Doc. 7686
9 October 1996

OPINION1 on drug misuse and the question of legalisation

(Rapporteurs: Mr ARNAU, Spain, Socialist Group and Mrs VERMOT-MANGOLD, Switzerland, Socialist Group)

1.       Noting that experience showed that "repression" had not produced the desired effects with regard to drug misuse, the motion for a recommendation (Doc. 7085) by Mr Jurgens, on which the present report is based, called for a thorough and independent study of the legal, criminological, social and other advantages and disadvantages of depenalisation of the use of drugs in general and, possibly, of the legalisation of the transport and production of certain drugs in particular.

2.       We might therefore have expected the report on drug misuse and the question of legalisation presented by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to give us a clear picture of the question of drug misuse and the possibility of using total or partial legalisation as a solution to the problem. It has not, however, done so.

3.       While referring to the importance of asking the question whether "soft" drugs actually exist or not, the report rightly endorses harm reduction techniques and combined approaches aimed at dealing simultaneously with drug misuse and other problems such as AIDS.

4.       At the same time, we cannot but agree with Mr Rathbone on the need for national and international measures to combat the suppliers of drugs. However, it is surprising that most of the report focuses on users, while the idea of combating drug traffickers is mentioned only towards the end of the text.

5.       In particular, the report ignores one of the main arguments that led us to examine the advisability of legalisation, namely the idea that the profitability of supplying drugs would be reduced to such an extent that there would be no point in trafficking.

6.       The text mainly approaches the fight against drugs from the angle of the crime issues. That is hardly surprising when the rapporteur has already advocated an essentially repressive approach to drug misuse in a previous report.

7.       Yet efforts to tackle drug misuse necessarily involve two approaches which are complementary and, to some extent, interdependent: one aimed at reducing supplies through repressive action and the other aimed at reducing demand.

8.       It is not so much the conclusions of the report which are questionable: indeed, who could oppose the proposal that education be used to try and discourage drug use or that international co-operation in the prosecution of traffickers be improved? Rather, it is the underlying reasoning that is open to dispute.

9.       The report puts legalisation in the dock without providing any real evidence in support of the author's own views. Moreover, legalisation is dealt with as an indivisible process, although it can, in fact, take several forms. It would be fairer to look at them in turn before condemning the whole idea.

10.       Mr Rathbone claims that there is no proof that legalisation would reduce consumption levels, but provides no evidence in support of his view that prohibition is the only effective method either. While analysis of the case of the Netherlands might have been relevant, the report fails to look at it at all. Surely it is also contradictory to suggest that drug users should be encouraged to seek assistance without having to fear prosecution and at the same time maintain that the courts are the most effective means of dealing with the problem?

11.       It is easy to understand the fear of drugs becoming the norm which the possibility of legalisation arouses in the rapporteur, but this fear should not be allowed to prevent a fresh approach to an already widely debated subject.

12.       In order to combat drug traffickers effectively, as the report very rightly suggests we should, would it not have been useful to ask whether, regardless of the successes they have achieved, efforts to fight traffickers could actually have the paradoxical effect of making them join forces to defend their position?

13.       Similarly, although it may be laudable to seek to increase young people's awareness of the drugs issue through education while praising the benefits of a drug-free future, it would be a pity to ignore the views which young people may have of a society that offers them no prospects other than competition, unemployment and exclusion.

14.       Lastly, although it does recognise that drug addicts have little choice, the main criticism which can be levelled at the report is its failure to see them as individuals with a health problem who - without being let off for everything - need to be offered more than the guilt-inducing atmosphere of a courtroom. Why should drug addicts be treated differently from the victims of alcoholism and smoking, which the WHO recognises as addictive illnesses?

15.       Recommendation 1141 (1991) on drug misuse and illicit trafficking and the question of legalisation did, after all, call for the intensification of "efforts to provide suitable alternatives to prison for drug misusers, recognising that they require treatment rather than prosecution".

16.       Lastly, the present report on drug misuse and the question of legalisation set out "to review and debate the arguments for and against the legalisation of illicit drugs". Nevertheless, although the introduction admits that "legalisation is (..) shrouded with ambiguity", the report does not succeed in removing the latter.

17.       Whereas Recommendation 1085 (1988) on the fight against drugs referred to the need to consider new solutions for tackling new situations, the present report makes no new proposals.

18.       The rapporteurs therefore propose the following amendment to the draft recommendation:

-       paragraph 18 vii to be replaced by the following:

"vii.       ensure that drug misusers always have the possibility of receiving treatment instead of a prison sentence".

Reporting committee: Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights (Doc.7626)

Committee for opinion: Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee.

Reference to committee: Doc. 7118 and Reference No. 1960 of 5 September 1994

Opinion approved by the committee on 23 September 1996.

Secretaries to the committee: Ms Coin and Ms Meunier

1 ¹By the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee