Transcript now - CityWide

Decriminalisation and Regulation
Pragmatic responses to drug use &
supply
Niamh Eastwood
Release
The importance of language in the
drug policy debate
Decriminalisation
‘A Quiet Revolution’
• Portugal well evidenced
• Other jurisdictions not discussed or used as
advocacy examples
• Challenge the fallacy that decriminalisation
results in increased drug use
Definition of decriminalisation
• No criminal record
• Included ‘de jure’ and ‘de facto’ models
• ‘de jure’ schemes included any type of legislative
process that decriminalised possession including
discretionary schemes
• Ignored escalated approaches e.g UK
• Included states where only cannabis decriminalised
Orange = states have decriminalised some cannabis offences
Green = possession deemed unconstitutional - no statutory
response.
Yellow= statutory decriminalisation of drug possession
Purple – de facto decriminalisation
Positive examples of
decriminalisation (1)
•
Portugal introduction of decriminalisation of all drugs in 2001 & investment in
public health led to:
– Decrease in use amongst vulnerable groups including problematic users and young
people;
– Reductions in the number of young people becoming dependent on harder drugs such
as heroin.
– The estimated numbers of injecting drug users in Portugal also decreased by over 40 per
cent during that period.
– Increases in the number of drug-dependent individuals in treatment.
– Significant reductions in transmission of HIV and tuberculosis.
– Significant decrease in the number of drug-related deaths and the increased investment
in harm-reduction services.
– Reduced number of criminal drug offences from approximately 14,000 per year to an
average of 5,000 to 5,500 per year after decriminalisation & reduced prison population
– Reduced burden on criminal justice system allowing police to focus on more serious
crime
– Improved relationship between the community and police.
Positive examples of
decriminalisation (2)
• Czech Republic – 2002 Cost benefit Analysis
of criminal justice approach:
1. Penalisation of drug use had not affected the
availability of illicit drugs;
2. There was an increase in the levels of drug use
within the country;
3. The social costs of illicit drug use increased
significantly.
Positive examples of
decriminalisation (3)
• Australia (4 states have decriminalised cannabis
possession) & have shown a capacity to keep
individuals out of the criminal justice system. A
comparative study showed individuals who were
given criminal penalties suffered:
– Negative employment, relationship and
accommodation consequences
– Increased likelihood of further contact with
criminal justice system
Positive examples of
decriminalisation (4)
• USA – 23 states have decriminalised
possession of cannabis
– No significant difference in cannabis prevalence
amongst states
– Economic savings: CA introduced cannabis
decriminalisation in 1976, in the first six months of
implementation enforcement savings of $12.6
million.
Implementation Problems
• Threshold quantity to determine personal
possession
• The role of the decision maker
• Sanctions
Threshold Quantity (‘TQs’)
• Overwhelmingly TQs utilised either as the definitive
determinant (strict liability) or as a factor in deciding
whether someone was in possession or intended to
supply.
• Only four out of 21 jurisdictions had chosen not to
use threshold amounts and instead used broader
terms such as ‘reasonable quantity’ (Uruguay) or
‘small amount’ (Poland).
