HELLENIC
PRESIDENCY OF THE EUROPEAN
practice and policy choices".
Overcoming obstacles to the implementation of
evidence-based drug policies and interventions.
1.
On 6 and
of the Greek Presidency.
Delegations from the Member States and the
acceding States, representatives of the European Parliament, the Greek
Parliament and the Parliaments of the acceding States, the European
Commission, the Council Secretariat, the
EMCDDA, the Pompidou Group of the Council of Europe, UNODC, as well as
representatives from the science and research community, took part in the
Conference.
1.2.
At the opening of the Conference the Greek
Presidency stressed the need for cooperation and coordination of the activities
of the EU Member States and for open dialogue; it was also necessary to seek
pragmatic and effective policies based not on theoretical standpoints, but on
day-to-day practice and scientific knowledge.
The acceding States were urged to participate actively in the
formulation of the European Union's policy on the issue of drugs. The Presidency explained that its intention
with this Conference was to encourage dialogue, so that the different opinions
expressed could be brought together, leading to a more effective policy. It was also emphasized that the aim of the
Conference was, through the exchange of views, to contribute to the
establishment of an EU position at the forthcoming 46th session of the UN
Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) to be held in
1.3.
The participants welcomed the Conference as a
unique opportunity for senior civil servants, politicians, scientists and
researchers, as well as representatives of civil society, to meet and exchange
ideas and suggestions for an overall coherent and coordinated EU policy on
drugs. The importance of such a
gathering was obvious when it was borne in mind that the European Union
had completed the mid-term evaluation of the action plan 2000-2004.
1.4.
At the seven sessions of the Conference the
following items were discussed:
– EU policy
– International policy and the role of the
UN Conventions
– Health and social support
– Criminal law measures
– Supply reduction and law enforcement
– Day-to-day practice
– Future developments.
1.5.
This report is a summary of the discussions at
the Conference and reflects the different views expressed. The report also expresses the intention of
the Greek Presidency to continue the dialogue in the competent bodies of the
European Union.
The policy of the
European Union
2.
As far as the EU policy is concerned, it was
stressed that since the adoption of the EU drugs strategy in 1999, considerable
progress had been made in implementing the Action Plan, but much work remained
to be done in order to achieve its ambitious goals.
2.1.
At the Conference it was recognised that
progress had been made in the following fields:
– Coordination
of drug policy in the Member States and at EU level
– The
availability of reliable data
– The
reinforced priority for prevention and treatment
– The
cooperation between the law enforcement authorities of the Member States
– The
development of initiatives to tackle the trafficking of synthetic drugs
– The
reinforcement of the fight against money laundering
– The
strengthening of national coordination mechanisms.
2.2.
It was pointed out that the changes in the drug
phenomenon, like the emergence of synthetic drugs, access to drugs through the
internet and the new methods of treatment had led to the development of a more
pragmatic and multi-faceted approach to the drug problem. In most EU countries the drug issue and, as a
consequence, drug policy is considered an important part of public health. It has been stressed that it is necessary to
incorporate treatment methods and social rehabilitation programs into the
system of public health and social welfare. This presupposes an educational
curriculum for medical doctors and other professionals working in the health
and social services. The serious consequences of drug dependency for public
health and security are nowadays a reality that must be faced with
complimentary measures that is to say programs of harm reduction. An in‑depth
debate was held on harm reduction.
Reference was made to practices in various European countries and
discussions took place on experimental treatment methods under drug‑free
programmes, programmes using substitutes, programmes of prescription of heroin
under medical control, needle exchange, injection rooms etc. The presentations made by scientists and
researchers were highly appreciated. It
was recognised that a number of approaches of harm reduction which until
recently had been considered unacceptable are now everyday practice.
2.3.
A debate was held on the criminal aspect of the drug
problem. It was pointed out that the use
of alternatives to punishment and, especially, imprisonment was widely
acknowledged and accepted. This meant
that drugs policy in this area is no longer oriented towards punishment but
towards treatment, counselling, assistance, educational programmes and social
integration. A fruitful debate was held
on the issue of criminal justice, focusing on the punishment of users and
treatment programmes in prisons. The
fact that more than half of the prisoners are drug users or drug traffickers
was found to be disturbing. The
availability of narcotic substances in prisons is a major problem. Drug abuse, psychosomatic illnesses and
transmissible diseases are the most serious problem for those imprisoned for
drugs offences. In this field as well,
methods and practices in the various European countries are developing.
2.4.
The growing similarities in drug policy responses in the
Member States do not mean that cultural differences should be ignored. Countries and regions have sufficient room to
experiment and find out which approach works best. Such differentiation must be respected within
the general framework of European Union policy.
2.5
The importance of a drugs policy based on scientific
evidence, reliable information and systematic assessment is clear and is
gaining ever more support. The promotion
of new programmes is equally important.
