Drug misuse and the question of legalisation[1]
Doc. 7626
3 September 1996
REPORT
Rapporteur: Mr RATHBONE, United Kingdom, European Democratic Group
Summary
Members of the Assembly and many other colleagues in national parliaments are expressing a desire to review and debate the arguments for and against the legalisation of illicit drugs, as part of the international response to the growing health and social problems of drugs misuse, illicit trafficking and the crime associated with it.
This report analyses the question, drawing upon Council of Europe, European Union and national information sources.
At the time of this report European governments (and most others in the world) continue to value prohibition as a cornerstone to all their efforts to tackle drugs misuse.
It is felt that legalisation would lead to increased drug misuse, therefore increasing the mental and physical suffering which accompanies it, in the same way as such suffering accompanies the misuse of tobacco and alcohol; that the crime and social problems associated with misuse and trafficking will not be eradicated by legalisation, merely legitimised; and that any possible improvements to be gained from legalisation are at best ambiguous, and its implementation, considering its virtual irreversibility, cannot be justified. That is also the conclusion of this report.
Rather, government action political leadership and international co-operation, most particularly in criminal intelligence gathering and law enforcement and in improved methods of health education and treatment, are the most positive ways to tackle and overcome this awful problem.
I. Draft recommendation
1. It is apparent and worrying that the production, trafficking and use of illegal substances continue to increase, throughout Europe and the world, crossing all social groups everywhere, but especially among young people.
2. Drug use is a corrosive element in society which causes misery for drug users, their families and the communities in which they live. The crime associated with drug misuse continues to escalate, impacting not just upon those using or dealing in drugs, but society as a whole. Drug misuse and its associated crime is everyone's problem.
3. The Assembly remains fully aware of this awful problem and has addressed the issue on many previous occasions. In particular Recommendation 1169 (1991) addressed methods of reducing demand through better health and drugs education methods (the same approach was also considered and endorsed by the European Parliament) and Recommendation 1141 (1991) was a previous review of the legalisation debate.
4. The Assembly has urged the Council of Europe continually to review research on drugs misuse and current methods of meeting drugs misuse problems so that up-to-date knowledge and best practice is available and understood throughout Europe.
5. Because of the continuing severity of the problem, legalisation or decriminalisation continue to be placed upon the agenda of possible solutions, and the Assembly has reviewed the validity of such an option.
6. It concludes that legalisation or decriminalisation would undoubtedly increase the availability of drugs, inevitably leading to increased problems of consumption and addiction.
7. We should note and take heed from our experience how the use of readily available legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco have become among the leading causes of death and health problems in western society. There are an estimated twenty-three deaths per minute in the United States alone from alcohol misuse and its associated illnesses. More readily available legalised drugs would lead to similar, if not worse, effects.
8. Social and economic costs would escalate dramatically should drug legalisation be adopted. Expenditure on health care, treatment, prevention, education and rehabilitation would have to increase extensively. Even so, the social and economic harm would be more widespread.
9. Uncontrolled availability would magnify, not diminish, the drugs problem. Controlled availability would be expensive and complex, would be subject to avoidance and would lead to a continuing black market � and the criminality associated with that.
10. With a continuing black market, official control of production, distribution, quality or dosage would unfortunately be ineffectual, criminal influence would remain and both crime and health-related problems would continue.
11. The deterrent effect of prohibition should not be underestimated.
12. Reducing demand is the best and, probably, the only long-term solution through sensible health education, carefully directed information activities and improved treatment and the Assembly continues to recommend such activities (see Docs. 6278 and 6472; see also the Commission of European Communities document Com (94) 223).
13. Continuing research into the causes of drugs misuse and addiction, continuing efforts to identify improved methods of health education and treatment and continuing dissemination of information on best practice are crucial to effective action by governments. What is unarguable is that the success of any effort to reduce drug misuse depends upon committed political leadership.
14. It is imperative that all European and international governments co-operate in and intensify their efforts to tackle drug trafficking and money laundering. Any nations perceived as weak links in their efforts instantly become targets.
15. It is important that all member states of the Council of Europe remain committed to continuing action against drug misuse � individually and jointly through the Pompidou Group and other international organisations.
16. There is no single solution to the problem of drug misuse. It must be concluded that legalisation is no part of any answer; but legislation cannot act in isolation. This problem is multifaceted and requires multifaceted solutions.
17. There is a growing body of evidence to show that so-called "soft drugs" have serious, if generally unappreciated, mental and physical effects on those who use them. Recreational use may be possible for some people but the threat of serious harm remains for many.
18. For all these reasons the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers continue and increase its efforts to:
i. seek out ever more extensive and innovative forms of health education and information activities to reduce demand for all types of drugs;
ii. improve harm reduction methods in order to limit the damage that drug abuse can inflict;
iii. develop new methods of treatment for drug misusers to overcome more effectively the problems of psychological and physical addiction;
iv. introduce better facilities for drug misuse treatment and better controls on drugs availability in prison;
v. identify and introduce new and more effective ways to control and eliminate illegal drug production, especially through better controls on precursors and increasing support for crop substitution programmes in countries where drug crops play an important role in local economies;
vi. extend and improve international co-operation in the pursuit and seizure of drug traffickers and their assets, working together with vastly improved support for Europol and similar international groups for sharing information and co-ordinating strategy;
vii. agree effective and sensible enforcement methods to accompany new and innovative ideas for combating drug abuse and its associated crime, such as drug courts and practical policing methods where cautioning is used in combination with treatment programmes;
viii. continue to report back to the Assembly annually on the progress and development of these recommended actions.
II. Explanatory memorandum
by Mr RATHBONE
A. Introduction
1. At present the legalisation debate covers a wide spectrum of proposals. Ranging from legalisation of all substances sold within a free market, where market forces would dictate the boundaries, to a limited amount of decriminalisation of some substances, or access through prescription or licence.
2. The arguments aim at solving various problems associated with drug use, in a variety of ways. However, there is much common ground within the legalisation argument, despite the disparity of views as to the extent and execution of the process.
3. Most supporters of legalisation are concerned with the violent crime associated with the drugs trade, which they feel is a result of prohibition, as well as the extensive financial resources which are poured into maintaining prohibition which could be diverted into treatment. The harmful environment that prohibition creates for those who use drugs is often cited as major justification for legalisation.
4. Legalisers suggest that the goal of a drug free society is an unrealistic aspiration, therefore prohibition is pointless; and that once we accept that a drug free society is an impossible illusion, the problem of drug abuse can be addressed through damage limitation in controlled and safer environments.
5. Whatever framework legalisation takes, it should at a minimum, the legalisers argue, permit those determined to use drugs legal and safe access to them.
6. There is no doubt that all European governments are concerned with the reduction of crime and safer environments. The commitment to that goal is not disputed, but to attempt to achieve such a goal through the legalisation of drugs would appear to be a contradiction in terms.
7. Rather continuing efforts to tackle drug misuse can stand along side education, treatment, prevention and harm reduction in its positive influence. We cannot hope to create a safer environment by legalising drugs.
8. Legalisation is highly theoretical and shrouded with ambiguity. What is certain is that should this option not turn out to be as perfect as some people believe the return to prohibition would be a difficult if not an impossible road to take.
B. Crime
9. Crime is perhaps the most disturbing element surrounding the problem of drug misuse. The drugs trade is feeding a vast array of disturbing and often violent crime.
10. It is argued that legalisation would enable European governments to regain control of the drugs industry and its associated crime. Prohibition was the means by which it was handed over to criminals.
11. If drugs were produced, supplied, distributed by and under the supervision of European governments, the black market would be eliminated. This would in turn address the problems of international corruption and criminality, which in some cases is threatening the very fabric of society in some producer nations.
12. Drugs would be considerably cheaper to buy within a state regulated system. Enabling drug users to finance their habit without resorting to crime.
13. The legalisation debate asserts that violent drug related crime can be dramatically reduced, if drugs were made legally available.
14. Unfortunately we cannot be sure that the crime associated with the drugs trade would simply disappear for a variety of reasons. The black market exists because there is a demand for drugs not purely because prohibition is wrong.
15. In order to eliminate the black market all drugs must be made freely available to all without restriction. Any regulated area would remain a target for illegal sales. Many drugs are legally available at present on prescription yet they are sold illegally on the street (see appendix).
16. Drug related crime comes in many forms, legalising drugs will not ensure its demise. There are no guarantees that acquisitive crime will fall. We cannot be sure that even if costs are reduced dramatically, users will regulate their habits accordingly. Crack is considered a "cheap drug" and demonstrates how lower costs do not necessarily equal less crime.
17. The process of legalisation whatever its form, would in any event be a complex issue. The control of regulated drugs would still be vulnerable to exploitation from criminals. No one could imagine legalising the sale or supply of drugs to children under 18, yet as shown by the recent survey by the Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence in Britain, young people are the most likely to experiment with drugs.
18. An increase in the availability of legal substances would undoubtedly put young people at higher risk. Unless we are prepared to legalise across the board, the process would not achieve its objective.
19. A further problem is drug induced crime. Many drugs as with alcohol, increase aggressive behaviour and/or decrease personal sense of responsibility. We cannot be certain of the precise increase in drug consumption, therefore we cannot be sure of the potential increase in drug induced crime.
20. "People do not just commit crimes to steal to get money, they commit crime because the drugs effect their central nervous system".[2]
21. The black market, corruption, illicit trafficking and violent crime would not disappear through lawful production of drugs. It is hard to imagine that the extensive hold on this lucrative industry would simply be relinquished. Drug cartels would be legitimised by legalisation not eradicated.
C. Economics
22. The cost of prohibition is a leading argument for the legalisation of drugs. It is suggested that legalisation would lead to savings throughout the entire criminal justice and prison systems as well as within Customs and Excise.
23. Internationally within the European continent and round the globe the pursuit of those trafficking drugs imposes a heavy economic burden. European governments are not alone in meeting the costs of prohibition, the private sector is also affected by acquisitive crime.
24. The economic consequences of drug prohibition also impacts upon users and their families. Legalisation would according to the argument reduce the price of drugs to the consumer causing an increase in the real incomes of users and their families. For example, the current approximate street price for heroin at only 40% purity is �80 per gram, legal supplies of pure heroin however cost the British National Health Service (NHS) less than �6 per gram.
25. Within a legalised framework European governments would be in a position to raise taxes on drugs as with alcohol and tobacco products. Taxation would have a twofold impact. The revenue raised could contribute to the cost of prevention and treatment. High taxation could also serve as a deterrent to users.
26. Under the present system legalisers argue that governments, the private sector and the international community are paying too high a price for prohibition.
27. Indeed no one would argue that the fight against drugs is not expensive. Fighting crime of any kind is costly. Economics are no justification for giving up that fight.
28. The logistics of legalisation would in any form be complex. A variety of regulations would still have to be policed. As already noted, courts may be relieved of the duty of prosecuting possession cases, but the increase in drug induced crime may be an even heavier burden for the criminal justice and prison systems.
29. The most obvious increase would occur within our health services. Treatment, prevention, education and harm reduction costs would soar. It is unlikely that revenue raised through taxation could cover these costs. As an example in Britain alcohol and tobacco duty is high, yet in 1993-94 only 7% of government revenue was raised through this avenue.[3]
30. The danger of using taxation as a deterrent as suggested by legalisers is the risk of over pricing. If one of the principles of legalisation is to reduce the cost to the consumer, to alleviate acquisitive crime, too high taxation rates would defeat this objective.
31. A study in 1993 reported that the NHS in Britain had spent more than �610 million pounds treating health problems caused just by smoking.[4] To increase the availability of more dangerous substances would create extensive economic burdens.
32. The economic burden does not stop at health care. the private sector and industry will also suffer. In 1992 it was estimated that alcohol and drug abuse was costing British industry in the region of �3 thousand million pounds a year.[5] The logical conclusion must be that increased availability will increase use and ultimately all of these cost related figures will increase too.
33. In Europe, the economic costs of drug legalisation would be intensified. Most member states have public health services. Ultimately the tax payer will carry the burden of a permissive drug policy.
D. Addiction rates and health
34. It has been argued that for many drug users the risks they encounter have little to do with the drugs they use, but much to do with the illicit market in which they purchase them. Without government control, drugs are "cut" with harmful substances. No consumer protection organisation exists for those buying products in a criminal underworld.
35. The proposition is made that legalisation would allow dosage and quality to be controlled and drugs to be acquired through legal means without fear of violent encounter. Although drugs may be dangerous government control of the health risks is far better than control by ruthless villains.
36. Prohibition has failed to prevent people from taking drugs but created unsafe environments in which they are used. It is said that although legalisation would not prevent drug consumption it would at least ensure they were consumed in less harmful environments.
37. And prohibition has also prevented many users from declaring their drug problems and seeking help, through fear of prosecution. Within a legal environment addicts could seek the help they needed without fear, leading to a fall in addiction rates.
38. The attraction of illegal drugs is often cited in the legalisation argument � that using drugs can simply be an expression of teenage rebellion. To make drugs the norm would eliminate this temptation and may reduce consumption among young people.
39. But health and safety is a major problem where drugs are concerned. The problem with the points raised above is the tendency for prohibition to be portrayed as the evil cause of drug related problems and the drugs themselves virtually eliminated from the debate. Yet,"It is not the illegality of illicit drugs or the criminalising of consumers that damages health and leads to social destitution, but the narcotics themselves".[6]
40. Although we can never expect an entirely drug free society, we should not be seeking to increase consumption. It is possible within the realms of sensible prohibition to introduce harm reduction methods where those talking drugs are informed of the safest ways of using them and encouraged to give them up.
41. Health education can play a key role in achieving this goal. Prohibition is only part of the multifaceted attack on drug misuse. Legalisation will not necessarily create safer environments for drug use.
42. In Switzerland experiments with a controlled drug zone did not achieve the safe haven that legalisers suggest. During the experiment the area of Spitzplatz experienced a dramatic escalation of crime and addiction rates.[7]
43. There are no guarantees that legalisation will encourage addicts to seek treatment. Legalisation cannot protect them from the possibility of job loss, social exclusion, etc. all of which could still deter acknowledgement of the need for treatment.
44. Condoning drug use is unlikely to deter young people. Under any frame work of legalisation young people would still be prohibited from purchasing drugs, hence drugs will still be attractively illegal. The principle of acceptability has not deterred underage alcohol and tobacco use.
45. No drug is entirely safe. The safest option is to continue undermining the source of the illegal market, and preventing the demand. The governments of assembly members have an obligation to protect their citizens from the harmful effects of drug use. Legalisation would be an abdication of that responsibility and a distorted message to the young about the harms of drugs.
E. Individual rights
46. The principle of "individual autonomy" still contributes to the argument for legalisation. It is said that prohibition causes the criminalisation of otherwise law abiding citizens because their drug of choice is not tobacco or alcohol.
47. Thus nation states which dictate what drugs citizens may or may not abuse themselves with, impinge upon individual liberty. Provided all individuals are informed honestly and accurately of the harms of all substances they should be left to make informed choices to use or not to use drugs of any kind.
48. So, legalisation would ensure an equality of treatment for all regardless of their choice of drug. Cannabis and heroin users should be allowed access to health care in the same way that alcohol and tobacco users are at present.
49. This is a very narrow justification for legalisation. Use of any drug cannot be seen in isolation. Consumption of harmful substances will not impact solely on the user, as demonstrated by the present extensive impact of alcohol and tobacco use.
50. Tobacco and alcohol are thoroughly entrenched in our society and alcohol plays a significant part in Christian culture. Legalisation could produce a cultural acceptance of presently illegal drug abuse. The abuse of alcohol and tobacco are continually attacked through education alongside drug abuse; legalising further harmful substances would entirely undermine previous successful work.
51. Drug addiction is not about choice; most addicts have little choice, informed or otherwise. Individuals have a right to be free of the harms within society and the law exists to protect that right.
F. "Prohibition"
52. Prohibition of alcohol in the United States is often cited in the legalisation debate to illustrate the failure of such policies. It is said prohibition of drugs today has failed in this same way alcohol prohibition failed in the past.
53. It is true that the corruption associated with drugs is of incredible proportions and the illegal untaxed profits made by cartels, have been higher than the national debts of some of the countries within which they operate.
54. The cost of law enforcement has been high yet little impression has been made. Every seizure simply increases the price of the drug to the consumer, who is then driven to commit more crime in order to pay for the escalating cost of his habit.
55. Prohibition in the United States certainly drove alcohol into an underground world of violent crime and uncontrolled health risks, with the consumption of bizarre and dangerous concoctions. Is such the way of today's drug industry?
56. Those in favour of legalisation suggest that prohibition is virtually unenforceable and therefore makes a mockery of law enforcement. This is a particularly inappropriate message for young people. More importantly it exposes many members of society to unnecessary harm. We will never achieve total drug abstention through any means. Control and damage limitation through legalisation is the most reasonable and modern approach to the problem of drug misuse.
57. Many laws are difficult and expensive to enforce yet this is no justification for their removal. Legalisation would (contrary to the argument in its favour), make a mockery of law enforcement. It would be a an extremely negative message, tantamount to saying this is too difficult, so we give up. This would be a dangerous precedent for any society to contemplate.
58. The comparison of prohibition in 1920s America with today's drug problem in Europe is flawed. The circumstances surrounding prohibition in the United States were very different to those that we face in Europe today. Prohibition was fundamentally against the wishes of the contemporary population. The illegality of drugs however remains popular among the majority of people in Europe today.
59. The United States was isolated within western society in its decision to prohibit the sale of alcohol. By contrast the international community is virtually unanimous in its condemnation of drug misuse. Illustrated by the commitment to the United Nations Narcotics Conventions as well as the work of pan-European groups.
60. Yet regardless of the circumstances at that time, during the period of prohibition, cases of cirrhosis of the liver declined by 35%; alcohol-related arrests and suicides fell by 50%.[8]
61. A crime free society is as an elusive goal as a drug free one. But we should not give up the pursuit of either goal. Every seizure and every inroad made into the illegal trade in drugs must be seen as a success in the battle to undermine the industry.