Argentina (draft bill) (Const)
NO
Threshold amounts
South Australia – cannabis only 100 g cannabis (CEN)
CEN (de jure)
Colombia (Const – will be de jure)
New Bill – cocaine 1g & 20 g
cannabis
Paraguay (de jure)
10 g cannabis
2g cocaine/heroin
Czech Republic (de jure)
10g cannabis
1g cocaine
1.5g heroin
4 ecstasy tablets
40 pieces of mushrooms
Peru (de jure)
5 g cocaine paste
2 g cocaine hydrochloride
200 mgs heroin
8 g THC
Western Australia (de jure)
10 g cannabis (CIN) (prev. 30 Estonia (de jure)
grams)
2 non hydro plants
10x single dose
Poland (de jure)
No thresholds – ‘small quantity’
Australian Cap Territory (de
jure)
50 grams cannabis (SCON)
2 plants
Depends on Lander
6 – 15 grams cannabis
1 – 3 grams cocaine
Portugal (de jure)
10 days worth of average daily dose – in
practice:
5 g resin/ 25 g herbal
1 g MDMA
1 g heroin
2 g cocaine
Northern Territory (de jure)
50 grams cannabis (civil fine) Italy (de jure)
Non cannabis – no
thresholds (diversion)
Maximum quantity amount:
500mgs of cannabis
(psychoactive ingredient)
250 mgs heroin
750 mgs E
750 mgs cocaine
Russia (de jure)
6 g cannabis
0.5 g heroin/cocaine
Belgium (de jure)
3 grams cannabis
Mexico (de jure)
5 grams cannabis
0.5 grams cocaine
50 mgs heroin
1E
Spain (de jure)
200 grams herbal
25 grams resin
2.4 grams MDMA
3 grams heroin
7.5 grams cocaine
Chile (de jure)
No threshold
Netherlands (de facto)
5 grams cannabis
1 dose of hard drugs
Uruguay (de jure)
‘reasonable quantity exclusively for
personal consumption’
Washington DC
56 grams
3 plants
28 grams gift
Switzerland
10 grams
Jamaica
56 grams
Germany (Const)
Threshold Quantities (‘TQs’)
• TQs do not appear to have any impact on prevalence
- South Australia anything less than 100 grams of
cannabis would be treated as a civil possession
offence, whereas in Western Australia the limit was
10 grams.
• Other jurisdictions, including Italy and Peru, use
purity levels to determine the threshold amount.
• Hollow examples – Mexico & Russia
Russia – thresholds in practice
• Prior to 2004:
– cannabis was 0.1 grams
– heroin 0.005grams
• In to 2004:
– cannabis was 20 grams
– heroin 1 gram
Resulting in:
• 40,000 people previously convicted being released or their
sentences reduced
• 2004 -05 it is estimated 60,000 people avoided criminal
prosecution as a result of the change in thresholds.
The Decision Maker (‘DM’)
• Police determination: the main benefit is that the
decision is made at a very early point in the process
but can result in net widening
• Prosecutorial guidance: often prosecutorial guidance
will be provided to assist police e.g. Netherlands
• Judicial determination: can delay proceedings and
possible issues of pre trial detention (especially
problematic in Latin American countries)
Sanctions
• No sanction – appears to have no impact on
prevalence e.g. Belgium & Netherlands
• Street fines – can lead to increased policing of
offence, net widening & perverse outcomes such as
harsher punishment for non payment e.g. Spain &
South Australia
• More comprehensive approach – Portugal
Why campaign for decriminalisation of
drug possession?
• Reduces immediate harms for people who use
drugs
– Criminalisation
– Stigmatisation
– Barriers to integration
What decriminalisation does not
achieve
• Little evidenced impact on supply side
• Drug related violence
• Destabilisation of states (‘narco-states’)
• Trade still in the hands of organised crime
Incremental Change
• Decriminalisation is part of an incremental
reform process:
– Netherlands
– Spain
– Czech Republic
– Washington & Colorado
– Uruguay
The political landscape internationally and how
this plays into the domestic arguments
• Increasing number of countries/ states moving towards
decriminalisation – Switzerland (who else?)
• Impact of Uruguay and US on international drug control
framework
• UNGASS 2016
– WHO
– UNAIDS
– UNDP
– OCHR
– UNODC
3. The Committee recommends that any harm reducing and rehabilitation
approach be applied on a case-by-case basis, with appropriately resourced
services available to those affected, including resources for assessment (e.g.
similar to the Dissuasion Committees used in Portugal) and the effective
treatment of the individuals concerned.
4. The Committee draws attention to the success of ‘informal’ interaction with
users when referred to the ‘Dissuasion Committees’ in Portugal and
recommends that such an approach should be employed in Ireland if the
recommendations in this report are to be adopted.
5. The Committee recommends that resources be invested in training and
education on the effects of drugs and that appropriate treatment be made
available to those who need to avail of same. The Committee feels that out-ofschool ‘informal’ interaction by Youth Services could have a major role to play in
this context.
6. The Committee recommends that research be undertaken to ensure that the
adoption of any alternative approach be appropriate in an Irish context.
7. The Committee recommends that in addition to other measures, enactment
of legislation in relation to Spent Convictions be prioritised.