This approach should constitute the main priority of European drugs
policy. The responsibilities and duties
of European bodies and organisations dealing with drugs should be aligned. This requires coordination and cooperation in
specific programmes. Duplication should
be avoided. It was emphasised that in
the case of the new Member States a political and financial commitment is
needed in order to establish focal points of the type already operating in the
current Member States.
2.6
On the issue of supply reduction, the Greek Presidency and
participants who spoke pointed out that measures to combat drug traffickers
was, as a rule, considered to be mainly a matter for the police. However, although the number of police
engaged in combating drug trafficking has increased, as have seizures of
illegal drugs, the availability of drugs and the number of drug users is not
reduced. It has, therefore, to be
realised that drug trafficking is not merely a matter for the police and
criminal justice. Structural changes are
required in the social‑economic field, in combating corruption,
countering money laundering etc.
Priority must be given to the employment of young people if the problem is to
be dealt with as a whole and effectively.
2.7
The Greek Presidency stressed the importance of an overall
plan for combating drug trafficking in the Balkan region. Trafficking in heroin from
2.8
Further to presentations by local politicians,
representatives of civil society and contributions by participants, the debate
on how to deal with the drug problem in large cities showed that the problem is
so serious that the member countries of the European Union can not allow
themselves the luxury of a purely theoretical discussion but have to look for
practical solutions. The cultural
attitudes of youth and modern society in general to the use of drugs was
discussed in detail. Synthetic drugs
constitute the challenge to be confronted by European societies in the future,
and effective ways of dealing with this problem need to be investigated. The
need for early interventions is foreseen in the proposal that the Greek Presidency
has submitted to the Horizontal Working Party on Drugs
2.9
It is proposed that the debate which had taken place during
the conferences in the
International
policy on drugs and, in particular, the policy of the UN
3.
With respect to international policy, and
in particular the mid‑term review of the UN action plan to be discussed
in
3.1.
During the discussion about the position of the European
Union at the 46th session in
3.2
The main tendencies which emerged were, on the one hand, the
view that the UN conventions on drugs must be fully implemented rather than
being a matter for discussion and possible amendment and, on the other hand,
the view that the change in the international situation as regards trafficking
and supply reduction, as well as the use of drugs, called for a dialogue aimed
at establishing new bases for a more effective policy. In the context of this overall position,
views were expressed which, in brief, related to the following points:
3.2.1.
The UN conventions on drugs are not immutable. It is a matter of the democratic will of the
Member States. Practical developments
must be reflected in the evolution of the international conventions on drugs.
3.2.2.
There is almost universal agreement on the usefulness of the
three United Nations conventions on narcotic drugs. The conventions provide the framework for the
harmonisation of the laws of the UN Member States on drugs. The large majority of States throughout the
world (85%) and all the
3.2.3.
A review of the effectiveness of the three international
conventions should be made in the framework of an open debate and taking
account the historical changes in the international situation which have
resulted in a different reality than the one at the period when the conventions
have been set up.
3.2.4.
The differences and contradictions between the conventions
must be identified and discussed on the basis of scientific and medical developments
and not on the basis of political options.
3.2.5.
There must be a discussion of the degree of freedom which
the conventions allow to the Member States, in order to find a balance between
their universal application and differentiation by the Member States. Where no consensus can be achieved, agreement
must be found on the possibilities for flexibility and differentiation, taking
into account cultural, religious and legal diversity in different parts of the
world.
3.2.6.
Attention must be given to the matter raised by
3.2.7.
The European Union must help to find a common definition and
a common framework of the practices of harm reduction. The UN is, on this point, confronted with a
lack of clarity as to the extent that drug use is discouraged and abstinence
encouraged. In the search for agreement
on this point, the contribution of the European Union is necessary.
3.2.8.
Scientific and analytical work on the drugs issue must be
strengthened. Studies which have been
implemented and repeatedly evaluated may make what was unacceptable
acceptable. In this context the needle
exchange, the medical prescription of heroin and the inclusion of cannabis in a
different schedule to that laid down in the 1961 and 1971 Conventions need to
be examined.
3.2.9.
A dialogue which overcomes the mentality of blame and
rejection is needed. Drugs are a social
problem which requires the contribution of all in the search for best
practices.
Looking forward
4.
The Greek Presidency of the European Union proposes that the
discussions held in
4.1.
This report will be transmitted by the Greek Presidency to
the competent bodies preparing the ministerial segment of the next CND meeting
in
4.2.
The Greek Presidency noted
4.3.
The participants expressed their satisfaction at the way the
conference had been organised and at the opportunity afforded to all parties
concerned with the drugs issue to discuss matters at the same table. They proposed that similar meetings should be
repeated in the future.