read & watch our report!<\/a>). It consists of watered-down text which can be interpreted in many ways, and lacks clear guidance on key issues such as harm reduction, the death penalty, the criminalisation of drug users, and the regulation of drug markets.<\/p>\n\n\n\nCritics have pointed out that not all governments have permanent representation in Vienna, which means that many, especially those from Africa, were effectively excluded from the discussions. This may be true, but I don’t think the participation of African countries would have significantly changed the document. What is really apalling, however, is that the UNGASS failed to achieve its goal – to conduct a meaningful debate on current drug policies and their alternatives \u2013 because the governments approved the document even before the real debate could have started!<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The UNGASS lasts for three days, and includes five thematic workshops (health, crime, new challenges, human rights, alternative development). The outcome document was supposed to highlight the conclusions from these thematic discussions. As it is, the debate at the UNGASS is a mere formality, with no practical outcome. In addition, the outcome document is very long and vague, and includes no action plan with clear goals \u2013 thus, nobody knows what the next steps should be, until governments gather again in 2019 to discuss the issue again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When, at his press conference, I asked Mr. Yuri Fedotov, director of the UNODC, whether it was logical to reach conclusions before starting the debate, he said it was an issue of scheduling: It was better to have workshops to discuss issues without constraints, rather than having a long discussion on how to frame the text of the document itself. Well, no doubt it is tough to adopt a document, and it takes time, but still \u2013 does it make sense to draw conclusions before the debate?<\/p>\n\n\n\n