Category Archives: War On Drugs

Randy Ludlow The Columbus Dispatch @RandyLudlow

They marched into the State Highway Patrol Academy gymnasium in their dress uniforms, proclaiming in cadence, "Hail, hail State Patrol."

Minutes before raising their hands and being sworn in at their graduation, 85 cadets-turning-troopers were briefed on their mission.

Gone are the days, said Gov. John Kasich, when troopers spent most of their time sitting alongside highways handing out speeding tickets.

While still ensuring highway safety, the patrol is more focused these days on the interdiction of drugs and humans.

Public Safety Director John Born talked of a trooper's seizure of 2.2 pounds of the deadly opioid fetanyl 50 times as strong as heroin in an I-70 traffic stop, enough to kill more than 300,000 people.

Kasich talked of a trooper rescuing two frightened human-trafficking victims huddled in the back of a dark truck at a rest stop.

The cadets were dispersed to patrol posts throughout the state today to begin their careers as troopers after 23 weeks of training, including recognizing signs that may signal when motorists are packing illegal drugs.

The patrol has intensified its focus in intercepting drugs during the past six years, resulting in record seizures last year. Ohio led the nation with 3,050 drug-overdose deaths in 2015.

"There's a war in this state," Kasich proclaimed of the patrol's "dramatic change in mission."

The governor told the audience of hundreds that he hopes drug cartels and dealers are learning "Ohio may crush you" if they use the state's highways to transport their "poison," particularly opioids.

Troopers made record numbers of narcotic seizures last year while working Ohio's roads.

The extent of Ohio's heroin and opioid crisis was reflected in the statistics. The patrol seized 167 pounds of heroin last year, an increase of 316 percent from 2015.

A total of 64,708 opiate pills, such as painkillers, were captured, an increase of 90 percent from 2015. Compared to prior years, methamphetamine made a huge comeback, with 95 pounds seized, a 12-fold increase over 2015.

Drug-related arrests increased 8 percent to 13,334 statewide. The patrol said the drugs it took off Ohio's highways last year carried a contraband value of nearly $55.5 million, a 63-percent increase over the prior year.

Kasich told the newly minted troopers that there's is more than simply a job, but a chance to make a difference.

The governor counseled them to be observant, to be safe and to never forget who they serve the people of Ohio.

rludlow@dispatch.com

@RandyLudlow

See the original post:

Patrol dispatches new troopers in war on drugs, human trafficking - The Columbus Dispatch

Drugs and stimulants have influenced Iranian social, economic, and political life for hundreds of years. Opium, specifically, has long been used in Iran for medicinal and recreational purposes. In the 18th and early 19th century, opium was produced in Iran mainly for domestic consumption. The expansion of the Far Eastern market in the late 1800s spurred an increase in opium cultivation in Iran. As a result, opium became Irans top export while domestic consumption also rose.

Throughout the 20th century, Iran grappled, largely unsuccessfully, with the problems of opium addiction and trafficking. Government policies alternated between severe punishment and regulation. The first law to control opium use was enacted in 1911. A little over a decade later, the government issued ration coupons to addicts and imposed levies on opium exports. Contrary to expectations, however, opium use did not slacken, and opium exports actually increased. In fact, by the late 1920s, opium accounted for nearly a quarter of Irans total export revenues.

In 1928, international pressure led Irans government to claim a monopoly on opium and to pledge to reduce poppy cultivation and demand. Yet, in the subsequent 10-year period, the area under poppy cultivation expanded, as did the volume of opium exports. Similarly, the 1955 Law on Prohibition of Opium Poppy Cultivation and Taking Opium had perverse effects stimulating production in Afghanistan and Pakistan, making the smuggling of heroin and morphine from there into Iran profitable, and ultimately leading to an upsurge in the number of Iranian addicts and incarcerated smugglers.

These unwelcome developments prompted an eventual policy shift. In the late 1960s, the Shahs government permitted the resumption of opium cultivation in designated areas under state supervision while at the same time making drug smuggling a capital offense punishable by death. In addition, the government instituted a system of opium rationing for addicts 50 years of age and older as well as for patients as prescribed by physicians; and laid the groundwork for establishing a nationwide system of health clinics and rehabilitation centers for addicts. However, these latter plans went unfinished, as Iran entered a period of revolutionary turmoil.

The Iranian Revolution (1979) and the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88) coincided with the protracted conflict in Afghanistan precipitated by the Soviet invasion. During this same period, Afghanistan emerged as the worlds leading opium poppy producer while Iranian consumption of opiates surged in spite of the revolutionary governments imposition of harsh criminal penalties (in August 1980) for all forms of substance abuse. Throughout the 1990s, Afghan poppy production flourished; meanwhile, in Iran, heroin use increased, as did heroin use by means of injection. The ban on poppy cultivation by the Taliban in 2000 resulted in shortages in the availability of opium, which shifted the drug consumption pattern in Iran toward even greater heroin use and addiction.

Iran is a key link in a complex transnational opiates supply chain that is anchored in southwest Asia. Known as the Golden Crescent, this production and trans-shipment zone encompasses the isolated mountain valleys of Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan. At the core of the Golden Crescent lies Afghanistan, the source of about 92% of the worlds heroin. The 2006 Afghanistan Annual Opium Poppy Survey reported an all-time record high harvest, with total cultivation up 59% and production up 49% from the previous year. According to the 2007 Afghanistan Survey, production is 34% higher than in 2006. Figure 1 shows Afghanistans share of opium poppy cultivation in recent years.

Two primary routes are used to smuggle heroin originating from Afghanistan. The Balkan Route, which runs through southeastern Europe, is the main supply line for Western Europe. The Silk Route, which runs through Central Asia, feeds heroin into Russia, the Baltic States, Poland, Ukraine, the Czech Republic and other parts of Europe. While in recent years the Silk Route has become increasingly active, the lions share of Afghan opiates continues to pass through Iran along the Balkan Route as well as southward toward the Persian Gulf. The UNODC estimates that 60% of the heroin and morphine from Afghanistan moves through Iran to the external market, principally to Europe. The Iranian passageway is attractive to drug traffickers for the simple reason that they must cross just two borders to get to the European market.

Dotting Irans eastern borders a 936-kilometer stretch shared with Afghanistan and 909-kilometer segment shared with Pakistan are numerous entry points for smuggled consignments of opiates. Three main supply lines carry these shipments from Irans eastern frontier into and across the country: Northern (Khorasan), Southern (Sistan va Baluchistan), and Hormuzgan. The Northern and Southern lines are connected to the traditional Balkan network. The Hormuzgan line flows to Bandar Abbas, whose airport and ferry links to Dubai make it an easy trans-shipment point for deliveries to Europe and the Gulf, as well as incoming chemical precursors destined for heroin labs in Afghanistan.

Figure 1

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), World Drug Report 2007, Figure 15, p. 41.

