The Human Rights Costs of the War on Drugs

Watch and share our movie to raise awareness on the human rights consequences of the global war on drugs! Read more >>

The Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (HCLU), together with Transform Drug Policy Foundation, were among the NGOs launching the Count the Costs campaign to urge governments to evaluate the impacts of the 50 years old UN drug control system. This campaign movie highlights one of the most compelling issue, the human rights impacts of the global war on drugs (read Transform's report on the human rights costs!). Please join the campaign and share this movie with your friends and colleagues!


Last year the Pompidou Group, an advisory body of the Council of Europe, organized a meeting in Budapest on drug policies. Beside European governmental and NGO representatives, the organizers sent an invitation to the US State Department to participate in the conference. However, unlinke its European allies, the US government refused to come. Why? Because human rights issues were on the agenda. For people who do not know the history of the international drug control system this seems to be a very contradictory view: the same US government that claims to lead the world on building consensus on freedom and democracy denies the legitimacy to discuss drug policies in the context of human rights.

Even the first UN drug convention, adopted 50 years ago in 1961, placed the protection of the right to health in its centre. Now, 50 years later, we witness terrible human rights abuses in the name of drug treatment all over the world: public executions and labour camps in Asia, denial of the right to effective treatment in Russia, eradication campaigns leading to humanitarian and ecological crisis, disproportional sentences, racial discrimination and overcrowded prisons in the US.

Human rights are equal, inalienable and universal. Someone cannot be deprived of her human rights because she prefers to use some mind altering substances that are listed among the illicit drugs. The criminalization of drug users is a violation of the right to privacy in itself, not to mention the institutional discrimination and segregation of drug users by the public health system.  

If you mention human rights in the context of the war on drugs the US government labels you as a legalizer and accuses you of giving up the idea of protecting the kids from the harmful consequences of drug use. Human rights abuses are no acceptable, they say, but still, they are the prize to maintain the system of prohibition that, in the end, protects our kids and families from suffering. This is a very comfortable theory but there is a minor problem with it: it does not work. The global war on drugs built on the UN drug conventions generates much more suffering than it prevents. It created a huge black market, bigger than that of human trafficking and arms trafficking. This black market is not only the source of a yearly 300-400 billion USD income for organized crime groups, terrorists and paramilitants, but maintains civil wars and blocks the development of economies and democracies. There are other feasible alternatives of total prohibition than total liberalization. Alternatives that place human rights and public health in the centre of drug policies.

Posted by Peter Sarosi



Related articles

The Drug War Undermines Security and Development - COUNT THE COSTS SERIES

Please watch and share the latest of our Count the Costs campaign movie serials!

They harrass the homeless people! - an HCLU video

After briefly reviewing how homelessness got pronounced as an offence, we are kindly asking you to send a letter to the minister of interior Sándor Pintér and rapporteur on homelessness, Máté Kocsis about that homeless people are not criminals. If you have time and would like to help somehow else, we can recommend you other opportunities, too.

Get a penalty for doing your job!

Budai Gyula is a public employee in Ózd (town in Hungary). His job is to keep the recycling bins in order. He received a penalty for 10.000 HUF for scavenging, while he was doing his job. He acted correctly by not acknowledging his supposed offence by his signature. If he had done so, he could not argue against the decision. Do not sign anything if you have not committed what you’re being charged for!