Ensuring Public Health and Safety while Guaranteeing Individual Rights
Main Article Content
Abstract
The balanced approach between supply and demand reduction is based on a false dichotomy. What is needed is a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights. Balancing supply reduction with demand reduction efforts is the result of a political process to bring about more attention and funds to deal with the health and social consequences of illicit drug use and interdiction. It was a political compromise between different ideologies and geopolitical interests brokered in the diplomatic sphere, and achieving more coherence between drug policy aspects was not the aim. While the “balanced approach between supply and demand reduction” brought more political prominence to the health-related aspects of the world drug problem, it manifested tensions between supply side advocates and supporters of demand reduction.
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
References
Arai-Takahashi, Y. (2013). Proportionality. In: Shelton, D. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law (pp. 446-468). Oxford University Press.
Barret, D. (2018). Drug policy and human rights in Europe: Managing tensions, maximising complementarities. Pompidou Group.
Council of Europe. (1950). European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/Convention_ENG
Council of Europe. (1953). Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. European Treaty Series (ETS) No. 005.
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction [EMMCDA]. (2017). Romania Country Drug Report. Publications Office of the European Union.
Gammon, K. (2012). Drug use in Athens rose dramatically after economic crisis. Chemical and Engineering News, 94(37). https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i37/Drug-use-Athens-rose-dramatically.html
Gill, M. M. (2008). Correcting Course: Lessons from the 1970 Repeal of Mandatory Minimums. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 21(1), 55-67. http://doi.org/10.1525/FSR.2008.21.1.55
International Narcotics Control Board [INCB]. (1995). Effectiveness of the international drug control treaties. Report no. 92-1-148095-7. INCB.
Jelsma, M. (2003). Drugs in the UN system: the unwritten history of the 1998 United Nations General Assembly Special Session on drugs. International Journal of Drug Policy, 14(2), 181-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0955-3959(03)00006-9
Muscat, R., Pike, B., & Members of the Coherent Policy Expert Group, Pompidou Group. (2014). Coherence policy markers for psychoactive substances. Council of Europe.
Pompidou Group. (2017). Policy paper on government interaction with civil society on drug policy issues: principles, ways and means, opportunities and challenges. Council of Europe.
Tanden, N. (2012). Gil Kerlikowske Remarks on U.S. Drug Policy. C-Span.
United Nations General Assembly. (1987). Declaration of the International Conference on Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking. UN.
United Nations General Assembly. (1998). Political Declaration. UN.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime [UNODC]. (1987). International Conference on Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking: resolution / adopted by the General Assembly. UN. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/153012?ln=es