Iran and the neighbors on its eastern flank are classic weak states. As such, their respective central authorities have traditionally lacked the capacity and the legitimacy to extend their writ to peripheral areas. Yet, these very areas are critically important nodal points in the highly segmented Iranian domestic and international opiates supply chain. It is therefore not surprising that the territory of Baluchistan a predominantly Sunni-populated ethnic-Baluch region that straddles the borders of Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan has been a major opiates smuggling thoroughfare.

Indeed, Zahedan, the capital of the Iranian province of Sistan va Baluchistan, is a vital staging point for opiates trafficking. The province desolate and underdeveloped is notoriously lawless. In the 1970s, Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi reached an accommodation with Baluchi clan leaders whereby they would abandon drug smuggling in exchange for government cash benefits. But in the post-revolutionary period, this arrangement broke down amid a general deterioration of the relationship between Tehran and Baluchi clans.

Major Trafficking Routes

Opiates smuggling in Sistan va Baluchistan has lately coincided with an escalation of violence there. In December 2005, an insurgent group known as Jundullah (Gods Brigade) reportedly abducted nine Iranian soldiers. In another incident three months later, 22 Iranians were killed. In February 2007, 11 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) were reported killed in an attack for which Jundullah claimed credit. In a clash with drug smugglers in July 2007, 11 more IRGC personnel lost their lives. It is difficult to discern from the sparse media accounts of these and other incidents in Sistan va Baluchistan to what extent drug trafficking and insurgent activities might be linked.

Ethnic and religious minorities form part of the drug trafficking picture in other peripheral regions of Iran as well. Khorasan province, for example, hosts a large number of Afghan refugees. Drug traffickers along the Northern line, usually organized in smaller groups of up to 10 people, are mainly Afghans. The Southern and Northern Routes are maintained from central Iran onwards by Azeri and Kurdish mafias.

The Afghanistan-Iran drug connection is a complex phenomenon whose burden on the state and devastating effects on society flow in both directions. As previously mentioned, soaring Afghanistan opium and heroin production is fuelling Iranian opiate abuse and boosting Irans role as a drug transit country. At the same time, opiates abuse has skyrocketed in Afghanistan, with some reports stating that many addicts are returning refugees who had developed their drug habits while residing in Iran. The Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 2006 concurs with these accounts,

not[ing] with concern the problem of drug abuse among Afghan refugees in neighbouring countries, including Iran (Islamic Republic of) and Pakistan. Approximately 35 per cent of male and 25 per cent of female drug abusers in Afghanistan first abused opium as refugees outside of Afghanistan, particularly in the Islamic Republic of Iran and in refugee camps in the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan. The Board also notes that evidence suggests a high risk of transmission of HIV among persons who abuse drugs by injection in Afghanistan, particularly among refugees returning from the Islamic Republic of Iran who abuse drugs by injection.

Whereas Turkey has long been the principal exit point for drugs transiting Iran, the porous border with Iraq has become a new destination and passageway on Irans western flank. The weakening of border controls and the breakdown of the security infrastructure of Iraq following the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in 2003 created a fertile environment for smuggling. In the intervening years, Iraqs nascent security forces, faced with a multitude of challenges, (understandably) have not made counter-narcotics their top priority. The influx of drugs into Iraq has contributed to a rising incidence of addiction among Iraqis and has opened up an additional pathway to the European market. According to Hamid Ghodse, president of the International Narcotics Control Board, drug traffickers have entered Iraq via Iran. Sometimes disguised as pilgrims, they have set up operations in the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala, smuggling opiates into and through Jordan. Media in the United Kingdom, drawing on accounts provided by British troops stationed in the south, have reported drug smuggling operations routed through Basra as well.

As mentioned earlier, Iran is a major destination, not just a corridor for illicit opiates. Nor, it should be mentioned, are opiates Irans only problem drugs. Opium and heroin are smuggled from the east, while hallucinogenic and chemical-based designer drugs enter Iran from Turkey and Bandar Abbas. The influx of narcotics into Iran, opiates in particular, has had a profoundly adverse impact on public health and public security.

The actual size of Irans drug user and drug addict populations is difficult to pin down, given that reliable data is scarce, Iranian official statistics tend to be more conservative than figures presented by the UNODC, and Iranian authorities restrict what the UNODC Tehran office may share publicly. Compounding the difficulty of gaining definite estimates of prevalence and incidence of substance abuse in Iran, as Mokri points out, are [s]ocial stigmatization along with legal restrictions on substance abuse [that] prevents drug users from admitting their act, offering clear data and referring to governmental sectors.

Though estimates of drug abuse and addiction in Iran vary, the statistics most often cited are nonetheless stunning. A Rapid Situation Assessment (RSA) of 10 urban centers conducted in 1998 reported a sharp increase in the availability of heroin, in heroin dependency, and in injecting drug use. The RSA 1998 estimated the total number of drug users as 2 million, with 1.2 million addicts and 800,000 recreational users. The first large sample nationwide study (conducted in 2001 by Irans Ministry of Health in cooperation with the UNODC) estimated the number of users of opium and heroin at about 3.76 million, of whom 1.39 million were classified as cases of abuse and 1.16 million as cases of addiction or dependence. In 2003, then-President Muhammad Khatami and State Welfare Minister Muhammad Reza Rah-Chamani stated that Iran had approximately 1.2 million heroin addicts and another 800,000 recreational heroin users. In April 2006, Dr. Mohammad Mehdi Gooya, the chief of the Iranian Health Ministrys disease-management center, put the figure at 2.5 million drug addicts and another 137,000 who inject drugs occasionally. According to Muhammad Reza Jahani, deputy head of Irans anti-narcotics organization, the number of drug addicts in Iran is increasing at a rate of 8% annually.

The spike in intravenous heroin use in Iran, as in many other countries, has been accompanied by a rise in HIV/AIDS infection rates among injecting drug users (IDUs). According to the UNAIDS/WHO AIDS Epidemic Update: December 2006, high HIV infection levels in intravenous drug users are a major concern in Iran. The report states, Almost one in four [23%] injecting drug users participating in a recent study in the Iranian capital, Tehran, [was] found to be HIV-infected. The report also states that risk behavior is widespread among IDUs unprotected sex and non-sterile syringes were the main causes of infection. Another study has shown that, The recent rise of heroin injection in Iran is strongly associated with HIV risk. The statistics are particularly alarming in the Iranian prison system, where in Tehran, for example, incarceration-related exposures [have been] revealed to be the main correlates of HIV-1 infection.

But the IDU-HIV nexus extends beyond the prison population. Studies describing HIV risk in Iran, though relatively few in number, all point to injecting drug use as the main transmission mode for contracting the disease; moreover, they indicate that the number of injecting drug users appears to be climbing. Emran Razzighi et al., for example, state that, Regardless of the actual number of IDUs, worrying trends suggest that, compared to non-injecting drug use, the prevalence of injecting drug use has increased more rapidly during the past decade and will continue to rise in Iran.

