Decriminalization

The report aims to identify legal frameworks, models, and implementation practices of the decriminalization policies and to assess their empirical results. Statistics show that the prevalence of drug use has increased for decades all around the world despite all the strict measures taken. Decriminalization policy has emerged as a response to unbalanced prohibitionist drug policy, which creates not only social injustices at the individual level but also public health problems and high social costs at the macro level. On the other hand, decriminalization is a complex framework and is generally used as an umbrella term representing contemporary strategy. Governments have tailored this framework according to their priorities and expectations. The report categorizes models, implementations, and outcomes to evaluate results. Besides, by providing overall results from three European countries, we aim to assess the impact of the contextual factors and variation of the results. We hope the report will contribute to the discussion of developing better policy models managing drug problems.

Every former British colony in South Asia has retained colonial laws that criminalize sexual activity between persons of the same sex. There are intensifying calls for the repeal of such laws, especially as western states have moved towards ending all forms of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This article examines the persistence of laws that criminalize same-sex relations in South Asia, with particular attention to the less studied case of Sri Lanka. I argue that recent western trends do not predict the decriminalization of same-sex relations in South Asia and indeed, may make it more difficult to achieve.
The article highlights four socio-cultural barriers to decriminalization in South Asia. These include; (i) a wariness of ‘repeat colonization’ by ascendant social norms that are popularly associated with the West; in this instance, LGBT civil rights, (ii) the predominance of the extended family unit and multi-generational households, which inhibit notions of intimacy and privacy that are critical to popular support for decriminalization, (iii) widespread corruption, which underlies resistance among the police to repealing criminal provisions that can be used for inducing bribes, and (iv) the elevated legal status of certain religions, which helps to legitimize other types of discrimination. By comparing the legislative inertia in Sri Lanka and other South Asian countries to successful decriminalization elsewhere in Asia – including Nepal, Thailand and Hong Kong – I argue that a transformative change of at least some of these socio-cultural factors is a prerequisite to decriminalization.

“Dying is an art, Like everything else I do it Exceptionally well”
                                                                                                  - Sylvia Plath
Never underestimate the power of Human mind. It can make you go towards any extreme conditions. The ultimate beauty of the mind is it can opt for its self-annihilation and even finds pleasure in it, as it happens in the cases of Sylvia Plath and Virginia Woolf. The recent one is Hannah Baker, the protagonist of James Asher's novel '13 Reasons Why'. When creativity and emotivity goes very wild, most of us fail to manage the imbalance and maintain the phase of coordination. Suicide or Self-destruction demands much determination and courage than all the world can do for facing the problems and harsh realities of the life. This paper throws light upon the beauty of self-annihilation or suicide in relation with the aforementioned contexts, texts and how beautifully it was portrayed as an art form in literature.

Keywords : Self-annihilation, Human rights, Beauty of Mind, Wilderness etc.

Decriminalization is often accepted in different criminal law systems due to its philosophical-moral foundations. However, less attention is paid to the challenges of decriminalization. The aim of this article is to defend decriminalization in a framework while evaluating its challenges. There are some bases that support decriminalization. Among them are inefficiency of criminalization in controlling criminality, insistence of Human Rights and Islamic teachings on minimum interference in the rights and freedoms of citizens and the necessity of morality development through the elimination of external restrictions and coercions. Decriminalization, meanwhile, may violate the rights of victims and defendants. According to the findings of this research, it is possible to overcome these challenges through providing non-criminal sanctions such as civil, administrative and insurance ones in order to protect victims. There is, also, room for generalizing the rules of fair trial to non-criminal cases. Therefore, decriminalization is not only acceptable with regard to unnecessary crimes, but also necessary in some cases.

Asistimos a tiempos en que se han agudizado las contradicciones de la llamada “Guerra contra las Drogas”, que ha multiplicado la violencia, aumentado el consumo y acorralado a los consumidores a una cultura tan clandestina como extendida. En este marco, se discuten políticas de drogas alternativas que están siendo implementadas y evaluadas por un conjunto de países atravesados por los efectos negativos del prohibicionismo. A pesar de la heterogeneidad de políticas en la materia, adecuadas a los contextos e idiosincrasias nacionales, se analizan diferentes iniciativas de regulación, como un punto intermedio entre el esquema prohibicionista y el liberal. De este modo, puede afirmarse que se han creado condiciones para instaurar nuevas prácticas y discursos sobre las drogas, basadas en experiencias concretas que buscan traccionar la visión hegemónica sostenida desde la OEA (Organización de Estados Americanos) y la ONU (Organización de Naciones Unidas). La regulación, como alternativa a la criminalización, emerge entonces como punto de apoyo para el establecimiento de nuevos lenguajes y miradas sobre las drogas, que des-narcotiza el debate y pone al ser humano en el centro de la discusión.

