Freek Polak and Mario Lap respond to the 1992 Annual Report of The International Narcotics Control Board.
A previous version has been published in the Tijdschnft
voor alcohol, drugs en andere psychotrope stoffen, vol. 18, pp.
21S224.
There is something very special about illicit drugs. If they don't always make the drug user behave irrationally, they certainly cause many non-users to behave that way.
Lester Grinspoon and James Bakalar ( 1993, p. ix)
The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) is charged with enforcing compliance by treaty partners of their obligations to restrict and penalise the possession, trade and production of illicit drugs. A strictly legalistic approach is taken (i.e. the letter of the law is emphasised). Greater value is attached to the verbatim text of the International Conventions (see box ) than to the results that have been attained in the various nations as a consequence of different interpretations of the text of the treaty. By taking this defensive position, the INCB fails to recognise that, without interpretation, treaties, like laws, degenerate into nothing more than dry meaningless words. It is commendable, however, that the INCE appears willing to enter into meaningful debates with the advocates of legalisation albeit the arguments in favour of legalisation are not presented with great fervour or rigour.
During its visit to the Netherlands, the Board came to the conclusion that the Dutch cannabis policy contravenes UN policy. In such a situation, the INCB is obliged to discuss its observations with the local authorities and to issue a report on the content of these discussions. In our view the members of the INCB had stumbled across a problem that was new to them. They talked to officials and politicians who made them begin to doubt whether the Dutch policy actually is so bad after all. The confidence of the Dutch discussion partners impressed the UN delegation. The INCB resolved this by not only mentioning the positive results achieved in the Netherlands but also by restating their strict position on the issue of legalisation. As a result, this report can serve as the first step of an open international discourse on prohibition versus legalisation. This is to the credit of the INCB.
The INCB states that the increasing call for legalisation of 'non-medical use of drugs' reflects the widespread misunderstanding of the obligations of parties to the international drug control treaties. The INCB announces that it will clarify these obligations: the parties have undertaken to penalise the possession, production of and trade in illicit drugs. 'Drug abusers' need not be detained per se; treatment and rehabilitation may suffice. According to the INCB, a nation can only refrain from prosecuting possession of drugs, if to do so would be contrary to its constitutional principles ( INCB sections 13, 14, 15 ) .
The INCB proceeds from the assumption that every non-medical use of psychoactive drugs, besides alcohol and tobacco, is by definition abuse. No latitude is allowed for changing views, or for the experience gained that criminalisation, prosecution and penalisation of drug users have yielded few positive results. This approach dismissed every rational, critical view or change of opinion. In this context, it is appropriate to take a closer look at the Single Convention (NY 1961 ), paying special attention to the Preamble and Articles 22, 23 and 28. In the Preamble, one of the basic premises from which the Parties proceed is that it is their duty to fight the evil of addiction to narcotics. Article 22 of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs ( 1961, amended by the Protocol 1975) reads as follows:
More specifically related to cannabis, Article 28 of the same convention reads:
The logical interpretation of this is that it is up to each individual nation to decide for itself which measures are the most appropriate for protecting public health and welfare and for deterring illicit trafficking. If a country becomes convinced that prohibiting the cultivation of, say, the cannabis plant is not the most appropriate means, that country is not obligated by virtue of the Single Convention to enforce prohibition, provided that it establishes a government agency that regulates and controls cultivation. In that case, this country does not act in contravention of Article 3 of the treaty concerning the illicit traffic in narcotic and psychotropic substances (Vienna, 20 December 1988). Further attention will be paid to the international drug treaties in the relation to current and future Dutch drug policy in the paragraph on cannabis in The Netherlands
In this section, the Board very briefly discusses three arguments in favour of legalisation (INCB section 16). Although it is commendable that the Board reaches out to the advocates of legalisation and at least makes an attempt to enter into discussion, it is unfortunate that, in so doing, the INCB follows a fixed pattern in which, after presenting a pro-legalisation argument, they present one or more counter-arguments which, in our view, fail to refute the first arguments. The Board then immediately proceeds to their next point which is handled in the same manner. Taken together, the three arguments do not adequately reflect the pro-legalisation case. This renders the result, how-ever well intentioned, disquieting. Does the INCB really expect this style of argumentation to be decisive in a rational debate? But perhaps the intention was to simply provide a cursory overview to instigate further debate.
The first argument in favour of legalisation, according to the INCB, is that legalisation is justified, because law enforcement has failed to control illicit supply or to reduce illicit demand. Their counter-argument is that this argument ignores the fact that legal sanctions have helped to deter or delay potential abusers, thereby limiting the growth of the illicit market. In the report every non-medical use of drugs other than alcohol and tobacco is systematically referred to as 'abuse' and everyone who could possibly use them is titled a 'potential abuser'. In other words, the INCB abuses the word 'abuse'. Furthermore, it is not justified to use the word 'fact' if one is to claim that prohibition has limited the growth of the illicit market. Statistics from the past decades present a different picture, creating the general impression that the opposite is true: prohibition has caused the extent of use to increase. In any case, it is known that the relatively liberal Dutch drug policy has resulted in no or a negligibly small increase in any form of drug use (Kuiper, 1992; NIAD, 1993). Perhaps we can make the following assumption: although the 'war on drugs' proved unable to reduce the magnitude of drug problems, the members of the Board 'believe' that the problems would have been even worse and more widespread if drugs had not been fought with such fervour. We will return below to this fear of the irresistible power of addictive substances.
The second argument in favour of legalisation, according to the INCB, is that, given current levels of access to illicit drugs, legalisation would only have a minimum adverse impact on current drug abuse levels and would thus generate few additional health, safety or behavioural problems. The counter-argument they present is that this argument ignores the potential expansion of demand by individuals and society, particularly among young people, which could follow the removal of legal barriers, the freeing of entrepreneurial initiative and the lowering of market prices. It also ignores the possibility that there may be a substantial increase in economic and social costs, particularly to health-care systems ( given the global experience with alcohol and tobacco abuse ) . This may include a sharp
increase in costs resulting from accident-related injuries and other health-related problems. Here, the Board does no more than play upon the fear of the addictive power of drugs. The arguments in favour of legalisation, however, are not so easily refuted.
First of all, the argument is based upon a flawed proposition, that legalisation can only have one meaning: the removal of all legal barriers, making all drugs freely available to all people in all places at all times. This interpretation of legalisation does not do justice to the views of the advocates of legalisation. Obviously, regulations should be differentiated according to substance or group of substances. For instance, a conceivable approach to cannabis would be a licensing system for the production and sale, whereas, for opiates, a more medical approach seems appropriate, at least during the transition period from prohibition to legalisation. Regulations will have to be developed that provide the best options for prevention, the development of safer patterns of usage and for other health aspects. Furthermore, the INCB argues that the high economic and social costs stemming from the use of alcohol and tobacco should serve as a warning. It seems that the enormous costs of investigation, prosecution, punishment and imprisonment are conveniently disregarded, which, combined, comprise a substantial part of the social costs of the current system . Milton Friedman, ( in an open letter to Bill Bennet in the Wall Street Journal, 7 September 1989) Becker and other leading economists also advocate legalisation, because prohibition is contrary to the laws of supply and demand and, for this reason alone, is impossible to enforce. An approach with more respect of market forces would provide better opportunities to exert influence.
The third argument in favour of legalisation, according to the INCB, is that legalisation would remove the evils created by drug laws, such as corruption, violence and drug-related crime, which are worse than the drugs themselves. As a counter argument they claim that crime committed under the influence of drugs, as well as chronic violence in the family and in the community, may increase and also that the assumption that organised criminal activity and related violence would significantly decrease may underestimate the capacity of organised crime to adjust to changing conditions without significant loss of economic, political or social power.
The widespread and popular perception that drugs cause crime is unfounded. Opponents of prohibition have often pointed out that it is the criminalising effect of existing drug laws that has generated the catastrophic increase in drug-related crime, and that this is not caused by the drugs themselves (Goldstein. 1989; Inciardi,1990). 'Research findings show consistently that the psychopharmacological influence of drugs themselves appears to be a minor factor in violence' (Lewis, 1992). In countries where drugs are most severely prohibited, the percentage of the population imprisoned for drug-related offences is extremely high compared to the Netherlands, but strict enforcement of prohibition has not reduced violence (Christie, 1993). Obviously, legalisation will not eliminate organised crime, but this assertion constitutes an extremely feeble argument for continuing to criminalise users of and traders in drugs. Another aspect that should not be underestimated is that many (small and large) traffickers would prefer to be able to conduct their businesses legally. In a licence system, as exists for alcohol in most countries, traders have a vested interest in refraining from criminal activities.
