|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
European Drugs Policy on the brink of change
The European Policy Centre
Friday 05 Mar 2004 In short: This report gathers reflections that were heard during the EPC dialogue on new drug policy initiatives which took place on 5 February 2004. European Drugs Policy on the brink of change European Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs, Antonio Vitorino, delivered the opening address at the EPC Dialogue, 'European Drug Policy on the Brink of Change,'which took place on 5 February 2004. The Dialogue was held in cooperation with the Senlis Council, established by the Network of European Foundations to gather expertise and facilitate new drug policy initiatives. Commissioner Vitorino's speech was followed by presentations from an expert panel comprising Raymond Kendall, Honorary-Secretary-General of Interpol, Petr Mares, Deputy Prime Minister of the Czech Republic and Executive Vice-Chairman of the Inter-Ministerial National Drug Commission, Dr Vladimir Poznyak, Coordinator of the Management of Substance Dependence Team, World Health Organization (WHO), and Professor Brice De Ruyver of Ghent University's Institute for International Research of Criminal Policy. Susan Stern, Special Advisor to the Alfred Herrhausen Society for International Dialogue, acted as moderator for the panel. The panel discussion was followed by a question and answer session. This is not an official record of the proceedings and specific remarks are not necessarily attributable. The Managing Director of the King Baudouin Foundation, Luc Tayart de Borms, introduced the Dialogue. He commented that drug policy is a 'complex and controversial subject,' and that 'there is a need for a pragmatic dialogue on a European level'. Commissioner Vitorino reinforced these points. He said that the task facing policy-makers is complex 'because the problem itself is complex and multi-faceted.' He explained that illegal drug consumption patterns vary significantly between different EU Member States, as do regulatory regimes, and the opportunities for action at European level are limited by the fact that primary responsibility for tackling illegal drugs lies at the national level. Nonetheless, all Member States have committed themselves to the EU Action Plan on drugs 2000-2004. This creates a common framework for evaluation of the drugs problem in Europe, sets six main targets for the EU and lists around 100 specific actions for implementation by the end of 2004. In addition, there are areas related to the drug problem where the EU does have competence. Commissioner Vitorino highlighted the adoption by the Justice and Home Affairs Council in November 2003 of a Framework Decision on drugs trafficking. This recognises that trafficking of illegal drugs often involves several Member States and that effective cooperation coordinated at EU level is therefore critical. Commissioner Vitorino also summarised other areas of EU level activity Preparing for EU enlargement by developing institutional capacities for coordinated drug policies and improving enforcement capability, by means of the PHARE programme. EU actions in the field of public health, which relate to the drug issue. Improving coordination within the EU so that the Union can act more effectively at an international level. Coordinating evaluation of the drug problem across the EU and raising awareness. He concluded by saying that the Commission would present the results of the final evaluation of the EU Action Plan on drugs by the end of 2004, noting that 'we have started the process of defining key indicators and tools that in the future may act as quality standards in adopting new strategies and policies.'This will form the foundation of an effective policy at EU level, and Commissioner Vitorino noted that the EPC-Senlis Council Dialogue would be a contribution to this goal. Prohibition versus public health concerns Susan Stern introduced the panel presentations and discussion, explaining it was a precursor to the United Nations' 47th Session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, which will take place in Vienna in March 2004. In relation to this and the central strategic issue for drug policy - whether to pursue a prohibitionist approach or view the problem as a public health issue 'Ms Stern was unequivocal, saying 'the United Nations agenda has been hijacked by the Americans. The Americans believe that if you throw everyone in jail you solve the problem. The EU meanwhile is putting a huge amount of money into international drug policy - far more than anybody else - so why isn't the EU having more say? The answer to this question, Susan Stern continued, is that there is a lack of agreement between countries and even between regions in the EU. 