official reply later this year demanding that the INCB should “reconsider” its remarks – an unprecedented step to take for a country. Mexico also said that they were worried about the INCB criticism of their legislative reform and the INCB’s “partial and mistaken vision” that the 1988 Convention does not allow governments certain latitude to reform their laws. Harm reduction remained a controversial issue as well. The topic came up in a resolution by the European Union entitled, “Achieving universal access to treatment, care and support for people with HIV, including injecting drug users, by 2010.” The draft resolution contained references to both human rights and harm reduction. Before the resolution was introduced at the CND, Italy had tried to remove all harm reduction language during the preparations at the EU Horizontal Drug Group, but was rebuffed by the other European countries. Harm reduction is an integral part of the common EU drugs strategy and its action plan. Despite the new Obama administration, the United States still maintained a definitive ‘no’ to the inclusion of the term harm reduction in resolutions. The US argued that harm reduction is sometimes used to cloak legalisation and decriminalisation. Nevertheless, the US moved closer to embracing certain harm reduction measures. While references to the term were removed from the EU resolution to gain US support, the key concepts remained intact. The resolution’s references promote harm reduction measures such as needle exchange and opiate substitution therapy, fully embraced a human rights approach, and reaffirmed the role of drug users in developing policy responses – all issues the United States refused to support in the past. Whereas in previous years the US was leading the ‘hard line’ faction of countries most concerned with defending the traditional norms of international drug control, this year the mantle passed on to the Russian Federation. They vigorously opposed any mentioning of harm reduction and human rights. Italy kept quiet at the negotiations on the EU resolution, but many Europeans felt betrayed by their attempts to remove the words during the preparations. One European delegate remarked in the corridor that it might be more convenient for Italy to leave the European Union and join the Russian Federation. (1) Mexico: The Law Against Small-Scale Drug Dealing. A Doubtful Venture, Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies Nr. 3, October 2009; http://www.tni.org/report/mexico-law-against-small-scale-drug-dealing (2) For more information on the Arriola ruling, see: Drug Law Reform in Argentina; http://www.tni.org/article/drug-law-reform (3) UN’s International Narcotics Control Board’s Annual Report oversteps mandate and interferes with countries’ sovereignty, TNI/WOLA Press release, February 24, 2010; http://www.tni.org/pressrelease/ un’s-international-narcotics-control-board’s-annual-report-oversteps-mandate-and-int Tom Blickman Researcher, Drugs and Democracy Programme - Tom Blickman is an independant researcher and journalist, based in Amsterdam. He specialises in International Drug Control Policy and Organised Crime as a researcher at TNI's Drugs & Democracy Programme. Source: TNI www.tni.org