In a recent survey, MacCoun et al. (1993) have analysed the content of the drug legalisation debate in essays in US newspapers. Comparing their list of-pro and contra arguments with the INCB report, it is striking that the INCB has fairly represented the arguments pro prohibition. The same cannot be said of the arguments pro legalisation. A number of important arguments has been left out altogether or were feebly stated.
As it is not possible in the scope of this paper to discuss all aspects and arguments in a manner that does justice to the complexity of the issue, on every aspect of which a wealth of literature exists, we hereafter limit ourselves to a discussion of health aspects more extensively and just mention one fundamental argument the INCB has left out. This is that prohibition leads to systematic infringement of personal and civil rights, and that governments should not interfere in its citizens' choice of intoxicants (Assemblee Nationale Constituante,1789; Silvis et al.,1992).
It is important to stress the public health aspects of the issue, because these make up the decisive argument in the debate. Apart from morality and ideology, for most people only the conviction that it is in the interest of public health to prohibit addictive psychoactive drugs is a necessary, sufficient and acceptable basis for prohibition, in spite of the concomitant misery. Increasingly, however, it is becoming clear that the health argument is invalid. Prohibition has been counterproductive, not only in its attempt to reduce the availability of drugs, but also in its primary objective: to protect the population against the risks of drug abuse. In the scientific forums of public health the recognition of this unhealthy situation is growing (Erickson,1990;Jonas,1992;Morgan,1992;Nicholson, 1992; Duncan, 1993; Lewis and Klinenberg, 1993; Wodak,1993) .
The assumption that prohibition benefits public health may still be entertained because it remains very difficult to distinguish between the effects of prohibition and of the drugs themselves. The myth has been created that 'hard' drugs unavoidably have destructive effects on users and society. In reality, the greatest damage associated with drug use is caused by drug policy. First, repression leads tO the use of higher concentrations and promotes unsafe patterns of usage. The marginal conditions under which many problematic drug users are forced to live intensify the social and health problems, and lead to criminal activities. Moreover, prohibition not only exacerbates health problems, but, in contrast to a system of regulated availability, impedes their detection and treatment. The 'hardest' health data, namely the drug-related death rate, gives a clear picture of the harm prohibition is causing to public health.
Of course, it is necessary to acknowledge the health risks of drugs, of which the direct pharmacological consequences and the spread of dependence and problematic dependence are the most important. But there is also a need to know more about safe usage patterns. Nicholson has stated that 80-90% of drug consumption in the USA is use and not abuse. 'The major exceptions are tobacco consumers, 90% of whom are abusers. The next highest "potential for abuse" comes with cocaine (and its free base crack) which has an abuse rate of somewhere between 10 and 25 percent. Virtually all other drugs are used by 90% of the people who consume them and abused by the remaining 10%' (1992, p.278).
It should be kept in mind, however, that there is no way of measuring these risks in an absolute sense, independently from the socio-cultural context (which includes the legal status and the regulatory regime of the drugs). As stated before, a situation of repression is not conducive to safer usage patterns and to better health care and prevention.
From the perspective of public health, the question should not be whether a certain drug carries acceptable or unacceptable health risks, but which regulatory regime provides the least risks for public health and society in general. No drug is addictive to such an extent that prohibition would be beneficial. Even if a substance existed that were capable of producing the mythological 'instant addiction', which is not the case, even then prohibition would not be the best policy to prevent abuse and dependence. (Besides, consumers are unlikely to have much interest in such an intoxicant unless they are in the power of the drug trade. )
Many people who support these arguments are, nevertheless, uncertain about the consequences of legalisation. The idea that greater availability of dependence-producing drugs produces a greater number of addicts is widespread, but its foundation is weak. Greater availability does not automatically lead to more use or abuse. Even in the existing situation, in which drug use readily leads to social marginalisation, isolation and criminalisation - all of which are not conducive to safe and controlled use - most people who start using hard drugs do not continue, and a majority of those who get addicted manage to learn controlled use or stop altogether without treatment. Although data derived from addicts in treatment or in the criminal justice system mostly provide little room for optimism, research based on other populations of drug users has produced a very different picture of the natural course of drug use (Rounsaville and Kleber, 1985; Stall and Biernacki, 1986; Cohen, 1989; Klingeman, 1 991 ,1 992; Waldorf et al., 1 99 1 ; Grund, 1993; Robins, 1993).