Irans drug problem has also contributed to an upsurge in violent criminality and corruption. Criminal violence (e.g., kidnapping and murder) has become particularly acute in the province of Khorasan, where drug lords reportedly resort to these crimes to ensure that local residents provide logistical support for their operations. In addition, over 3,500 Iranian law enforcement and security personnel have died in clashes with heavily armed drug traffickers over the last two decades in what former Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazzi once referred to as a full-scale war along Irans eastern border.

The drug problem has placed a massive burden on Irans criminal justice system as well. Irans prison population has swelled. In the first nine months of 2006 Iranian officials made public the dubious accomplishment of 314,268 drug-related arrests. According to Ali Akbar Yesaqi, the head of Irans Prisons, Security, and Corrections Organization, a large proportion of those incarcerated are drug offenders, and many of those are either drug users or addicts. In June 2006, Mohammad Ali Zanjirei, an Iranian prison official, stated that drug-related crimes are the most common in 19 of Irans 30 provinces. According to the 2007 US International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR), More than 60 percent of the inmates in Iranian prisons are incarcerated for drug offenses, ranging from use to trafficking. Narcotics-related arrests in Iran during the first nine months of 2006 were running at an annual rate of almost 400,000, which is a typical level for the last several years. Twice as many drug abusers were detained as drug traffickers. Iran has executed more than 10,000 narcotics traffickers in the last two decades.

Iran has been at the forefront of efforts by the international community to combat the Afghan drug trade. In 1998, the United States removed Iran from its list of drug-producing countries. As early as 2003, the US State Department Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) declared: There is overwhelming evidence of Irans strong commitment to keep drugs moving out of Afghanistan from reaching its citizens. As Iran strives to achieve this goal, it certainly also prevents drugs from reaching markets in the West. Similarly, the 2007 INSCR strategy report states that, Irans actions support the global effort against international drug trafficking.

At the national level, the main policymaking body responsible for planning and monitoring different aspects of the counter-narcotics campaign is the Drug Control Headquarters (DCH), which was established in 1988. The DCH coordinates the drug-related activities of the police (the leading enforcement unit in terms of drug seizures), the customs officers, the IRGC contingent, and the Ministries of Intelligence, Security, Islamic Guidance and Education, and Health.

Iran has also put in place a rudimentary counter-drug institutional network at the provincial and local levels. In 1989, acting on an order by the Expediency Council, the Mohammad Rasulollah Central Headquarters and three tactical headquarters of Salman, Meqdad, and Abuzar were established in the eastern part of the country. In 1991, the IRGC Qods headquarters was established. Shortly thereafter, the Islamic Revolution Committee was merged with the Law Enforcement Force, and the Mersad Headquarters was established. Much of this machinery is geared toward strengthening the states capacity to track and curb smuggling.

Since the founding of the Islamic Republic, drug-supply reduction has been the mainstay of Tehrans approach to combating the narcotics problem. As in other countries, Irans counter-drug efforts have traditionally rested on two pillars: the criminalization of drug possession and use, and the apprehension of smugglers and the interdiction of supplies. In the first few years of the Islamic Republic, this approach was rooted in the post-revolutionary leaderships ideology and efforts to consolidate power. The hard line against narcotics users and smugglers was part of the jihad against sin.

As previously mentioned, upon taking power, the revolutionary leadership declared the use of all intoxicants to be illegal. In keeping with the anti-Western tenor of the revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini declared that the distribution of heroin was a US-inspired conspiracy. The first post-revolutionary executive director and spokesman for Irans anti-narcotics task force Mokhtar Kalantari likewise explained the upsurge in drug use and addiction in Iran as part of the Wests war on Islam. And the crackdown against drug smuggling in Sistan va Baluchistan was portrayed as part of the struggle against seditionists. To be sure, Islamic ideology is still used to legitimate and reinforce the Iranian governments counter-drug policies. But, as will be shown, both the interpretation and the application of drug-related laws in Iran have changed.

Over the years, Iran has taken a number of steps to staunch the inflow of drugs from the east. The Iranian government has deployed more firepower to the periphery in order to reinforce local and provincial law enforcement officers. Beginning in the mid-1990s, Iranian security forces stationed an estimated 30,000 men along the eastern border. In 2000, Iran also created village-level Basij units, whose activities since then have broadened from defending villages to conducting offensive counter-narcotics operations. In an attempt to seal off the joint boundary with Afghanistan, Iranian authorities have sought to enhance border security by, among other things, installing barbed wire fencing, ground fortifications, and canals.

According to Iranian officials, security forces confiscated nearly 300 tons of drugs and arrested more than 370 traffickers between March 2005 and March 2006. The International Narcotics Control Board credits Iran with a considerable increase in seizures of opiates in 2005, putting the figure at 350 tons. (See Figure 2.) In the first nine months of 2006, by Iranian officials own calculations, interdiction efforts yielded 7.261 kilograms of heroin, 6.133 kilograms of morphine and 231,778 kilograms of opium. The UNODC confirms what Iranian officials have claimed about their vigorous interdiction efforts that substantial quantities of opiates have been intercepted.

Figure 2

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), World Drug Report 2007, Figure 24 , p. 48.

But despite these achievements, international experts acknowledge that over 60% of Afghan heroin, for example, continues to be smuggled through Iran the possible explanations for which are explored later in this study.

Over the past decade, a paradigm shift in Iranian counter-drug policies has been under way, marked by greater official acceptance of, and support for, demand and harm reduction interventions. Demand reduction encompasses a variety of measures that range from advocating the non-use of drugs, to treating individuals with problematic drug use and facilitating their reintegration in the community. Harm reduction aims at preventing the transmission of HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases as well as death through overdose from drug injection.

By the late 1990s, Iranian authorities had begun to recognize the gravity of the HIV threat to the country. Springing from this realization were efforts, relatively uncoordinated at first, to raise public awareness about HIV. In 2001, in an attempt to develop more comprehensive and coordinated programs to combat HIV/AIDS, they established the National AIDS Committee. The following summer, they formed a sub-committee known as the National Harm Reduction Committee, tasked with developing ways to reduce the harm related to injecting drug use and curb the spread of HIV/AIDS among IDUs. Importantly, the members of these bodies encompassed official and non-governmental organizations ranging from the Ministry of Health, the Drug Control Headquarters, the national police, Iranian television, and the prison and welfare authorities to the research and academic institutions.

In an October 12, 2004 statement before the Third Committee of the United Nations, Irans Special Advisor to the UN Ms. Paimaneh Hastaei declared:

In an attempt to strike a balance between prevention, treatment and law enforcement activities, the Islamic Republic of Iran has assumed that demand reduction is as important as supply reduction; special attention is paid to the creation of effective prevention programs targeted at youth and high-risk groups.

Support for demand and harm reduction interventions among senior Iranian officials has been building, albeit very gradually. Beginning in the early 1990s, Iranian authorities introduced treatment regimes that range from abstinence-only to detoxification. In 1994, medical intervention for drug abuse became legal and explicit. Opioid agonists were used furtively in private clinics at first, and made officially available for detoxification programs only in 2001. Subsequent attempts have been made to improve pharmacological treatment and to introduce psychotherapeutic interventions for drug dependent persons.

The rise in the HIV infection rate, especially among intravenous drug users, catalyzed the shift in official attitudes towards a more favorable view of demand and harm reduction approaches. Razzaghi et al. write that there was a convergence of drug demand-reduction and HIV-prevention approaches. The prison population was the initial primary focal point of Irans more progressive interventions, gradually migrating from there into the general population. In fact, Irans burgeoning prison population is home to a large and growing number of drug injection users. Iran is one of just 22 countries that provide harm reduction services to incarcerated drug injection users (DIUs). The government sponsors peer counseling, the dissemination of information to and hotlines for prisoners. Bleach is made available to them for disinfecting needles. Inmates receiving methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) or ARV care are referred upon release to needle exchange programs and other health services. The majority of Irans 28 provinces have an after-care center for prisoners returning to the community.

With respect to the general population, under the reformist government of former president Muhammad Khatami, Iran adopted a more relaxed attitude, regarding users as criminals who need to be healed instead of locked up. The reformists stimulated awareness of and a lively debate about the sources as well as the most effective methods to respond to the narcotics problem. In 1997, the government passed a law stipulating that a drug user who voluntarily seeks treatment will be exempted from punishment.

The ascendancy of the reformists in Iranian politics thus fostered a climate conducive to generating progressive ideas regarding drug use. The work of Iranian non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the close cooperation of the Ministry of Health and other stakeholders in the government, and informed advocacy among senior policymakers converted this new thinking into concrete action. Their combined efforts spawned three types of treatment responses to drug abuse in the general population: (1) the establishment of government-supported residential therapeutic centers, (2) the founding (in 1995) of a branch of Narcotics Anonymous (NA Iran) and NA support groups, and (3) the revival of outpatient clinics.

It is generally agreed that demand and harm reduction as concepts and as components of Irans counter-narcotics efforts took root during the Reform period. Some analysts suggest that since the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to office in August 2005, there has been a return to a primarily supply-side approach. Others, however, assert that the emphasis on harm reduction has continued. Kamin Mohammadi, for example, reports that, as of mid-2007, there were 51 government facilities, 457 private outpatient centers and an additional 26 transition centers. Indeed, demand and harm reduction interventions span the Reform and post-Reform periods:

The International Narcotics Control Board Report for 2006, attesting to Tehrans efforts to implement harm reduction measures, states:

In early 2006, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran announced an emergency plan to provide 3,000 people abusing drugs by injection in Tehran with a three-month treatment course. The Government also implemented a nationwide plan for the rehabilitation of drug addicts from November 2005 to March 2006. The Government is also taking various measures to deal with serious problems involving drug abuse in prisons.

Support for these efforts has come from seemingly unlikely sources. In January 2005, the judicial branch of the Islamic Republic of Iran issued a decree supporting needle exchange and warning against interference with these needed and fruitful public health interventions. That same year, Justice Minister Ayatollah Mohammad Esmail Shoshtari submitted a letter to prosecutors directing them to defer to the Health Ministry in order to counter the spread of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis. Upon close examination, this was no mere coincidence. Prominent members of the NGO community deliberately targeted key religious figures and government officials, presenting them with data and analysis in efforts to enlist their support. Over the years, a critical mass of practitioners-advocates has coalesced around the need to sustain and scale up demand and harm reduction measures.

The importance of grassroots organizations in building this policy network and in conceptualizing as well as conducting demand and harm reduction programs cannot be overstated. The work of two Iranian NGOs the Aftab Society and Persepolis is indicative of the key roles and contributions of grassroots organizations, the rich diversity of programs they administer, and their symbiotic relationship with state institutions. The Aftab Society, founded in 1998, claims to be Irans largest NGO (with offices in 13 provinces) and focuses its activities on education and prevention as well as on providing support for the families of drug addicts. The organization holds workshops in minority communities and, with support from the Ministry of Labor, conducts education workshops in factories across the country. Persepolis, founded in 1999, employs a peer-driven model and a public health approach to drug use. Among other things, this organization operates the largest methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) center in Iran. This work is conducted with support from the Ministry of Health as well as from the UNODC. Thus, beyond the actual work they do in the field, these organizations and others can be credited with helping to develop awareness and build capacity.

To be sure, Iranian officials remarks are often freighted with conflicting attitudes about the drug policies of Western countries. Their statements are laced with complaints that Iran has shouldered a great burden largely without the material assistance and credit it deserves. Some have charged that Western depravity is essentially responsible for unleashing the scourge of drugs on Muslim countries. Others have decried what they perceive as the international communitys shift in orientation from counter-narcotics to counter-terrorism. And in more intemperate moments, there are a few who have threatened to allow smugglers freedom to operate unless the international community is more forthcoming with assistance.

Yet, at the same time, Iranian officials at the highest levels have endorsed working in concert with others to address the narcotics problem. In a July 2007 meeting with the EC anti-drug commission, for example, Secretary of the Expediency Council Mohsen Rezai called for a comparative study of the methods and experiences of other countries in the fight against drugs.

The current global system for drug control rests on three international conventions the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961), the Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1971), and the Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1988). Iran is a party to all three. In 2001, the government of Iran ratified the 1972 Protocol amending the 1961 Single Convention. Iran, which is a signatory of the Paris Pact of 2003, is a strong proponent of an integrated regional approach to counter-narcotics.

For the past six years, the US State Department INL annual strategy reports have consistently stated that the government of Iran has demonstrated sustained national political will and has taken strong measures against illicit narcotics, including cooperation with the international community in support of the global effort against international drug trafficking. Indeed, Iran has established multiple points of contact and cooperation with regional and international partners to combat drug trafficking and, more recently, to develop effective demand and harm reduction interventions.

By 2000, Iran had held counter-narcotics discussions and/or signed memoranda of understanding (MoU) with Armenia, Australia, France, Georgia, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Norway, Russia, Thailand, Turkey, and Turkmenistan. The May 1999 exchange of British and Iranian ambassadors, after a 20-year hiatus, helped pave the way for Anglo-Iranian cooperation in the counter-narcotics field. During a visit to Iran in February 2001, British Cabinet Minister Mo Mowlam pledged support for Irans counter-narcotics efforts. Since that time, Britain (and France) has contributed drug enforcement liaison officers and equipment, including sniffer dogs, bulletproof vests and night-vision goggles. In October 2004, Iran and Italy signed a memorandum of understanding to cooperate on counter-narcotics. The agreement provided for the mutual access to data banks and cooperation between Iranian and Italian police.

Iran has been a beneficiary of assistance from the European Union (EU) as well. In 2005, the European Commission allocated 1.2 million euros to support demand reduction initiatives in Iran. This assistance was geared mainly towards helping local NGO networks to make progress in the area of demand control for narcotics and harm reduction.

At the regional level, in May 2005 Iran entered agreement with UAE to combat drug trafficking. In June of the following year, Iran signed a MoU pledging to help train Afghan border police, and calling upon Afghan leaders and the international community to establish a security belt and to destroy all opium processing labs. In July 2007, Secretary General of the Drugs Campaign headquarters Brigadier General Esmaeel Ahmadi-Moqaddam called for expansion of Iran-Saudi Arabia joint efforts to fight drug smuggling.

As early as 1990, Iranian officials approached the United Nations for assistance. Ghodratollah Asadi of the Health Ministry participated in discussions with officials from the UNODC in November of that year. The following May, a five-member observer team from Iran met with then UNODC director Giorgio Giacomelli to discuss coordinating activities against the illicit trafficking of drugs. This was bolstered by Irans appeal for support for its counter-narcotics programs from the United Nations.

In 1999, the UNODC opened an office in Tehran. The offices work covers drug supply reduction/law enforcement, drug demand reduction, and rule of law. Since beginning its work, this office has been engaged in the implementation of the NOROUZ Program, an umbrella of four major programs that deal with various aspects of the drug problem:

The Darius (Drug Abuse Research and Intervention Unified Strategy) Project, established in 2002, was (like the other projects) jointly designed and agreed upon by The Islamic Republic of Irans Drug Control Headquarters (DCHQ) and the UNODC. The Darius institute, part of the project, serves the aim of strengthening the national response to drug addiction by focusing on demand reduction. Accordingly, the Institute organizes, monitors, and evaluates research and education projects as well as provides guidance to researchers.The institute spends 60% of its budget on drug abuse prevention, 30% on treatment and rehabilitation, and 10% on harm reduction programs.

In partnership with the UNODC, Iran has explored ways to develop more effective joint efforts at the regional level to staunch drug smuggling. Iranian officials, who have long insisted that the drug issue is a regional problem, have sought the assistance of the UNODC to help formulate an integrated approach that involves all three countries of the Golden Crescent. Iranian officials have participated in meetings facilitated by the UNODC and aimed at fostering trilateral cooperation. As a result, in December 2005, senior drug law enforcement officers agreed to joint patrolling on the border and to establish direct telecommunication links so as to share intelligence of an immediate nature related to drug smuggling activities. In June 2007, senior delegates from the three countries agreed to take action to improve border management, including constructing more physical barriers, boosting law enforcement capacity, launching joint counter-narcotic operations, better communication, and increased intelligence-sharing; to focus on all aspects of the drug economy (e.g., locating and destroying drug labs); and to hold policy-level coordination meetings twice yearly and to conduct technical-level exchanges every three months.

Interdiction: how successful? As discussed earlier, Iranian efforts to intercept drug shipments entering the country from the east have borne fruit. There are several reasons as to why Iran is nonetheless awash in heroin. The first reason is the sheer volume of supplies originating in Afghanistan. The second is the smaller-scale shipments and alternative routes and forms of transport utilized by traffickers, who continue to adapt to Iranian counter-drug methods. The third reason is the pull of the market. At the receiving end of the supply chain are the new and expanding markets for heroin in the Middle East and Africa. And then there is the pattern of drug consumption in Iran itself a burgeoning market that traffickers are eager and able to serve.

Iran: how committed? There are questions about whether Iran is applying counter-narcotics tools selectively. For example, have Iranian authorities tolerated some smugglers as in the PKK base reportedly set up on Iranian territory after the capture of Abdullah Ocalan in exchange for intelligence? There have been other unconfirmed reports that Iran has diverted some of the equipment provided to assist in its anti-narcotics efforts. According to several press accounts, Iran might have provided to Hezbollah about 250 sets of night-vision goggles that Britain had supplied for counter-narcotics purposes.

Iran: how capable? Hindering the effectiveness of Irans counter-narcotics efforts are factors very familiar to Americans: bureaucratic battles over funding, deep differences of opinion about the right balance between treatment and law and order; the firepower of traffickers; drug-related corruption. A. William Samii has reported on the ongoing conflict between the Drug Control Headquarters (DHCQ) and police, with the latter complaining DHCQ officials who do not have any practical experience come up with impractical theories and undermine the drug-control campaign.

But Iran-specific factors have also hampered the effort: the ethnic mix of the country coupled with center-periphery tension, which sometimes results in non-cooperation of locals with law enforcement authorities; and the backwardness of some provinces such as Sistan va Baluchistan, where smuggling is a coping strategy for some and a tool for supporting insurgency for others.

In addition, discussing the subjects of drug abuse and addiction may no longer be taboo in Iran. However, shame and stigma still attach to this behavior.

Irans Partners: how helpful? But there are also questions about how responsive and supportive others have been to Iran. Ambassador Mohammad Mehdi Akhundzadeh, the Iranian delegate to the UNODC in Vienna, complained that international aid to Iran is insufficient and trivial, IRNA reported.

European and other external assistance is undoubtedly limited. A number of national bans on dealing with and supporting Iran have contributed to this. The United States has applauded Iranian counter-narcotics efforts, encouraged regional cooperation and has not stood in the way of UNODC assistance. Nevertheless, Washington remains reluctant to establish a bilateral dialogue on narcotics while other issues, deemed of higher priority (e.g., the status of the Iranian nuclear program and Iranian involvement in Iraq), are unresolved.

At the regional level, Iranian officials have long voiced frustration that Afghanistan and Pakistan are not doing enough to staunch the production and flow of narcotics. UNODC officials and other international experts appear to agree. Commenting on Pakistans negligence, UNODC chief Maria Costa stated: Unfortunately, contrary to Iran, which has respected all its responsibilities in the campaign against drugs, Pakistan has been very negligent.

Apart from the issues of lagging support for and cooperation with Iran on counter-narcotics is the international communitys lack of urgency in tackling the skyrocketing opium poppy cultivation and production operations in Afghanistan. The recently declared US priority on disrupting the Taliban and Al Qaedas money stream by zeroing in on the Afghan narcotics problem represents a welcome, though belated development.

There are some bright spots in this otherwise gloomy picture. Harm reduction programs have not been the norm in Middle Eastern countries, but the recent remarkable growth of such programs in Iran could serve as a model for the whole region. In fact, Iranian NGOs are already leading the way. The Middle Eastern Harm Reduction Network was launched by Iranian civil society.

There are also some looming uncertainties. The factors driving ever-larger numbers of Iranians into drug abuse and addiction are poorly understood. Clearly, the draconian policies of the past had not curbed risk behaviors far from it. What remains unclear, however, is whether the incipient network of civil society and official supporters of demand and harm reduction interventions will be able to generate the momentum needed to implement an integrated approach to the opiates epidemic and scale up programs that are necessary to contain the multifaceted threat it poses to the country.

More here:

Iran's War on Drugs: Holding the Line? | Middle East Institute

During a panel discussion at this years SXSW conference, rapper and entrepreneur Snoop Dogg shed light on how he narrowly missed landing in the penitentiary right before his career took off.

Snoop had received a joint suspension sentence for selling cocaine, but was let off the hook by a sympathetic probation officer who took into account that the young rapper was trying to go straight. I went [to county] for those four months, got out, and got a record deal, said the rapper. He actually saved my life.

Weldon Angelos, a friend of Snoops and the founder of Extravagant Records, was also a panelist. He recalled being given a 55-year prison sentence in 2004 for selling $900 worth of marijuana, before being released in 2016 thanks to his prosecutor who had a change of heart.

It wasnt like hes a violent man or committed a violent crime, Snoop said about Angelos. He was trying to provide a means for his family. He was just hustling.

The Gin and Juice rapper and occasional crooner also addressed the lack of adequate mental health services in correctional facilitiesillustrated by the experience of his younger brother, who was incarcerated at age 17. While in prison, his brother was put on a steady dose of the anti-psychotic drug Thorazine to treat a couple of mental issues.

But the medication didnt seem to have a healing effect. We would go to visit him and he would just get slower and slower, he said. It just got to a point where he couldnt even communicate with us anymore.

Snoop is using his platform to fight the injustice of the drug war. I feel like I have a voice and its my job to raise awareness, he said.

The rapper joins fellow music moguls Jay Z, TI, and John Legend in speaking out against the drug war and raising awareness of its harms, especially on communities of color.

Some, like Graham Boyd of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and civil rights lawyer Michelle Alexander, have gone so far as to call the drug war the New Jim Crow.

To the communities of color that have been disproportionately affected by such policies put in place because of the drug warsuch as the 100-to-1 crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparityits not such a radical comparison.

View original post here:

Snoop Dogg Speaks Out Against War On Drugs - TheFix.com

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

By Dries Van Thielen

Even though this quote by David Boaz dates back to 1988, it holds an actual sense. A majority of Western Countries are still reluctant to the idea of drugs being freely available to the public. Politicians still fight this war without victors. The one exception to the rule is Portugal. In 2002, the Portuguese government decided to decriminalize drugs and thus far they have received extremelypositive feedback. However, it seems as if Portugal will soon have another member in its decriminalize drug club, coming from Down Under.

A powerful Think-tank Australia 21 which consists out of former police deputies, college professors, and backed by former prime ministers from both sides of the Australian aisle, brainstormed on how to approach their drug problem.

As reported by The Guardian, the former Labor Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr, and the former Liberal Victoria premier, Jeff Kennett, launched the Australia 21 report on Monday, which calls for an end to the criminalization of drug users.

The report, entitled Can Australia Respond to Drugs More Effectively and Safely, is the result of aday-long roundtable of 17experts, practitioners, retiredjudges, prosecutors, seniorpolice, prison and parole administrators, drug law researchers andadvocates, which was held at the University of Sydney in September 2015to consider ways in which Australia could develop safer and moreeffective policies inrelation to illicitdrugs.

The report includes 13 recommendations on how the illicit drug laws should reform ed. All seen from the perspective of the individual drug consumer. The new reforms argue that instead of penalizing the consumer, they should be nudged into choosing otherwise. Another proposal is to eliminate the black market and turning drugs into a white market consumption good possibly after the consultation of a medical professional.

Also, they will address drug use as a health issue instead of a criminal justice one as is now the case. They based their shifts on policy in other Western Countries, including the United States.

At the presentation of the study, Jeff Kennett stated that Australia has been fighting the War on Drugs all wrong: There had been no seminal advance in addressing the challenges for 40 to 50 years, with the exception of Sydneys safe injecting facility.

These reforms are badly needed. According to The Guardian, the use of Methamphetamines has risen steadily over the past five years. Around 80,000 Australians are arrested yearly for drug-related crimes

Still, the report concluded that some drugs (cocaine, heroin,..) should never be freely available to the consumer.

Even though the proposed reforms are well-intended steps in the right direction, these last remarks will render it useless. Unless all drugs are decriminalized and legalized, the War on Drugs will continue and designer drugs ( Remember Flakka ?) will continuingly hit the streets and gangs will make large profits on the underground circuit.

australiaAustralia 21marijuanamethanepolicepotwar on drugsweed

Go here to read the rest:

Aussie Think-Tank Proposes to End the War on Drugs - The Libertarian Republic

Deadliest Place to Deal: presenter Livvy Haydock with the mother of a drug suspect killed by the police. Photograph: Daniel Bogado/BBC

As a documentary presenter, Livvy Haydock is no stranger to risk. She has made films about girl gangs and prison smuggling. She has been to war zones and worked with Ross Kemp. But throughout Deadliest Place to Deal (BBC3) she looked profoundly ill at ease, as if the Philippines was the last place she wanted to be.

It is not hard to imagine why. It has been eight months since the foul-mouthed populist Rodrigo Duterte waselected president on a platform of eliminating crime, corruption and drugs. He promised that all of that would be gone in six months, a local journalist tells Haydock. He also promised it would be bloody.

It has been. Dutertes war on drugs has killed more than 7,000 people. The vast majority of these have been extrajudicial executions, either by police or more frequently by vigilantes acting on police instructions. To call Duterte unrepentant would be to understate things. Hitler massacred three million Jews, he said in one speech. Now there are three million drug addicts. Id be happy to slaughter them all. His numbers might be off, but there is no disputing his intent.

Haydock joined Manilas night-shift press pack, who travel from one bullet-ridden body to the next, reporting on as many as 22 killings a night. A single lonely underpass Haydock visited has seen 10 bodies turn up in the past eight months. Thats more than one body a month, said Haydock, who has a habit of resorting to the baldly obvious.

She is, however, nothing if not intrepid. She talks to the families of victims, goes on raids with the police, interviews a vigilante murderer and follows the bodies to the funeral home. She sees people being forcibly drug tested in their homes and at work by door-knocking cops. Anyone who tests positive is placed on the police drugs watch list the list used to furnish vigilantes with the names of people to be eliminated. Increasingly, political opponents of Duterte and even human rights workers find themselves targeted. Its really starting to look like a witch-hunt, said Haydock.

A lot of the camera work was the sort one associates with clandestine filming shaky, murky, reliant on the hastily framed closeup but everything was out in the open. The police were happy to be filmed at work. The drug dealer and the vigilante only required a bit of face drapery. What made Haydocks time in Manila so uncomfortably surreal was the backdrop of Dutertes extreme popularity: he won the election by alandslide, and currently enjoys approval ratings of around 80%.

