* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Treatment alternatives to prison / punishment Brendan Hughes
Survey
Document related concepts
Neuropsychopharmacology wikipedia , lookup
Medical cannabis wikipedia , lookup
Drug design wikipedia , lookup
Neuropharmacology wikipedia , lookup
Drug discovery wikipedia , lookup
Pharmacogenomics wikipedia , lookup
Pharmacognosy wikipedia , lookup
Pharmacokinetics wikipedia , lookup
Pharmaceutical industry wikipedia , lookup
Prescription costs wikipedia , lookup
Prescription drug prices in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Psychopharmacology wikipedia , lookup
Drug interaction wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Legal aspects of cannabis in the EU and Norway Brendan Hughes Lisbon, 2 October 2007 Presentation 1. European Legal Database on Drugs: structure and contents 2. What the laws say: consumption, possession, quantities, treatment alternatives, driving, workplace… 3. What happens: some sentencing statistics National laws - European Legal Database on Drugs (ELDD) • ELDD is a free database on a public website. • Specific objectives : • Availability and updating of the relevant texts of drugrelated legislation in the EU Member States; • Country Profiles, brief Topic Overviews and in-depth Legal Reports show research and analysis on selected subjects within the drug legislation sphere, in order to exchange good practices and inform policymakers. • Legal Correspondents: • National experts, probably from a Ministry • Appointed by each country • Validate the content of the ELDD Classification – UN Narcotics Convention 1961 Schedule Guidelines for included substances Cannabinoids I Those which are, inter alia, having, or convertible into substances having, “a liability to abuse comparable to that of cannabis, cannabis resin, or cocaine”. Cannabis and resin; Extracts and tinctures of cannabis II Substances 1. “Having addiction-producing or addictionsustaining properties not greater than those of codeine but at least as great as those of dextropropoxyphene; or 2. Convertible into a substance having addiction-producing or addiction-sustaining properties with an ease and yield such as to constitute a risk of abuse not greater than codeine.” III Preparations which are intended for legitimate medical use, and which the WHO considers not liable to abuse and cannot produce ill effects, and the drug therein is not readily recoverable. IV Substances that are particularly liable to abuse and to produce ill effects, and such liability is not offset by substantial therapeutic advantages not possessed by substances other than drugs in Schedule IV. Cannabis and cannabis resin Classification – UN Psychotropics Convention 1971 Schedule Guidelines for included substances Cannabinoids included I Substances whose liability to abuse constitutes an especially serious risk to public health and which have a very limited, if any, therapeutic usefulness THC, specified isomers and their stereochemical variants II Substances whose liability to abuse constitutes a substantial risk to public health and which have little to moderate therapeutic usefulness Delta-9-THC and its stereochemical variants / Dronabinol III Substances whose liability to abuse constitutes a substantial risk to public health and which have moderate to great therapeutic usefulness IV Substances whose liability to abuse constitutes a smaller but still significant risk to public health and which have a therapeutic usefulness from little to great Government reports on cannabis in 100 years • Cannabis is not harmless • The dangers have been overstated • Civil sanctions, fines, compulsory health assessments should take the place of criminal penalties Classification systems – national • May be classed by • • • • Narcotic or psychotropic (echoing UN), level of harm, medicinal use or not links to punishment or not Some countries have one table, some have 12! Distinctions between cannabis and other drugs • Classification by law • Cyprus, Netherlands, UK (unique among 17 Sch.IV substances) • Specific exemption to the law • Ireland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Greece (cultivation) • 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 What offence; use, or possession for use? Slightly academic distinction (can’t use without possessing), but: • UN asks to criminalise possession, not use • Possession always retains the possibility of trafficking • Positive blood or urine test – criminal charge? • Police suspect a crime being committed – what extra powers? Drug use/consumption – an offence? Criminal offence (7) Non-criminal offence (4) Not an offence (15) Drug possession Various combinations of the following main factors: • Possession / • of a certain amount / • with intention / • of a certain drug / • by an addict. Possession of drugs for personal use The legal status Possession of drugs for personal use Penalties in Laws Criminal, prison possible (14) Cannabis – non-criminal/ 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 (11) Cannabis – non-criminal/ no prison; Other drugs – criminal, prison possible (7) Non-criminal / no prison (8) Hypothetical penalties: possession of small quantity of drugs for personal use, without aggravating circumstances Fines for possession of cannabis for personal use: BELGIUM 1st €75-125 ; 2nd €130-250 ; 3rd €250-500 DENMARK 1st – fine; 2nd €40 for 0-10g / €67 for 