If the objective is to minimise harm to public health and protect vulnerable individuals as much as possible from the health risks of intoxicants, it follows that production of and trade in these substances should not be placed in the hands of criminals. Because of the very risks connected with addiction to psychotropic substances, governments should see it as their duty to regulate the production, trade and distribution of these substances by administrative law - in a similar manner to alcohol and tobacco, drugs which are at least as addictive and entail higher health risks. As this is now being recognised to an increasing extent (among drug experts and policy-makers, especially on the level of city administrations), the political base of support for prohibition is becoming increasingly shaky. It is no longer convincing to claim that 'these substances are so addictive and so dangerous to public health that they must be banned'. Based on current knowledge only one conclusion can be reached in a scientific debate: public health will benefit more from regulated availability of addictive substances than from prohibition (Fromberg, 1993 ). Legalisation offers no immediate solution for dependency problems, but does create a situation more conducive to effectively reducing the incidence and severity of these problems.
In a rational debate the issues seem clear. Politicians, however, are confronted with a major problem: to date, the most important support for prohibition has been the inflated and politically exploited fear o the addictive power of drugs. How does a politician explain to the voters that they have been systematically misled about drugs? In most countries, sticking your neck out in favour of legalisation of drugs is tantamount to political suicide.
The Board moves on to consider some practical questions concerning legalisation. Advocates of legalisation, they state, must answer a series of tough practical questions if proposals for legalisation are to be taken more seriously. These are summarised as follows:
First, it should be acknowledged that posing these questions in such a clear, explicit manner in this context is a major step in the right direction. By doing this, the INCB provides, in fact, a springboard for an earnest exploration of the issues involved in a systematic, careful transition to a situation of regulated availability of substances now illicit. On the other hand, the Board does appear to be somewhat naive in erecting the impression that these questions have never been seriously considered before.
In response to the INCB's questions, it is apparently necessary to assert that relevant experience does, in fact, exist and historical studies as well as those pertaining to the contemporary situation are available, and that abolition of prohibition has been successfully implemented in a number of countries and for different substances ( Berridge and Edwards,1981; Vanvugt,1985;Nadelman,1989,1992;LevineandReinarman,1991; Musto,1991).
The most important and extensive experience with the transition from a system of prohibition of an addictive psychotropic substance to regulated availability of that substance was gained in the USA after 1933, when Prohibition of alcohol was repealed. In general, at the time of repeal, alcohol was still widely viewed as a highly addictive and harmful substance, but for various reasons, enough social support was generated so that Prohibition, instituted in 1920, was abolished. Mostly based on the recommendations of the Institute of Public Administration under John D. Rockefeller Jr's guidance, a flexible system was selected which allowed continuous monitoring and adjustment. Within a national system, each state - and sometimes each separate county - controlled distribution through the 'state stores' while production was privatised. Public health interests played virtually no role. The most important argument was that for sales the profit motive had to be eliminated. Rockefeller did not find it necessary to do the same for production . By way of comparison, in Finland, both the production and sale of alcoholic drinks are controlled by state monopoly. This provides better possibilities for including public health aspects in policy.
This literature is quite instructive and pertinent to the situation in Western countries with respect to illicit drugs. Unlike the situation in 1933, it is not a single substance that is now at issue, but a number of groups of substances. Thus it is evident that a comprehensive approach is required in which a substance such as cannabis which entails low health risks would be regulated in a manner as is now customary for alcoholic drinks. Other avenues should be taken for controlling substances with higher health risks, certainly in the transitional stage. Separate arrangements would be conceivable for new substances, with special attention being paid to scientific research and medical guidance before a substance is admitted. A system such as the one that currently applies to 'List II substances' of the Dutch Opium Act [hemp products] may be appropriate, because it allows flexibility in toleration and regulation.
