Transcript Hughes_DrugLaws

Drug use-related offences across the EU
Offences, their quantity limits, and sentencing;
and treatment alternatives
TAIEX – People 2 People 45237
B Hughes, May 2011
Presentation structure
• Laws and sanctions addressing drug use and
possession
• Implementation
• Evaluation / Effectiveness
• Treatment alternatives to punishment
Distinctions between drugs
• Classification by law
• Bulgaria, Cyprus, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, UK
• Specific exemption to the law by lower penalties
• Cannabis in Czech Republic, Ireland, Belgium, Luxembourg
• Exception by guidelines
• Denmark (prosecutors), Germany (Constitutional Court), UK
(police)
• Exception due to judicial discretion
• The nature of the substance is one of the criteria (together with
the quantity, previous criminal records, and other
circumstances) considered by prosecutorial or judicial discretion
UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic, 1988
Art 3(2): Subject to its constitutional principles
and the basic concepts of its legal system,
each party shall […] establish as a criminal
offence […] the possession, purchase or
cultivation of drugs […] for personal
consumption…
EU – no standard definition of a “non-criminal”
offence (authority / legal basis / punishment /
record)
Drug use/consumption
– an offence?
Criminal offence (7)
Non-criminal
offence (6)
Not an offence (16)
Possession of drugs
for personal use
Penalties in Laws
Criminal, prison
possible (16)
Cannabis – noncriminal/ no prison;
Other drugs – criminal,
prison possible (4)
Non-criminal / no prison (8)
Possession of drugs
for personal use
Penalties in Laws and
Guidelines
Criminal, prison
possible (13)
Cannabis – noncriminal/ no prison;
Other drugs – criminal,
prison possible (7)
Non-criminal / no prison (8)
Cannabis: trends in use in the last year, ages 15-34
Cocaine: trends in use in the last year, ages 15-34
Threshold quantities
•
•
•
•
•
•
An aid to distinguish between personal use and trafficking
“Small” (defined) / “small” (not defined) / not mentioned.
Defined by street value, doses, weight, active principle…
No consistency between countries or between drugs
2006: Italy + , Bulgaria 2006: UK proposed, but Home Office: “There are
difficulties in establishing prescribed amounts which are
universally applicable and appropriate.”
 There is no right answer.
Implementation: 2009 Selected Issue “Drug
Offences; Sentencing and other outcomes”
Objective – “to indicate what is the
most likely outcome for an
offender after being stopped by
police for a drug law offence of
use or personal possession, or
supply or trafficking, based on
the most recent year’s
statistics.”
Sentence type – personal use offences
2009 Selected Issue report on Sentencing –
supply offences
Brendan Hughes - 13
Similar countries – Norway, Finland, Sweden
Average prison sentence given (months)
Brendan Hughes - 15
Effectiveness
Review of methodologies of evaluating effects of drug related legal
changes (2010):
18 studies of penalty changes published 1975-2006 : 6+1 USA, 4
AUS, 2 IT, 1 CH, SE, CZ, PT, DE
Do changes in legal sanctions result in
observable changes in cannabis prevalence?
• Short paper submitted for publication to journal.
• Hypothesis: reduction in threat/level of punishment leads
to increase in cannabis use (“sending the wrong message”
– INCB 2008-9)
• Model: before-after study
• Data: EMCDDA countries’ information on penalty changes
+ last year cannabis use 15-34yo
• Very simple overview, many scientific limitations
• Result - While there are many caveats, we cannot observe
any clear impact of penalty changes on cannabis use.
Treatment alternatives: UN Drug Conventions
• 1961 Narcotics, Art 36.1(b): “…when abusers of drugs
have committed … offences, the Parties may provide …
as an alternative to conviction or punishment … that such
abusers shall undergo measures of treatment, education,
after-care, rehabilitation and social reintegration…”.
•
Repeated by 1971 Psychotropics Art 22.1(b), and 1988 Traffic in Art 3.4 (b-d).
• UN Commentary to 1988 Convention: “bridges between
the criminal justice system and the treatment system
might also be envisaged at other stages of the criminal
process, including the prosecution stage” (para 3.108).
• EU Action Plan 2009-2012 – Action 16
Who is eligible for treatment alternatives in EU? (2006)
Type of offender:
• Problem drug users – 30 options in 14 countries
• Users –16 options in 8 countries
• Other phrases or criteria in 6 countries
Type of offence:
• Drug law offences (possession, use, sale) - 12 options in
7 countries
• Wider offence - 12 options in 6 countries
• Any offence (within certain limitations) - 22 options in 12
countries
Treatment alternatives –
implementation and effectiveness
2006 questionnaire:
How many eligible
offenders were diverted?
• “Few” (6 countries),
“Many” (3), partial
figures (3), no info (12)
Sentencing selected issue
2009:
• Substantial data (6
countries), limited
information (6), no data
(14)
• 2006 Questionnaire –
some completion rates
available.
• The majority of the
countries had no
information to answer
this question.
Thank you for listening.