Your browser is no longer supported.
Please upgrade to a modern browser.
To celebrate the long-awaited return of Coffeesh0p’s Squidgy Black incense, I thought I’d share a nice high resolution photograph of it (click to enlarge):
(Until 3 PM tomorrow (Monday afternoon), we’re giving away 1g samples with all orders over £30)
Or at least that’s how the media will inevitably simplify it for all you plebs out there, who couldn’t possibly need to know, let alone understand, the exact wording of the law. On the 13th of September, everyone’s favourite council of advisors, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) released their report on Desoxypipradrol (2-DPMP), including advice for another broad analogue ban similar to the bans of the cathinones & cannabinoids in the not too distant past.
Here’s the first part of the report, formatted and presented in lovely HTML (Annex 2 will be posted up soon.):
I write further to my correspondence of 29 October 2010 in relation to the compound desoxypipradrol (2-diphenylmethyl-piperidine, 2-DPMP). In its advice the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) recommended that desoxypipradrol, identified in samples of a product known as „Ivory Wave?, should be subject to an immediate ban under the Open General Import Licence. This advice was accepted by the Government and a ban was implemented on 4 November 2011.
The ACMD has considered the available evidence and can now provide you with substantive consideration of the compound desoxypipradrol and its related compounds. A short report is annexed to this letter.
The National Poisons Information Service in Edinburgh highlighted that a number of individuals had presented to the Royal Edinburgh Infirmary in the summer of 2010 following use of desoxypipradrol with symptoms that were similar to amphetamine toxicity, but with predominant neuropsychiatric features including:
In some cases these effects persisted for several days after ingestion.
In the attached report the ACMD has considered the available evidence from forensic providers, the National Programme on Substance Abuse Deaths, Clinical Toxicology Services, scientific research and Government Departments on the harms and sales of desoxypipradrol.
The ACMD advises that the harms of desoxypipradrol are commensurate with other Class B drugs and recommend that it is controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as a Class B substance and in Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 (as amended). In addition, the ACMD recommends that the structurally related compounds diphenylprolinol (diphenyl-2– pyrrolidinyl-methanol, D2PM) and its desoxy form 2-diphenylmethylpyrrolidine are controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as Class B substances and scheduled under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. The proposed generic definition will ensure that desoxypipradrol and all its related compounds, e.g. diphenylprolinol and diphenylmethylpyrrolidine, are fully captured (see Annex 1 & 2). The ACMD understands that desoxypipradrol and its related compounds do not have any medicinal uses; however, the ACMD has not formally consulted with the industry.
The ACMD believes that there would be no conflicting issues with placing the generic definition in the Act as the three main drugs, desoxypipradrol, diphenylprolinol (D2PM) and 2-diphenylmethylpyrrolidine can all be analytically distinguished from one another and from other drugs in Schedule 2 Part II.
The positional isomers of pipradrol (diphenyl-2-piperidinemethanol), i.e. the diphenyl-3-piperidinemethanol and diphenyl-4– piperidinemethanol isomers would be Class B and in the absence of reference standards may not be readily distinguished from pipradrol (Class C) using routine methods of analysis (medicinal products containing pipradrol are no longer widely used and are not, as far as the ACMD are aware, available in the UK). Whilst, it should be possible to distinguish between pipradrol isomers using techniques such as NMR, in the long term it would be support forensic analysis to have reference standards of all the pipradrol positional isomers.
The ACMD recommends that the Home Office considers commissioning the production of standards through the Forensic Early Warning System.
Yours sincerely,
Professor Les Iversen FRS
(cc: Anne Milton – Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of Health)
In October 2010 the ACMD recommended to the Government that, 2– diphenylmethyl-piperidine (2-DPMP, here referred to as desoxypipradrol), which was being marketed at that time as “Ivory Wave”, should be subject to an immediate ban under the Open General Import Licence (OGIL). This advice was accepted by the Government and a ban was implemented on 4 November 2011
Published data on the effects of 2-DPMP are limited, although research on derivatives of desoxypipradrol show that they exhibit a cocaine-like binding profile (Schmitt et al., 2008).
Currently, there is no known medicinal use for this compound, although it was originally developed by Ciba-Geigy (Novartis) in 1953 to be used to wake patients following anaesthesia (Belucci, 1955).
This compound is related to pipradrol, a previously-licensed medicine for treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), obesity and narcolepsy. Pipradrol is classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act as a Class C substance. Pipradrol still used is some countries, but its use is limited due to its abuse potential; it is a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor.
