International - Report of Commission on Narcotic Drugs meeting:

[Alfa]

Mr. Antonio-Maria Costa, the Executive Director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime is embarrassed by a question Nr Costa does not want to answer:

'Why does the Netherlands have lower drug use compared to its neighbours, while it has free sales of cannabis?'

Watch the video here: Drugs Tzar embarrassed by ENCOD's question

[♣ Tekken ♥]

yeah I saw that vid, spread the word, this really is terrible

[Woodman]

I'm really not surprised.

We often see the same type of dismissive response from our in-house law-enforcement member. I think it is indicative of the institutional mindset as a whole; a way of thinking to which people MUST be indoctrinated in order for the senseless drug war to continue.

[Alfa]

Report of CND-meeting, Vienna 10 – 14 March 2008

by Fredrick Polak, member of ENCOD steering committee, and of the board of Stichting Drugsbeleid, Netherlands Drug Policy Foundation
--
The yearly session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs is a weird kind of meeting. Almost permanently, four kinds of sessions are going on at the same time: the plenary; a committee with the puzzling name “committee of the whole”; “other meetings”; and “side events”.

For me, coming in there as an individual, it was hard to know what was going on, where and when. Gradually I learned that the member states’ delegations and most of the attending organizations were prepared from the start, so that every member delegate knew where and when she/he had to be, taking turns at specific meetings to be able to keep track or make notes of the rare moments that something of substance was eventually being said.
The representatives of OSI (Open Society Institute), IDPC (International Drug Policy Consortium), Transnational Institute (TNI) and other “like-minded” groups were very helpful and openly shared their information with people like me, from organizations with smaller means.

Every morning the agenda of that same day was distributed. It contained only general indications of the sessions, such as:
Plenary 1290th meeting.
Thematic debate on the follow-up to the twentieth special session of the General Assembly (that is UNGASS 1998, fp).
(iii) Countering illicit drug supply
and
Committee of the Whole
Fourth meeting
Consideration of draft resolutions

These general indications were followed by a list of coded references to texts, without a name of the content. Because of this, planning was rather difficult. To get an idea of the content of the items on the agenda, one had to collect all these reports, statements and other articles. On tables near the entrances of the meeting rooms, numerous piles of reports, articles, statements, speeches, dvds were laid out for the delegates and this material was constantly being refreshed. So it was unavoidable to finally be walking around with a heavy bag full of mostly uninteresting texts.

I distributed the ENCOD-text, prepared by Joep, “A Clear Head, Please” on the tables at the entrance of the two largest meeting rooms, and saw the delegates picking it up and quickly continuing their sampling of a large number statements and reports, so that this did not lead to any debates at those locations. The Beckley Foundation, IDPC, the International Harm Reduction Association, AHRN (Asian Harm Reduction Network) and other groups distributed valuable reports.

The meetings themselves followed a dull ritual. UNODC officials gave presentations, and representatives of member states gave statements, all mostly consisting of stereotypical elements. All this was translated in a range of languages. The audiences were so crowded, certainly on the first two days, that it was impossible to find a chair, so one was also without a head-set. The sound sytem and the noise were such that even when an intervention was in English, I had to use a headset to be able to hear it. Often it was unclear who was speaking, and for which country or organization.

When on the third morning I decided to attend the side event “Not so silent partners”: NGO contributions to the 1988 (!) UNGASS targets, organized by the Viennese NGO Committee, I didn’t expect UNODC chief Costa to speak at the beginning. He didn’t hesitate to insult what he calls “pro drug” groups, which he also addressed as “public enemies”. About the DPA-conference in New Orleans (for which he was invited, and it must be said, at the time his acceptance of this invitation seemed a rather brave and encouraging act) he said that of the 1200 attendees about 1000 were lunatics and on drugs. (This is how I read it later - personally I thought I heard him say “1000 lunatics and the other 200 on drugs”. The difference is significant, but the version most people heard is already offensive enough.)

When he declared he wished to be challenged, and to be in favour of radical ideas, I decided to ask him the same question he evaded and refused to answer at the DPA-meeting in New Orleans that he already mentioned: “How do you explain the relatively low levels of cannabis use in the Netherlands where adults can smoke cannabis freely?” The result was the same, he evaded and became angry and incoherent, and this time this happened in the presence of a large and very diverse audience. Balazs Denes and Peter Sarosi (Hungarian Civil Liberties Union) captured it on video, and placed it on their website and on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe208nLLEwk

Afterwards, I was very pleased with this, but still, I thought I could have made a few better remarks…. Anyway, this incident shows, as Peter Webster mailed to me:
“In relation to my analysis of prohibitionists as being either deluded true believers vs. shrewd insiders, I think the reaction of Costa shows he is an insider. He fully knows what prohibition is really for - a tool for the power structure to use in controlling the world. A true believer would probably enter into a discussion of why Holland's policies lower drug use, whereas an insider fully knows the danger of such a discussion.”

A few words now about some concrete items that I happened to hear about or be present at.

The Bolivian government issued a statement by President Evo Morales, protesting the INCB call for his country to end the use of coca leaves. Morales made clear he has no intention to comply.

Italy unexpectedly criticized their compatriot Costa. They demanded “a more balanced approach to drug policies pursuing the respect for Human Rights” and pointed out that the claim made by UNODC that thanks to their policies, the international drug problem is now being “contained”, is not consistent with the objectives of UNGASS 1998, which were to significantly diminish drug use and production.

Germany strongly countered criticism by INCB of their user rooms (which are mostly called shooting galleries by prohibitionists to make it sound more repulsive.)

During the five-day event, more and more groups of well-dressed men and women from all over the world could be seen standing and sitting in the corridors and near the coffee and sandwich stand, discussing papers, draft statements and resolutions, because the phase was nearing in which consensus had to be reached on each of these texts. Most of them concerned details, but among all these papers a few contained serious substance.

