The United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) is the central drug policy-making body within the United Nations system. During the 69th Session (March 9 to 13, 2026), SSDP was able to bring several young people to Vienna, Austria to make their voices heard. In this installment of a blog series capturing their reflections, SSDP Elected Director Merryn Spence connects what she observed at the CND with real world applications of global drug policy…

“Nothing about us, without us.”

I heard this phrase echo through hallways, side events, and informal conversations at the 69th session of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) in Vienna this March. This phrase was spoken by youth, women, and Indigenous advocates who were not asking for inclusion as a gesture, but demanding it as a baseline for ethical policy.

I arrived with the team at Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) expecting discussions grounded in public health, human rights, and evidence based approaches. Those conversations absolutely did happen, but they were often overshadowed by outdated narratives, misinformation, and a persistent reliance on prohibition-first frameworks. I was genuinely taken aback and surprised that world leaders were perpetuating misinformation, though I do feel as though I walked into this experience laced in naivety.  I will never forget the moment I sat next to a politician from Singapore who advocated that people who traffic drugs and people who use drugs should receive the death penalty. I was shocked. When I saw that the building was called the “Office of Drugs and Crime” that should’ve tipped me off. 

SSDP shared a counter narrative to the majority on the topic of research harms. Research harm is the harm caused by NOT being able to conduct research of particular substances and molecules because they are schedule I. Genuinely, no substance should be schedule I. All substances should at least be able to be studied. 

While our SSDP delegates all got to meet so many incredible people, I couldn’t help but notice such a spectrum of participation and so many conflicting agendas. Some people came to advocate for their business, others for the rights of plants, others for their bank accounts and others…well, it’s hard to exactly tell the agenda of people who spread misinformation.

With the rise in AI, as well as misinformation, it’s more important than ever to fact check our work in spaces where people’s lives, lands, livelihood, dignity, and rights are on the line. So I urge you, CND, to consider this for next time. 

To really bring the point home, the European Times dropped an article during the UN CND week. The photo is clearly ai but the caption only clarifies that “faces were changed.” No, no one hot boxed the front security entrance (unfortunately?). Great job with the hilarious propaganda though! I will now certainly be triple checking references of anything the EU Times pumps out now. 

What continues to be clear is that drug policy is not solely a health or criminal justice issue. It is deeply entangled with ecological systems, Indigenous sovereignty, and the accelerating climate crisis.

The Environmental Cost of Prohibition

Past and current drug policies do not simply regulate substances. The reach and implications of these policies shape entire ecosystems.

One of the clearest examples discussed at CND was deforestation driven by prohibition.  When crops like coca or cannabis are criminalized, cultivation can be pushed into increasingly remote and ecologically sensitive areas to avoid detection. I witnessed this first hand while living in South America. This leads to forest clearing, biodiversity loss, and soil degradation. In regions like the Amazon, illicit economies may overlap, meaning drug trafficking routes are tied to illegal logging and extractive industries.

Research and advocacy groups have documented how eradication efforts, including aerial fumigation, further damage ecosystems by contaminating soil and water sources. These interventions often harm legal crops and local food systems, disproportionately impacting Indigenous and rural communities who have stewarded these lands for generations.

Prohibition does not eliminate supply, but displaces it, often into the most vulnerable ecological zones.

Indigenous Knowledge and the Rights of Plants

A powerful counterpoint emerged throughout the week, led by Indigenous advocates and aligned researchers, such as Jenna-Rose Astwood and Diego Lugo Vivas. Rather than viewing plants solely as “controlled substances,” many called for recognition of their cultural, ecological, and relational significance.

Ongoing discussions around the coca leaf highlighted this tension. A main agenda item for the UN CND was to vote on whether the coca leaf should remain scheduled II or not. The conflation of coca with cocaine continues to shape international policy, despite coca’s long-standing role in Andean cultures as a sacred and medicinal plant. Efforts to review its status are underway, as the WHO confirmed this conflation as not factual in at least one side event at the CND. We absolutely believe that the coca leaf should not remain a Schedule I plant, and will continue to advocate as such. 

During the pandemic, I worked on a coca field in Nor Yungas, Bolivia, where I saw firsthand the social, economic, spiritual, and ecological importance of this plant. Coca cultivation sustained families when global supply chains collapsed. Farmers spoke of coca not as a narcotic commodity but as heritage, livelihood, and identity. Yet under current international scheduling, these realities remain legally marginalized. It felt impossible to reconcile what I was seeing with the language of the 1961 Convention. 

Speakers and advocates continue to emphasize that decriminalizing or rescheduling is not enough. What is needed is a shift toward frameworks that recognize Indigenous intellectual property, biodiversity stewardship, and the rights of nature. Instruments like the Nagoya Protocol and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) were referenced as existing pathways for more ethical engagement and benefits sharing models. 

The concept of ecological harm reduction becomes essential here. 

What Is Ecological Harm Reduction?

Ecological harm reduction expands the traditional scope of harm reduction beyond health and care to include land, water, and other-than-human life. It asks questions like: 

• What are the environmental consequences of enforcement strategies?
• Who bears the ecological burden of prohibition?
• How can policy support regenerative, rather than extractive, relationships with plant medicines?

This work also challenges bioprospecting practices that extract plant knowledge and compounds without fair compensation or consent from Indigenous communities. Instead, it points toward models like biodiversity licensing, community-led research, and culturally grounded care.

At CND, these ideas were still on the margins, but gaining traction. Multiple side events directly addressed the link between drug policy and climate change, signaling a shift in the conversation. This excited me and gave me hope for our natural resources and grandkids’ futures. 

The Contradictions of Global Policy

There is a growing disconnect between what is said in international forums and what happens in practice. This year’s negotiations emphasized that.

Portugal is often cited as a model for decriminalization, yet individuals on the ground still face legal and economic barriers, including crackdowns on cannabis-related businesses, such as Lynx Hemp.  (Sign this petition to support Leonardo!) Similarly, while harm reduction language made its way into a UN resolution for the very first time this year, major countries continue to resist its theory and  implementation.

At the same time, enforcement-heavy approaches are being reframed under terms like “counter-narcoterrorism,” expanding surveillance and militarization across borders. These strategies are often justified in the name of security, yet they perpetuate cycles of violence, environmental destruction, public health crises, breaches of privacy and contribute to the prison industrial complex. 

Climate, Criminalization, and Care

If we take the climate crisis seriously, drug policy cannot remain siloed. The same systems that criminalize people who use drugs are often those that enable environmental exploitation.

Ecological harm reduction offers a path forward. It aligns with broader movements for decriminalization, land back, and climate justice. It insists that policy must be informed by those most affected, especially the many Indigenous communities whose science and knowledge systems have long modeled sustainable relationships with the Earth.

If you are interested in taking action you can support calls for input on human rights and drug policy, or engage with evidence-based guidance on decriminalization and public health. Stay up to date with ongoing policy discussions and civil society reporting

At its core, this is about sovereignty, and the humans role as stewards of the earth. We cannot claim to address climate change while maintaining policies that actively degrade ecosystems. We cannot speak of human rights while criminalizing survival.

The web is interconnected. Drug policy, climate change, public health, and Indigenous sovereignty are not separate issues. They are reflections of the same underlying systems.

If you are interested in helping to address some of these issues, consider joining SSDP.  Sign up for our newsletter, join a public committee such as our Global Policy Committee, and/or become an ambassador today.