Committee of the Whole (Wednesday morning) – L5 Promoting the involvement of youth in drug prevention efforts

Chair:  The last paragraph we had discussed was PP starting Noting that in the 2016… It was bracketed. I wonder if there was any informal meeting on this

Russia: (…) We could go through the entire resolution quite quickly and have informals on the problematic ones. With regard to this one, in our view, the personal relation to the issue dealt in the draft resolution isn’t really about prevention as such, but rehabilitation, social reintegration, and so on. These are stages when people have been cured of drug addiction. We  are aiming to prevent. So we aim to delete this.

Canada: The paragraph on the screen is not a faithful reflection of our proposal. We included a PP10, from R61/11. The sponsor said they would include that. This hasn’t been reflected in informals. The recommended inclusion references specific needs of women, children and youth related to treatment services. I would note some references over the course of the period: UNICRI report about substance abuse being mediated by gender and a factor in prevention matters. I want to draw the CoW’s attention to resolutions that have already encouraged taking into account the specific needs of women in drug dependence. To say gender is not a factor in drug prevention isn’t factual.

Kazakhstan: We participated actively in preparation of this draft resolution during intersessionals and now have the opportunity to acquaint ourselves with the text as amended now. Two minor comments. First, on the point by Russia, we support that position. This paragraph doesn’t have to do with the topic of the draft resolution, which is prevention. So that’s our opinion. Second point, and this was mentioned by Canada. In actual fact, throughout the years of countering drugs in Kazakhstan, we’ve never encountered issues related to gender in the context described. We are not talking about prevention of drug use among young people as such, but rather assistance in prevention among young people. Gender issues are not of import here. In our view, we’re talking about primary prevention. A point in time in which people are not involved in drug use. So prevention in its purest type. Primary, not secondary or tertiary. So we would draw people’s attention to the fact that gender issues are not expedient here. In terms of the terminology. We looked at CND documents closely and we wonder to what extent we need to use the term “stigmatisation”.

Japan: We support our colleagues from Russia and Kazakhstan. This resolution focuses on prevention among youth. Prevention. In this context, this paragraph includes treatment or rehabilitation, social reintegration. That’s a demand-reduction problem. So, we should focus on prevention. We should delete this paragraph.

Egypt: I would also allow ourselves with Russian Federation and Kazakhstan. This is a prevention resolution engaging youth. Youth in general terms. We don’t differentiate. The focus is on youth without discrimination or gender basis. We also consider concentrating on prevention. No need to have this para talking about treatment or social rehabilitation.

Guatemala: It is difficult to understand why we wish to propose text which transcends the view of subject matter of this resolution. Try to uphold a good spirit in all documents in this and others . We don’t think this is germane to this resolution. This resolution is on prevention regardless of what the final title is. We want to be consistent. This isn’t the resolution where it should be addressed. Call for this para to be deleted. Another resolution might be brought up about this issue.

Singapore: we hold same view as Russia. This para not relevant to this resolution which is to promise increased involvement of youth.

Kirghizistan: Gender matters are important but we feel that it’s not related to this resolution. About preventive measures among young people so male,female young people. It’s really about drugs amongst young people which is one of the key issues, so the issue to ensure that prevention programmes are successful. So would like to have it focused on young people and to delete the para.

Australia: In support of Canada. Most of countries are indicating that has no relevance to topic of debate. But prevention happens in all ways. It’s comprehensive programme of looking at as a young person gone through process of being involved with substance misuse and has service that prevents them from reverting back again. To say that this is not relevant to the topic is not exact because the need for assistance to prevent people going back to misuse. This para is still relevant and do not agree that there is no relevance to the topic.

 Nigeria: Express reservation for this para. It has no merits, no basis between the topic. This resolution is about prevention and when a resolution is taken out context and out of focus, it loses meaning and that is what we should keep in mind. Ensure it remains focused to the topic of the discussion so we do not get different views to the reader. This proposal does not have merit and should be deleted.

UK: Add support of inclusion of para. Believe its relevant and prefer remains.

Sweden: Express support for gender mainstreaming paras.

Chair: see there are 2 diverging views by ms. Still would like to try and have this para in the resolution. Will keep it for informals.

Chair: Next PP is “Reaffirming its determination…”.

Russia: We have a technical correction in line 2. Instead of “and call”, “and calling”.

Chair: No more comments? Actually, I see “misuse” in brackets.

Australia: Thank you. Yes, we should remain consistent and we should keep the relevant terminology: non-medical use. If Russia accepts.

Nigeria: We would like to retain abuse. It’s agreed language and shouldn’t pose difficulties. Non-medical use and abuse. I don’t know why they wouldn’t be happy with “abuse”. It is “abuse”.