10-15g / €135 for 50-100g SPAIN (in a public place) between €301 and €30,000 or suspension of the driving licence IRELAND 1st €63; 2nd €127; 3rd €317 or up to 1 year prison LUXEMBOURG €250- €2500 Source: EMCDDA 2004, Illicit drug use in the EU; Legislative approaches Recent legal changes • • • • 2000 – Portugal (drugs) 2001 – Luxembourg (cannabis) 2003 – Belgium (cannabis) 2004 – UK (cannabis) • • • • 2004 – Denmark (drugs) (2005 – Netherlands) (2005 – France) 2006 - Italy The role of the quantity in the prosecution of drug offences – April 2003 • Should be an aid to distinguish between personal use and trafficking • “Small” (defined) / “small” (not defined) / not mentioned. • Defined by street value, doses, weight, active principle… • Different status / consequences of offences • 2006: Italy / Bulgaria / UK • 2006: UK Home Office: “There are difficulties in establishing prescribed amounts which are universally applicable and appropriate.” • There is no right answer!! Treatment alternatives to conviction or punishment • Usually an option: occasionally obligatory for a first offence. • Some countries have 1, others may have 5 • Depends on type of offence • Not only a drug consumption/ possession offence: can be used for property crime or any “minor” offence – avoid imprisoning an addict. • Depends on type of offender • In Europe, approximately twice as many alternatives for problem drug users (“addicts”) as for simply “users” (occasional users). • Austria, Germany – occasional cannabis users were blocking “real” treatment places… Young people and drugs - October 2003 • Minor as victim; selling to minors, encouraging minors, selling near schools or sports facilities. • Minor as dealer; age of criminal responsibility, lower penalties or diversion, responsibility of parent • Minor as user; almost always education or treatment. Drugged driving – Tolerance Zero (7) ET, FR, LI, PL, SI, SK, SE (but no liability if in accordance with prescription) Impairment (13) DK, ES, GR, IE, IT, CY, LU, HU, NL, AT, PT, UK, NO 2-tier system (4) BE (Any substance causing impairment, but 7 subject to zero tolerance; both criminal offences) CZ (Impairment is criminal, trace (zero tolerance) is non-criminal. Complex!) DE (Any substance causing impairment, but 7 subject to zero tolerance; former is criminal, latter is non-criminal) FI (Any substance causing impairment, but non-prescribed products are subject to zero tolerance; both are criminal) Testing in the workplace • Normally covered by general health and safety, privacy, and/or data protection laws • 3 countries have adopted specific legislation on drug testing in the workplace: Finland, Ireland, and Norway. • In Italy, the main drug law contains an article addressing specifically drug testing in the workplace. Testing in the workplace – on what basis? • • • • • • Safety risk – BE, DK, FR When necessary – DK, NO Proportionate – DK, NO When justified – BE, NL, NO When reasonable – IE, NL When suspicion – LV, LU, FI • Germany; Federal Labour Court considered that armed guard did not justify regular blood tests without cause Testing in the workplace - who can be tested? • Job applicant: BE (where drug use presents a safety risk), FR, LV, NL (prohibited for all applicants), SK, FI, NO (when necessary)… • Employee: FR, FI, IR, NO… However… Existence of an option in the law is no indication of actual frequency of use by the judiciary. What really happens? Prosecution of drug users in Europe (2002) • Questioned 10 experts in each country – “what is likely to happen?” • Police, prosecutor, court stages • Most countries look to deal with possession of small amounts by police or prosecutor, not in court • Retail sale will usually be prosecuted, unless there is a close link to addiction NEW PROJECT - Implementation of laws • What’s written in the law vs. what actually happens; “Liberal / repressive countries” • EMCDDA monitors entry to criminal justice system (DLOs). What about exit; police warning, fines, prison, diversion, case closed? • Diversion to treatment; how many are actually used? • National statistics of “CJS outputs” not always kept, or clear. • Subject of Selected Issue, November 2009 UK – Disposal of drug possession offences by type of drug, England and Wales, 2004 Source: Home Office Statistical Bulletin, 23/05 Portugal – Commissions for Dissuasion of Drug Abuse Rulings of 3192 cases in 2005 (from 6260 started) Offences 3 500 3 000 Provisional Suspension, non addict. 2 500 2 000 Provisional Suspension with treatment. 1 500 1 000 Punitive. 500 Aquittal. 2001 2002 2003 (2.º semester) Source: NFP report, 2006 2004 2005 Suspension of the ruling/ execution of the sanction. Portugal – Commissions for Dissuasion of Drug Abuse Type of drug involved in administrative offences by year Offences 4 500 4 000 3 500 3 000 2 500 2 000 1 500 1 000 500 2001 (2.º semester) Heroin 2002 2003 Cocaine Hashish 2004 2005 Polydrugs Source: NFP report, 2006 Sweden – Convictions and sanctions for drug offences in 2005 • almost 19 200 persons were convicted of drug offences in 2005 • 48% use, 30% possession, 4% smuggling and 5% distribution. • 73% minor offences, 24% non-minor offences, 2% serious offences • 36% cannabis, 30% amphetamines… • 56% awarded fines (by prosecutor or court), 19% waivers of prosecution, 16% prison sentences Source: NFP Report 2006 Thank you for listening Brendan Hughes http://eldd.emcdda.europa.eu/