G. Cannabis
62. Cannabis is the most widely used drug in Europe. Therefore it is worth looking at this particular drug and the possibilities of legalising its recreational use in isolation from the debate about the wider aspects of drug legalisation.
63. Cannabis has acquired something of a benign image because of wide spread use. Many believe the drug to be no more harmful than either alcohol or tobacco and its recreational use should not be prohibited.
64. As the illegal status of cannabis criminalises many otherwise law-abiding citizens, so the argument goes, users feel their civil rights are infringed and feel it is wrong that they are forced into the dangerous underworld of crime to buy what they regard as a perfectly legitimate recreational drug.
65. As a rather separate point, it has also been suggested that cannabis my have medicinal qualities and has been cited as helpful in the treatment of glaucoma, HIV, nausea in chemotherapy patients and multiple sclerosis.
66. In many cases those who are against the legalisation of drugs, single out cannabis as the exception, considering it a "soft" drug which should not be considered in the same category as other "hard" drugs such as heroin or cocaine. Indeed, in many European states the use and possession of small amounts of the drug is tolerated. Yet this limited tolerance fails to address the wider issues of drug misuse.
67. The popular myth that cannabis is a "soft" drug has clouded the realities of drug abuse. Cannabis should be considered in the same context as any other drug. The use of the terms hard and soft are entirely misleading when discussing drug abuse. The misuse of any drug from heroin to cannabis is bad for the user and often dangerous.
68. The precise dangers of the long or even short term use of cannabis to individual users are not yet fully understood. Over 10 500 studies have imputed cannabis to be harmful.[9] Yet many remain unconvinced of the risks of long term harm and addictive potential.
69. It has been found that cannabis adversely affects the reproductive system, the immune system, the lungs and heart. It has between 50% and 70% more carcinogenic compounds than would be found in a normal tobacco cigarette.
70. As cannabis is stored in fat cells of which there is a high proportion in the brain, scientific evidence exists to show that regular use of the drug has far-reaching effects on behaviour.
71. Learning and memory are both adversely affected by its use. Of great concern is the drugs detrimental affect on motivation. It can cause users to become apathetic or disinterested in terms of personal responsibility. The drug is also reputed to exacerbate psychotic symptoms in long term users and although not physically addictive users may become psychologically dependent.[10]
72. The dangerous combination of cannabis' mind altering properties and its capacity to remain within the body systems far longer than alcohol (or many other drugs), has far reaching implications for those considering themselves to be merely weekend users.
73. Although users may feel they have a right to use cannabis as they do not feel their use imposes on any one else, this opinion could be misguided.
74. There are several examples of major rail road accidents in the United States as a result of drivers using cannabis. Recent experiments with pilots in flight simulators showed they could not land a plane properly twenty-four hours after consuming only one joint.[11] The same effects must apply to all road-users, even though drug-testing of car or motorcycle drivers is virtually non-existent.
75. These examples illustrate how drug use can never be considered merely in terms of the user alone. Just decriminalising cannabis would take us into complex territories. Singling out any drug as "soft" is misleading.
76. Should the drug be proven to have medicinal qualities, it would require extensive research to isolate the properties within cannabis which anecdotal evidence has suggested alleviates certain conditions.
77. When patients complain of headaches doctors do not suggest that the patient should chew willow bark, he administers an appropriate drug derived from this source.
78. It must be expected therefore that an appropriate drug could be derived from the cannabis sativa plant to address specific complaints. Prescribing the drug for medical purposes would not require the drug to be legalised for recreational use, the two issues are quite separate.
79. There may be a disparity of opinion concerning the use of cannabis, but there is every reason to suppose that it is a dangerous drug, causing both physical harm and mental impairment to the user. The popular myth that cannabis is a safe "soft" drug should be dispelled, its harmful effects emphasised and its present illegal status maintained.
H. Proposals for action
80. Thus far the report has been concerned with the debate for the legalisation of drugs. It has focused on the negative reasons why such an option would not be viable. Yet there are positive measures which can be taken to address the problem without resorting to the drastic and virtually irreversible step of legalisation.
1. Demand reduction
81. This is the most important tool available in the struggle against drug misuse. If demand can be reduced sufficiently then we will succeed in undermining the profit of the illicit drugs market.
82. Considering its importance, every effort must be made at the earliest opportunity with effective health education programmes within our schools, promoting the benefits of healthy drug free lifestyles, contrasted with the high risk associated with all types of drug abuse. We must target areas with informative factual literature, where drug use is prevalent like clubs, discos, youth centres, universities and colleges. Everybody in contact with young people must be better informed.
83. Ex drug users can be involved in producing the literature for these target areas. Peer group work among high use areas should be encouraged as it can be productive in souring information and enabling education programmes to target the right areas.
2. Harm reduction
84. Until we can find magical cure for drug abuse, we must not be afraid of harm reduction techniques, but support them in every way possible.
85. Needle exchanges can dramatically reduce the risk of HIV infection for intravenous drug abusers; such programmes also provide an access point for treatment. Literature that aims at prevention can be accompanied by harm reduction information. Many young people are using mood altering drugs like MADA (Ecstasy) and the exceptionally dangerous elements of these drugs can be reduced if users do not allow themselves to dehydrate.
86. Literature aimed at informing particularly young people of the dangers of particular drugs must be factual and honest in their presentation. They should as well as dissuade, inform users how best to minimise the consequences of drug use. This kind of information can diminish the dangers for those who persist in using illegal drugs and help dissuade those tempted, often by peer pressure, to experiment with them.
3. Treatment
87. Those wishing to be free of the destructive entrapment of drug abuse must be given more encouragement to seek help, without necessarily fearing personal prosecution.
88. Further research is needed in the areas of treatment therapy and comprehensive projects to study the physical, mental, long and short term effects of drug use. Research is also required to help us understand why people use drugs and what if any connections can be made with prevalent drug use and social depravity � and to identify possible genetic links.
89. For many drug users the only hope of every regaining control of their lives depends upon successful treatment programmes. We must encourage and support any treatment methods that can give people back their lives and help them remain free of drug dependency.
90. Various treatments can help heroin addicts to live normal lives, but there are many other drugs which can be equally as devastating as heroin. Treatment programmes must not neglect cocaine or even cannabis use which will not require replacement drug therapy, but sophisticated counselling techniques.
4. Drug production
91. Drug production is a global problem and requires the co-operation of international governments and law enforcement agencies.
92. The threat of prosecution can be very effective in persuading crop producers to plant alternative crops but assistance must be given to those growers who attempt to replace drug crops, reinforcing the work already undertaken by UNDCP.
93. Better control of the chemicals used in drug production must be identified and agreed � and internationally enforced.
5. Trafficking and laundering
94. Ever closer attention must be paid to money laundering processes. Recent reports suggest that auction houses are becoming favourite places for drug traffickers to launder their illicit gains.
95. Investment in intelligence can address emerging activities such as these. Most fundamental to the struggle against the black market crime in the drugs trade, is international communication and co-operation � or through Europol.
96. Governments must stay ever alert to money laundering activities and be increasingly prepared to share information and make bilateral as well as multilateral agreements on enforcement.
97. International co-operation against the drug cartels can be successful; but effective national action is also crucial. The Council must remain committed to encouraging and supporting all such action. The arrest and incarceration of several leading members of the Carli Cartel in Colombia has served to illustrate the success of legislation against drug trafficking and production.
6. Enforcement
98. The criminal justice system offers an opportunity to encourage users to seek treatment. Drug courts as a means of referral, could deal more effectively with offenders with drug dependency problems. This is proving very effective in the United States of America.
99. The use of sensitive policing methods must be encouraged. Cautioning in combination with treatment programmes and community service can be far more constructive for those found guilty of possession rather than incarceration or high fines.
100. The suggestion that cautioning is essentially decriminalisation is a myth. It is a practical method of introducing drug offenders to treatment programmes rather than prison. Decriminalisation is the legalisation of possession of drugs, the use of cautioning accepts the illegal status of drugs, whilst encouraging misusers to seek treatment as oppose to jail.
101. The alarming use of drugs within prisons must also be addressed. Custody must be seen as an opportunity to avert drug dependency. Extensive and appropriate, rehabilitation and treatment should be encouraged.
102. The prison environment must also be regarded as an educational one. Effective, specially designed, educational programmes about drug misuse must be found for those already using drugs in custody as well as those who may be introduced to drugs in prison.
103. Schools also have a role in enforcement. Excluding young people caught in possession of drugs, from the education system, will not solve the problem. Every school should have an established drugs policy � as a principle not as a reaction to a drugs problem in that school.
I. Conclusions
104. Prohibition must remain an important element within a combination of policies aimed at reducing drug misuse. It can play a large part within the multifaceted approach to drugs misuse. Prevention, education, treatment and harm reduction can all work to remove the demand for drugs within European societies.
105. If we reduce the demand for and simultaneously attack the production of drugs, we will eventually break the motivating force of profit within the industry. Increasing the availability of drugs will only increase the use inflicting greater harm on everybody.
106. Boundaries are important elements in civilised societies; legalisation would dissolve boundaries and send negative messages especially to young people to whom society has a responsibility to protect.