'Agreeing on trafficking is easy but other issues are much harder,' she said. The panelists gave an in-depth analysis of these points. Raymond Kendall commented that international drug policy is in a rut, and that the Senlis Council's main objective is to generate new ideas and initiatives - thus the title for the Dialogue: European drug policy on the brink of change. Kendall commended Commissioner Vitorino on creating a basis for united and more decisive EU action on drug policy, but also sounded a note of caution - that the results of this are yet to be seen. Some positive indications, however, may come out of the forthcoming Vienna United Nations meeting, where the EU will be represented by a single delegation. In the past, noted Mr Kendall, the EU has generally 'aligned with the US' on drug policy. But now, he said, 'There is a clear indication in Europe that there is a change in policy away from the repressive law enforcement attitude to one which looks at the drug user as a person who has a problem and needs assistance.' The Senlis Council strongly endorses this latter approach, believing that drug abuse should be dealt with as a social and public health issue, and that the EU has a great opportunity to develop this strategy at the Vienna meeting. This, Mr Kendall commented, 'is a question of attitudes but also a question of money.' At present, however, 'most of the money is spent on law enforcement projects.' He went on to say, 'this is one of the things we would take issue with.' He concluded with a call for more civil society involvement at the policy level to help develop a more effective education and prevention-focused approach to the drug problem, in contrast to a heavy-handed prohibition approach. Three observations from an EU Member State Professor Brice De Ruyver, Principal Drugs Advisor to Belgian Prime Minister Verhofstadt, underlined the call for 'development of a more uniform, pragmatic EU policy' based in public health policy. He supported this argument with three observations: 1. Changes in the phenomenon of drug use necessitate a more practical and multidimensional approach. EU countries, he said, are now aware that 'intensive use of drugs is a reality in our society.' 2. In an increasing number of countries, public health concerns are driving drug policy development. Professor De Ruyver raised the issue of HIV infection in this respect, noting its link to drug use. This, he said, meant a need for 'harm reduction' strategies. 3. Developments in criminal justice policy have changed the attitude of states towards drugs. Overloaded court and prison systems, he said, 'demonstrate that the traditional criminal sanction system has reached its limits.' These factors mean that on the ground, approaches to the drug problem are changing. Treatment, counselling and social re-integration are being emphasised across the EU. The focus has become public health and social welfare. However, Professor De Ruyver noted a significant difference between the current and future EU Member States. The latter, lacking in many cases the social welfare systems of the current EU, emphasise in their drugs policy 'the fight against the supply of drugs.' Views from a new Member State Petr Mares reinforced Professor De Ruyver's views. Mr Mares has responsibility in the Czech Republic for formulating, implementing and coordinating drug policy. He noted that in the mid-1990s, Czech drug policy was 'developed on the basis of experts' opinions and estimates rather than on complex data.' This 'gave room for a lot of moral panic,' and it was generally assumed that drug use was rising dramatically. Consequently, heavily prohibitionist laws were introduced in 1999. However, the new laws were accompanied by some serious research into the drugs issue. It was found that repressive measures did not lead to an improvement in the situation. In some cases, in fact, they made it worse, resulting in a more systematically organised illegal drugs market. Subsequently, said Mr Mares, 'the government decided to officially differentiate between drugs with various potential health and social risks [and] from 2001 we proposed to relax the punitive approach towards the possession of cannabis for personal use.' The current Czech approach, Mr Mares summarised, is as follows: 'On one hand the reduction of potential risks and adverse consequences of drug use, while on the other... the prosecution of organised crime involved in drug trafficking. There is no desire to punish drug users.' Mr Mares finished by endorsing the idea that the EU should play a greater role at UN level. 'The Czech Republic will do its best to help the EU fulfill this role,' he said. The view from WHO Dr Vladimir Poznyak noted that the consequences of substance abuse were 'dramatic.' He also commented that 'consumption of licit substances creates a bigger problem globally, thus attacks on illicit substances should be proportionate.' He outlined the scale of the problem by noting that illicit drugs cause 1.2 million deaths annually, according to WHO studies. He also commented on the dangers of injecting drugs: there are 10 million drug users worldwide injecting. In Western Europe 10% of HIV cases are caused by needle sharing, whilst in some other countries, such as Russia and the Baltic states, the comparable proportion is 50 to 75%. From WHO perspective, 'substance dependence is a health disorder,' said Dr Poznyak. 