During the sessions, long discussions were held about many of the resolutions, and a few were still being discussed as I had to leave Vienna. The sessions often went on in the evening, and I heard that on the final day, a few hours were added to the agenda. To get the final results, it is best to await the reports that will certainly become available from IDPC and OSI.

A draft resolution of Slovenia – representing the EU as its acting president – gave a detailed outline of activities for the coming “year of reflection”, leading up to CND 2009. That meeting will not take the form of an UNGASS, like in 1998, probably because UNODC realizes that little can be presented to be proud of. The level of the 2009 meeting will not be of heads of states, but ministerial, and it will be concluded with a political statement that will form the political base for the next period of international drug policy. There was resistance to the strict way in which the Slovenian resolution tried to arrange the whole procedure, and I am not yet aware of the outcome.

The same goes for a few other resolutions, which were hotly debated.

A Chinese resolution called for festivities to be organized in 2009 in Shanghai, to commemorate the International Opium Commission, the “first intergovernmental body in the field of drug control” which convened in Shanghai from 1-26 Feb. 1909. Many people were shocked at this idea, because China has the habit of celebrating the yearly Day of the Fight against Drugs with a number of public executions. Mike Trace, coordinator of IDPC, however, understood that the programme was still completely open and offered to cooperate in the organization.

An important draft resolution was submitted by Uruguay: “Ensuring the proper integration of the United Nations human rights system with international drug control policy”. This would seem self-evident, but for some countries the gap between human rights as seen from the drug war perspective and as described in the UN Charter and in the activities of the UN Human Rights Council needs to stay in place. I heard this text was watered down considerably because of resistance from China, Thailand and other countries, even before there was agreement on a version that was accepted by consensus.

Decision making by consensus

In the CND decisions are made by consensus. This means that the USA, fully prepared to apply its economic power and to threaten countries that need development aid, can simply obstruct the formation of consensus and force opposing countries to have its way. On the other hand, when the EU acts as a bloc, as they did in the demand for an assessment, and for a year of reflection between CND ’08 and ’09, they sometimes succeed in forcing the USA to join the consensus.
Resolutions are the key instrument for policy development at the CND. How the text of resolutions turn out remains uncertain until the last minute of the deliberations. And even then, nothing is certain, because whether a resolution will be carried out in practice depends on the willingness of countries to provide funding for the specific project.


NGO-activities

On the first day, a “side event” was organized by Human Rights Watch, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, IHRA and the Beckley Foundation “Recalibrating the regime: drug control, health and human rights”. In the presentations, a few critical remarks were made about the extremely violent Thai version of the drug war, started a few years ago by then prime minister Thaksin, during which more than 2000 “extrajudicial killings” took place of alleged drug dealers. This issue is of current interest, because the Thai government recently announced phase two of their drug war. Although at this session three high Thai officials reacted indignantly to accusations of violations of human rights, and claimed always to respect human rights, it is feared that the announced intensification of the Thai war on drugs will take place as planned, anyhow. “If 4000 people die, so be it”, the Thai minister of the interior was quoted, a few days before the start of the CND.

A few representatives of NGOs got the opportunity to address the plenary, which was a novelty. It required a lot of discipline though, being present for hours, waiting for a moment at which they could fit in a pause or a moment that the chair thought suitable. Thus, among others, Stijn Goossens (INPUD), Deborah Small (Break the chains/OSI ) and Gabor Somogyi (IDPC) spoke to the plenary for a few minutes.

In line with their efforts to elevate the respectability of critics of UN drug policies, IDPC offered a reception at the British Ambassador’s mansion. This was a very lively and well organized event, with ample opportunity for networking.
The Global Drug Policy Program of OSI offered a luncheon briefing on “”Women and Drug Policy: Realities of Enforcement” which focussed on the degrading and cruel treatment of female drug users in the formerly communist countries and in SE Asia.

Conclusions

It is unclear, of course, to what degree the activities of critical organizations will have an impact. It seems unlikely to me that a serious decrease in the application of violence against drug users will occur in the countries where this is most needed, or diminished spending on prisons and law enforcement.

A few improvements may be expected in the acceptance and spread of Harm Reduction methods; in better adherence to Human Rights in the way they are interpreted by other UN agencies; fewer death penalties in drug cases; more funding for treatment. This also depends on the outcome of the debates on the resolutions. To be informed about that, I suggest to wait for the upcoming reports of IDPC and other groups with the means to follow all this more closely.

The issue most conspicuously missing from the agenda was a discussion of alternative methods to diminish drug problems. This question is not being asked and the organization of the agenda prevents this issue from being discussed at an official meeting. Costa’s reaction to my question shows that UNODC is not willing to explain, or not capable to defend their theory of drug prohibition.

In the coming year of reflection, in which we will probably have the opportunity to submit our ideas in the Civil Society or NGO meetings both of EU and of UN, we must do all we can to get the discussion on alternatives to prohibition on the agenda. Otherwise, most of the disastrous consequences of drug prohibition will continue, here and there a little softened, but in other countries possibly in an even more extreme way.

There is one issue on which I agree with the Americans: it is probably better to use the term assessment than evaluation. From a scientific point of view, the quality of the data is lower than one would wish, and probably insufficient for a thorough evaluation. Yet, the experiences in the many years of Prohibition since the passing of the Single Convention are sufficiently clear, and for political purposes sound conclusions can be drawn.

The assessment that will serve as a basis for the determination of policies for the next period (it would of course be better to do this every 2 – 3 years, not only after 5 and 10 years) must concern a number of issues, and the most important question should be the one about the best regulatory regime for drugs. It seems unlikely that one of the member states will put this question on the agenda, so NGOs will have to do this. In the present situation, not to discuss better ways of regulating drugs would be a grave and very consequential error.

[~lostgurl~]

A new entry has been added to Drugs Archive

Description:
6 mins
21 March 2008

To check it out, rate it or add comments, visit Challenging Mr. Costa's opening remarks - CND Video 2
The comments you make there will appear in the posts below.

[~lostgurl~]

A new entry has been added to Drugs Archive

Description:
9 mins
21 March 2008

To check it out, rate it or add comments, visit Is the drug problem contained? CND video 3
The comments you make there will appear in the posts below.

[~lostgurl~]

A new entry has been added to Drugs Archive

Description:
4 mins
21 March 2008

To check it out, rate it or add comments, visit Lunatics or Reformers? CND video 4
The comments you make there will appear in the posts below.

[~lostgurl~]

A new entry has been added to Drugs Archive

Description:
4 mins

Stijn Goossens, executive director of the International Network Of People Who Use Drugs (INPUD) reads the INPUD statement during the 51st plenary session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna March 10-14, 2008

To check it out, rate it or add comments, visit INPUD Director Stijn Goossens Speaks at 51st session of CND
The comments you make there will appear in the posts below.

[FuBai]

One of the things that always strikes me about these sort of conferences is how little actually gets done. For the member states it is little more than a talking shop, with little to bind them to a positive decision and much to fear from the USA should they do so, whilst the NGOs have remarkably little say when compared to other UN policy areas. The good thing is that, via the internet, dissemination of responses like Costa's is much easier and swifter, although that information usually is disseminated to those who already have their doubts about the UNODC.

[Alfa]

As we have at least 125.000 unique visitors per month*, I assume a large amount of those people will watch Costa's bizarre response to Dr. Polak's question. It is too bad that youtube doesn't show how many people watch the video on other sites than youtube.

*It looks like the steep rise in traffic is going to pursue and rise to 140.000 unique visitors in March.

[Encod]

Dear friends,

Herewith ENCOD's overall report and conclusions from the Vienna meetings..

Best wishes,

Joep



*THE ENCOD BULLETIN ON DRUG POLICY IN EUROPE*

*NR. 40 APRIL 2008*

*LESSONS FROM VIENNA*

Without contradictions, life would be impossible. A situation where only one truth prevails without ever being challenged becomes unbearable. Those who defend this truth will ignore reality, become arrogant and humiliate those who dare to challenge them. This is the fate of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, whose task it is to legitimate the universal war on drugs. On the other hand, those who oppose this war can only gain in credibility, strength and determination when they expose the lies upon which it is based.

Maybe the most important lesson that can be drawn from the events in Vienna (ENCODs Drug Peace Days from 7 to 9 March and the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs from 10 to 14 March) is that no help from above will be forthcoming. If we want a different drug policy, we must not only speak but also act, combine political activism with innovative, practical solutions for people in need. This is the only way to empower a movement of citizens aimed at bringing an end to a policy that invests billions in useless repression instead of education and health.

The Drug Peace March to the Vienna International Centre, the seat of the UNODC, was, with 400 participants, above all a symbolical gesture. But with every step we took over the Danube river bridges, we knew that millions of people, who for various reasons could not make it to Vienna, were marching with us. Our footsteps were made heavier by the tragedies that occur daily because of drug prohibition, and by the time we reached the UN building, it became clear that the delegates who would meet there the week after were in reality only a tiny minority whose crimes are a way to protect its privileges. Of course, many more people should be in attendance next time. With a better planned publicity and press campaign, as well as more effective communication we should be able to get people out of their chairs to stand up against the lies that justify the war on drugs.

Those who lack inspiration to do so had plenty of opportunities to motivate themselves at the that took place in the auditorium C of the Vienna University on Saturday 8 and Sunday 9 March. In 7 sessions of 2 hours each, the speakers presented the audience with their latest findings on the reasons why drugs are prohibited as well as on the benefits of a world in which they would no longer be.

Peter Webster (The Psychedelic Library) started off by explaining how psychedelic drugs may have played a decisive role in the evolutionary process from ape to man. First of all religious, and later political authorities have used drug prohibition to deliberately activate a collective xenophobic instinct in the population, a natural reflex to define and exclude “the outsider”. Today, drug prohibition is nothing else but a tool to control the world, a dogmatic basis for policies that repeatedly fail to meet their declared objectives. As long as drugs are generally conceived as an external threat, there is little hope for improvement. In the end, the experience of unity, of oneness of all life, may be the only effective antidote to the xenophobic instinct that lends prohibitionist policy such power over the general public.

Clifford Thornton (Efficacy) developed his theory on the war on drugs as being based on three pillars: greed, fear and overt racism. Greed is found among most people who deal in drugs, but also among those who fight them, either as doctors, policemen or politicians: in the past 4 decades, almost 1 trillion dollars have been spent on drug related law enforcement in the USA alone. Fear is spread by those who exaggerate the dangers of drugs, but deliberately ignore the basic reasons why people wish to take them: to increase positive experiences or reduce negative ones. And overt racism is what the war on drugs comes down to in practical terms: for instance in the US, where black people make up only 12 % of the population, they account for more than 50% of the prison population, 2/3 of whom are serving drug related sentences. If the white population were affected by drug prohibition in the same way, it would not last long before a public outcry would demand its immediate end. But in the present situation, money is spent on repression instead of education and welfare, so a group of people are deliberately held in a corner where they have little alternative but to continue in disruptive lifestyles.

Overt racism seems also to be behind the declarations of both UNODC’s Executive Director Antonio Maria Costa and International Narcotics Control Board president Philip Emafo, who in the week leading up to the CND meeting called upon the Bolivian and Peruvian governments to prohibit the traditional use of coca leaves, claiming that this could be considered as a form of drug dependency. Bolivian anthropologist Beatriz Negrety Condori explained how these statements are in fact an insult to indigenous peoples who have consumed coca leaves at least for the past 5.000 years. For the original inhabitants of the Andes, coca leaves are not only a food supplement, an energy source and a medicine, but most of all a central element in their social relations and cultural identity. Current Bolivian president Evo Morales has started an active policy to support the industrialisation of coca leaves into beneficial products. If the coca leaf would be taken off the list of prohibited drugs, it could become an option for sustainable development instead of what it is now, a cause of continuous violence in the Andean region.

If the UN drug officials have no problem in provoking governments, then what about the chances of citizens’ associations being taken seriously on the highest levels of the drug debate? Virginia Montañes and Joep Oomen (ENCOD) described the perspectives of the so-called “consultation with civil society” that has been recently implemented by the United Nations as well as the European Union, in an effort to open up the discussion to voices who represent non-governmental actors in the drug field. The agenda of these meetings is imposed by the UNODC and a small clique of (prohibitionist) NGOs that have close relationships to this office. No representatives of producers of cannabis, coca or opium are present in these consultations, and almost no grassroots organisations. The way the meetings are organised ensures that no essential questions can be dealt with. ENCOD may continue to attend these meetings just to know what is going on, but we should not expect too much of them either. Only by building a critical mass of public opinion and determination concerning concrete practical solutions to urgent demands can we establish true civil society alternatives to the current, higly cost-ineffective drug policies.

One of these alternatives was presented by Martin Barriuso, of the association Pannagh in Bilbao. With 230 registered members, 60 % of whom use cannabis for therapeutical purposes, Pannagh is able to produce good quality cannabis for a fair price and still pay taxes, overhead costs such as office space and utilities, not to mention a decent salary to Martin, etc. Spanish legal authorities have accepted the existence of this and other associations formed by adults who grow cannabis for personal use. Cannabis Social Clubs are a health promoting, crime preventing initiative that is not in violation with the UN drug conventions. These Conventions do not refer to personal consumption – it is the national governments that may decide to prohibit or regulate this. In all European countries where personal consumption of cannabis is not prosecuted, people could start up Cannabis Social Clubs. One of these countries could very well be the Czech Republic, which according to Bushka Bryndova, is on the brink of modifying the laws for personal consumption of cannabis under pressure from an increasing acceptance of the phenomenon by the population.

Ways to cultivate cannabis that can be tolerated by authorities are especially interesting for those who use it for medicinal purposes. Dr. Kurt Blaas from Vienna described the history and applications of medical cannabis for a long list of health problems. Especially its properties to improve the immune system and appetite do not need further scientific evidence. Of course synthetic cannabis like sativex, dronabinol and marinol is now licensed in various European countries, and new products are being developed. In the Netherlands, a company is even growing herbal cannabis for official sale to patients in the Netherlands and Italy. However, the cheapest and easiest solution remains to be homegrown cannabis, and it will be a question of time before local judges start to understand this situation.

The presentation by Raimondo Pavarin (drug researcher from Bologna) helped to neutralise some myths about the harm of cannabis. In his studies he has found no basis for the claim that cannabis could be a gateway to other drugs with higher risk for negative health effects. Also there is no risk for overdose or increased mortality. His colleague Peter Rausch (Nektar.at) explained that without the function of endocannabinoids (active types of cannabis derivatives that human beings have naturally inside their bodies) we could not exist, since they help in regulating our ability to move physically, to relax, to stimulate appetite and creativity, as well as to regulate our memory and general mood. According to Peter it is only a question of time before cannabis will be acknowledged as a solution to several problems that affect the health and wellbeing of people, and this will end the war on weed.

Something similar might happen to ibogaine, the active element in iboga, which is found in the root of a plant that grows in central Africa. Iboga-experts Dana Beal, Boaz Wachtel and Patrick Venulejo explained the technical details on how this substance is capable of minimising withdrawal symptoms and cravings for drugs like nicotine, alcohol, but also opiates and cocaine. Its regulating effect on the level of dopamine in the brain (which are suppressed by various drugs) by introducing a growth factor (gdnf) is self reinforcing, whereas ibogaine leaves information in the body that tells it how to make even more gdnf.

Iboga therapies have resulted in successful treatment of addiction as well as disorders as a result of traumas resulting from psychological disorders. Still, there appears to be no interest from pharmaceutical companies to consider its introduction in the formal healthcare system. Most probably the reason is that it does not have any financial potential, since the true interest of our current healthcare system does not lie in solving addiction problems.

French journalist Jacques de Schryver explained his personal experience with iboga in France and Africa. These experiences taught him how to increase his ability to cope with bad luck, and recognise future perspectives even in difficult situations. Things feel new, clear and simple after taking iboga, which helps to amplify your personality, so it brings out both the good and bad things in oneself. It is not a drug that can be taken in a recreational way.

The direct impact of all this on the meeting of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs that took place from 10 to 14 March was, as expected, limited. In the CND, decisions are made by consensus. This means that the USA, fully prepared to apply its economic power and to threaten countries that need development aid, can simply obstruct the formation of consensus and force opposing countries to have its way. Already before the meeting started, it was clear that the “consensus position” would consist of explaining the failure of the drug control strategy of the past ten years by calling it "containment", and establishing a “year of reflection” to consider what decisions to take concerning the future in the CND meeting of 2009.

“During the five-day event, more and more groups of well-dressed men and women from all over the world could be seen standing and sitting in the corridors and near the coffee and sandwich stand, discussing papers, draft statements and resolutions, because the phase was nearing in which consensus had to be reached on each of these texts. Most of them concerned details, but among all these papers a few contained serious substance”, writes ENCODs representative to this meeting, Fredrick Polak from the Dutch Drug Policy Foundation in his report.

On his own, Polak tried his best to obtain a clear reply from UNODCs director Costa on the fact that although cannabis is openly available to adults in the Netherlands, its use is lower than in many other countries. Costa refused to answer, and later issued a statement in which he called the participants of a Drug Policy Reform Conference in the USA “lunatics” and urged civil society "to promote consumer boycotts against the fashion houses, recording companies, and sport enterprises that hire celebrities proud, rather than shameful, of their drug addiction."

Now that UNODC is showing its real face toward concerned citizens who ask critical questions or just attend conferences, doing their best to help solving drug problems, it becomes clear that diplomatic efforts alone will not be enough to reform drug policies. We must do all we can to get the discussion on alternatives to prohibition on the agenda. Otherwise, most of the disastrous consequences of drug prohibition will continue, a little softened in some countries, but even more repressive in others.

Our plans for Vienna 2009 will depart from the conclusion that UNODC is in need of a true civil society opponent. While the United Nations reflects on their future course of action, ENCOD and its members will continue to act for peoples’ right to choose the substances they consider necessary to maintain or improve their wellbeing.

By Joep Oomen (with the help of Peter Webster)

Reputation Comments on this post:

these posts are very enlightening, thank you!

[Spliff420]

In the last 20 years Holland received a lot of criticism from other countries regarding their cannabis drug policy. But the reality is that there's a relatively low level of cannabis use in Holland compared to countries with a stricter policy.

A few weeks ago, March 10 to be precise, the United Nations came together in Vienna, Austria to discuss the results of their War on Drugs. A few days later there was another meeting where Antonio-Maria Costa, Executive Director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, was asked a question by Frederick Polak from the ENCOD.

The question was simple: how does Mr. Costa explain the relatively low levels of cannabis use in Holland, given his claims that easy availability would lead to higher levels of use?

Well, here's his answer. Please do remember that these strange, narrow-minded people make the laws you have to live by!

[Paracelsus]

This has been already posted.

[Alfa]

Threads merged.

[Alfa]

Originally Posted by Alfa

Mr. Antonio-Maria Costa, the Executive Director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime is embarrassed by a question Nr Costa does not want to answer:

'Why does the Netherlands have lower drug use compared to its neighbours, while it has free sales of cannabis?'

Watch the video here: Drugs Tzar embarrassed by ENCOD's question

Here are some emails that went to Mr Costa's mailbox in response to this video:

READ A COLLECTION OF EMAILS SENT TO MR. COSTA BY CITIZENS (we deleted the names of the senders for privacy reasons):


Dear Sir,

I was wondering if you could explain briefly or in detail the following question which has been raised to you previously. Why is it that in Holland, where marijuana is accessible to any adult who would choose it, marijuana use is actually lower than the surrounding nations? This would seem to lead one to a consideration that prohibition may increase usage of the prohibited item.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to a diligent response.

Sincerely,
xx


Why does the Netherlands have lower marijuana use than its surrounding countries?

--xx


Dear Mr Costa

You will no doubt be aware of the youtube video at
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fe208nLLEwk in which you are asked a simple
question. As you do not answer it there, perhaps I can ask it of you again:

In Holland there is in effect unrestricted access to cannabis for adults,
yet the levels of cannabis use in Holland are lower than the surrounding
countries. This would seem to be contrary to the claim made by the
supporters of prohibition that easy availability naturally leads to high
levels of use and that prohibition results in the lowest level of use. How
do you, as a supporter and promoter of prohibition, explain this?

Will you please answer that question and that question specifically.

Sincerely

xx


Dear Executive Director Costa, UNODC.

Given Holland's coffeeshop system, in which adults can legally buy
cannabis, how do you reason that it has lower cannabis usage than its
neighbouring countries? Does this not go against the theory that drug
prohibition reduces use of drugs?

Please endeavour to base future drugs policy on effectiveness, rather
than the UN's legacy of drug prohibition.

Thank you,

xx
United Kingdom


Dear Mr. Costa!

I saw this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe208nLLEwk) and therefore I kindly ask you to resign.

Your tone, your attutide towards the facts is simply unacceptable.


With regards,


xx, dr.

attorney at law


Mr. Costa,

how do you explain the relatively low levels of cannabis use in Holland, given your claims that easy availability would lead to higher levels of use?

Does this not invalidate the premise on which the policy for the need of prohibition is based?

regards

xx


Mr. Antonio-Maria Costa,

I am writing you to find the answer to a question presented at the 51st session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. Frederick Polak asked a very direct question that was not answered in any meaningful way to fit the definition of an answer that actually answers the question.

Cannabis is available for anyone who is over the age of 18 in Holland.
The levels of use is lower than in surrounding countries where it is not legal.

How do you explain this?

Thank you for your time,
xx


It is a true shame the world can't move towards rationality in all manners of government. I truly hope that the other parts of the UN that work with issues that involve the lives of millions of people (ie. Darfur) have people willing to answer relevant questions posed to them. The question about drug prohibition presented by Frederick Polak was relevant and NEEDED to be addressed. Covering up proven facts is something we did in medieval times. It is time to look at all the facts and get workable solutions to today's problems.

xx
Ottawa, Canada


Why do you continue to pursue drug prohibition when there is proof in
the Netherlands that when you make cannabis available legally, public
usage in all age groups is actually lower. These are facts, can we
please take a serious look at the human rights violations that occur
all over the world, including the US, because of drug prohibition.

There has never been such thing as a drug free country or world, so
why to we chase the fruitless battle against people who need
treatment, not imprisonment.


Dear Sir,


Considering the fact that you failed to explain the matter during UN
Comission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna in march this year I must ask
you directly the following question:

Why are the levels of use of cannabis in the Netherlands lower than in
surrounding countries even though it is freely available to all
adults?

All the best,

xx
Poland


Mr.Costa, I am a citizen of the country that is the biggest example of the failure of drug prohibtion on earth. Yes, this very policy that you so strongly defend has failed miserably in the United States, especially since it began working in a nearly fascist manner after the 1980's "War On Drugs" began. Drug abuse levels in the United States are outrageous. All I would like to know is how you explain such massive failures, while Holland, as Dr. Frederick Pollack has pointed out, has significantly lower levels of drug use and abuse? How is it that Holland, with its 'failed experiment' of decriminizing Cannabis, and its readily available Coffee Shops, shows lower levels of drug use and abuse than the countries surrounding it? How is this possible? How can you even refer to this as a failed experiment? Is it not Drug Prohibition that has failed? All I ask of you is to answer these questions, without straying away, or discussing other matters (period)


Mr. Costa,

At the 2008 meeting of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, you
refused to answer Frederick Polak from NCOR and rudely tried to use
parliamentarian tricks to avoid answering a fundamental and important
question about whether prohibition of cannabis is effective:

Given that the Netherlands has full availability of marijuana for
personal use for adults, how does Costa explain the fact that
marijuana use rates in that country are lower than in the surrounding
countries?

I feel you should answer that question and also that you should avoid
bringing security guards into NGO meetings in response to your
reluctance to answer a question that you feel is tantamount to disorder.

xx
Congressional Liaison
Friends of Brad Will (NY Chapter)
www.friendsofbradwill.org)


Mr. Costa,

I just saw a video that portrayed you and your important work in a
rather embarrassing light. The 2008 meeting of the UN Commission on
Narcotic Drugs, where you refused to answer a question about the
Netherlands full availability of marijuana for
personal use for adults, and how to explain that use rates in that
country are lower than in the surrounding
countries?

I feel you should answer that question.

xx


Dear Mr. Costa,


Why is there a lower cannabis consumption rate in the Netherlands, where it is freely available, than in the surrounding countries where cannabis is prohibited?


xx

Woodland Hills, CA
USA



Why did you refuse to answer and explain why Hollands cannabis
consumption level is lower than in the surrounding countries?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe208nLLEwk

Best regards
xx
Finland


Dear Mr. Costa,
why do you think that the marihuana consumption in the Netherlands is lower then in Germany?

Maybe it s easier for you to write then to speak.

xx
Germany


Dear Mr. Costa,

I want to ask you one simple question Mr. Costa.

In the Netherlands there is cannabis is freely and legally available in so called Coffeeshops for everyone aged over 18 years, so no restriction for personal use at all . Why are the usage levels among dutch adults lower than in other countries sourrounding the Netherlands??? What's you oppinion?

Doesn't this proof that your drug policy completely failed?
Why do you think other countries want that dutch coffeeshops disappear? Isn't it the reason that they show how useless drug prohibition is? It's just a very expensive action that causes more and more harm than helping anyone (neither all citizens who have to pay prohibition via taxes, nor drug users who don't harm anyone else except theirself). Only the mafia and criminal organisations profit of the prohibition!

yours sincerely

xx

PS. I would be very proud to hear a statement about your position.


Dear Mr. Costa,

How do you explain that the Cannabis consumption is lower in the
Netherlands than in the surrounding countries, given the fact that drug
prohibition regarding Cannabis is not implemented as you deem proper?

In my opinion this proves that Cannabis prohibition causes more harm
than you pretend it avoids.

Please explain, in detail, why the Cannabis consumption is lower in the
Netherlands than in the surrounding countries, despite your implication
that prohibition reduces consumption.

In case you should not respond shortly, personally, in due detail and
without resorting to preformulated nonsensical text, I will take that as
proof that your Organisation is neither open to criticism nor to
questions by concerned citizens. This would render it actively
antidemocratic. I would not hesitate to share any such response with
others, nor to share the fact or my conclusions from this.

xx
Marburg an der Lahn
Germany


Dear Mr. Costa,

I am an American taxpayer and while I believe Ted Turner's billion dollar donation to the UN more symbolically represents my funding your salary than chronically hijacked UN dues, it still makes me your boss.

Now, Sir, answer Mr. Frederick Polak's question. You are ethically bound to carry out your duties as a UN official for the welfare of mankind. Where is your moral courage Sir ?

Why do you not renounce your post if your personal beliefs are interfering with official duties in reference to a medical problem ? Or should I say, the War on Drugs scam ?


How do you explane the fact, that Holland have less drug consumers than other countries where is
drug, and marihuana forbidden?

How do you explane that?

xx from croatia


Dear Mr. Costa:

Thank you for your service as Executive Director of the UN Office on
Drugs and Crime.

It is with some interest that I recently happened upon a short video
at the internet site, www.youtube.com, depicting your exchange with a
participant at the 51st session of the UNCND earlier this month. This
video revealed your apparent unwillingness to respond to a relevant
question regarding the efficacy of prohibition in decreasing cannabis
use, a matter that I feel to be of grave importance.

I am by no means a radical drug rights promoter, and I do not use any
illegal drugs, yet as an American I am quite concerned about the rate
of drug-related incarceration in my country. I feel that it is
essential that our society consider other solutions to our
incarceration problem in addition to low-level drug prohibition and
criminalization.

I was saddened to see your response to Dr. Frederick Polak during the
meeting, who asked you to explain how prohibition of cannabis squares
with the fact that legal cannabis use in Holland is lower than illegal
cannabis use in surrounding countries. Dr. Polak's question was a fair
one driven by the presence of data that suggests that prohibition is
an ineffective control strategy. I believe that this point is an
important one for a man in your position to respond to maturely.

Your response regarding the decreased number of coffee shops in
Amsterdam did not address the question. Further, your demeanor became
disturbing and unprofessional. You appeared defensive and oddly
hostile in response to a very legitimate question. You had previously
called for "dynamic, outspoken" NGO partners, yet you really crumbled
as soon as this critical issue was raised. The whole thing was an
embarrassment, and frankly makes me question your suitability for your
current position.

In the modern age, behavior of the sort you demonstrated increasingly
escapes beyond the walls of such meetings. I have no idea how many
thousands of people have seen your performance in this video, but I
cannot believe that many feel that you responded on this issue with
anything like the level of professionalism and integrity that your
position demands. I have always been a supporter of the UN, and feel
that your office could make a significant difference for the young
people in our societies. Yet it is hard not to feel disappointed in
you. You owe the citizens of the world better than this.

To be fair, I don't know the history between yourself and Dr. Polak.
It is clear that he has gotten under your skin in a fairly remarkable
way, and perhaps there is more to this story that is made available in
the short video of your exchange. However, you and I have no history.
Therefore, I hope that you might be willing to respond to me--a
citizen of the US and the world--on this matter.

How do you explain the relatively low levels of cannabis use in
Holland, given your assertions that easy availability would inevitably
lead to higher levels of use?

Thank you for your time. I wish you continued success in your work.


Sincerely,


xx


Dear Mr. Costa,

how does you, as an important member of the UNO, explain the relatively low levels of cannabis use in Holland, given your claims that easy availability would lead to higher levels of use?

Best regards,

xx


Dear Mr. Costa:

I am contacting you on your stance of open sales of cannabis/marijuana. You have, by what I have seen, been challenged by Frederick Polak on your stance of cannabis. The question he asked questioned why there are lower rates of cannabis consumption in Holland lower than the countries surrounding it, which have outlawed cannabis consumption. This very question challenges the theory of drug prohibition, which states that if prohibited, the drug or outlawed substance will be minimally consumed, or otherwise prevented. This theory is greatly challenged by the fact that in a country that cannabis manufacturing and sale is not illegal has lower consumption rates than the countries around it, which have banned the manufacturing, sale, and consumption of cannabis.


Your duty as the Executive Director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime is also challenged by the very quote you said yourself at the 51st session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND). What you said was: "I am not here for a personal debate, we are not a debating society, we want to solve the world's problems. Period." That quote breaks the reason of existence of the UN, and all free countries' governments for the fact that an idea that only one person may have may be passed on to the next person, and the next person, and the next, so on, and so on. If we were not, as humans, a debating society, we would then be only under the control of one ideology, only one. Saying this means you blatantly reject everybody who has a differing opinion of yours, which is very irrational and irresponsible for one of management powers. That statement seems to also be one reflected by fascist government.

I conclude that as people living in countries who work with the UN, we deserve an answer to the question, "Why are cannabis consumption rates lower in the country with no restrictions on cannabis manufacturing, sales, and/or consumption, yet higher in countries which have prohibited all cannabis?" As somebody of high responsibility, I and many others expect a responsible answer.

Thank you for your time,

xx


Dear Mr Costa,

I recently viewed a video of you refusing to answer a simple question posed to you by a Mr Polak from the Netherlands on marijuana use. Why did you not answer it straightforward? How do you explain the fact that with widespread legally available marijuana the usage of which has become lower? Are you like my President Bush, believing only what you want to? Even with many facts right there for you, you either refuse to believe them or you are ignorant. I'm not saying that this would happen everywhere and I'm not asking you to do anything beyond your duties that come along with your position. However, by blatantly refusing to answer that question you look like a coward and a fool.

Hoping you start doing your job or get fired,

xx


Dear Mr. Costa,

Would you be kind enough to explain why the use of marijuana in Holland is much lower than the surrounding countries despite marijuana being legal and available in Holland?
I know you have dodged this question rigorously, but many people would like to know what your theory is. After all, that's what the people pay you to know.

With kind regards,



Recently, at the 51st Session of the UN commission on narcotic drugs in Vienna in the forum entitled "Not so silent partners" on the 13th March 2008 you were posed a question by Frederick Polak a psychiatrist from the Health Services in the municipality to Amsterdam.

The question, if I may be so bold as to distill, was: 'Considering the liberal attitudes towards, and legalization of cannabis in the Netherlands, how do you explain the lower usage rates in that country compared with surrounding countries'.

Considering that the UN is advising the decisions of how to deal with the virulent problem of drugs and drug addiction in the world today, I feel that this question has enormous bearing on the ultimate plans, aims, goals and designs of governing bodies in how to deal with drug issues. As an official put in place to serve the public and inform governments of the most effective solutions to some of the dire dangers in our societies I believe that you owe an honest answer to the question.

I understand completely how one can be put in a temporarily awkward position by data that seems to undermine established positions, and then to have to theorize immediately is often a task that is beyond possibility. However, the question does warrant thought, consideration and an answer.

Rational men, who honestly seek the truth, have always sought out opposing views in order to either strengthen their own case (by a process of logically reducing the opposing view and therefore upholding your own) or in order to expose weakness in your own views, and thereby giving one the opportunity to reevaluate and eventually arrive at an even more correct line of thinking.

Bear in mind, I am not suggesting that you are incorrect in your current position that cannabis should remain a prohibited drug. I am asking you to take into account all factors when making a resolution. You obviously have not answered the question stated above satisfactorily if you can not give a meaningful answer to it. You have an obligation to give opinions unbiased by politics, just truth. I would ask you to hold this foremost in your mind when making resolutions and decisions.

Yours faithfully,

xx


Mr. Costa,

As the Executive Director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, it is
important that you or your organization publicly respond to the
question related to lower cannabis use in Holland versus that of
surrounding countries.

The credibility of your organization as well as your personal
credibility is at stake.

xx
Montreal, Canada


Dear Mr Costa,

how do you explain the relatively low levels of cannabis use in
Holland, given your claims that easy availability would lead to higher
levels of use?
Thank you in advance for your answer

Sincerely
xx


Dear Mr Costa,

I appreciate that you most probably have had many emails, some
worthwhile, some abusive but I am here to offer support for both sides
of the discussion relating to recent questioning by Frederick Polak.

Having recently taken up working in mental health it is clear to me
that the failings experienced in my country (England) and in Europe
are born of almost identical symptoms. Drug use is a major contributor
to issues that cause us concern, such as health, crime and poverty.
Drug use itself has many facets that extend to many areas of our
society, and service deliverance.
In England particularly, drug use and alcohol abuse is at an all time
high but it has become clear that within this political pressure,
character assassination and damage limitation idealism is stunting our
movement to fully understanding the philosophy of 'drug culture.'
Politicians are terrified to discuss alternative options and opinions,
research is limited, and masked when it appears to dispel theories,
and the narcotic debate is a non mover from the start.
I have viewed many a debate on this particular issue and they
uniformly end with a lack of comprehension for the subject that leads
to ignorance, or lack of support due to association with narcotics. I
do not ask for the change in law, but I would like to see a serious
and open discussion that explores more than just the simplicity of
'drug culture' and takes into account the widening issues that 'drug
culture' influences.

Holland has always interested me as a nation, their rationale to
Cannabis is unusual but seemingly well balanced. The availability and
regularity of use in all ages is confusing at best, it must be treated
as an anomaly in current theory however it is clear that current UN
theory is not adopted in Holland.
It appears as though the youth do not partake in vast numbers, violent
and poverty enabling crime directly relating to Cannabis is low and
the concept of use, over overuse is one that does not equate to the
problems we currently face in the UK.
Why would this be so? I could not give you the definite answer, and
unfortunately neither can anybody else!
This is where is serious issue lies, we know the dangers of alcohol
and understand its long term problems but we still allow its free and
easy distribution. Cannabis however is an unknown quantity with
positive and negative research but very little funding or debate.

I can only theorise the differences between Holland and the UK, having
been there, studied Dutch culture and discussed the country with Dutch
friends, but it is clear that in UK experiences more serious addiction
issues and deepening immersion in drug culture. I do not believe
Cannabis leads to other drugs, but I do believe the taboo of Cannabis
creates a stereotype and extension whereby enabling someone to commit
a narcotic crime by buying Cannabis furthers the comfort with the
differing narcotics. Everybody makes their own decision! In Holland
Cannabis is not seen as a 'drug' but as Cannabis. The separation
itself creates smoother understandings.

This can also be seen having an impact on addiction as a whole, having
to use regular 'dealers' and staying within contact of the crowd
enables a narcotic supply, and in the case of cannabis, price and
quantity need to remain constant to enable usage at all.
In Holland allowing persons to grow their own Cannabis enables them to
take their own lead on control and responsibility to their health. In
many cases smokers who in the UK might smoke everyday, may wait weeks
and weeks for the opportunity to smoke a pure amount of their own
Cannabis.

Instead, persons purchase larger more frequent amounts, at
extortionate prices to mix with tobacco and put their health at risk
from 2 furthering facets, tobacco and not using a filter. Purer
concentrations have been proved to be less harmful and in the current
economic climate why should the 'underworld' continue to be increasing
their assets, and draining Government funds while the stakeholders
become less wealthy in pocket and health.

These theories continue to take money from the real issues, such as
serious drug use, health, crime and poverty and we are left with huge
unnecessary deficits in finances that while might reduce Cannabis
crime a small amount, do very little to tackle to wider issues. Recent
'contaminated weed' was also a direct reaction to criminal activity
motivating 'drug dealers' to make extra profit on their illegal
product by adding weight to their product.
The Governments reaction was the ignore the wider issue and advise of
the growing number of more powerful strains.

I could continue with this open and frank discussion for hours, giving
many points of view, and I believe there are some that support the
current theoretical structure, perhaps you would like to invite me for
a discussion?
However I would very much like to see an understanding to this subject
that emphasises more discussion/comprehension and less perceived
ignorance, attributed to a lack of knowledge and, well, ignorance.

Yours

xx
England, UK


Mr. Costa,

I was saddened to see a recent video of your refusal to answer a direct, honest, and relevant question regarding cannabis policy in the Netherlands, and it's relation to your decisions regarding cannabis policy worldwide - As you were not willing to address this question the first, second, or third time around, perhaps the fourth will be a charm:

How do you explain the relatively low levels of cannabis use in Holland, given your claims that easy availability would lead to higher levels of use?

As the answer to this question is absolutely central to your claim, I anticipate your prompt and concise response.

--
xx
Missoula, MT, USA


Could you please answer the oh-so-daunting question of Holland's low usage rate of marijuana to me? I really don't understand your stance on it, and since my money is part of your salary, I'd like to know. That is your job, right?

Thanks,
---xx



Dear Mr. Costa,

I recently watched a very interesting video of a question and answer
session at the 51st Session of the CND. In particular, I was interested
by your response to the question by Dr. Polak regarding low cannabis use
in Holland, given the legal nature of this substance in that country.
After watching the video several times I realized that it appears that
you didn't answer his question.

As a citizen of a UN-member state (and thereby my tax money partially
funding your organization), I would like to ask you this same question
myself. How do you explain the relatively low cannabis use in Holland,
given high availability? I will respect your opinion, of course, but I
feel very strongly that it is your duty to communicate to us your
opinion and the reasons for your opinions, given your influence in this
field.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

xx


How can you claim that with easy availability of drugs the substance use will rise, when Holland has free availability of substances for responsible use by adults and maintains lower usage levels than surrounding countries?

xx


Dear Sir,

I was wondering if you could explain briefly or in detail the following question which has been raised to you previously. Why is it that in Holland, where marijuana is accessible to any adult who would choose it, marijuana use is actually lower than the surrounding nations? This would seem to lead one to a consideration that prohibition may increase usage of the prohibited item.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to a diligent response.

Sincerely,
xx

Feel free to send Mr Costa your opinion.

[Omalley]

I would like to bring up the fact that all these countries that criminalize Marijuana, continue to glorify Alcohol a substance that never stops proving itself to be harmful, as many drunk people are more prone to senseless violence, and horrible behavior as where people who smoke pot are not. My theory is that these drug prohibitionists want us all to be able to behave like drunks so that more crimes are commited, more people are killed, and to steady the population.