107. Legalisation is essentially a dubious social experiment with no guarantees only risks and ambiguities, which if we chose to embark upon, would be difficult if not impossible to reverse.
APPENDIX
Summary of commonly misused drugs
Amphetamines. A wide variety of man-made drugs, more commonly known as speed, uppers, whizz, etc. Generally these drugs increase the users energy and confidence levels. They diminish fatigue hence the appeal. The nervous system is affected, literally speeding up the metabolism. The "come down" can induce feelings of anxiety or paranoia. Long term and heavy use can cause heart failure or stroke and mental disorders. Users risk becoming mentally dependent. Varieties of the drug are used in the treatment of narcolepsy and more commonly as a short term treatment for obesity. Although available on prescription, amphetamines are still produced and sold on the illicit market.
Barbiturates. Man-made drugs more often referred to as downers or barbs. These are drugs which depress rather than stimulate the nervous system. In small doses the drug makes the user relaxed or drowsy. High doses are exceptionally dangerous due to the risk of overdose � and death. Mental and physical dependency are quite possible and this type of drug may cause bronchitis or pneumonia. Normally prescribed to chronic insomniacs, these drugs are not exceptionally common on the street. They are known to be used as a combination drug, to counteract the effects of excessive stimulant use.
Cannabis/marijuana. Found in the plant cannabis sativa it is the most widely used illegal drug in Europe. Normally referred to as dope, grass, blow or many other street names. The drug is usually smoked with tobacco and induces a feeling of cheerful relaxation. The long term effects are not entirely certain. The risk of cancer is high, as the carcinogenic content is known to be higher than that of tobacco. Cannabis is believed to have severe detrimental affects on various bodily functions but of particular concern is the damage it can cause to the reproductive systems of young girls. It also affects the short term memory and powers of concentration, as well as decreasing motivation and increasing listlessness, often referred to as anti-motivational syndrome. Cannabis can remain in the system for long periods of time so use of cars, machinery, etc. can still be dangerous even if the immediate effects of the drug seem to have worn off. At present it is not used in the treatment of any medical condition although there is anecdotal evidence to suggest it may be useful in relieving a variety of serious conditions like MS. The drug is widely available on the illicit market.
Cocaine. Made from the coca plant and more commonly known as coke or, snow. The drug stimulates the nervous system and induces feelings of exceptional well being and excitement. It can adversely, cause the user severe anxiety and hallucinations after the effects begin to wear off. The relatively recent introduction of a cocaine derivative known as crack or rock, gives great cause for concern; the drug is available on the illicit market often at a lower cost than cocaine and produces a high which is very short lived and is highly addictive and destructive. Cocaine is used to make local anaesthetic but is rarely prescribed, its availability on the street, particularly crack is becoming increasingly widespread.
Ecstasy. Also known as MADA or Es. The drug is used predominately by young people and is tied up with modern dance culture. This is an hallucinogenic drug which intensifies certain emotions. It produces feelings of exceptional happiness and in medical experiments it has been shown to affect the area of the brain concerned with motion, stimulating the desire to dance. The effects last for several hours. There are a variety of possible dangers from heat exhaustion and dehydration in the immediate short term � including death. In the long term it may cause severe damage to the brain cells. As with many drugs the effects will vary according to the health and mental condition of the user. It is not used in the treatment of any medical conditions.
Heroin. This is the most widely misused drug of the opiates group. Known as smack, skag, junk, etc. It is an exceptionally addictive and dangerous drug. Made from the opium poppy, heroin is injected or smoked. Its medical function is to reduce pain and is prescribed in different forms for medical use. The drugs immediate effect is to promote a feeling of warmth and contentment, larger doses, aside from the risk of overdose may render the user unconscious. As tolerance to the drug is rapid the user runs a high risk of physical addiction and mental dependency. Eventually frequent users will need the drug, merely to function at all. Users who inject the drug are also at risk from HIV infection as needles are commonly shared.
LSD. Also known as acid. This complex drug is usually taken orally in the form of paper squares or tabs. The drug distorts perceptions inducing what are commonly described as trips. The distortion of perceptions may not always be pleasant and can cause the user to panic or become deeply depressed. This distortion of reality can lead users to inflict great harm upon themselves even resulting in fatal accidents. In the long term the anxiety induced through hallucinations can cause severe mental illness. The drug is seldom if ever used as a medicine.
Solvents. Carbon based substances found in things like glue, aerosols and inflammable liquids. Solvents are widely available as a wide variety of household substances can be sniffed or inhaled to achieve an instant high. In the short term the dangers will vary, there have been cases of young people dying after inhaling for the first time. The drug produces an immediate loss of control or unconsciousness. The risk of accidents whilst under the influence of the drug is high. The user may also suffocate if substances are inhaled from polythene bags. Long term effects range from concentration problems, depression, brain damage, weight loss, or liver and kidney failure.
Tranquillisers. A variety of drugs such as Temazepam, Valium, Mogadon, etc. These drugs are widely available on prescription. On the street they are known as tranx or jellies. Medically the drugs are prescribed for a variety of conditions from insomnia to relief of nervous dispositions, etc. The drugs promote a feeling of relaxation and decrease self control. Tolerance develops with frequent use and users can become increasingly dependent, the addictive capacity of some of these drugs is especially high. These drugs can be used to counteract the effects of drugs like ecstasy, etc. and are sometimes taken in combination with a variety of substances. The possession of tranquillisers is not illegal in most European states, yet there is a vast illegal market in these drugs.
Selected bibliography
Ashton, Goodman, Hall, et al. RELEASE Article and White Paper on Drug Legalisation. 1992 & 1995.
Sir J.S. Clark MEP & T. Rathbone MP. It's my problem as well. Drug Prevention and Education. November 1992.
David Copestake, Cannabis and Mental Functions, 1995.
George De Leon PHD. Journal of Addictive Diseases, Vol. 13 (2), 1994.
R. Stevenson. Winning the War on Drugs, IEA. 1994.
P. Stoker. Drug Prevention. Fulton. 1992.
Drugs Futures, ISDD, 1995.
Drugs Legalisation: Myths and Misconceptions, DEA, Washington, 1994.
Facts and Arguments, Excerpts from Ist International Symposium Against Drugs in Switzerland. 1994.
Tackling Drugs Together, government White Paper, Britain, HMSO, 1995.
Reporting committee: Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
Budgetary implications for the Assembly: none.
Reference to committee: Doc. 7085 and Reference No. 1944 of 18 May 1994; Doc. 7118 and Reference No. 1960 of 5 September 1994.
Draft recommendation adopted by the committee on 27 June 1996 with fourteen votes in favour, five votes against and two abstentions.
Members of the committee: Mr Hag�rd (Chairperson), Mr Schwimmer, Mrs Err (Vice-Chairpersons), Mrs Aguiar, MM. Ak�ali, Alexander, Arbnori, Bartumeu Cassany, Berti, Bindig, Bobelis (Alternate: Germanas), Bu_ar, Cimoszewicz (Alternate: Bartodziej), Cioni, Clerfayt, Columberg, Deasy, Dees (Alternate: Jurgens), Deniau (Alternate: Briane), Fenech, Filimonov, Foga�, Frunda, Fuhrmann, Fyodorov, Mrs Gelderblom-Lankhout, MM. Grimsson, Guenov, G�rel, Mrs Holand, MM. Holovatiy (Alternate: Rakhansky), Hunault (Alternate: Masson), Jansson (Alternate: Mrs J��teenm�ki), MM. Jaskiernia, Jeambrun (Alternate: Couveinhes), Karas, Kelam, Kirkhill (Alternate: Sir Irvine Patnick), MM. Koschyk (Alternate: Junghanns), Kovalev, Kyprianou, La Russa, Loutfi, Maginas, Magnusson, Martins, M�sz�ros, Moeller, N�meth, Pantelejevs, Poppe, Rathbone, Rhinow, Robles Fraga (Alternate: Mrs Fern�ndez de la Vega), MM. Rodeghiero (Alternate: Dionisi), Rokofyllos, Severin, Sol� Tura, Solonari, Stretovych, Tahiri, Trojan, Weyts, Mrs Wohlwend.
N.B. The names of those members who participated in the meeting are printed in italics.
Secretaries to the committee: Mr Plate, Ms Chatzivassiliou, Ms Kleinsorge and Ms Clamer.
[1]. By the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
[2]. Bensinger. "Ist International Symposium Against Drugs in Switzerland". 1994. p. 493.
[3]. Indirect Taxation Report, 1993-94, Treasury of Great Britain.
[4]. S. Kaplin. Life Education Fact Sheet, 1994.
[5]. Ibid.
[6]. Published Excerpts of "Ist International Symposium Against Drugs in Switzerland". p. 1.
[7]. DEA Washington. Drug Legalisation: Myths and Misconceptions, 1994. p. 22.
[8]. Ibid. p. 37.
[9]. Peter Stoker. Positive Prevention Plus Article, 1995.
[10]. D. Copestake, Cannabis and Mental Functions, p. 1.
[11]. G.G. Nahas & C. Latour, Paris Symposium on Drugs, 1992.