In the preliminary stages, some fundamental political choices have to be made. If public health interests are to have the highest priority and if the profit motive is to be completely eliminated, as with alcohol in Finland, then the obvious choice would be to institute a state monopoly for production and trade alike. For each substance or group of substances, an adequate arrangement can be made which is flexible enough to allow adjustment if that appears necessary or desirable. The policy should be geared towards promoting use of lower concentrations. Ways to achieve this include public education, packaging and price setting. In short, an alternative approach will require intensive preparation, but it now appears possible to draft a differentiated set of rules for the production and distribution of the various currently illicit drugs, while maintaining acceptable levels of risk to public health.
For the Board, it appears that the basic aim of the advocates of legalisation is to allow the recreational use of narcotic drugs and/or psychotropic substances ( INCB, Section 19) . This is only partially true. There is the public health argument already discussed, the desire to redress the injustice done to users and dependent people, and the threat to constitutional rights and the economic order caused by the immense financial strength of drug-trafficking criminals, who are the product of prohibition. It is, however, not within the scope of this paper to elaborate on this topic. Apart from that, it can be seen as a (small) breakthrough that the report even uses the term 'recreational use of narcotic drugs and/or psychotropic substances'. The cli mate in most countries in recent years was such that researchers who wanted to qualify for a government grant realised it was wiser not to use the phrase 'recreational use of drugs'.
According to the INCB, it must be noted that such a step would create a legal demand for those drugs and, consequently, the current restrictions in respect of supply would need to be abolished or fundamentally changed. History offers a good example of the consequences of such a change. The result would be similar to the situation of China in the nineteenth century when, after the Opium War, the country was forced t accept the free availability of opium. Following that action, the number of opium addicts in the country increased drastically to an estimated 20 million.
This description of complex political and social events such as the Opium Wars in China is very simplistic. First, reliable epidemiological information or opium use in China before and after the Opium War is unavailable and, even if this information was available, it is not clear how to apply this to other countries 150 years later. What we do know is that unsafe pat terns of usage have become more common in those countries that most vigorously restrict hard drugs whereas in the Netherlands relatively more people now administer drugs by 'snorting' or 'chasing the dragon' than by injecting (Grund et al., 1992). Second, the Opium Wars in China in the middle of the nineteenth century cannot be considered an example of a transition to legalisation planned according to public health interests. Traditional patterns of usage were disturbed or supplanted, solely for Western economic and trade interests. Third, the magnitude of dependency problems of a certain substance and the degree to which controlled use is possible are not, as implied by the INCB, directly determined by the chemical properties of that substance or by simple availability. As stated above, there are a number of factors that have an impact on the percentages of people who (1) use a certain drug once, (2) continue recreational use of the drug, (3) become dependent on it, and (4) get into trouble because of their dependency. The chemical properties of the substance constitutes one of these factors, but other ones, such as the control or prosecution policy and social and cultural circumstances, are more important.
The Board suggests that it would be absurd to maintain the system of strictly regulating medicine while the more addictive substances heroin or cocaine would be legalised ( INCB, Sections 20,21). This suggests a disparity that does not exist. All addictive substances should be regulated, but each in its own proper way. (This line of reasoning would, incidentally, be as accurate for alcohol and tobacco, but the Board does not pursue that argument. )
We would now like to discuss some of the Board's points in more detail, focusing on their specific relevance to cannabis, because a licensing system for cannabis products is the most topical issue in the Netherlands. The supply side of the cannabis market will have to be brought under the control of a government agency in a subsequent stage. This agency must contribute towards decision-making concerning production sites and the granting of licences to cannabis cultivators. The agency will also have to supervise production and the product, assigning the product a quality mark indicating potency, etc., and carry out other supervisory, attendant and advisory tasks with respect to cannabis. Cannabis would only be allowed to be sold by businesses licensed to do so. One of the authors has introduced a draft bill for this purpose (Lap, 1992).
Based on current knowledge of actual patterns of
cannabis use, setting a limit for the maximum content of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol),
the most psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, is not desirable.
There is after all virtually no demand for stronger cannabis in
the Netherlands. This is a sign that the market has worked in
a self-regulating way. The potency of a cannabis product should,
however, be clear to consumers. Users also have the right to be
spared additives and the use of harmful pesticides in production.
As regards cultivation, it seems reasonable to set a limit of
five cannabis plants for personal use. Cultivation of more plants
should then automatically be considered as commercial cultivation
and require a licence.
The Board goes on to point out the ambiguity of the terms 'soft' and 'hard' drugs (INCB, Section 18).
The Dutch legal system draws a distinction between legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco) and illegal drugs. The latter drugs (soft and hard drugs) are subsumed under the Opium Act. The Opium Act contains two lists:
When the Dutch government uses the term 'soft drugs', it is referring to List II substances. Apparently, the legislative authorities feel that hemp products are not substances posing an unacceptably high risk. The comparison with 'hard and soft liquor' is not as misplaced as the Board thinks. In many countries, clearly different sets of rules apply to weak and strong alcoholic beverages. A comparison of the figures for cannabis use and health correlated to cannabis in the Netherlands with those pertaining to legal drugs such as alcohol supports the classification of cannabis as a substance with an acceptable risk level (Noorlander, 1992).
The Board rightly states that the debates on legalisation are centred on cannabis (INCB, Sections 22, 23). The assertion, however, that the production of 'hash oil' could pose a threat, does not suggest much knowledge of the field. Consumption of this sticky substance (which made its way to the Netherlands from the USA) has never caught on. Consequently this product has virtually disappeared from the market. The comments about high concentrations of THC in Dutch hemp are probably based on similar claims made by the Dutch CRI (Central Criminal Investigation Information Service). It is true that Dutch hemp has developed into a high-quality product since the 1970s, but research into the concentrations of THC in cannabis sold does not justify speaking of alarmingly high concentrations.
Nevertheless, the INCB has become interested in the results of the Dutch drug policy in general and the cannabis policy in particular. There is sufficient reason to be interested. In the years since 1976, the Netherlands has been the only country which has successfully managed to normalise the use of what was previously an illicit substance.
The level of cannabis use has remained quite steady in the Netherlands, whereas it has increased in other European nations and the USA in spite of or as a result of increased repression . The lifetime prevalence of cannabis use in the USA is higher than in the Netherlands. Referring to the Preamble and Articles 22, 23 and 28 of the Single Convention, the Netherlands can rightfully contribute to the international debate that our experiences are of such a nature as to refute the assumption that a ban on the production, distribution of and trade in cannabis is the best measure for achieving the official aims. The Netherlands should state the following:
To conclude, a great deal of fundamental criticism can be made of the report, but that is less important than the impetus it can give to an international debate about the legalisation of drugs and about the value of the international conventions. The INCB Report poses a challenge: to demonstrate that it is, in fact, possible to provide rational and reasonable answers to the questions about the transition to legalisation.
The authors wish to express their gratitude to Peter
Cohen, Erik Fromberg and Jos Silvis for their valuable comments.
As many readers probably do not have a copy of the INCB report,
and for the convenience of those who do have one, we have summarised
the INCB's texts or made use of quotations.
In the meantime the INCB report on 1993 has been published. It contains no arguments on the issue of legalisation of hard drugs. We reproduce the paragraph on Cannabis in Europe:
'285. Cannabis remains the main drug of abuse in Europe. No changes have been observed concerning the extent of cannabis abuse in Europe as a whole, with the exception of formerly socialist countries, where cannabis abuse has been increasing. Whereas in the United States, the number of cannabis abusers has decreased in the last few years, no such trend has emerged in Europe. More and more Governments have taken a position against the liberalisation of cannabis smoking; even experts who were inclined to exempt from narcotics control measures marijuana with a THC content of 1 or 2 per cent no longer regard as "soft drugs the cannabis varieties cultivated in the Netherlands, which may be ten times more potent. The dialogue between the Government of the Netherlands and the Board has led to lively discussion among the general public and at the governmental level in that country. The Board is confident that the Government of the Netherlands will take the necessary measures to limit the cultivation of cannabis and the expansion of so-called coffee-shops, in which a person may purchase up to 30 grams of cannabis products.
Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1993
Comment
When the Board refers to the rejection of cannabis smoking by more and more governments, the Board seems to give a false representation of facts. On the one hand, the possession and use of cannabis have been covered by criminal law all over Europe for many years now under the influence and power of the various UN treaties on narcotic drugs and no change of legislation is to be observed for that matter. On the other hand, in many European countries cannabis has been the subject of discussion. Not only in the Netherlands - where an actual cannabis draft of law has been under debate in parliament - Germany - where several verdicts questioned the compliance of the criminalisation of cannabis use with the German Constitution - but also in France the Minister of Internal Affairs has called for a debate on soft drugs. Contrary to the beliefs of the Board a depenalisation of cannabis use and possession for personal use is to be observed in many European countries.
The board claims 'experts' no longer consider Dutch cannabis soft drugs.
This assertion must be based on a report of the Dutch Criminal Investigation Authority (CRI) of 1992. On the contrary extensive testing of actual cannabis sold in the coffee shops did not produce any cannabis which was alarmingly more potent than, for example, Ghanese or Colombian varieties.
The Board claims its report has lead to a lively debate in the Netherlands
But the discussion in the Netherlands has not been of the nature as suggested by the Board. Most Dutch people would prefer a licensing system for cannabis production and retail trade, and the only reasons why such a legislation has not passed the Dutch Parliament are the international situation with respect to so-called drug tourism, various treaties, as signed by Dutch government and pressure by institutions such as the Board itself.
Hope is given for Dutch drug policy as a whole and particularly towards cannabis when the Board expresses its confidence in Dutch government concerning the limitation of cannabis cultivation and expansion of so-called coffee shops. The Board seems to accept this policy as such by not demanding a total stop to all production or retail trade. In effect a policy as suggested by the Board calls for a licensing system as laid down in the articles 23 and 28 of the Single Convention of NewYork 1961
Freek Polak and Mario Lap
Foundation on Drug Policy and Human Rights
Koninginneweg 189, 1075 CP Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Too little is known about the history and meaning of these conventions. In recent years, the value and utility of these world-wide regulations which allow no latitude for adaptation to regional circumstances, have been the subject of doubt in increasingly larger circles. In countries which already had drug problems, as well as in those countries where they still barely existed, problematic drug use did not reach the catastrophic proportions of today until prohibition was actually implemented.
Cohen argues that such a global regulation aimed
at totally eradicating an undesirable phenomenon - which no one
would expect to work for any different problem - should be seen
as a fossil, an anachronism, and that keeping it intact can only
further augment the damage. (Cohen, 1993 )
Assemblee Nationale Constituante ( 1789). Declaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen, Section IV, 'La liberte consiste apouvoir tout ce qui ne nuit pas a autrui'. Paris.
Berridge, V. and Edwards, G. ( 1981). Opium and the People. Allen lane. London: St Martins Press, New York
Christie, N . ( 1993 ). Crime Control as Industry. London: Routledge.
Cohen, P. ( 1989) . Cocaine use in Amsterdam in non deviant subcultures. University of Amsterdam.
Cohen, P. (1993). Re-thinking Drug Control Policy: historical perspectives and conceptual tools. Lecture presented to UNRISD, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva. In The Faces of Change, Policy Track Manual for the Seventh International Conference on Drug Policy Reform, the Drug Policy Foundation, Washington DC.
Duncan, D.F. ( 1993). Using epidemiologic measures to assess drug policy. In The Faces of Change, Policy Track Manual for the Seventh International Conference on Drug Policy Reform, the Drug Policy Foundation, Washington DC.
Erickson, P.G. (1990) . A public health approach to demand reduction. Journal of Drug Issues,20,563-575.
Fromberg, E. (1993) . Prohibition as a necessary stage in the acculturation of foreign drugs. In N. Heather, A. Wodak, E. Nadelmann and P.A. O'Hare (Eds), Psychoactive Drugs and Harm Reduction: From Faith to Science. London: Whurr Publishers.
Goldstein, P. et al. (1989). Crack and homicide in New York City,1988: A conceptually based event analysis. Contemporary Drug Problems,651-87.
Grinspoon, L. and Bakalar, J. (1993). Marihuana, the Forbidden Medicine. Connecticut: Yale University Press.
Grund, J.P. (1993). Drug Use as a Social Ritual. Rotterdam: IVO [Addiction Research Institute] .
Grund, J-P. C., Stern, L.S., Kaplan, C.D., Adriaans, N.F.P. and Drucker, E. (1992) . Drug use contexts and HIV consequences: The effect of drug policy on patterns of everyday drug use in Rotterdam and the Bronx. British Journal of Addiction,87,381-392.
Inciardi, J.A. (1990). The crack-violence connection within a population of hard-Core adolescent offenders. In M. De La Rosa, E. Y. Lambert and B. Gropper (Eds), Drugs anl Violence: Causes, Correlates and Consequences. NIDA Research Monograph 103, US DHHS Pub. No. ADM 91-1721.
Jonas, S. (1992). Public health approach to the prevention of substance abuse. In J.H. Lowinson, P. Ruiz, R.B. Millman and J.G. Langrod (Eds), Substance Abuse, Comprehensive Textbook, 2nd edn. Balti«ore, Ml?e Williams & Wilkins.
Klingeman, H.K. (1991). The motivation for change from problem alcohol and heroin use. British Journal of Addiction, 85,727-744.
Klingeman, H.K. (1992) . Coping and maintenance strategies of spontaneous remitters from problem use of alcohol and heroin in Switzerland. International Journal of the Addictions, 27, 1359-1388.
Kuiper, H. (1992). Prevalentie van Cannabisgebruik in Nederland [Prevalence of Cannabis Use in the Netherlands. Utrecht: NIAD.
Lap, M. (1992). Concept Cannabiswet. Utrecht: NIAD.
Levine, H.G. and Reinarman, C. (1991) . From prohibition tc regulation: Lessons from alcohol policy for drug policy. The Milbank Quarterly,69,3.
Lewis, D.C. (1992). Medical and health perspectives on a failing US drug policy. Daedalus,121(3),165-194.
Lewis, D.C. and Klinenberg, E.M. (1993) . Taking
a measure of US drug policy. In The Faces of Change, the Policy
Track Manual for the Seventh International Conference on Drug
Policy Reform. Washington DC: The Drug Policy Foundation.
MacCoun, R.J., Kahan, J.P., Gillespie,J. And Rhee, J. (1995). A content analysis of the drug legalization debate. Journal of Drug Issues, 23, 616-629.
Morgan, J.P. (1992). Prohibition was and is bad for the Nation's health. In Substance Abuse.
Musto, D.F. (1991). Opium, cocaine and marijuana in American history. Scientific American. Baltimore, MD: Williams &Wilkins.
Nadelmann, E. (1989). Drug prohibition in the U.S.: costs, consequences and alternatives. Science, 245,939-947.
Nadelmarm, E. (1992) . Thinking seriously about alternatives to drug prohibition. Daedalus,12 1,85-132.
Nicholson, T. (1992). The primary prevention of illicit drug problems. Journal of Primary Prevention, 14, 275-288.
Noorlander, E. (1992). Cannabisgebruik in Nederland gezien vanuit de hulpverlening. Arnsterdams Drugs Tijdschrift .
Robins, L.N . (1993). Vietnam veterans' rapid recovery from heroin addiction: a fluke or normal expectation? Addicction, 88,1041-1054.
Rounsaville, B.J. and Kleber, H. (1985). Untreated opiate addicts - how do they differ from those seeking treatment Archives of General Psychiatry, 42, 1072-1077. l
Scheerer, S. (1993) . Aus der Geschichte lernen? Einige Faille in denen die Prohibition schon mal abgeschafft wurde. In 1.1. Michels and H. Stover (Eds), Menschenwurde in der Drogenpolitik- Ohne Legalisierunggeht es nicht! 'akzept'. Hamburg: Konkret Literatur Verlag.
Silvis, J., Hendriks, A. and Gilmore, N. (Eds) (1992).Drug Use and Human Rights in Europe. Report for the European Commission, Utrecht University and McGill University, Montreal.
Stall, R. and Biernacki, P. (1986). Spontaneous remission from the problematic use of substances: An inductive model derived from a comparative analysis of the alcohol, opiate, tobacco and food/obesity literature. International Joumal of the Addictions, 21,1-23.
Vanvugt, E. (1985). Wettig Opium. Uitgeverij In de Knipscheer.
Waldorf, D., Reinarman, C. And Murphy, S. (1991). Cocaine Changes - The Experience of Using and Quitting. Temple University Press.
Wodak, A. (1993) . Taming demons - the reduction
of harm resulting from use of illicit drugs. International Journal
of Drug Policy, 4, 72-77.