 Okay, good afternoon everyone. We are still waiting for our last speaker, but we're gonna get started because time is short and this room is very small and hot. This event is also online if you wish to follow in a more comfortable situation than being crammed into this space. And of course, we'll also be recorded and be available later. So let me welcome you all to this side event on drug policy and economic, social and cultural rights overturning decades of neglect. In the last 15 years, we have seen unprecedented progress in recognizing the human rights impacts of drug policy. Every year we see more evidence, more advocacy and more political recognition of the devastation that punitive drug policies have caused in a broad range of human rights all across the world. I'm sorry, could we close the door? Thank you. So in October last year, a new chapter in this story of progress and reform was opened. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the body tasked with monitoring and providing guidance on the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights announced that it would start work on a general comment on the impacts of drug policy. This is the first time that a human rights treaty body decides to write a thematic comment on drug policy. It's a historic opportunity to cement drug policy within human rights and also human rights within drug policy debates. And most importantly, the general comment will provide systematic, coherent and authoritative guidance on for member states on how to discharge their human rights obligations in the implementation of drug policy. This is why the general comment will be equally important in drug policy making as much as in human rights discussions and why it needs to occupy a central place in Vienna as much as in Geneva. Historically, the recognition of human rights impacts has been built around a number of very important but limited issues such as the death penalty for drug offenses or the right to health. And the general comment will be an opportunity to expand that conversation and shed light on a broad range of rights that are equally important for a life lived with full dignity, including right to health, to work, housing, education, and an adequate standard of living and to take part in cultural life. So I feel very fortunate today to have the perfect panel for this conversation. So let me introduce you to all the panelists and then we will move to the two opening remarks. The first will be from her Excellency Ambassador Susan Eke of Norway. We also have a video address from Vice Minister Laura Gill, a Vice Minister for Multilateral Affairs of Colombia. And then first panelist will be Dr. Seri Nantesut, who is the member of the UN Committee on Economic, Social, Cultural Rights. Then Cassandra Federique from the USA, who's the Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance. Sandra Bermudez from Colombia, the Executive Director of Visomutop. And I hope very soon, oh, you're here, Aditya Taslim, the Advocacy Officer from Indonesia of the International Network of People Who Use Drugs. But first, let me hand over to the Ambassador. You have the floor. Thank you. Thank you very much for inviting Norway and me to provide a few opening remarks. We are delighted to co-sponsor this event together with such a broad array of member states, civil society, and UN experts. And I'm particularly honored to share these introductory remarks with her Excellency, the Minister of Colombia, Laura Gill Savastano. That's great. So Norway has for many years been at the forefront of global efforts to place human rights and health at the center of drug policy making. A part of this effort has been to bridge the historical isolation between UN drug policy making here in Vienna and UN human rights bodies in Geneva. And I must say we've been quite successful. Two examples, Norway was one of the leading countries in the first ever resolution on drug policy at the Human Rights Council. And we are one of the co-organizers of the Brandenburg Forum on Drug Policy and Development. This forum brings together key actors in global drug policy debates, including UN human rights experts and both Vienna and Geneva delegations. So this side event is one more step in the efforts to bring human rights topics and human rights experts to the core of international drug policy making. And one dimension of economic social and cultural rights is the right to health. And as we underlined in our statement at the commission on narcotics drugs this morning, Norway believes that people who use drugs or who experience drug dependence need to be met with support in healthcare rather than with criminal justice. And that public health approach to drugs is the main framework for drug policy. So we warmly welcome this side event as well as the initiative as you mentioned to prepare a general comment on the impact of drug policies on economic social and cultural rights. And I look forward to the discussions and hearing the very distinguished panel. Thank you. Thank you so much Ambassador and thank you for being with us today. So now we'll go to the video address from Her Excellency Laura Hill. Dear distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased to participate in this important side event. And I would like to thank the International Drug Policy Consortium sponsoring states and organizations for their interest in addressing the topic of drug policy and its impact on economic, social and cultural rights of a special relevance for us, the role of women in a new multilateral approach to the world drug problem. Drug policy has been a contentious issue for decades with an overwhelming tendency for implementing