UNODC: Neuer Fall von Zensur

http://blogs.taz.de 01.03.2010 von Hans Cousto

http://blogs.taz.de/drogerie/2010/0...

Das Büros der Vereinten Nationen für Drogen- und Verbrechensbekämpfung (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, UNODC) ist eurneut durch Zensurmaßnahmen negativ aufgefallen. Das Büro hat seine eigene Webseite zensiert, die sich für eine Entkriminalisierung von Cannabis aussprach.

Eine Webseite dieser UNO-Behörde, die von der britischen Drug Policy Foundation TRANSFORM zuvor schon in ihrem Blog erwähnt wurde, hat die UNO-Behörde kurz nach dem Erscheinen des Blog-Beitrags selbst zensiert. Dabei wurde eine ganze Sektion entfernt, die einen für diese Behörde seltenen Ausbruch von Pragmatismus enthielt. In diesem Falle wurden Texte betreffend die Effekte der Gesetzgebungen im Zusammenhang mit Cannabis ersatzlos entfernt, wohl deshalb, weil offensichtlich klar gestellt wurde, dass strengere Gesetze weder eine Minderung des Konsums noch eine Minderung der mit dem Konsum einhergehenden Problemen zur Folge haben. Diese Vorgehensweise erscheint eher armselig. Die Webseite, um die es hier geht, konnte etwa drei Jahre lang ungestört und im vollen Umfang aufgerufen werden. Nur um die Argumente für eine Entkriminalisierung nicht weiter öffentlich bekannt werden zu lassen, wurden diese entfernt, kurz nachdem über sie gebloggt wurde.

Nun sollten diese Leute aber wissen, dass das Internet niemals etwas vergisst und man nach wie vor diese Seite lesen kann wie sie vorher war: Auf der nützlichen Internet Archiv Wayback Maschine.

* die betreffende Seite zuvor

http://www.unodc.org/youthnet/en/yo... – bemerke die fehlende Sektion 4!

Es ist zu hoffen, dass der Fakt, dass die UNODC durch den eher kindischen Versuch der Zensur auf einer ihrer eigenen Seiten eine Lehre gezogen hat: Internetbenutzer mögen es nicht, wenn sie wie Idioten behandelt werden. Sie antworten darauf eher schlecht gelaunt.

Tribble von der HANFPLANTAGE schreibt deshalb in seinen Nachrichten: »An alle unsere Internetfreunde: Bitte verlinkt das hier und den Blog von TRANSFORM soweit es geht, bloggt darüber woanders, nutzt Twitter, Facebook und alle eure anderen Internetspielzeuge, um die originale Webseite – und den Zensurversuch – soweit es geht an die Öffentlichkeit zu zerren!

Ich meine es ernst: Kontaktiert ein paar Journalisten und wir werden sehen, ob wir das in die Nachrichten bekommen. Es sollte schon mehr Interesse regen, oder zumindest einen interessanten Gegenstandpunkt bilden, zu dem letzten tendenziösen Jahresbericht des International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), der obsessiv wie immer Staaten attackiert, die es wagen, Drogenbesitz zu entkriminalisieren.«

Mal schauen, ob die bundesdeutschen Politiker, die an der kommenden Tagung der Suchtstoffkommission der Vereinten Nationen in Wien am 8. bis 12. März 2010 anwesend sein werden, nur die vorgegebenen Parolen des UNODC nachbeten oder ob sie endlich mal intervenieren und die stetigen Zensurmaßnahmen dieser UNO-Behörde anprangern.

Sources:

Cannabis 2002 Report. A joint international effort at the initiative of the ministers of public health of Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland. Ministry of Public Health of Belgium, 2002.

"A smoking gun? The impact of marijuana smoking on respiratory health", The British Lung Association, 2002.

Cannabis Series - Part 4
 The effect of cannabis laws

A number of countries are debating their marijuana laws, in most cases, trying to decide whether the penalties for possessing small amounts of cannabis should be reduced. Some advocate legalization of cannabis, that is, making it available through controlled, legal sources, as are tobacco and alcohol. However, most policymakers see that option as a huge social experiment, with outcomes that are difficult to predict. Others advocate that possessing personal amounts of cannabis should no longer be viewed as a criminal offence and penalties should be reduced. This is because, even though marijuana is not a harmless drug, an increasing number of health officials, researchers and politicians in these countries view the penalty to be out of proportion to the potential harm of using cannabis. The following are some of the arguments being made for reducing the penalties so that possession of small amounts of cannabis is no longer a criminal offence:

A criminal record is a serious matter
 A criminal record labels a person caught with possessing small amounts of cannabis as a criminal and severely limits their ability to find employment, professional certification and to travel to other countries. Criminalizing a behaviour has a number of effects: it may make it more attractive to some youth, and it may result in the further marginalization of some youth, making it more difficult to help them.

Reducing the severity of the penalty doesn’t seem to lead to increased use
 Cannabis use (particularly heavy use in combination with other substances) poses risks, so it is important that any change not result in increased use. Based on the experiences of those countries or states that have reduced their penalties, various reviews agree that there is no indication that this will happen. For example, the 11 US states that decriminalized marijuana possession in the 1970s did not see increases in use beyond that experienced by other states; neither did the Australian states that have introduced a civil offence model over the past decade.

Laws don’t seem to matter one way or another to young people
 Over the past 10 years in most Western countries, the use of cannabis by young people has increased and attitudes have generally grown more tolerant toward the drug, with no difference between countries that had stiff or reduced penalties. For example in the Netherlands, where cannabis use is not a criminal offence, usage rates are lower than in the US, which has some of the toughest cannabis laws in the Western world. Young people who do not use cannabis generally say that their decision is based on health concerns or that they are just not interested. They aren’t as likely to mention the laws as being a factor in their decision. In fact, research with teenage students suggests that the criminalization of cannabis and the stigmatization of cannabis use as a dangerous and forbidden activity makes it even more attractive to some.

Resources could be better placed elsewhere
 Cannabis offences can take one or two officers off the street for up to several hours + their time for court appearances + tying up other court resources. These $$ could have more impact put into apprehending producers and traffickers, or directed at prevention, education and treatment. Although the law is an important means of controlling behaviour, accurate and balanced information and education should be seen as the primary means to enable young people to make informed choices about their drug use. For example, laws cannot distinguish between levels of use, whereas educators can help young people by providing clearer messages (for example, all drug use contains some risk - heavy use can result in serious problems for young people, while light, infrequent cannabis use poses fewer risks).

A case example
 In Canada police are often reluctant to apply the penalties for possessing small amounts of cannabis, not only because of the work involved, but also because they do not want to saddle a young person with a criminal record. When a young person is found in possession of small amounts of cannabis in Canada, the typical police response is some combination of taking the drug, detaining the person in the police car or station, giving them a warning and letting them go. As a result, young people feel that the police do not take the laws very seriously; some also feel that they are applied unevenly depending on a person’s ethnicity, the clothing they are wearing, etc.

One of the options being considered is to give the person a ticket, like a traffic ticket. Even though this would seem like a softer approach, it would in fact represent a greater penalty than many young people currently experience. And if the police "widen the net" (that is, become more active in apprehending youth) as apparently occurred in Australia when penalties were reduced, it would actually mean that young people would be more likely to be penalized.

Another possible outcome is that parents are more likely to be involved when their child is fined than if they are just "slapped on the wrist" and let go, providing an opportunity for parent/child discussion on the issue.

Also, creating a reduced penalty option reduces the deviance attached to the behaviour, which does lead to a climate more open to actual health promotion messages (e.g., that using around driving and sexual situations, or using to the point of intoxication, or using in combination with other substances or medications, or while involved in physical or cognitive activity can be harmful).

Fischer, B, Albanes, R, and Amitay, O. "Marijuana, Juveniles and the Police: What high school students believe about detection and enforcement", Canadian Journal of Criminology, Vol 40(4): 401-420, 1998.

Gary Roberts, Senior Associate
 Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse
 Phone: 613-235-4048-225 // 613-829-3152 (home)
 Fax: 613-235-8101/613-829-3307 (home)