Transcript EU drug policies are often contrasted with US drug

European and Hungarian drug
policies: based on evidence?
Peter Sarosi
Hungarian Civil
Liberties Union
(HCLU)
Dialogoue on Drug Policy
8 June, 2006.



Legal aid service for
vulnerable populations
(drug users, PLWHA,
psychiatric patients). Since
1994 HCLU attorneys have
assisted over 4,000 clients
(individual and NGO).
Impact litigation
(improving legislation
through lawsuits) and
harm reduction advocacy
Trainings, conferences,
publications
1.
2.
3.
EU drug policies are often contrasted
with U.S. drug policy as an example
of a „balanced”, „integrated” and
„science based” approach:
Proper balance between law enforcement
and public health interventions
Interventations are the results of a
strategic, integrated approach to drug
problems
Measures taken by governments are
based on scientific evidence
Is this a dream or reality?
Aims of the EU Drug Strategy (1999-2004)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
to reduce significantly over five years the prevalence of
drug use, as well as new recruitment to it, particularly
among young users under 18 years of age
to reduce substantially over five years the incidence of
drug-related health damage (HIV, hepatitis, TBC etc.) and
the number of drug-related deaths
to increase substantially the number of successfully treated
addicts
to reduce substantially over five years the availability of
illicit drugs
to reduce substantially over five years the number of drugrelated crimes
to reduce substantially over five years money-laundering
and the illicit trafficking of precursors
Evaluation of drug strategy by EMCDDA, 2004.
1.
No decrease in life prevalence, in some
countries there is an increase
2.
Slight decrease in drug related deaths,
stabilizing HIV/AIDS situation
3.
There is an increase in treatment demand – no
data on the success rate
4.
Quantity of seized drugs increased, no decrease
in access to drugs
5.
Drug related crime is growing
6.
No decrease in precursor trafficking, number of
money laundering transactions is on the rise
Conclusions
 Interventions aimed to eliminate or
significantly reduce drug phenomenon as
such doomed to be a failure → no reduction
in supply or in demand
 Public health and social interventions to
reduce problem drug use and other
related harms are succesful → treatment and
harm reduction
DRUGS ARE HERE TO STAY – BUT THE HARMS
OF DRUG USE CAN BE PREVENTED AND
TREATED
Member states and the European
Commission ignored the findings of
the EMCDDA



No scientific forum or public discussion on the previous
strategy to find alternatives
No involvment of civil society in the preparation of the new
drug strategy
The new drug strategy (2005-12) is based on the same
principles as the previous:
1) main goal is to eliminate or significantly reduce drug
phenomenon
2) Social and public health interventions (2 pages) are
subordinated to law enforcement interventions (5 pages)
IS EU DRUG POLICY AS SUCH BASED ON SCIENCE?
There is no consensus on drug policy in European
level → if we want to find best practices for science based
interventions we have to search them in national/local level
MAIN TRENDS:
 Social and public health policies becoming more important in
most countries
 Legislation tends to decriminalize drug possession and focus
on supply reduction
 Some cities are experimenting with innovative ways to provide
access to illicit drugs
THERE IS A CONTRAST BETWEEN PROGRESSIVE LOCAL
DRUG POLICIES AND UN/EU DRUG POLICIES
Examples of best practices
Best practice #1: heroin maintenance (Switzerland,
Netherlands, Germany, Spain) → both clients and
society experienced significant benefits (e.g. reduced number
of mortality and morbidity, crime and unemployment, housing
problems etc.) (Uchtenhagen, 1997; Jürgen Rehm at al, 2001)
Best practice #2: pill testing (Austria, Germany,
Spain etc.) → best contact with party goers, prevention of
accidents and infections, monitoring illicit drug markets
(EMCDDA report, 2001)
Best practice #3: supervised injection sites
(Germany, Netherlands, Spain) → reduction of blood
born infections, ODs and street drug use (EMCDDA report,
2004)
According to scientific evidence repressive drug policies
do not result less drug use than lenient drug policies



However, there is a difference in the
impacts of different drug policies on
problem drug use
Prevalence of drug use is higher in the
Netherlands than in Sweden, but the prevalence
of problem drug use is almost double in Sweden
(4 per 100.000), where injecting drug use and
related health problems are on the rise
There is a signficant difference in the quality of
life and health of drug users in countries with
different drug policies
Less repressive drug policies result in less public
health and social damage related to drug
use/trafficking
COMPARISON OF SOME SUCCESS INDICATORS OF U.S.
AND DUTCH DRUG POLICIES






Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+)
2001
US: 36.9%
Netherlands: 17.0%
Past month prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+) 2001
US: 5.4%
Netherlands: 3.0%
Lifetime prevalence of heroin use (ages 12+)
2001
US: 1.4%
Netherlands: 0.4%
Incarceration Rate per 100,000 population
2002
US: 701
Netherlands: 100
Per capita spending on criminal justice system (in €) 1998
US: €379
Netherlands: €223
Homicide rate per 100,000 population Average 1999-2001
US: 5.56
Netherlands: 1.51





There are major differences between the
drug policies of Central-Eastern Europe
(except Slovenia and Czech Republic) and Western
Europe
The legislation is more repressive in new member
states
Less resources and appreciation for public health
policies
Limited access to social and health care for drug
users
Greater risks of problem drug use (morbidity,
mortality)
Moralistic and not pragmatic approach to drug
users
Az ismertté vált visszaélés kábítószerre bűncselekmények száma
1995 és 2005 között
8000
7616
7000
6670
6000
5000
4775
4332
4000
3445
3000
3378
2860
2068
2000
1000
943
429
440
0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
WHO ARE THE PEOPLE WE ARE
CRIMINALIZING?

91% of offenders were simple users – only 6-8%
of offences are linked to significant amount of
drugs

97% of offenders are less than 30 y.o.

70% has no previous criminal record

Every sixth offender is under 18

Drug offenders are the most educated group
among all offenders
THE PRIZE OF RESTRICTIVE DRUG POLICIES:
1) Thousands of otherwise law abiding citizens
conflict with the law (non-problematic users)
2) Limited access to social and health care for
problem users



„Worst practices” from Hungary
Police raids against dance clubs → hundreds of young
people searched and arrested, few drugs seized, no dealers
caught
Police searches against clients of needle
exchange programs → according to the Prosecutor
General needle exchange is a crime
Alternative treatment → thousands of non-problematic
drug users are refered to treatment programs by the criminal
justice system while the budget for life saving services is very
limited
COSTS/RISKS > BENEFITS
BAD ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES
VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS



CONCLUSIONS
European drug policies are far from being
evidence based, but comparing with U.S. drug
policy there is a significant progress, especially in
the local level
The balance between law enforcement and public
health is still not appropriate – limited access to
services, violation of human rights of drug users
The need for progress is especially urgent in
Central-Eastern Europe → decriminalization of drug use
can lead to better allocation of resources and more focus on
(voluntary!) prevention, treatment and harm reduction
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
More info: www.drogriporter.hu
www.drugreporter.net