harsh and punitive measures to track all drug use and trafficking. These approaches often yield catastrophic consequences including human rights violations, increased violence and the displacement of vulnerable populations. In Colombia, we have faced these challenges head on as drug trafficking has been a major driver of violence and conflict in our country for decades. As President Petro has acknowledged, however, traditional drug policies have not worked. They have failed because the traditional paradigm has been accessed and successful in delivering people-centered public policies. Colombia strongly believes it is time for a change. The change is now. We need to explore pathways to align human rights and social justice with drug policies. Meaningful change must be focused on the critical role of women in addressing the drug problem, including their needs and views in the formulation of public policies aimed at comprehensively addressing the drug situation. Women have been disproportionately affected by the current drug policy. Both as users, but especially as victims of violence and discrimination of the so-called drug war. For example, both the INCB and ONDOC's most recent reports raise awareness on the fact that cocaine trade deeply contributes to the exploitation of women as they are forced to work in often violent and harsh conditions prone to abuse and other forms of violence. On the other hand, despite representing almost one out of every two amphetamine users, women constitute only one out of every five people in treatment for amphetamine use, revealing the deep and invisible stigmas and barriers for accessing treatment services. Hence, traditional approaches regarding drug policies hinder women's enjoyment of rights enshrined in the international covenant on economic, social, and cultural rights. Women possess unique perspectives and experiences that can inform drug policy at all levels, from community-based interventions to international policymaking. They can provide valuable insight into the social and economic factors that drive drug use and trafficking, as well as the impacts of drug policy on society. This means that any effective drug policy must involve a gender perspective in decision-making, resource allocation, and program implementation. On this note, Colombia emphasizes the importance of women rights in the drafting of the new general comment on the impacts of drug policies on economic, social, and cultural rights and calls for women participation in this momentous opportunity. I am positive that stakeholders around the world and the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights will heed this call and will foster women participation in the drafting process and beyond. I believe that our efforts will be worthwhile if the impact of drug policies on women are prioritized within a reformation of the principles of non-discrimination and equality, participation, consultation, transparency, and especially the protection of cultural practices involving control substances in traditional and indigenous communities. Colombia, through its feminist foreign policy, supports these efforts and is willing to provide its expertise and political support for ensuring women's needs are duly considered in drug policies. Thank you. We're very grateful to the vice minister for her remarks. So, without further ado, over to our first panelist, who I'm so delighted is able to join us here today in person, Dr. Seiri Nantesut from the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. You have the floor. Thank you and good afternoon. I'm here to discuss with you in my capacity as a rapporteur on the new general comment on drug policies and the impact on economic, social, and cultural rights. And I'm talking on two points, one, where we stand, and two, where we are going, and how. On where we stand, I think you know that the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights is a treaty body. And it has 171 state parties. The CESC examines reports that are submitted periodically and provides concluding observation for progressive realization of economic, social, and cultural rights. On drug issues, it has found that human rights violations from drug policy exist in countries of all levels of development and in all global geographies and has consistently called for a human rights-based approach to drug policies. From my own initial research, the jurisprudence on drug policy impacts of the Committee can be clustered into four categories. This is where we stand. The first category broadly pertains to criminalization of people who use drugs. The Committee has consistently observed that criminalization does not provide a viable solution when we put people at the heart of our concern. The livelihood, access to health care, and development opportunities of persons who use drugs are put at risk. And many cases categorically denied when they are treated as criminals and put through the criminal justice system. In many instances, when a death penalty is handed down, especially the mandatory death sentence imposed in relation to types and weight of drugs concerned, the persons are essentially losing the most fundamental of their right to life. The second category of our jurisprudence involves the implementation of harm reduction programs, including provision of syringes and medication to alleviate or help with royal impact. Through the lens of the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the Committee has provided caution on the availability, affordability, quality, and voluntary nature of such programs. In rural areas and even in most urban areas, coverage of harm reduction is still limited and people who use drugs do not receive the treatment and information that they require to make an informed decision about their own health. Often the Committee is informed about cases where people are put through the harm reduction programs against their will. Intimidation and corruption of public officers and private operators of the programs have also been reported. The third category concerns specific groups such as persons with disabilities and persons with mental health issues whose access to controlled drugs and substance is hampered by legislation, policies, or practices that require them to travel long distance to obtain the drug, rendering them victims of crime syndicates and put their health at greater risks. High rate of addiction among these specific groups, and I must now include as the Vice Minister emphasized women, has also been observed and the Committee has pointed to state parties to provide corresponding treatment. The fourth category of our jurisprudence is a general concern for the exercise and enjoyment of economic, social, and cultural rights or persons who use drugs who have been put through the criminal justice system or involuntary harm reduction measures. These are, there are instances of people who have a drug use or rehabilitation record being denied of their access to employment, shunned by the employers and more importantly, access to social security. My second point, where we are going as Anne alluded to, we are developing a general comment and why it is necessary, the Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights predates the three international drug conventions. It was adopted in 1966 and came into effect in 1976. So human rights issues are invariably night dynamic and evolving. Thus a general comment is a document through which guidelines on the observance of the Covenant can be systematically and comprehensively provided for both the Committee and its 171 state parties. Developing a general comment is akin to a compilation exercise. The rapporteur undertakes to compile existing observations which are given specifically to situation of each state party, then synthesizes general or common issues. The general comment development is also a very dynamic process, identifying the intersectionality and nexus among the rights, rights holders, duty bearers and stakeholders and also opportunities for them to make improvement to existing legislative or policy framework. The process to develop a general comment is as important as the substance. As a synopsis, a general comment of any human rights treaty body must not exceed 10,700 word. And in essence, it contains guideline for state parties on the three pillars of their responsibilities as duty bearers to the rights holders. That is how they are obligated to respect, protect and fulfill their duties toward, in this instance, the person who use drugs. Throughout its 26 general comments thus far, the Committee has undertaken broad-based consultation with relevant stakeholders. And as a lead rapporteur of the general comment on drug policies, I intend to fully follow our long-standing practice and even add additional channels to make the consultative process as open, transparent and participatory as possible. In addition to the formal consultation to be undertaken by our Secretariat, the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights and I'm very glad that the High Commissioner spoke this morning strongly for drug policy reform. Through calls for written submission, once a draft general comment is prepared and the organization of a day for general discussion, I personally have developed a website as an informal and parallel channel of communication and consultation. The website, once fully ready, will be launched and I welcome your input. Perhaps you already noticed that the Committee on Human Rights, Social and Cultural Rights in principle focuses its attention on issues specific to a state party. Thus, there are a number of issues that are not reported, not in synthesize. So here at the CND side event and looking forward, I really would enjoy the inputs that you are going to be providing to me and to the Committee and I look forward to collaborating with you all. Thank you very much for the opportunity. Thank you. Thank you, thank you very much, Dr. Nantesut. So our next speaker is Cassandra Federique from the USA, the Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance. Cassandra, you have the floor. Thank you. Thank you. So as Ann said, I'm the Executive Director at Drug Policy Alliance. We work, we are a US based organization and I was asked to speak about the work that we're doing around economic and social justice. One of the things that was really important for us at Drug Policy Alliance, as we built our strategy to end the drug war in the US was recognizing that the drug war was not just happening through the criminal legal system. That in fact, other systems that people have to live through created their own versions of the drug war. So in the US, when we passed one of our biggest drug laws in 1988 that created so much infrastructure around criminalization, the education system created laws, the employment systems created laws, the housing systems created laws, the immigration systems created laws, but our advocacy largely focused on the criminal legal system because that's what we could see. We could see people being arrested. We could see the militarization of policing. And while there were people that were always navigating, getting kicked out of university or not being able to get access to, because in the US they don't pay you to go to school. You have to pay an arm and a leg and your house and your first born kid in order to go to university there. So they would block the ability to get student loans, right? In the US, which has a very draconian immigration policy, drugs are the number four reason why people are deported or inadmissible. Most people don't realize that one of the number one reasons why people get kicked out of K through 12 school is because of drugs as well. So we realized that part of our analysis about what it meant to end the drug war had to actually include what are the other systems that people are navigating every single day and how is the drug war showing up there and morphing and perverting that system. The fact is that hunger is a large issue in the US, yet only a drug felony conviction can block you from getting government assistance to get food stamps. Because if you use drugs, you shouldn't be able to have help to get something to eat. The other thing that was wild is that housing is unaffordable in the US. We have a large public housing, government subsidy housing system. The only conviction that bans you from being in public housing is drugs. So in every civil system in the US, what we find is that your relationship to drugs can pervert your ability to be a full participating citizen and participant in society. So what does it mean when we are drug policy civil society organizations fighting for harm reduction and fighting for decriminalization but not recognizing that we cannot do drug policy in a vacuum? Because the truth is, is that we can get people who use drugs access to syringes, but if they don't have access to a banana, what is the point? If they don't have, if we can give them, if we can make sure people don't get arrested, but they have to sleep on the street because they are banned from housing, what are we doing? The truth is, is that this conversation about drug policy cannot solely be about drugs. That is a distraction. It is a distraction from the real fight which is about how do we make sure different people that have different complicated human behaviors that are part of different communities have access to be full participants in society. I think most, the thing that has been most interesting for me is as we think about drug policy reforms, most drug policy reformers will talk about things like decriminalization and the regulation of drugs. But the truth is when I went to Columbia and I was talking to people, the conversation around regulation, if it does not include supporting basic economic structures and markets, what are we actually doing, right? And that we are running the risk if we are not contextualizing drug policy reforms in a broader economic social justice human rights framework, we are essentially serving up the most exploited and discriminated against people up on a platter to the same systems that have worked so hard to keep those people subjugated and disenfranchised because addiction for profit is a real thing. So that's my timer for self-regulation. The prohibition of time is another thing I would like to fight about, but not here though. But I think as we have conversations about drug policy, it is irresponsible for us to be having a conversation about drug control without outside of a broader frame that drugs is a part of, but not the centerpiece. And I know that that can sound really ridiculous because the drug war is so pervasive. But the truth is, is that even for the folks that are fighting for legal regulation, if we fight for legal regulation and indigenous communities are pushed out or unable to be a part of it despite the fact that they've been exploited and brutalized and continuously pushed aside, then what we're actually doing is just creating the drug war in a different way. Because we've not actually done the thing that is necessary, which is to unroot the basis of what they use the drug war to do, which is to control certain groups of people. And in order for us to remove social control, our communities need power. And that means our communities need platforms to assert their rights and dignity and humanity. And those things are not possible if we don't end the drug war. And it's not possible if we try to end the drug war in a vacuum that is not connected to the other things people need to live. Thank you so much, Cassandra. And so important to hear that message. Our next speaker, Sandra Bermudez, who's the Executive Director of Corporación Visomutop. And you will talk, I think, about the impact of coca eradication on farming communities in Colombia. The mic is for the recording. Thank you, Anne. I was invited to speak at the consequence of current drugs, policies on economic, social, and cultural rights in Colombia. How have drugs policies been implemented and hundreds of coca growing communities in Colombia with whom we have worked for two decades? We hope that our experience can contribute to this debate. The human revelation in the name of drug policies that are inflicted upon this specific population are many and are historical. Most of these affected communities are really living under extremely vulnerable conditions and exclusion. To begin with, I'm going to use a phrase from the Vice Chancellor, Laura Hill, said yesterday in the plenary session for the installation of the CND as honor reference. That in our country, more than two million hectares were fumigate with glyphosite. The sample mayors of land says nothing, but the thing is that in the midst of the war on drugs, the states and the armed groups expelled nine million people from rural areas are displaced by the armed conflict. A conflict in which areas primed with pesticides contribute to victimizing population, contaminate water, soils, desertification, and its affecting food security. Women and men, LGBTI, more