1 July 1994

Doc. 7118

1403-30/6/94-4-E

MOTION FOR A RECOMMENDATION

on public policy on drug addiction

proposed by Mr DUMONT and others 1

1.       An international disinformation campaign is setting out to present the repression of drug addiction not only as a practical failure but also as an erroneous policy option. Some even go as far as to propose "depenalising drug use in general and, where appropriate, legalising the transport and production of certain drugs".

2.       It is important not to distort the terms of an essential debate for society; the fact is that states which have opted for depenalisation are experiencing not a decline but an explosion in drug use, and where they expected drug trafficking to dwindle, instead a veritable gangrene has set in and is spreading to their less lenient neighbours.

3.       Two of the arguments put forward by advocates of liberalisation are absurd at the very least, not to say irresponsible:

      i.       Repression, they claim, is difficult and partially unfruitful: undoubtedly, but does that mean it should be abandoned? If statistics were to serve as sole inspiration for the legislator, we should give up prosecuting and punishing crimes since figures show that only a limited number of murderers are arrested and convicted. When repression is difficult, does that mean criminals, be they murderers or drug traffickers, should be given free rein? The proposal certainly has the merit of being simple. However, it is doubtful that it would meet the expectations of citizens;

      ii.       Repression allegedly raises the price of illicit products and therefore incites traffickers to step up their sales. Maybe, but repression also scores points by putting some traffickers out of action and breaking up supply channels. Besides, who could be made to believe that cheaper drugs would mean falling consumption? Quite the contrary, these poisons would become available even to children. Can the legislator take that risk?

4.       It is true that the difficulties involved in repression should not be obscured; the human and material resources must be found and supply channels as well as those laundering the profits of this criminal industry must be tracked down.

5.       Individual drug addicts should also be given the means to opt for life, to resume normal life at any time; this implies treatment and psychological care, particularly for those affected by Aids, and appropriate training opportunities, access to housing and to employment.

6.       Given our citizens' growing concern at the collapse of European civilisation's fundamental values, to depenalise drug addiction would be a grave mistake. Many of society's current ills have no other source than the destructive ideology that can be summed up in the words "prohibiting is prohibited". Psychoanalysts, confidants of those aspiring to personal fulfilment, are well aware of the malaise suffered by these "personalities without limits", which ultra-permissive "education" has produced in growing numbers in Europe. These personalities without limits either vegetate as eternal spoilt children, perpetually dissatisfied, expecting everything from others or from society as a right, with no effort or personal contribution on their part, or they become involved in increasingly dangerous adventures and experiences, looking precisely for that ultimate limit, penal sanction or, worse, danger to their own lives. To remove the limit established by the law by blurring even further the distinction between behaviour compatible with life in society and infringements of the rules of such life is certainly not the answer to the malaise suffered by drug addicts.

7.       Moreover, we do not know how those who advocate "depenalising drug use in general" would organise the supply of legalised drugs to young people and even children? Nor do we know what form the legalisation of "the transport and production of certain drugs" would take. Would the state itself not be required to be the producer of such drugs, or at least the guarantor of their production?

8.       Lastly, these advocates of ultimate permissiveness seem to be unaware that some drugs, sometimes from the first time they are taken, produce not only dependence but incurable psychoses caused by irreversible physiological changes to the brain, such as the clinically undeniable effects of amphetamines and certain "happiness pills".

9.       To counter the falsification of the debate pursued by some individuals, who ignore the medical observations that refute their argument, it is not a matter of reproducing the various hearings that have already taken place and which themselves are not devoid of bias or manipulation, but rather of sending a clear message to the potential victims: it is your responsibility to exercise your freedom in one direction or another; solidarity from the community will always exist to help you choose, at any time, life and full participation in social relationships. Society cannot, in any form whatsoever, be the accomplice of the destruction of the individual faculties of its members and must, therefore, do its utmost to prosecute and punish drug trafficking.

10.       The Assembly therefore recommends that the Committee of Ministers adopt a programme of action along these lines.

Signed:

Dumont, Gouteyron, Durrieu, Croze, Valleix,

Baumel, Jeambrun, Schreiner, Seitlinger, Branger,

Briane, Mignon, Lentz-Cornette, Hooper, Rathbone

1 ¹ 1. This text only represents the views of the individual members who have signed it. It does not reflect a position adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly.