illicit drug use in the eu: legislative approaches - EMCDDA - Europa

EMCDDA thematic papersIllicit drug use in the EU: legislative approaches‘to establish as a criminal offence […] possession […] for personal consumption […] keeping inmind that parties have to meet their fundamental obligation under [the] conventions to limit theuse of controlled substances to medical and scientific purposes’ ( 22 ).More recently, the INCB has expressed reservations about the United Kingdom’s proposal totransfer cannabis from Class B to Class C ( 23 ), having regard to the ‘confusion’ and ‘widespreadmisunderstanding’ that would in its view result. The British Government reacted officially to theReport, notably in a speech by its delegation at the meeting of the Commission on NarcoticDrugs in Vienna on 8 April 2003 ( 24 ).Again, the recent Belgian proposal to amend the law on drugs, under which criminal sanctionsagainst drug users would be only a last resort, was not criticised by the INCB, which, in its letterto the Belgian Minister of Justice dated 28 March 2003 ( 25 ), confirms that the proposal is inline with the conventions, while pointing out that lifting the ban on acts preparatory to drug use(which were not proposed in the draft law) would be contrary to the conventions.It might be of interest here to recall that the Spanish and Italian options to apply administrativesanctions for possession for personal use of all drugs (respectively from 1992 and 1990),were not met with disapproval in the INCB reports of those years. A possible interpretation isthat in Spain and Italy the legislative amendments took the form of a change from a situationin which a certain conduct was not subject to sanctions, to one of prohibition punishable byadministrative sanctions; in other words, the law was stiffened in both cases. More recently, inthe other countries, the change has been from a criminal offence, possibly carrying a penalty ofimprisonment, to a prohibition subject to sanctions other than deprivation of liberty (at least for afirst offence) ( 26 ).Despite the criticisms, these provisions seem to be consistent with the direction also suggestedby the INCB in its Report of 1996, to make ‘greater use of treatment and alternative penalties,( 22 ) International Narcotic Control Board (INCB), 2001 Report (509), United Nations, New York, 2002.( 23 ) International Narcotic Control Board (INCB) 2002 Report (499), United Nations, New York, 2003: The Boardcomments as follows on the announcement from the United Kingdom Government that cannabis was to be placed ina schedule subject to less severe control measures: ‘the worldwide repercussions caused by that announcement […][include] confusion and widespread misunderstanding. A survey undertaken in the United Kingdom found that as manyas 94 per cent of children believed that cannabis was a legal substance or even some type of medicine. The survey alsodiscovered that nearly 80 per cent of teachers in the United Kingdom believed that the recent reclassification of cannabiswould make educating pupils about the dangers of drug abuse more challenging and difficult. Several opinion polls takenin July and August 2002 found that the majority of the population did not support that reclassification.’( 24 ) Extract from the British Delegation’s speech at the last meeting of the Commission on -- Drugs in Vienna on 8 April2003: ‘… the UK Government felt compelled to write to the Board on 3 March 2003 to express its dismay at commentsmade in the Board’s report for 2002 about the UK’s decision to reclassify cannabis. In particular the UK Government wasconcerned about the alarmist language used, the absence of any references to the scientific evidence on which the decisionwas based, and the misleading way in which the decision was presented by INCB representatives to the media’.( 25 ) Letter from the Secretary of the Board, Mr Herbert Schaepe, to the Belgian Minister of Justice, Mr Verwilghen, dated28 March 2003.( 26 ) The Italian law was however object of disagreement by the INCB in the 1999 Report, where critics have beenmoved towards the 1993 amendment: ‘the decriminalisation of drug possession and abuse, which was introduced inItaly in 1993, is not in line with several provisions of the 1961 Convention and the 1988 Convention’. While not wishingto interpret this opinion, we should like to point out that the French version of the Report uses the word ‘dépénalisation’where the English version has ‘decriminalisation’.9