Q, migrants, people in a street situation, people with pain conditions and suffering from disease in young people, prison population, farmers, fishmen, indigenous people, and Afro descendants, more over consumers. All of them in the global soft has been affected in their economic, social, and cultural rights, also the fundamental rights. Eradication is also militarization. It causes damage to food crops and food insecurity, contaminate water, soils, and ecosystem affects health and forcibly displaced families. This strategy has produced the births of children with genetic malformation. It has increasing the militarization of the territory, causing internal violence without respecting the principle of distinction between actors and shriveled in international human rights treaties and without applying proportionality in the use of force. I have been reviewed the effects causes by drug policies on vulnerable and marginalized population in Latin America and their fundamental rights. In my work, I accompanied regional process of organized communities where coca or marihuana is cultivated as part of farmers' economies. That is an economy support for families that due to the lack of access to lands of the crisis of agricultural have often for the planting of prohibited plants. Latin American has lead international discussion on drug policies reform. As in this case of Angungas 2016, however, its policies continue to be designed and implemented by its own international convention and treatises. That defined frameworks, guidelines, and the specific approach for countries specific their institutional programs. This approach includes the militarization and penalization of action support by the use of force and judicial system by impunity function, favors the application of criminal law. This automatically leads the violation of human rights of vulnerable population and implies a higher incarceration of the population links to the drug economy. This logic can be appraised in many things, the establishment of a metric system for the reduction of hectares. The destruction of infrastructure for the processing of sustains, seizure of resource and precursor for the production and processing, interdiction of drugs, in addition to sanction, imprisonment and criminalization of drugs user. Legal frameworks should be designed to address proportional and alternative response to punishment, especially for growers, user and people involved in small scale trafficking as well as non-violence drug crimes. With respect to rural population, the institution of the productive and environmental sector must guarantee the participation of the growers of plant used for illicit purpose in the planning, execution, monitoring and evaluation of alternative development programs so that needs of recipients are taken into account as a state in the UN gave them principles for alternative development. Governments must ensure a correct and coordinate sequences of development programs and work on longer policies that overcome the instability of change in government. Thank you for your attention. Thank you so much, Sandra, and very important also to hear the perspectives from the perspective of growers and producers in this discussion as well. So to our last speaker, last but not least, Aditya Taslim from the International Network of People Who Use Drugs. Thanks, Aditya, do you have the floor? Thank you, Anne. Just apologize in advance because I might be a bit emotional. And if you remember, two years ago, when I left my old organization, I sent out an email to everybody saying that I was really suffering from chronic depression. And that three years ago, I attempted suicide three times by taking a full month dose of antidepressant, three days in a row because of my chronic broke borderline depression. And at the time, I was jobless. And despite having a national insurance, drug-related overdose and suicide attempts are considered self-inflicting and therefore it's not covered. So I consulted with doctors and they said that you go to the emergency but don't say that you try to kill yourself. So therefore, I never receive any proper care for my medical implication of my attempts. And this one story is not just one story. I mean, I'm very lucky that I'm still here. Many others are unlucky. And stigma, discrimination, criminalization of people who use drugs continue to deny people in getting these life-serving accesses, harm reduction and other essential health services like basic care, emergency support, emergency help. And they're also denied access to social services. We've heard people are denied of housing and education and employment. And I know some of you attended my session this morning. I was expelled from school because of my drug use at the age of 16. So technically, I never finished my high school. Mandatory urine test, this often seen in job application. It's a requirement. Also random test also to determine who stays at the work and also who stays out despite whether you're doing great or not. In the past year, although we've seen increasing number of countries providing harm reduction services, particularly those rangers in all period of agonist treatment, however, having these services available only is not enough. We know especially when they're not accessible, the lack of gender-sensitive harm reduction services has led to many women who use drugs avoiding and unable to access these services. And many of these services are also fueled by moralism and the idea of a drug-free world that is to aim to stop people to use drugs. And the much needed counseling are often become lecture. Like, you know, why are you still using drugs? You're old enough, you have two