Abstract
This paper addresses the critical factors that affect drug policies around the world. It focuses on the UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) and what it means for human rights and public health. It looks at how current drug policies affect underrepresented groups and how well they might work to reduce drug use around the world. The article also talks about how young people deal with contradictory scientific evidence about cannabis and their part in crafting public health messages based on that evidence.
Introduction
Drug laws around the world have a significant effect on human rights and public health. In 2016, the UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) was a pivotal time to rethink global drug policies and how they affect different groups of people. Even though there are chances for real change, many policies still punish drug users, which hurts marginalized groups more than others and keeps health gaps alive (Ford & Saville, 2017). This article looks at these international rules, mainly the results of UNGASS and an ethnographic study that lets young people help make cannabis-related public health messages. This two-pronged approach shows how international drug policies affect public health and how young people get involved with projects that translate information.
International Drug Policies and Public Health
Drug use around the world affects public health and the well-being of society in many ways. A report from the UNODC says that about 250 million people around the world use drugs and that about 29 million have problems because of their drug use (Ford & Saville, 2017). Of these 12 million, 12 million are people who take drugs (PWIDs), and 14% of these people have HIV (Stevens, 2019). Even though these numbers are scary, current international drug policies tend to focus on harsh punishments over tactics that lessen harm (Csete & Catania, 2013).
People who use drugs are significantly affected by being arrested and jailed, especially people of colour and poor people (Rezansoff et al., 2015). This harsh approach to punishment causes prisons to be overcrowded, judicial systems to be overworked, and more violations of human rights to happen. At least 33 countries still have the death sentence for drug-related crimes, which shows how far some countries go to enforce these laws (Stevens, 2019).
Also, harsh drug laws can make public health problems worse. People who take drugs often face significant health risks, like higher rates of HIV, hepatitis C, and death from overdose. Because there are not enough harm reduction programs and safe injection places, these risks get worse (Rosic et al., 2021). These harsh punishments add to the shame regarding drug use, which makes it harder for people to get help and treatment (Vashishtha et al., 2017).
In 2016, the UNGASS allowed us to move toward drug policies based on facts. However, the session mostly confirmed the punishments already in place, with few significant changes (Stevens, 2019). Harm reduction efforts were slowed down by closed lines of communication and unwillingness to question the status quo. Harm reduction strategies, on the other hand, like decriminalization, better access to healthcare, and interventions based on research, are a more caring and effective way to deal with the complicated problems that come up with drug use (Ford & Saville, 2017).
Engaging Youth in Knowledge Translation on Cannabis
Because weed laws are constantly changing, young people’s opinions are critical in making public health policies. An ethnographic study by Moffat, Jenkins, and Johnson (2013) looks at how young people understand the data about cannabis and how they help make public health messages. This study shows that public health is moving toward focusing on youth, highlighting the need for successful harm reduction strategies that fit the needs and understanding of young people.
A lot of the time, young people hear mixed messages about weed use. In traditional speech, there are often two opposing points of view. For example, some groups stress the medical benefits of cannabis, while others warn of the harms it might cause (Moffat et al., 2013). This makes things confusing for young people, who get a lot of different kinds of information and often have trouble telling the difference between actual proof and stories that are meant to shock. Because of this, getting young people involved in translating information is essential for encouraging them to make intelligent decisions.
Young people were involved in the study through interactive sessions where they read scientific literature, talked about issues linked to cannabis, and worked together to create public health messages (Moffat et al., 2013). This method lets teens and young adults be involved in their education, encouraging them to think critically and giving them a complete picture of cannabis. How people in the group interpreted and understood the information was greatly affected by how the group worked (Moffat et al., 2013). The group work promoted honest conversation and the sharing of different points of view, which helped people combine complicated data into useful public health messages.
The participants used a harm reduction method focused on making intelligent decisions and lowering risks (Moffat et al., 2013). This point of view is crucial for dealing with the more significant problems that come up when young people use weed. Teens and young adults can make better decisions about their health and help make public health policies that match their own experiences by talking about the pros and cons of cannabis.
Recommendations for Drug Policy and Public Health
Because foreign drug policies have problems, they must be changed significantly. To lessen the harmful effects of drug use and cut down on human rights violations, we need to move toward harm reduction methods that are based on evidence (Ford & Saville, 2017). Decriminalizing drug use, along with making it easier for people to get medical care and implementing harm reduction programs, can significantly enhance the outcomes for individuals and groups impacted by drug use (Stevens, 2019).
The study results show how important it is to include young people in creating health messages for the public. Public health workers can encourage open communication, critical thinking, and teamwork by involving young people in knowledge translation projects (Moffat et al., 2013). This will lead to more effective and relevant public health interventions. This method gives young people the power to take charge of their health and well-being and makes them essential participants in public health conversations.
International drug policies must put harm reduction methods at the top of their list of priorities. Safe injection places, needle exchange programs, and supervised drug use rooms have all been shown to lower the health risks of drug use (Ford & Saville, 2017). Moreover, removing the penalties for drug use can lessen the shame and discrimination that keep people from getting help (Rezansoff et al., 2015). International drug policies can better meet the needs of people who are touched by drug use and improve public health by taking a more caring and fact-based approach.
Conclusion
International drug laws still do not do enough to protect human rights and public health. Punishing people for using drugs leads to more stigma, discrimination, and health gaps in groups that are already weak (Stevens, 2019). We can move toward more effective, youth-centered ways to deal with drug-related problems and improve health outcomes by getting young people involved in knowledge translation projects and promoting harm reduction tactics.
Moving toward harm reduction strategies based on research can help solve the complicated global drug problem and make the public health system more effective and open to everyone. By focusing on harm reduction, making it easier for people to get medical care, and getting young people involved in public health projects, we can work toward a future where health and human rights are prioritized in drug policies.
References
Ford, C., & Saville, S. (2017). International drug policy – health before politics. Drugs and Alcohol Today, 17(2), 113- 123. doi:10.1108/dat-01-2017-0004
Stevens, A. (2019). ‘Being Human’ and The ‘MORAL SIDESTEP’ in Drug Policy: Explaining Government Inaction ON opioid-related Deaths in the UK. Addictive Behaviors, pp. 90, 444–450. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.08.036
Csete, J., & Catania, H. (2013). Methadone treatment PROVIDERS’ views of drug court policy and practice: A case study of New York State. Harm Reduction Journal, 10(1), 35. doi:10.1186/1477-7517-10-35
Rezansoff, S. N., Moniruzzaman, A., Clark, E., & Somers, J. M. (2015). Beyond recidivism: Changes in health and social service involvement following exposure to drug treatment court. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 10(1). doi:10.1186/s13011-015-0038-x
Vashishtha, D., Mittal, M. L., & Webb, D. (2017). The North American Opioid epidemic: Current challenges and a call for treatment as prevention. Harm Reduction Journal, 14(1). doi:10.1186/s12954-017-0135-4
Rosic, T., Kapoor, R., Panesar, B., Naji, L., Chai, D. B., Sanger, N., . . . Samaan, Z. (2021). The association between cannabis use and outcome in pharmacological treatment for opioid use disorder. Harm Reduction Journal, 18(1). doi:10.1186/s12954-021-00468-6
write