Pipradrol and its desoxy form have structurally related pyrrolidine analogues (see below) such as diphenylprolinol (diphenyl-2-pyrrolidinylmethanol, D2PM), for which there have been a number of recorded cases of cardiovascular and neuropsychiatric toxicity associated with recreational use (Lidder et al., 2008, Wood et al., 2008, Wood et al., 2011), and 2-diphenylmethyl-pyrrolidine, currently marketed, along with D2PM and various analogues, as chemical reagents for use as chiral catalysts in organic synthesis (Bertelsen et al., 2005, Sigma-Aldrich, 2007).
The two pairs of materials differ only by the size of the nitrogen-containing ring. Diphenylprolinol and its desoxy form have a five-membered (pyrrolidine) ring, while pipradrol and its desoxy form have a six-membered (piperidine) ring. It seems that the two desoxy forms have particularly long-lasting effects as their structures are resistant to metabolism, meaning that they have longer half-lives in the body. A common feature of these compounds is that they are structurally related to ß-phenylmethylamphetamine, which is also a potent stimulant with a long half life. However, these compounds differ from ß-phenylmethylamphetamine in that the nitrogen atom is linked to the a– methyl group by two or three carbon atoms to form a ring.
Various analogues of these compounds have been investigated and found to have stimulant properties (Isbell, 1970 and US Patents). Simple modifications, for example, addition of halogen, alkyl or alkoxy groups on one or both of the phenyl rings or addition of alkyl, alkenyl, haloalkyl and hydroxyalkyl groups on the nitrogen atom have been reported to produce compounds having a stimulant effect on the CNS, which could lead to a range of “designer” forms.
Other modifications that have been reported in the literature include replacing the piperidine ring with an azepane ring (7-membered ring), a morpholine ring or a pyridine ring (Winthrop, 1961; Enyedy, 2003). The piperidine ring has also been modified by substitution in the ring with an hydroxy group (Nodine, 1960), fusion of the piperidine ring with a benzene ring (Winthrop, 1961) and by substitution at the nitrogen atom with an ethano bridge to form a bicyclic ring system (Wikipedia, 2011).
Almost all of the analogues investigated are structurally related to the 2-isomer of desoxypipradrol, with 2 carbon atoms between the phenyl rings and the nitrogen atom. The only exceptions being the N–haloalkyl derivatives of desoxypipradrol and the pyridine analogue in which the 2-, 3– and 4– isomers were all reported to be active. No examples were found of compounds related to 1-diphenylmethylpiperidine (N–diphenylmethyl– piperidine).
Whilst, it should be possible to distinguish between pipradrol isomers using techniques such as NMR, in the long term it would be support forensic analysis to have reference standards of all the pipradrol positional isomers. The ACMD recommends that the Home Office considers commissioning the production of standards through the Forensic Early Warning System.
The National Poisons Information Service in Edinburgh highlighted that a number of individuals had presented to the Royal Edinburgh Infirmary in the summer of 2010 following their use of desoxypipradrol with symptoms that were similar to amphetamine toxicity, but with predominant neuropsychiatric features including:
In some patients the symptoms were still being manifested 5 – 7 days after ingestion and some patients presented directly to psychiatric services, bypassing A&E. There were approximately 12 cases over this period. It was subsequently reported that 4 out of 5 of the Edinburgh cases in whom confirmatory toxicological screening was carried out were positive for desoxypipradrol in urine/blood confirming exposure.
The number of patients presenting after confirmed ingestion of desoxypipradrol after the summer of 2010 has dramatically reduced in Edinburgh with no cases in 2011 and data from the National Poisons Information Service (NPIS) suggests that there has also been a significant reduction nationally. However, as noted below cases of diphenylprolinol (D2PM) toxicity continue to occur.
So far 3 deaths have been linked to the use of desoxypipradrolb(awaiting final reports).
Data provided by the Home Office Centre for Applied Science and Technology (CAST) under its Forensic Early Warning System (FEWS) reported one sample of 2-DPMP (from a head-shop), 10 samples of D2PM and 4 samples of desoxy-D2PM (from test purchases) during the pilot study.
LGC Forensics reported those samples of “Ivory Wave” it had seen in 2009 – 2011 contained different active ingredients including the cathinone MDPV (methylenedioxypyrovalerone) then, after this became controlled, naphyrone, and when this too was controlled, desoxypipradrol. More recently, diphenylprolinol has begun to appear in “legal high” products.