I Portugal liksom i resten av världen har det varit många intensiva debatter i fråga om den rättsliga ramen för narkotikabruk. Denna debatt fick en ny status i Portugal i slutet på 90 – talet. Den har sedan dess varit omfattande efter att den portugisiska narkotikastrategins kommitté kom att lägga fram avkriminalisering av all typ av narkotika som förslag. Avkriminalisering av bruk, innehav och köp av alla typer av narkotiska ämnen för eget bruk implementerades i lag 30/2000 den 1 juli 20001 och ändrade märkbart den portugisiska
narkotikabrukarens status i samhället.

Avhandlingen delas in i tre delar och bidrar till en förståelse för Portugals narkotikapolitik och narkotikasituation före och efter avkriminaliseringen. Avhandligen baseras på tillgänglig
data och statistik, offentliga rapporter och utredningar samt fyra samtal med mer eller mindre centrala personer i utformningen av den portugisiska narkotikapolitiken.

Den politiska viljan till att reformera narkotikalagstiftningen har tydligt påvisats de senaste tio åren i större delar av Europa, Nord – och Syd Amerika samtidigt som mycket tyder på en
global acceptans och utveckling mot en slags liberalisering av narkotikabruk. Till trots för det är många skeptiska till att ta vägen mot avkriminalisering och liberalisering av det nuvarande
systemet då man fryktar effekten. Kommer avkriminalisering att medföra till ökat bruk av narkotika/ sända ut fel signaler genom att ge sken av narkotika som något harmlöst och
ofarligt? – är frågor som står centralt i sådana diskussioner, samtidigt som den vetenskapliga litteraturen per dags dato inte klarat att ge oss ett entydigt svar.

Denna avhandling tar för sig fyra specifika frågor som antas utgöra en helhetlig grund för en reflekterad effektanalys av den portugisiska avkriminaliseringen. Frågorna som besvaras är:

1) Har ändringar i bruk av narkotika bland den portugisiska
befolkningen samt den problematiska brukargruppen påvisats i förbindelse med avkriminaliseringen? Om ja,
vilka?
2) På vilket sätt har avkriminaliseringen påverkat rättsystemet?
3) Har avkriminaliseringen bidragit till en nedgång av narkotikarelaterade dödsfall och spridningen av HIV samt olika former för hepatit?
4) Vilken slags påverkning har avkriminaliseringen haft på narkotikahandeln, beslagen och priserna på den portugisiska narkotikamarknaden?

I motsats till det förväntade verkar inte den portugisiska avkriminalisering ha bidragit till en märkvärdig ökning av narkotikabruk bland befolkningen. Likaså antyds det även till en
reducering av problematiskt narkotikabruk, narkotikarelaterade skador samt ett mindre belastat rättssystem.
I Portugal råder en bred enighet om att det främsta målet för narkotikapolitiken bör vara att minska förekomsten av narkotikabruk, narkotikarelaterade skador, tillgången på narkotika samt öka tillgången på behandling och antalet problematiska brukare i behandling (Den portugisiska regeringen, 2000). Den utopiska visionen om ett narkotikafritt samhälle har bytts ut mot andra strategier som betonat vikten av skadereducering, inkludering och acceptans för
olika vårdmodeller.

An article on the 2018 Indian Supreme Court judgment, Navtej Singh Johar & Ors that decriminalised homosexuality in India striking down section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, thus bringing to an end a 17 year-old litigation that began in 2001 in the Delhi High Court.

Despite the decriminalization of homosexuality in India in 2018, LGBTQ+ rights are under threat in the nation under Prime Minister Modi's far-right government. In this commentary, I explain why two bills recently passed by the Indian parliament-the Artificial Reproductive Technologies (Regulation) Bill and the Surrogacy Regulation Bill-will have chilling effects on the reproductive rights of LGBTQ+ citizens. The biologically essentialist and heteropatriarchal framing of reproductive rights in the bills will prevent LGBTQ+ citizens from accessing reproductive technologies. Contextualizing this framing within Modi's wider far-right Hindu nationalist agenda, I argue that there is a need for a heightened bioethical call to action from queer and feminist bioethicists in India and across the globe.