'There is a need to integrate drug dependence treatment into the overall healthcare system. People with substance dependence should have access to treatment.' He concluded by saying, 'Incarcerating drug dependent people is not an effective treatment and prevention strategy.' Discussion Questioned on what Europe should do to best work with America, previously identified as holding back the development of drug policy through prohibitionist policies, Raymond Kendall responded by saying that the complex political structure at European level 'rarely permits the possibility of a unified approach to anything, let alone drugs.' Reaching a uniform position, he commented, was an essential first step in 'dealing with' America. He also noted that two powerful lobbies target the European Commission: the American lobby and the pharmaceutical lobby. 'It's clear that these are extremely powerful lobbies,' he said, 'and unless you are prepared and well organised to deal with that you are not going to achieve anything.' He concluded that it was necessary to agree a strategy and stick with that strategy. 'It is a question of the working structures of the Union,' he said. Professor De Ruyver backed up Mr Kendall's argument, and noted that the postponed discussion over the future of Europe is a key factor. This needed to be effectively resolved, he said, or it would be left to the Member States to carry on doing 'too little.' Mr Mares had a different view, however. He said, 'The question is not 'what are we going to do with the United States?' They will not change in the near future. Drug policy is not an issue in the Presidential campaign. We do not have any measures to make them change, so let us concentrate on our resources.' The next question concerned developments in the criminal justice systems of EU Member States, and was addressed to Professor De Ruyver. 'There is a serious gap between what is happening in practice and what's said in theory. The reality of the criminal justice systems in all Member States is that practical considerations take the lead. However, with those people that have a drug problem, most of the Member States agree that it is not in prison that you will solve that problem,' he said. However, he commented, though this was often recognised, there has to be capacity for treatment and alternative approaches, and this is not always available. Eberhard Rhein, EPC Senior Policy Advisor, reinforced one of the points made earlier during the panel presentations: that licit drugs present a greater health problem than illicit drugs. He also pointed out that the European Commission does effectively have competence to act in the field of drugs as it has competence in the health field, and is therefore in a position to make proposals. The next Commission, he hoped, would have a strong Health Commissioner, able to drive forward the agenda in this respect; Member States are often blamed for not finding common positions, but in fact it has been shown - for example by Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy - that strong Commission leadership can produce results. Marco Cappato, MEP, called for consideration of the EU's role up to the current time. He said that the EU had 'reinforced mechanisms of European repression, through Europol and Eurojust. The result has been not to promote the most tolerant approach but the contrary. We have a sort of harmonisation for the worst.' He therefore questioned the idea of the benefits of a common European position on drug policy. 'We risk that the most tolerant approach will be de facto prohibitive,' he said. 'The EU has much less power in the area of public health.' Raymond Kendall answered this by saying in some cases within the EU the powers and competences of different institutions are not always clear. 'Europol has a role which comes under a group of ministers under the first pillar,' he said, 'but some of the organised crime issues dealt with by Eurojust are under the third pillar, plus fraud and organised crime under the third pillar, which is the responsibility of the Commission. It is a structure which is not conducive to a coherent approach.' However, he said, 'that doesn't mean we have to stop trying to make things better.' Frederik Polak and Jan van der Tas, of Stichting Drugsbeleid - the Netherlands Drug Policy Foundation closed the Dialogue. Mr Polak commented on how the idea of the 'fight against drugs' was used by European governments without any critical analysis of its meaning and impacts. He complimented the research undertaken by the Czech government and expressed the hope that the EU would follow suit. 'What is called the 'fight against drugs' is not only useless, but worse - it's counterproductive and dangerous, and it damages the health and social situation of many people,' he said. Jan van der Tas wondered if the title of the Dialogue - European drug policy on the brink of change - referred to change in drug policy, or to the change in the structure of the EU with the accession of ten new Member States. He also complimented the Czech government for its approach, suggesting that the EU may have something to learn from them, but he disagreed with Petr Mares' earlier comments concerning the inability of the EU to influence American policy. 'The Americans are too important to be left alone,' he said, 'we have to talk to them all the time. The question is what can we say? Shouldn't we first try to agree on one thing, on a short sentence: 'Prohibition stinks'. From there we can see what the alternatives to prohibition are. --=======51231EEA=======--
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!