Desoxypipradrol has been found as a white powder that is generally taken by nasal insufflation (sniffing the powder into the nose) or swallowing after wrapping the powder in a cigarette paper (“bombing”) to avoid any unpleasant taste.
It is considered that 2-DPMP and its related compounds, as captured under the generic definition (see recommendation), have potential social harms. It appears to the ACMD that such harms are likely in relation to the impairment of function through drug use (mood disorders, changes to lifestyle), loss of relationships and the potential harm to others (directly and indirectly).
In the 1950’s, Ciba-Geigy investigated the effects of desoxypipradrol, amphetamine and d-methylamphetamine on small animals (report kindly provided by Novartis). The LD50 is the dose, which kills 50% of the animals:
Table 1. Toxicity of desoxypipradrol and other compounds, measured as LD50, to small animals.
| Desoxypipradrol LD50 g/kg | Amphetamine LD50 g/kg | D-methylamphetamine LD50 g/kg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mouse iv* | 0.020 | 0.050 | 0.020 |
| ” sc | 0.047 | 0.060 | 0.080 |
| ” po | 0.050 | 0.070 | 0.150 |
| Rat iv | 0.015 | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| ” sc | 0.030 | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| ” po | 0.080 | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Rabbit iv | 0.006 | 0.040 | 0.030 |
| ” sc | 0.007 | 0.045 | 0.020 |
| ” po | 0.080 | 0.170 | 0.200 |
(*iv – intravenous, sc – subcutaneous, po – orally)Table 1 shows that desoxypipradrol is, in many cases, more toxic than amphetamine and d-methylamphetamine.
The Ciba-Geigy report (from the 1950s) also noted that desoxypipradrol:
produced a marked central arousal in various, non-anaesthetised animals, consisting initially of general agitation, subsequently a greater degree of increase in co-ordinated motility, heightened reflexes, compelled movements and relatively slight respiratory stimulation.
This was easily discernible objectively in the normal mouse with the aid of the cage movement registration method. With this method the individual movements are registered directly and added up by means of a totaliser.
Figure 1. Effectiveness of desoxypipradrol in stimulating activity in mice when when administered subcutaneously (heavy line) or orally (thin line)
(Figure reproduced with kind permission of Novartis)
The data show that desoxypipradrol is effective as a stimulant in doses comparable to those for amphetamine or methylamphetamine – from 1 mg/kg upwards. For the purposes of its research at the time, Novartis recommended an initial human dose of 1mg or less, (ca 0.014 mg/kg). Anecdotal information would suggest that the human dose is only a few mg, with 10mg or more being considered harmful.
Experimental data supplied by Dr Colin Davidson (St Georges, University of London, 2011) demonstrated that desoxypipradrol potently stimulated dopamine release from rat brain slices in vitro. Dopamine release was measured from the region of the nucleus accumbens, using carbon fibre microelectrodes and fast cyclic voltammetry to electrically measure the oxidations of dopamine. The rate of recovery of stimulated dopamine release also allowed measurement of the action of the drug as an inhibitor of the dopamine reuptake mechanism. Dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens is considered to be a key target for psychostimulant drugs.
Figure 2. Effect of desoxypipradrol (10uM) on dopamine efflux in rat nucleus accumbens
It also proved possible to compare the potency of desoxypipradrol with the psychostimulant drug cocaine in the brain slice preparation. The results (Figure 3) indicate that desoxypipradrol is both more effective and more potent than cocaine in stimulating dopamine release and in inhibiting its reuptake.
Figure 3. Comparison of potencies of desoxypipradrol and cocaine in releasing dopamine, and inhibiting inactivation in rat brain slice preparations (C. Davidson, unpublished)
The results both from Novartis and from Dr Davidson indicate that desoxypipradrol is very potent and comparable to amphetamine or methylamphetamine in its potential to cause acute toxicity.
The available human data also show it to be a long-lasting substance, capable of eliciting agitation lasting for several days after a single dose.