The laws against the homosexual people 'were wrong then, and they are wrong now. As the UK's prime minister, I deeply regret both the fact that such laws were introduced, and the legacy of discrimination, violence and even death that persists today'.-Theresa May, Former UK Prime Minister Are we really sorry and acting accordingly? Is the law, legal discourse, judges, and the legal arena as a whole really sorry for what the law did and, has been doing, against the homosexual people? Masterpiece, Lee, Lawrence, Navtej and other cases tell us a different story. The glorious judgements have fundamental flaws in consequence of which right of the homosexual people has been interpreted as kindness and sympathy of the heterosexual majority. The glorious judgements have failed to understand the dynamics of the relationship and, hence, failed to show due regard to the homosexual people. Consequently, millions of homosexual people are, still, being discriminated, humiliated and stigmatised around the world. Still, they are suffering in every sphere of their lives and their continuous struggle for their rights is likely to be continued in the years to come. The article wants to point out that the reason behind the failure of the glorious judgements is that the judgments underestimate or overlook the primary and independent justification ie the inevitable need of the body. Instead, the judgements are founded on the personal choice-based secondary justifications which are self-contradictory, self-limiting, self-defeating, confusing and dependent. Consequently, the fate of the homosexual people is swaying on the fulcrum of principles, provisos, and probabilities. The article makes an attempt to challenge the lines of arguments the judgments are based on showing the flaws and the problems, if not dangers, of following these lines of arguments. To deal with this issue effectively, practically, and meaningfully, the article wants to present the primary justification based on the inevitable needs of the human body and the suitable approach focusing the needs of the body. Finally, the article tries to assess the prospects of the primary justification and the approach.

Several efforts are underway to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the decriminalization of homosexuality in Canada. The problem is that homosexuality was not decriminalized in 1969. This is a myth. The reform added an exception clause to the crimes of buggery and gross indecency that allowed queer sex in private between only two adults. This merely recognized the obvious; the state could not access the bedrooms of the nation using these provisions. At the same time, police forces across the country mobilized to charge queer people not only with gross indecency but also with other sections of the Criminal Code untouched by the omnibus bill, including indecent acts, vagrancy, and the bawdy-house law. When viewed from the perspective of queers and their interactions with the justice system, 1969 was a turning point, but not towards a more progressive society. Instead, it facilitated the recriminalization of homosexuality in Canada.

Plusieurs activités sont en cours pour commémorer le 50e anniversaire de la décriminalisation de l’homosexualité au Canada. Le hic, c’est que l’homosexualité n’a pas été décriminalisée en 1969; il s’agit d’un mythe. En fait, la réforme a ajouté une clause d’exception aux crimes de sodomie et de grossière indécence, laquelle autorisait les relations homosexuelles en privé entre deux adultes seulement. C’était admettre l’évidence : l’État ne pouvait pas entrer dans les chambres à coucher du pays en s’appuyant sur ces dispositions. Mais en même temps, les forces policières d’un bout à l’autre du pays se mobilisaient pour accuser des homosexuels non seulement de grossière indécence, mais aussi d’autres infractions au Code criminel non touchées par le projet de loi omnibus – action indécente, vagabondage ou fréquentation de maison de débauche, par exemple. Du point de vue des homosexuels et de leurs interactions avec le système de justice, 1969 a certes été un tournant, mais pas vers une société plus progressiste. La réforme a plutôt facilité de recriminalisation de l’homosexualité au Canada.

The report aims to identify legal frameworks, models, and implementation practices of the decriminalization policies and to assess their empirical results. Statistics show that the prevalence of drug use has increased for decades all around the world despite all the strict measures taken. Decriminalization policy has emerged as a response to unbalanced prohibitionist drug policy, which creates not only social injustices at the individual level but also public health problems and high social costs at the macro level. On the other hand, decriminalization is a complex framework and is generally used as an umbrella term representing contemporary strategy. Governments have tailored this framework according to their priorities and expectations. The report categorizes models, implementations, and outcomes to evaluate results. Besides, by providing overall results from three European countries (Portugal, Czech Republic and Denmark), we aim to assess the impact of the contextual factors and ...

Traditional slash-and-burn as a way of clearing land for farming is allowed and exempted from being a criminal offense in Indonesia. However, this exemption should not be interpreted to mean that all traditional slash-and-burn practices are sustainable. Changes in habitat and sociocultural and economic conditions can render this once sustainable practice unsuitable in certain contexts and environments. This discussion on environmental harm from traditional slash-and-burn practices is not intended to call for a total ban of the practice nor does it suggest aggressive criminal law enforcement is required. This discussion is intended to clarify which practices we should protect and which ones should be addressed through various approaches to minimize harm. Such approaches should consider the local Indigenous communities as victims of ecological discrimination rather than perpetrators of environmental harm.

We present a model which ties together rational drug consumption, taxation, crime and other drug-related externalities. Drug control policy is addressed using an optimal tax framework. Consumption, possession and production of a drug may be prohibited, legalized or decriminalized. In all regimes illicit production of a drug may take place and drug-related crime occurs. We show that illicit drug production, the price elasticity of demand for a drug, the addictive nature of a drug, the effectiveness of drug enforcement strategies, and income distribution all influence optimal (second best) policy. Prohibition is contrasted with decriminalization and legalization, and where legalization yields a higher welfare than prohibition we show that this can be associated with greater drug-related crime and more drug addiction. The model is discussed in the context of US National Drug Control Strategy.