Chair: Certain colleagues already explained that and we agreed to use the expression “non-medical use”, which is in other resolutions. So perhaps we should remain consistent about this. But if another delegation is more knowledgeable about discussions yesterday?

Australia: Yesterday I ask Nigeria to reconsider the introduction of the word “abuse”. We had long discussions yesterday and the Chair accepted the expression “non-medical use”. It’s more comprehensive and covers the topic exactly. I would ask Nigeria to reconsider the use of the word “abuse”.

United States: We would align ourselves with the last intervention. Non-medical use doesn’t eliminate the concerns of “abuse”, but it doesn’t raise the concerns that other delegations might have.

Nigeria: I cannot take a position at this moment. Abuse is abuse and it is agreed language. I hear it is more comprehensive. Abuse conveys the meaning that we want to see. Nonmedical use is in some paragraphs, but we will not take a position now. We will bracket the paragraph.

Russia: We did have a lengthy discussion of the terminology during informals and agreed that if we use agreed terminology, then if in the UNGASS document we use “abuse”, then we would use that In paragraphs with new language, we decided non-medical use could be usable. Then we have misuse. So we end up using all of the terminology. Non-medical use in this paragraph works. So we would use this concrete term in this context.

Nigeria: We agree with Russia and we would use misuse.

Chair: I think Russia said “nonmedical use”.

Russia: Both options are fine. We have used misuse before. Yesterday there weren’t any objections to misuse. I call for flexibility. I would propose “non-medical use” here.

Nigeria: Yes, I support.

Kazakhstan: Indeed, the practice of using such terms indicates we can use different terms but they say more or less the same thing. We support the Russian proposal on the basis of the interest by other parties. We need consensus to reflect that the text of the document will include all terms which are synonymous and consistent with each other.

Japan: We have flexibility and accept “non-medical use”.

Chair: Consensus to use “non-medical use”. Agreed on this Para in the CoW. We now recall “2030 agenda”- Agreed in CoW. ‘Recalling resolution 58/2”- Agreed in CoW. “Noting that the initiation of drug use”- Agreed in CoW.  Bracketed para:

Russia: Draw attention that in commission, never used term stigma in official documents. Only thing referred to is non-stigmatising attitudes in context of providing medical assistance which was used in UNGASS outcome document and Resolution 18. Ask it only be used in the context that has been agreed.

Japan: This resolution focussed on prevention and stigmatising attitude.

Canada: Original intent for original proposal was to include stigma among list of detrimental consequences in initiation of drug use. There are the ones requested or drafted. Appropriate to have listed among other examples there. Sponsors of resolution indicates that this para is excerpt from drug report. Notion of of stigmatised attitudes it still relevant and want it reflected in the resolution.

Guatemala: Not advisable to re-insert language which is different to what has already been agreed. We can see the concern of drafters of resolution. As para is currently drafted, doesn’t fit in the resolution. The wording could be improved. Direct the wording in a positive sense rather than negative. We are saying that we want a society which is free of stigmatising attitudes rather than putting in these terms so that we can frame in positive terms especially as preambular para.

US: Think room for resolution that is focused on youth and raising awareness for young people that their attitude if they are stigmatising can have negative impact on their peers. So we could ask drafters to modify the para to look more at that aspect.

Palestine: Issue of adding stigma language. Delegation support the whole concept of stigma, but as we see here, the language proposed by US is more reflecting concerns and goes more with purpose of the resolution as drafters already reflected before.

Australia: There was a change in this wording. We put in “increased risk of”. In canada’s favour, cannot see the reason why we can’t have “increased risk of life expectancy.. and stigma”. Noting drug use among youth could lead to detrimental area, stigma is one of those areas. This is not exact wording as have introduced “increased risk of”. Include “lower life expectancy and stigma”.

Russia: In light of fact no unified opinion, would make sense to have informal and to see whether we can come up with some wording that has already been agreed in order to set forth this idea in a more positive tone.

Chair: We will move on, and suggest you try to find better wording. We will proceed.  In the para starting, “noting international standard”- Agreed in Cow.

In the Para starting, “noting with appreciation”- Agreed in CoW.


agreed in CoW


agreed in CoW.


agreed in CoW

Nigeria: I am unable to understand why we would devote a paragraph to civil society participation. It is not just civil society that plays a role in the involvement of youth prevention. There are paragraphs where we would recognise other actors. So we could take that element there. We wouldn’t support this paragraph. We would bracket it.


Chair: As agreed in informals.

Russia: A technical amendment. Before “services”, I think it’s prevention and treatment “services”. Sorry, I meant PP15ter.

Chair: So , no comments on PP15 bis? WE accept it? It’s agreed in CoW.


Chair: There was a comment by the Russian Federation. If we leave the brackets, that could be accepted? It’s agreed in CoW.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.