Later, Haydock indulged a police spokesman in a bizarrely upbeat interview. Since the crackdown began, he said, all crimes happening in the streets went down, except for murder. Here, Haydocks gift for the obvious served her well. She pointed out that murder was sort of the worst crime. Heshowed her a pie chart comparing 760,000 surrenderers to the 1,795 people killed in police operations. Thats a big number, though, she said, pointing to the killing slice.

Where do we focus? he said. On the spot on the clean piece of paper? Oron the entire paper? He rather did himself in with his own analogy there.

The programme was rounded out with an interview with Dutertes sister, the family spokesperson. Chillingly, she ate lunch through it, pausing to swallow a forkful before defending the chaos and carnage as the will of the people. Now theres a phrase for the age.

The joy of The House That 100k Built (BBC2) is watching architect Piers Taylor manage both the expectations of budget-conscious self-builders and his own exasperation with their design choices. He smiles as he looks over their plans, but you can tell his eyes are bleeding on the inside.

Kevin and Leslie have got big ideas for a retirement dream house on the Isle of Sheppey, and only 50k to build it with now they have bought the plot of land. Their plan had a curved sloping roof and a staircase to match. Pierss sidekick Kieran Long said theyd fallen into the classic self-builders trap of giving showy design priority over a great place to live in. Piers was privately more blunt: I have to put my cards on the table, and say I just hate the roof.

Piers tried to convince Kev and Leslie that their roof was a stupid waste of money, but he only managed to talk them out of the staircase. At their next meeting he got rid of their two-storey wall of window. By the end of the show, their dream house was still only foundation-high. Mark my words: that crazy wavy roof has no chance.

Read more:

Deadliest Place to Deal review the carnage at the heart of Duterte's war on drugs - The Guardian

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WRSP)

More than two million people are incarcerated in the U.S. today. That's compared to less than half a million people back in the 1970's. Fox's Esther Kwon reports on why some say the war on drugs is to blame.

A message tonight that we need to start fighting the war on drugs in a different way, and that a war on drugs, is really a war on people. Retired Major Neill Franklin is the Executive Director of LEAP, the Law Enforcement Action Partnership. He was Tuesday night's speaker and is working on ending the war on drugs. Franklin says people who misuse drugs should be getting treatment - not locked up in prison.

Some people attending the discussion said change starts with the young people who feel like they have nowhere else to go.

"I'd love to see a way to include them in our lives and make them a working valuable asset because they have so much to offer, and they don't know it," said Springfield residents Donald and Janice Lobb.

Major Franklin said, "At every corner in society, we can see the harms from the war on drugs. Is there a country, is there a state, is there a city on this globe that doesn't have the war on drugs? The answer's no."

One of the topics brought up on Tuesday night was prohibition. Franklin and attendees say that if it didn't work for alcohol, it's not going to work for drugs.

Some solutions that were brought up were getting treatment for drug addicts, rather than locking them up in prison, and making drug issues a public health issue, not criminal justice.

See the original post:

Finding A Way To End The War On Drugs - FOX Illinois

Tworecentstorieson this subject in the New York Times remind us that, despite recent progress toward legalizing marijuana, the U.S. drug war is far from over.

The articles support many libertarian views on drug policy: that legalization should include all drugs, not just marijuana; that the drug war disproportionately harms the poor and minorities; that prohibition erodes basic constitutional protections against unreasonable searches; that asset forfeiture laws create perverse incentives for law enforcement; and that prohibition senselessly militarizes local police.

One further interesting point is that law enforcement has its own reservations about no-knocks:

The National Tactical Officers Association, which might be expected to mount the most ardent defense, has long called for using dynamic entry [no knocks] sparingly. Robert Chabali, the groups chairman from 2012 to 2015, goes so far as to recommend that it never be used to serve narcotics warrants.

It just makes no sense, said Mr. Chabali, a SWAT veteran who retired as assistant chief of the Dayton, Ohio, Police Department in 2015. Why would you run into a gunfight? If we are going to risk our lives, we risk them for a hostage, for a citizen, for a fellow officer. You definitely dont go in and risk your life for drugs.

Exactly.

Link:

No-Knock Warrants and the War on Drugs - Cato Institute (blog)

European Trade CommissionerCecilia Malstrmlast week delivered a blunt message to the Philippine government of PresidentRodrigo Duterte: Your human rights-trampling policies pose a threat to exports to the EU.

Malmstrms list of abusive policies included the killings linked to Dutertes abusive war on drugs, the looming reinstatement of the death penalty, and lawmakers efforts to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 9 years of age. Malmstrms warning was no empty threat. She specified that unless the government took action to address the EUs concerns, the Philippines risks losing tariff-free export of up to 6,000 products under the EUs human rights benchmarks linked to the Generalized Scheme of Preferences (GSP+) trade scheme.

Philippine presidential spokesmanErnesto Abellaon March 11 dismissed those concerns by claiming that the EU is ignorant of the Philippines. [The EU] cannot just understand what is really happening here, Abella said, without elaborating. But the human rights calamity unfolding in the Philippines under Duterte demands a stern EU response. Since Duterte took office on June 30, 2016, police and unidentified gunmen have killed more than 7,000 suspected drug users and drug dealers. That death toll doesnt include the drug war victims that Duterte calls collateral damage children shot dead in anti-drug operations. The government has resisted calls for an independent inquiry into those 2,555 killings attributed to the police by declaring it would harm police morale. Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch research has exposed the official narrative regarding the 3,603 killings attributed to vigilantes and drug gangs as a strategy to shield police and police agents from culpability in death squad-style extrajudicial killings.

The Philippine governments reinstatement of the death penalty is also a big step backward in rights protection and for the global campaign to abolish capital punishment. In the past decade, the Philippines has been a leader in Southeast Asia in the campaign against capital punishment. In 2007 it ratified the optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the abolishment of the death penalty the first in the region to do so. Since then, it has supported several United Nations resolutions reaffirming a moratorium on capital punishment around the world. Now the Philippines will have the dubious distinction of becoming the first party to the protocol to reverse course and restore the death penalty.

Likewise, the Philippine Congresss consideration of a bill that would lower the age of criminal responsibility from 15 years to 9 is a direct attack on the rights of children. The internationally accepted age of criminal responsibility is 12 years. Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the Philippines has ratified, the arrest, detention, or imprisonment of children should only ever be used as a last resort; instead, rehabilitation should be offered wherever possible. The bill also fails to spell out the rights of children who come into conflict with the law for example, that they are entitled to have access to a lawyer, to be treated humanely and in an age-appropriate way, and that they will be protected from violence.

The EU isnt the first close bilateral trading partner and donor to respond to Duterte administration abuses with threats to curtail assistance to the Philippine government. The US government announced on December 14 it would deny the Philippine government a new Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) grant due to significant concerns around rule of law and civil liberties in the Philippines. The statement alluded to the governments full-scale assault on basic rights by specifying that criteria for governments receiving MCC aid includes not just a passing scorecard but also a demonstrated commitment to the rule of law, due process and respect for human rights.

The EU has sent a much-needed message to the Philippine government that the horrific human toll of its war on drugs will carry an economic cost. Other governments with close relations with the Philippines including Australia, whose Foreign MinisterJulie Bishopwill visit the Philippines this week should do likewise in terms of suspensions of financial aid, training programs and equipment sales to the Philippine National Police. Other targeted sanctions could and should follow.

It is no time for business as usual with Dutertes Philippines.

Original post:

EU Takes Aim at Murderous 'War on Drugs' Philippines - Human Rights Watch

It was still only early, not long past midnight and we had a tip there was another drug related killing, number four of the night.

The body lay in front of a car, handcuffed, with a single gunshot to the head. It wasnt what youd think.

This wasnt a drug dealer executing a rival.

His wallet had been emptied and inside was a note that read Sorry I destroyed my life because of drugs, sorry Im a pusher.

Executions like this began as soon as Rodrigo Duterte was inaugurated as President of the Philippines last June. During his campaign he pledged to rid the country of drugs by killing anyone involved in them. Since Duterte took power over 7,000 people have been killed.

I joined the night crawlers, local journalists whose main job has become tracking and documenting the killings, sometimes up to 20 a night.

On my first night I didnt have to wait long until the first killing was reported.

Two men lay dead covered in blood under a bridge. The killers were still at the scene. They were the police. They claimed the two drug suspects had attempted to shoot first.

This became a familiar story.

Across Manila I met countless families, who said their loved ones were unarmed and gunned down by police, often in their own homes.

The police version was always that the suspect had fired first. In many cases a .38 calibre pistol was found at the scene.

The families view was usually that these guns had been planted on their loved ones by the police.

Many of the bereaved families told me they were too scared to report killings by police to the police. And there seemed little hope of justice for those families who did.

When I was in Manila, I learned that the police had found evidence of their own wrong-doing in just two out of 1,200 cases.

I met with a specialist team from the Commission on Human Rights. Desperate families turn to him to investigate the extra judicial killings. But in such a climate of fear it seemed that even he was not safe.

About two weeks into my stay, president Duterte made yet another extraordinary and controversial speech. This time he threatened the lives of human rights activists, for protecting the rights of drug dealers.

Most of the dead in this war are killed, after being added to a sinister sounding drugs watch list.

I joined an operation known as Toak Hang which means Knock and Surrender to find out how names end up on this list.

The police, working with local residents, knock on the doors of supposed drug users, who are invited to take a drugs test.

Anyone who tests positive is marked down. It was alarming to witness unsuspecting people picked out on the basis of rumours.

I watched their faces contort in angst, as they awaited the results of the tests. In this climate, fear pushes neighbour to report neighbour.

Some are exploiting the Presidents war on drugs to frame enemies, who are innocent of any crimes. North of Manila I met the Jebulan family, who had lost their 20 year old son, Yanis, just months earlier.

He was out celebrating his exam results with a friend when he was gunned down in the way many drug pushers have been. But his family say Yanis had absolutely nothing to do with drugs. They believe he was executed, simply because of a dispute with a local man.

Duterte has not only encouraged police to carry out extrajudicial killings. Since he took power, over 4,000 of these executions have been committed by vigilantes.

In a decaying slum, I met one of these vigilantes, who claimed to have executed 12 people in recent months. He told me that the police were providing the vigilantes with names of those to be eliminated.

When the killings started, drug users and dealers were given an ultimatum by the authorities; Surrender or Die. According to the police over 790,000 people surrendered, promising never to touch drugs again.

Prisons and rehabilitation facilities were not prepared for the enormous rush. I visited prisons where inmates take shifts to sleep on any space they could find.

The rehab facilities were so busy that local authorities have resorted to bizarre alternatives. Some drugs users have been ordered to attend Zumba classes. Failure to turn up, results in a visit from the police.

The funeral parlours are also overrun. Some even have contracts with the police to retrieve the bodies from crime scenes. But surprisingly I was told that the killings havent been good for business.

Most of the dead in this war come from the 40% of Filipinos, who live below the poverty line.

For many families the costs of a funeral are simply unaffordable. I sat through a number of wakes where families were running around, desperately trying to raise money for a burial. Often their loved one was already in an open casket in the home.

Staff at funeral homes told me that in other cases bodies are never even claimed. To deal of the ever-mounting body count, funeral parlours have resorted to mass burials in mass graves.

So what drives people to keep dealing in this country? I managed to find one dealer, willing to tell me.

She explained that selling shabu, the Filipino name for crystal meth, was the only means of putting food on her familys table.

Already known to police, she felt she had no option but to keep tempting fate. The sheer terror in her eyes is something Ill never forget.

When I asked the spokesperson for Philippines National Police to account for this extraordinary wave of police killings, he again insisted most were the result of suspects refusing to surrender to police.

But President Dutertes sister and official spokesperson, Jocelyn, took a different approach.

When I asked her if Filipinnos really wanted so many extra judicial killings, she responded; If they elected a president like him and thats the way they want it done, thats the way it will be done.

And its hard to argue with her. Polls suggest over 80% of Filipinnos support President Duterte. Most surprising and shocking for me that even users and families of the dead claimed to support the President's brutal war on drugs.

Deadliest Place to Deal is available on BBC iPlayer from 10am on Wednesday.

Excerpt from:

City of blood: Manila's merciless war on drugs where police and vigilantes have executed 4000 - Mirror.co.uk

Germany joined a growing list of countries and groups expressing concern over the antidrug campaign of the Philippine government which, to the international community, was focused on putting offenders to death instead of instituting massive reforms that would disable, if not eliminate, the drug menace.

Germanys human rights commissioner cited the passage in the House of Representatives as one of the highly regrettable actions being taken by the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte in the fight against drugs.

Brbel Kofler, federal government commissioner for human rights policy and humanitarian aid at the German federal foreign office, said in a statement that the push to revive the death penalty ran counter to the Philippine signing of a second optional protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The covenant binds the Philippine government to a commitment to shun executions of convicts as a penalty for grave crimes.

Since the signing of the international agreement, Kofler said Germany considered the Philippines as a close partner of those who, like the federal government [of Germany], reject this inhumane punishment under all circumstances.

This situation is highly regrettable, said Kofler, adding that Germany and the Philippines had been closely cooperating in the United Nations on many campaigns, among them on human trafficking, poverty reduction and climate change.

In her statement, Kofler also called on the Duterte administration to withdraw conditions it had set for the visit of the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings to take a closer look at Dutertes war on drugs.

With at least 8,000 deaths in the drug war, Kofler said it was important for the UN special rapporteur to visit the Philippines.

The German official also called for a speedy and fair trial of Sen. Leila de Lima, who had been sent to jail by Duterte administration officials for alleged involvement in the drug trade.

This article appeared on the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper website, which is a member of Asia News Network and a media partner of The Jakarta Post

Read more:

Germany joins clamor against Philippines' bloody war on drugs - SE ... - Jakarta Post