In addition to the reports of toxicity associated with the use of desoxypipradrol noted above, there have also been reports of significant toxicity associated with the recreational use of the related compound diphenylprolinol (D2PM). In addition, reports from forensic providers suggest that D2PM has replaced desoxypipradrol in many “Ivory Wave” products. The clinical toxicology service at Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital in London have documented 6 cases of analytically confirmed D2PM toxicity: 1 case in 2008 and 5 cases in 2010 / 2011 (Lidder et al., 2008, Wood et al., 2008, Wood et al., 2011). In these cases patients have presented with a variety of symptoms including:
In many of these cases patients have had ongoing features, in particular neuro-psychiatric features such as anxiety, insomnia and paranoia for up to 48 – 96 hours after use of D2PM.
The ACMD advises that the harms of desoxypipradrol are commensurate with other Class B drugs and recommend that it is controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as a Class B substance and in Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 (as amended). Furthermore, we recommend that the structurally related compounds diphenylprolinol (diphenyl-2-pyrrolidinyl-methanol, D2PM) and its desoxy form 2-diphenylmethylpyrrolidine are similarly controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and scheduled under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 by virtue of a generic definition (see Annex 1 of the report) to ensure that desoxypipradrol and related compounds, e.g. diphenylprolinol, diphenylmethylpyrrolidine, are fully captured (see Annex 1 & 2).
The ACMD understands that desoxypipradrol and its related compounds do not have any medicinal uses; however, the ACMD has not formally consulted with the industry.
The proposed generic definition includes desoxypipradrol and those analogues most likely to be produced as alternatives. Some of the compounds that fall within the scope of the proposed generic definition contain a hydroxy group, which can be converted to an ester or ether. Such compounds may have similar pharmacological properties to the parent compound and therefore it is recommended that esters and ethers of these compounds are also subject to control under the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971.
Whilst, ideally, any generic definition would include all possible positional isomers, this may mean that non-active compounds would also be controlled. Further, a definition to cover all of these potential analogues is feasible, but it would be very complex and possibly difficult to understand.
Under the definition that the ACMD propose at Annex 1 esters and ethers of pipradrol would not be controlled. This is because pipradrol is specifically excluded from the generic definition and therefore paragraph 2A would also not apply to pipradrol. For consistency the ACMD advise the inclusion of esters and ethers of pipradrol by moving pipradrol from Schedule 2 Part III paragraph 1(a) to paragraph 1(b) so that paragraph 1(d) regarding esters or ethers would apply to pipradrol.
The ACMD further advise that stereoisomers should be controlled by Schedule 2 Part II paragraph 2. The three main drugs, desoxypipradrol, diphenylprolinol (D2PM) and
2-diphenylmethylpyrrolidine all have stereoisomers and most of the compounds covered by the generic definition will also have stereoisomers.
Any compound (not being pipradrol) structurally derived from piperidine, pyrrolidine, azepane, morpholine or pyridine by substitution on a ring carbon atom with a diphenylmethyl group, whether or not the compound is further modified in any of the following ways, that is to say,
While this blog might be getting nice new design in the next few days, Coffeesh0p is being completely overhauled with a tonne of new features, as awesome as they are numerous. I’ll have to detail them all at some point, whether here or on a news post on the site itself, but for now click this link for a little preview of the new logo (Warning: interactively funky):
–> Coffeesh0p’s New Logo <–
Please leave any feedback in the comments below.
Right. This blog, and myself, need a kick up the arse. The best way for that to happen is for me to give it a bit of a facelift, as now it looks like a faded book that’s sat on the shelf in direct sunlight for a few years.
The problem is, I’m crap at designing stuff. I love the thought of designing, but I always end up combining every single style I think looks good into some big casserole of a layout. So to force myself to not do that, I need a bit of help from you.
If you could please leave a comment with two or three words to describe the blog, that would be awesome. As I have no idea how other people perceive this site, I think finding out would be a useful first step, then I can work on designing something around a couple of those themes.
So, if you wouldn’t mind…
Plot the graph of this equation:
And this is the result:
I bet René Descartes is rolling in his grave.
Or at least, how to light a cigar under some kind of awesome cocktail!
The wife & I have just got back from the Dominican Republic where we celebrated our first anniversary. Got tonnes more work to do though, but I’ll try and update this blog again soon!
I just pissed my pants for about 15 entire minutes at the 30 second clip from Family Guy. We immediately rewatched it during the episode a good three or four times, if only because we missed the previous reply laughing like a pair of bastards.
Watch it Immediately.
This post has been robbed in its entirety with permission from the always-eloquent Neurobonkers.
A newly leaked cable exposes the intense international pressure the United States placed on the United Nations to block the successful drug harm reduction strategies we have in Europe. The scientific facts are astoundingly clear regarding this issue. Harm reduction is a particularly serious issue because it does not only save the lives of drug users but prevents the spread of HIV. Due to our strategies of harm reduction such as methadone programmes and needle exchanges for intravenous drug users Europe has some of the lowest HIV rates in the world. America and Russia have the worst HIV rates in the developed world because both of these countries do not practice harm reduction measures. This message is particularly serious coming from the US because according to US law items which prevent HIV being transmitted are not only denied to health authorities but they are actually illegal to possess, therefore pushing harm reduction charities such as needle exchanges underground. If this were to happen here we would see levels of HIV sky-rocket towards the appalling levels seen in the United States and Russia. If this is not worrying enough the rhetoric being used to support the US strategy is frankly sickening. The rhetoric is that the more dangerous drug taking is, the less people will take drugs. The fact that this results in countless unnecessary deaths and transmission of HIV which would otherwise be completely preventable is not considered.
In the cable the European standard of harm reduction is described as an “EU Crusade on Harm Reduction” (sic). The irony here is on a number of levels. Firstly, a “crusade” is a war based on the imposition on moral/religious values. The US is conducting a crusade based on the morality of drug abuse yet it is the US however who are accusing Europe of a “crusade on harm reduction”. Secondly, this is clearly not a European crusdade on harm reduction, perhaps it could conceivably be a crusade for harm reduction but definitely not on harm reduction. Thirdly, assuming that is what they meant, a “crusade for harm reduction” is perhaps the most poetically, paradoxically absurd description of a basic health care principle I’ve ever heard. Fourthly, it is patently obvious that it is the US and not Europe who is actually entering a “crusade on harm reduction” namely because they are the only ones crusading in any way shape or form with regard to this issue. (Ok, so are the Russians but they’re just as barmy). Finally, I hope I need not explain the final tragic irony of describing the imposing of a new morally driven blanket ban on a basic health care principle that stops the spread of HIV as a “crusade”. The original crusades resulted in a still existing blanket ban on the primary barrier to HIV transmission and this is of course, the main reason we have a global HIV crisis in the first place. My only conclusion is that this wording was a failed attempt at very dark humour. Trust the Americans to fail at irony. Damn, I’ve just pissed off both of the world’s largest superpowers and the world’s largest religion in one fell swoop. Maybe we should keep the nukes afterall. At least nukes don’t give us AIDS.
Footnote: The title of paragraph four of the leaked cable is “Is it EU Solidarity or (the) UK Leading the Crusade?“. If the Americans insist on calling life saving harm reduction a crusade and suggesting it is us that are leading the charge then this is perhaps the first crusade in our history that we can actually be proud of.
“Would the UN Member States assemble a political declaration almost identical to the last one? The 1998 version dealt with drug demand reduction by adopting what we now know to be the expensive, ineffective, and disastrous law-and-order route that has cost the US alone 40 billion per year – without significantly reducing either supply or demand – and made us the world’s largest jailer of our own people.
…Or would this be the year that member states would move towards a public health and human rights approach to drug policy?…
…to reject the inclusion of the term “harm reduction” in the Political Declaration being endorsed at this meeting is extremely short sighted and problematic. It puts the US in the position of sitting in judgment of successful programs being run by many countries globally; it also ignores the very successful use of harm reduction in the United States to stem the tide of overdose deaths, low threshold drug treatment and Hepatitis C treatment and care in major centers including New York City. Worst of all, it negates the sound science behind interventions like safer injection spaces or heroin prescription programs.
…This meeting is unfortunately timed. Whereas the new Obama administration is making steps to move in a more progressive human rights based direction, the groundwork for the drafting of the Political Declaration has taken place with State Department employees who took their direction from the previous administration and haven’t yet been presented with a new agenda. Sadly it will be another 10 years before there will be an opportunity to revisit UN drug policy again.”
The full Leaked cable…
| Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09UNVIEVIENNA31 | 2009-01-27 16:04 | 2011-04-28 00:12 | UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY | UNVIE |
VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB
DE RUEHUNV #0031/01 0271621
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 271621Z JAN 09
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8938
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 1453
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000031
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: SNAR KCRM UN PGOV AORC UK CO RS JA CA FR SW GM
EI, IT
SUBJECT: Breaking the UNGASS Impasse on "Harm Reduction"
REF: A) UNVIE 00001, B) Tsai-Pala 1/23 email
¶1. (U) This is an action message for INL/PC and IO/T. Please see
paragraph 7.
-------
Summary
-------
¶2. (SBU) Negotiations for the UNGA special session have hit an
impasse, created by EU insistence on adding the controversial term
"harm reduction" to various parts of the draft UNGASS action plan
and political declaration. While Canada, an opponent of the term's
inclusion, is considering conceding to EU demands, other opponents
are standing firm with the U.S. in preventing such a problematic
element's inclusion. Mission has engaged counterparts at every
level, from experts to ambassadors in an attempt to break the
impasse and find compromise language. Mission believes there is
increasing pressure within the EU to resolve this gridlock and avoid
an embarrassing showdown at the March Commission on Narcotic Drugs
(CND) but some delegations will be inclined to hold this issue
hostage up until the opening of the CND, in hopes the US will
relent. To facilitate EU compromise, Mission recommends that the
Department reach out to various capitals and the European Commission
to help underscore the firmness of U.S. resolve-both to our allies
and to the EU, before the EU horizontal group meeting in Brussels on
February 4. Mission has urged like-minded countries here (Japan,
Russia, Colombia) to take similar actions. End Summary.
------------------------------
EU Crusade on "Harm Reduction"
------------------------------
¶3. (SBU) There have been difficult negotiations in Vienna on the
"harm reduction" issue in the demand reduction chapter of the draft
UNGASS action plan (Ref A) and political declaration. The Czech
Republic reiterated this demand on January 26 on behalf of the
presidency. The plan will be annexed to the political declaration
expected to be issued by ministers attending the high-level segment
of the UNGASS review meeting in Vienna March 10-12, 2009. The main
divide is between EU advocates for including "harm reduction" in the
plan, and those who oppose such inclusion, namely U.S., Russia,
Japan, Colombia and possibly Canada. Although opposed to harm
reduction, Canada's experts in Ottawa are receptive of a recent
compromise (including the term in a footnote rather than in the
text), and we understand that Ottawa will have a discussion on the
political level to decide how to handle this issue.
-----------------------
Is it EU Solidarity or
UK Leading the Crusade?
-----------------------
¶4. (SBU) Recent meetings to reach a compromise with EU had been
inconclusive. The USG (United States Government) cannot accept including the specific term
"harm reduction" in any part of the action plan. The USG also wants
the section to focus on "prevention, treatment and rehabilitation"
in the consideration of any demand reduction strategy. The EU, on
the other hand, appears less concerned about treatment and
rehabilitation. The EU presented a very hard-line position in the
opening rounds of these negotiations in mid-January. Subsequently,
Mission conducted extensive consultations at all levels, including
between Ambassador and the DCM with their counterparts. Mission's
conclusion is that the EU may not have a tightly united front. The
UK is the primary and most vocal crusader on this issue, although
Netherlands does lend occasional support, as do Spain and the EC.
Importantly, other EU countries, initially implacable, appear to be
wavering (e.g., Germany). Still others have expressed varying
degrees of flexibility, including France, Belgium, Ireland, and
Italy, as well as Sweden, which is closest to the U.S. position.
----------------------
Next Steps for Mission
----------------------
¶5. (SBU) Mission continues to engage with both skeptics and
proponents of "harm reduction." To that end, Mission plans to
offer alternative language, previously sent to INL/PC (Ref B) at the
next informal consultations. Mission's language is based on the
November 2008 UNGA resolution on international drug control
(A/63/432), which found consensus in New York. Importantly, that
language was co-sponsored by 58 countries, including the U.S. and
at least 7 EU countries. Mission will propose inserting "care" into
the language as a way to address EU concerns. U.S. proposed
language for paragraph 9 of the draft Action Plan, therefore, would
read,
"Develop, review and strengthen, as appropriate, prevention,
treatment, care and rehabilitation of drug use disorders and to take
measures to reduce the social and health consequences of drug abuse
as governmental health and social priorities, in accordance with
international drug control treaties, and where appropriate, national
legislation."
(Note: The 7 EU co-sponsors of the November 2008 UNGA resolution
are: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, and
Latvia. End Note.)