kids, why are you still using drugs? And, you know, instead of that, I mean that counseling can really be a tool that can really address the issue that individual is experiencing. Like, you never know when people are having thoughts about killing themselves, right? And this counseling needs to have that quality rather than just lecturing people to stop using drugs. And people who are on opioid are gonna start with a program or subject to mandatory urine test. A positive result on opioid may impact their access to their take home dose or even access to the service itself. And we know that the last decade we've also been seeing and hearing increasing claims that we are progressing in drug policy, more recognition, the failure of warren drugs and the introduction of alternative approaches, including decrim, we also know that this is just merely a shift from criminalization towards administrative sanctions that includes fines and also removal of rights, including confiscation of identity, including password. And too often that the criminalization is discussed as if there's only one model and without any involvement of people who use drugs in the design. This morning I spoke about the risk that the drug user-led organization, whether at the global, regional, national, or local level, face a lot of challenges in practicing our freedom to assembly and association. We're intimidated, we're forced to shut down, threatened and restricted in participating, including having a basic organizational need such as an independent bank account, thus limiting our opportunity to access the already scarce funding. And the economic, social and cultural issues cannot be separated from drug policy and drug use without addressing the underlying issues of criminalization and the rights to economic, social and cultural life. We will remain harassed, tortured and left behind. Thank you. I did thank you so much for being here with us and for sharing such a personal but powerful story. And it really goes to the heart of what we're talking about, brings us back to the reality of how this really damages people's lives, their mental health, their access to services. It's so important to have that perspective and to have you guys leading in this discussion and in the design of what comes next. Absolutely, so thank you so much. I'm really delighted that we still have 10 minutes for Q&A. I feel like this is one of the first side events that this has happened that I've been party to so far. So the floor is open for questions to any of our excellent panelists. Thank you all so much for your inputs today. Yes, you will need to take the mic so that it can be heard for the online access. Thank you. Please introduce yourselves. Hello, thank you so much. I'm Carolina from Uthras and Intercambios and I would like to ask Cassandra a question. If you can relate what you have been saying about intersectionality, that's what I personally believe with the situation also in Latin America because what you've just said is something that we can relate very well. So I'm very happy that you brought it in the table today. We'll take two questions. Hello, my name is Jorge. I am coming from an organization named the Instituto Ria. I am currently based in New York City and I just wanted to consider that this is a topic related to economic and social affairs. I wanted to know if there is any concrete proposal that the EcoSoc chamber should be considering like in terms of drug policy reform. Thank you. We'll take one more question. It's more of a comment rather than a question. So I would just like to advocate for a bigger room next time if not feminists then for women. Sure, no, no, I'm just kidding. And then second of all, this is my first CND. I'm with Healing Balkan Center at MAPS from the US and I just wanna say, I've come from a number of sessions where it's all about the language. We're combating this, we're defending, we're attacking, we're fighting and to talk about the larger social context and conditions that lead to trauma and drug abuse or drug use, that's just music to my ears and I wish we all spent more time on the why things happen in a certain context, in a certain locality. That's just something I just wanted to add. So thank you for this. So I work in the US so I don't actually know do people get banned from housing for their drug use in Latin America? It seems very similar, right? Like that the US, well not the US, that the drug war is used as a way to keep poor people poor, to keep the people with the least amount of economic resources continuously having the least economic resources and that actually that the drug war is used as a strategy on population control is my belief. And so I think part of the conversation around intersectionality is recognizing that part of our work is really trying to figure out why were these drug laws in place? I think oftentimes people have the conversation that these drug laws were in place because it was health and because drugs are bad, but at least for the history that I've seen drug laws are, have often been used as a political tool. And are often used as an excuse as to why some resources can't go to some communities versus others. And so I think when we're having part of the reason why it's so integral for us to have a conversation about the ESOC, ESOC for drug policy to be in the context of ESOC is because we will end up in a situation where the reforms that we are fighting for actually don't serve the intersectional needs that we need them to. And I think that most, I think two of the progressive drug policy reforms that I see that most happening in is in that of regulation and as well as in access to psychedelics actually, right? Where for in regulation the opportunity for multinational organizations to exploit indigenous resources as a means of getting profit and then using those strategies to keep those communities from being able to be a part of a regulated market or for them to not have to go through a regulated market to have access to their own cultural supports to me feel like part of the conversation where we're not talking about the economic engine of prohibition and the economic engine around commercialization, right? And I think oftentimes when we talk about drug policy people think that regulation is the same thing as commercialization and it's not and it shouldn't be. And I think as we have those conversations I think it really gets to the one thing that I learned at the session before I was at was around human rights and human rights impacts around business. And I think that unless the drug policy reform movement digs into human rights and the ESOC conversation the work that we're doing around legal regulation will not meet the values that we want. And regions like Latin America will continue to be exploited by the global North. And in order for us to actually think about the ESOC and the distribution of resources the imbalance will remain intact because I think even in the bilateral relationship between the regions part of that is because they get to focus on a certain thing but not on the larger conversation. And so as we have our conversation about the intersectionality of drug policy in the US one of the things that we're hoping to do with our partners is really figuring out like how do we build intersectional drug policy strategies that can affect whole regions as opposed to what's happening in our nation states only. Thank you Cassandra. I think we have time for a couple more questions if there are any. Yes. I'm Marta Machado from representing the Brazilian government and I'm pleased to hear this approach to social vulnerabilities. We are pretty much into that. And I'd like to know if, so we are trying to think about this concept very debated here about alternative development understood as territorial development. So giving access to income, to housing and alternative to certain groups that are vulnerable to access the listed market or the ones that are using drugs and want to go into treatment and et cetera. So I wanted to know your views about adapting this concept to work with youth, vulnerable communities, indigenous peoples and et cetera. But then I just want to thank this panel which was amazing and very inspiring. Thank you. And we'll just take one last question from over here and then we'll come back to the panel. I have a question for Cassandra. My name is Jordan Davidson. I'm a young person in addiction recovery specifically from a cannabis use disorder. I'm here with the organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana. And I'm wondering how you would kind of think about the legalization movement in the United States especially with marijuana but with other drugs in the context of big tobacco companies like Altria investing $2 billion, big alcohol investing $4 billion. And the impact that has, because you mentioned addiction for profit, the impact that has on young people where we're seeing in the United States from 2017 to 2021, kids five and under, edible marijuana poisonings increasing 1,375%. So the negative public health outcomes that increase legalization and commercialization have had in the United States and how you can weigh that kind of against some reforms that you're talking about. Thank you so much. Okay, so Sarri, I'll hand over to you for us to respond to a Brazilian colleague. I think I would like to make a reference to the eco-soc and that I think it underscores the fact that offices are divided and are in different places like the treaty bodies are in Geneva and drug-related offices are here in Vienna. We should not be divided in terms of normative discussion. We are talking about the same thing, human development. So, and I think that your reference to eco-soc is a bit a music to me because the covenant, the Committee on Ecological and Social Cultural Rights and the Drug Convention Committee, also a part of the eco-soc. We are a part of the same umbrella, so we should be in discussion. And in a more broader sense, the UN should have a one say, should have a very coherent and systematic approach to drug policies. We are seeing different people, different offices pursuing different pathways which are not helpful. So, this is why the Committee is reaching out to other bodies, including OSCHR, UNDP, FPA, WHO, so that when we formulate this kind of approach on economic, social, and cultural rights and alternative development as well, we talk in a very coherent manner. That is why I'm very glad to be here and listening to the inputs here. Ambassador, would you like to take? I don't know. How come it worked for us? I'm sorry, Cassandra. I think we're coming back to you. But Adid, would you also, are there any things you would like to respond to at this time? No? Okay, over to you. And then I'll close. I think one of the biggest things around regulation and actually putting it in this esoc space is that of recognizing that prohibition is a market. There are people that are making money off of it. There are people that are exploiting it. There are people that are extracting resources and there are people that are putting us in harm's way. And the conversation that we're fighting for and the reforms that we're fighting for is about lessening those impacts. And whatever reforms that we do on the other side of that also have to take into consideration what kind of actors will use the same kind of strategies. And we've seen that in multiple ways. We've seen that in who has access to pain medication. We've seen that in who has access to the ability to be in market spaces. All these things are similar. And so when we have conversations about actors in the drug space, people think about the pharmaceutical company. They talk about alcohol. They talk about tobacco. The fact is, I think that different countries have different systems. The US, which you and I are from, we can even see it in the fact that our bank regulations are too linear and that's why two banks just went down in the last two days. And so the politicization around regulation is real. And so I don't think that I'm under any false idea that legal regulation is without its faults. I'm also not under the idea that all legal regulation is created equal. And when we think about conversations around economic justice, the way that companies should be or should not be a part of the regulatory system, should profit be a motive or profit infrastructure be in there in the conversation of regulation? What is the conversation about cooperatives? What are the conversations about healing communities? What are the conversations about nonprofits? All those things have to be contextualized in the conversation. And I think that as we move a conversation about economic rights, as we move a conversation about broader social justice, as we move a conversation about the rights of individuals, I think that we have to measure our work and our reforms on that platform. But what is really clear to me is that if we want a system that is focusing on economic justice and social justice, prohibition alone is not gonna work. And I don't think that decriminalization and harm reduction are enough. The whole point of this session is that you cannot decriminalize a drug and not give people access to housing. Right? Like we actually have to build the infrastructure for the progressive reforms that we want because we cannot, it's like sticking a circle in a square hole, right? So if we are going to reform this thing, then we have to reform this thing. But the strategy is some people feel like, well, we can't do this until we fix all of this. But the truth is that people are dying, they're incarcerated, they're losing access to healthcare. People are being, you know, the number two reason complaint against law enforcement in the US around law enforcement is sexual assault by law enforcement that is associated with drugs, which is also a big thing in Latin America, right? Like all of these things are happening and we can't afford to wait because the model we're doing right now extracts us from economic and social justice rights and goes against human rights. But it does mean that whatever we do on the reform side and we support regulation that those things also have to take those considerations in and the world actually has to get better, right? Like that has to be the marker. And despite all of the things that have come with reform, all the hiccups, all the new challenges that are emerging, we are in a better place because the place that I'm from New York where I ran the campaign for the regulation of cannabis, for instance, we had 51,000 arrests, last year there were 179, okay? We, the number one reason why someone got their kid taken away was cannabis that has gone down by over 50%. The housing authorities are working to make sure people are not getting kicked out of their housing for cannabis. The reason why New York has public smoking, which is the only state in the country to have that is because we know that in the US at the federal level, if you smoke cigarettes in public housing, you can get kicked out. So we didn't wanna regulate cannabis and then people where the arrests historically were mostly in public housing. So then we regulate it and then those people still got kicked out. That's why we did public smoking. If you look at the economic and human rights things and you build your reforms around that, then you get a broader, more comprehensive benefit and you actually create and change the material conditions of people. Thank you, thank you so much, Cassandra and thank you to our wonderful panelists. It's really important that we're having this conversation. It's really important that the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights will develop this general comment. And I think, as colleagues on the panel have said, it is not just about the drugs. And I think it's really important that we welcome these discussions in this space, that we welcome the UN human rights experts to come here, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, UNAs, WHO, UNDP, the other UN agencies as well. Vienna maybe is the lead place for UN drug policy discussions, but Vienna is not a monopoly. And we need to remember that and keep bringing these discussions around broadening the debate beyond just drug control towards all of these broader aspects of the impacts and the human cost and changing that frame. So thank you so much. In terms of, I just wanted to point out our publication which is here, which is around converging universes and how we're bringing more drug policy and human rights together at the UN level. We're very much looking forward, Dr. Nonsessut, to supporting the process of developing the general comment as civil society. We hope that other UN entities and also member states will be engaging in that process and making submissions for the general, upcoming general comment. And I also forgot at the beginning to thank my co-sponsors, too many to name, but of course, Norway, very important that you were here. With us today. So yeah, I'll close the session now, but thank you so much.