¶6. (SBU) Mission has shared this language with Japan, Russia, and
Colombia, as well as the CND chair Namibia, who is chairing the
current negotiations on the political declaration. Offering this
language will allow Mission to more constructively engage the EU and
the chair of the working group (Iran) (who has taken a very active
role in trying to find consensus). Although Iran chair had
originally scheduled another informal meeting for the afternoon of
January 27, Namibian ambassador told Missionoffs and their Japanese
and Russian counterparts the morning of January 27 that she would
announce the cancellation of that meeting until further notice. She
said she had heard from many delegations that there should be a
"cool down" period on this issue. According to her, many
delegations are opposed to the EU position, even though they did not
speak up on the floor.
¶7. (SBU) Mission has suggested like-minded countries (Russia,
Japan, Colombia) to intervene at the ambassadorial level in Vienna.
We have also suggested that their capitals demarche relevant
countries. Mission will also ask the G-8 chair in Vienna, the
Italian ambassador, to convene a meeting of the G-8 members to
underline the same. By engaging EU member states in a different
context, it may help them to reevaluate their dogmatic and
unproductive approach.
-------------------
Recommended Actions
-------------------
¶8. (SBU) Action Request: The EU's horizontal group will have its
next coordination meeting on drugs in Brussels on February 4. In
order to break EU unity on this issue, and thereby create a climate
in Vienna conducive to compromise, Mission recommends engagement
both with skeptics and supporters of the issue. Specifically,
Mission recommends;
(i) Department instruct USEU to contact the European Commission's
horizontal group on drug control (Carol Edwards at the EC).
Instructions should note that the potential for embarrassment is
great for the EU, should the EU hold hostage an entire document
because of one sub-issue in one section of the action plan..
Mission believes that each passing week without compromise will add
increasing pressure within the EU to resolve this issue and prevent
embarrassment for national ministers planning to attend the CND.
Instructions should also note that the March CND will be the first
foray of the Obama administration into the international drug arena,
and all sides should be keen to make it a positive one.
(ii) Department instruct U.S. Embassies Tokyo, Moscow, and Bogota
to reach out to host governments and emphasize our need to continue
supporting each other, as well as the firmness of U.S. resolve and
the continuity of our policy vis-`-vis "harm reduction." It is
important that our allies on this issue remember that the burden is
on the EU, as the proponent of the term, to convince other
delegations-not the other way around.
(iii) Department instruct U.S. Embassy Ottawa to persuade Ottawa at
a political level that it should at least consider remaining silent
on the EU proposal for the time being, and/or until the EU shows
more flexibility. Although there is pressure in Vienna on all
delegations to commit to the EU proposal, Ottawa should remember
that there is no need to accede to hard-ball tactics, and that the
goal is for all sides to find common ground.
(iv) Department instruct U.S. Embassy London to underscore the need
to find common ground. Mission believes that UK's expert in Vienna
is a driving force behind the current EU approach, and that she may
find herself isolated within the EU as other delegations begin to
feel the urgency for compromise.
(v) Department instruct U.S. Embassy Prague to reaffirm with the EU
presidency the importance of finding common ground. Instructions
should note the importance the USG places on getting US-EU relations
off on the right foot, and that nothing related to the CND
jeopardizes that common goal. Instructions should also note that the
Czech Republic was one of the co-sponsors of the November 2008 UNGA
resolution on International Drug Control (A/63/432).
(viii) Finally, that Department instruct U.S. Embassies Berlin,
Brussels, Paris, Dublin, Rome, and especially Stockholm (as well as
any other capital who may be more sympathetic to the need for
compromise) to underline the firmness of our position, and the
importance of finding common ground for the March ministerial
meeting. Instructions should also note that Belgium, Ireland and
Italy co-sponsored the November 2008 UNGA resolution A/63/432. In
particular, it should be noted that the current EU proposal
effectively eliminates the draft's previous focus on prevention,
treatment and rehabilitation. Although there may be some
disagreement on "harm reduction," Mission believes all delegations
should be concerned that the elimination of prevention, treatment
and rehabilitation from their prominent place in the draft may give
the wrong signal that member states are no longer focusing on the
critical need to reduce the demand for drugs.
If you liked that, you’ll love the rest of Neurobonkers, so go and read it all. You can also follow him on twitter if you’re that way inclined.
Sorry about the lack of activity. We’ve been dead busy since the new year — Coffeesh0p’s had more orders for legal highs and such so far this year than for all of 2008, and I’ve been optimising like a bastard, among other things.
Hopefully, I’ll write something soon about what I’ve been up to when I’ve the time, but for now, here’s some music while you wait: