EU - ENCOD prepares position for EU civil society forum on drug policy

[Encod]

Dear friends,

In a month from now, ENCOD will participate in the next session of the EU Civil Society Forum. We have installed a have your say page on http://www.encod.org/info/CONSULTATI...D-MEMBERS.html where some people have reacted (in different language versions) while on the encod forum (only accessible to encod members) (http://www.encod.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=51) people have suggested to present the medical cannabis issue on this forum.

One member has suggested to use this opportunity not only to comment the progress review report on the previous EU Action Plan on Drugs (see http://www.encod.org/info/IMG/pdf/Co...ess_reveiw.pdf for a first draft) but also to present a proposal for the next EU Action Plan (2009-2013) that will be elaborated this year by the French government.

This proposal should be based on the most useful points presented by the European Parliament Report of december 2004, as these are backed by the majority of the elected representatives of European citizens.

Herewith I send you the basic recommendations of the EP report. Feel free to comment on what according to you are the most important points we could take out of these (and elaborate further - if we want) to present as elements in a decent EU policy on drugs.


a) redefine European cooperation on a drugs policy aimed at tackling cross-border and large-scale drug trafficking, which takes into account all the implications of the problem, and is based on a scientific approach, respect for civil and political rights and protection of the lives and health of individuals;

b) set clear, precise, quantifiable goals and priorities which can be translated into operational indicators and measures in future Action Plans, very clearly establishing responsibilities and deadlines for implementation, and taking account of the subsidiarity principle. In order to facilitate implementation, a multidisciplinary approach should be taken at European level in relation to these clearly defined goals (coordination, information, assessment and international cooperation);

c) take account of the fact that the assessments made to date of the six main objectives set by the EU Drugs Strategy (2000-2004) show that none of them achieved favourable results and draw political and legislative lessons from this when devising the EUDrugs Strategy (2005-2012) and the related action plans;

d) take into account the assessments of the achievement of the six main objectives set by the EU Drugs Strategy;

e) base the new strategy more on scientific research and in-depth, structured consultation with those involved in this field in the Member States;

f) found the new EU Drugs Strategy on legal, institutional and financial bases which are derived from effective past action and the success of best practices;

g) increase social and scientific research on illegal substances for relevant medical and social purposes;

h) produce an alternative to the current financial fragmentation by creating a new budget line, closely meshed with all the measures which will need to be provided for in future Action Plans to be adopted by the Commission, since otherwise it will not be possible to achieve the objectives laid down in the Drugs Strategy;

i) create a specific budget line in order to facilitate an ongoing process of consultation with affected civil society organisations and independent professional experts about the impact of drug policies at the level of citizens;

( j) carry out a detailed evaluation of the effectiveness of the implementation of the previous strategy, with particular regard to:
- prevention of use and dependence,
- a reduction in the supply of and the demand for illicit drugs,
- the limitation of social damage (marginalisation),
- the limitation of health damage,
- reduction in drug-related petty crime and organised crime
and therefore not to adopt the new EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012) without knowing the real results achieved by the previous Strategy, as measured by the relevant technical, scientific, legislative and political assessments;

k) inform the European Parliament periodically in accordance with the principles of democratic legitimacy, transparency and cooperation between the institutions, of the progress of the negotiations within the Council on the EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012);

l) consult the European Parliament in good time before adopting the EU Drugs Strategy (2005-2012), so that its opinion can be taken into account;

m) propose measures totally different from those currently selected to achieve the overall EU Drugs Strategy objective, giving priority to protecting the lives and health of users of illicit substances, improving their wellbeing and protection by means of a balanced and integrated approach to the problem, since the relevant proposals are inadequate;

n) step up European cooperation mechanisms as the EU's 25 Member States' borders are closer to the countries in which drugs originate, so as to curb the drug traffic entering the Union and clearly define and extend the new European coordination mechanism on drugs policy, inter alia through the EMCDDA, so as to achieve an integrated, multidisciplinary and balanced approach to the problem of drugs, which is now more necessary than ever following the accession of ten new Member States;

o) improve the coordination and exchange of information within the Union on drugs policy following the accession of the ten new Member States so as to achieve an integrated, multidisciplinary and balanced approach to the problem of drugs, which also takes account of the encouraging results achieved and fully documented by the various Member States, and other European countries, that are implementing alternative drugs policies;

p) establish minimum standards to improve the availability and effectiveness of intervention and rehabilitation measures based on best practice in the Member States, with the goal of reducing the impact of drug use on society;

q) take adequate account of the new situation that has arisen following the accession of ten new Member States to the Union, which necessitates more intensive cooperation with the new border states;

r) increase the availability of harm-reduction programmes (especially to prevent the spread of HIV and other blood-borne diseases) among drug users;

s) set minimum standards for rehabilitation measures, based on best practice in the Member States, in place of too strong a focus on treatment with drug substitutes; to that end, particular efforts must be made to promote social rehabilitation;

t) lay much greater stress on harm reduction, information, prevention, care and attention to protecting the lives and health of people with problems caused by the use of illicit substances, and define measures to prevent them from being marginalised, rather than implementing repressive strategies which verge on and have frequently led to violations of human rights;

u) set up rehabilitation programmes for offenders/users as alternatives to prison, since such programmes have been found to be effective in those countries which have implemented them;

v) step up and provide appropriate funding for the information measures required to provide information on illicit substances and prevent drug use, particularly in schools, as provided for in the 2000-2004 Action Plan, and curb the negative repercussions of drug use and the associated risks;

w) place emphasis on stepping up information measures, which should be based on scientific knowledge about the consequences of various types of drugs (above all synthetic drugs), so as to be able to warn everyone in clear, strong terms;

x) define and exponentially step up the involvement and participation of drug addicts and users of illicit substances, civil society, NGOs, the voluntary sector and the general public in resolving drug-related problems, in particular by involving organisations operating in this area more closely in the work of the Horizontal Drugs Group and by organising an annual European prevention initiative and by setting up, on an experimental basis, easily accessible informal centres pursuing an anti-prohibitionist strategy and a harm-reduction strategy;

y) establish assessment measures which will allow shortcomings in - and more appropriate measures and resources to achieve - the goals set out in the EU Drugs Strategy to be correctly detected and rectified;

z) take appropriate steps to prevent the profits from illegal drug trafficking from being used to fund international terrorism and apply current legislation on confiscating goods and fighting money-laundering, while supporting Italian anti-mafia legislation which authorises the assets (profits) confiscated from criminal organisations to be redeployed and used for social purposes;

aa) include in all international agreements, and particularly new cooperation agreements with third countries, a specific anti-drug cooperation clause, with "essential clause" status;

ab) significantly increase development aid to drug-producing countries, by means of programmes to fund sustainable alternative crops and the radical reduction of poverty, exploring also the possibility of promoting and safeguarding production for medical and scientific purposes, of opiates for example, and to take into consideration the possibility of launching pilot projects for the industrial manufacture of legal products derived from plants covered by the 1961 Convention, such as coca leaf and Indian hemp;

ac) provide and ensure access to substitution programmes, with particular reference to the prison environment, while encouraging alternatives to imprisonment for users of illicit substances or for related minor and non-violent offences;

ad) increase research into the use of plants that are currently illegal or in a grey area, such as hemp, opium or coca leaves, for medicinal applications, food security, sustainable agriculture, generation of alternative energy sources, substitution for tree- or oil-based products and other beneficial purposes;

ae) revise the framework decision on drug trafficking to take account of the views expressed by Parliament, with due regard for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality enshrined in the Treaties;

af) carry out a scientific study into the costs and benefits of current policies for the control of narcotic substances including, in particular: an analysis of cannabis and its various legal and illicit derivatives, inter alia to assess their effects, their therapeutic potential and the results of criminalisation policies and possible alternatives; an analysis of the effectiveness of programmes to distribute heroin under medical supervision for therapeutic purposes in terms of the objective of reducing drug-related deaths; an analysis of the economic, legal, social and environmental costs of prohibition policies in terms of the human and financial resources required to enforce the law; and an analysis of the impact on non-member countries of current policies under both the EU Strategy and the global drug control system;

ag) urge governments and national parliaments to take effective measures to prevent drugs entering prisons;

[Lunar Loops]

OK people, this is your chance to put forward your thoughts on what you would like to see as part of a sensible EU Policy on Drugs. It's all very well talking about what should or should not be done, but this actually gives you a chance to have your voice heard.

Please respond either in this thread or on the link provided in the opening post.

[moda00]

As this list seems somewhat long and daunting at first glance, I wanted to summarize it and comment on what I feel are some important points, so if someone wants to contribute but doesn't have the time to read through all the information, perhaps this can help you pick out some of the more relevant points to expand upon. I broke these into broader categories, and then summarized a few of the relevant points. The italics are some ideas for topics of a letter that could be submitted to have your voice heard in forming a more progressive policy! Of course you do not have to address all of these points, but hopefully this helps give an overview of the issues, and if you can take the time to write a brief letter about of the issues that is most important to you, please do so! Even if you do not have specific ideas to share or a broad understanding of EU drug policy (I don't, I'm in the US!) this is an issue that affects us all! Even if you just get the chance to write and encourage them to follow through on one or more of the points stated in the above document, the 2004 European Parliament Report, and express your support for these revisions in policy! Thanks.

Measures of Success
I think b-c-d are important. To implement strategies that work, one must learn from what doesn't work. None of the six main objectives in the EU Drug Strategy 2000-2004 achieved positive results. It is important to realize when something is not working, and try something else. It also states that it is of importance to define priorities and measures of success so that one can effectively evaluate whether something is working and report on the effects of new policies. Also, y emphasizes the importance of quickly recognizing when something is not effective, and making changes immediately to prevent further harm.

Encourage them to try new strategies and move towards concrete measures of success, or share your thoughts on what a successful drug policy would accomplish (also see point j below)
What new strategies or approaches would you like to see, either the general approach, or specific ideas?

Point j states the importance of a thorough evaluation of these specific aspects of the strategy- the importance of evaluating past strategy and understanding its impact before proceeding to implement a new strategy:
-prevention of use
-prevention of dependence/addiction
-reduction of supply/demand
-limiting social damage/marginalisation
-limiting health problems
-reduction in drug related crime

Focus on how one or more of these measures of success can be achieved by implementing a drug policy which favors decriminalization and harm reduction efforts.

More Emphasis on Research
e and g are also significant. Support increased social and scientific research in order to understand how to best approach the issues and to address medical and social aspects. Gain information and data from those involved in the field, the general public, those involved with substance use or addiction, and organizations working for harm reduction.

af also states the intent to pursue a large scale study into the pros and cons, and a cost-benefit analysis, or the current drug control policies. Some important issues to be addressed include:
*Marijuana- therapeutic applications, effects of the current criminalization
*Heroin- investigate the potential benefits of prescription heroin maintenance programs
*International policy- How the EU strategy has impacted non-member states and international policy, and how to approach this in the future as changes are implemented
*Economic, social, and environmental costs of enforcing prohibition based laws

Encourage them to pursue more research, and share any relevant information regarding past or current research relating to the issue(s) which are most important to you

Increased Access to Treatment and Harm Reduction Programs
I think this one is really important. Covered in points r, s, t, and u, it is stated that there should be an emphasis on:
-HIV prevention though needle exchanges and other programs
-Set standards for drug rehabilitation programs, increasing the emphasis on social factors and rehabilitation
-Focus on protecting the lives and health of people with substance abuse disorders, to prevent them from being repressed or marginalized or suffering human rights violations or unnecessary harm

What standards do you feel are important for successful harm reduction efforts and rehabilitation? How can a policy work to best prevent human rights violations and marginalization of individuals who use substances or struggle with addiction?

Prison Reform
u, ac, ag discuss changes to the current policy of imprisonment for drug offenses. Alternatives to imprisonment for drug offenses and related minor and non-violent crimes are to be implemented, as such programs have been found to be beneficial and preferable to imprisonment when they have been utilized. Specifically, they speak of focusing on rehabilitation instead of imprisonment. Also want to increase access to both substitution programs in prison when needed, and social support systems, and hope to prioritize keeping drugs out of prisons.

How would you like to see such a system changed? What are your thoughts on how to best approach the idea of eliminating imprisonment for drug offenses, and how can this be most successfully implemented?

Increase the Availability of Accurate Information
Increased funding and availability of scientific and accurate information about the effects of drugs. They want this to be especially focused on informing the children in schools. See points u and v. The stated purpose is to warn individuals about the risks in clear and accurate terms, and to prevent the negative repercussions of drug use. Not much detail is given on how this will be approached, or how it will differ from the 2000-2004 policy.

Discuss your thoughts on the importance of making accurate information available and informing young people about drugs.
Personally this is one of the more important points I will address in my letter, as I think unbiased information on drugs is absolutely essential. I would hope to learn more about the past approach, what was found to be effective or ineffective, and how they hope to change it. Especially with regard to marijuana, and medicinal or spiritual use of plants. Granted, they are not doing to encourage their kids to do drugs, but from what I know, the DARE and such programs in the US actually led to increased drug use among suburban teens who had participated (cited in Grey's talk at WPF, will try to find source) I also personally feel that lumping all drugs together is a common problem when discussing the issue. With the focus on accurate research and harm reduction that has been proposed, I am hoping this will be a thorough and unbiased look at individual substances effects, but would like to know more about this issue.

Further Exploration of the Beneficial Uses of Illegal or "Grey-area" Plants
ab and ad address possible beneficial uses of coca, opium, hemp/marijuana, among others. Since prohibition has made research into benefits of these plants difficult, it is important that a new policy allow for unbiased research into this area. Some important developments could include: alternative fuels, sustainable agriculture, substitutes for paper products, oil based products, etc., food security, and medicinal and therapeutic applications.
These are extremely significant issues. If these plants can be used to lessen our environmental "footprint," why wouldn't we take advantage of that? Express your thoughts on possible benefits, and which areas of research you would most like to see explored. If you have thoughts to share about potential medical/therapeutic applications, this could be an excellent subject to base one's letter around as well.

[stoneinfocus]

Yeah, looks partially allright, but to me it reads liek: okay, here´s the money,
now go on, sell it al to the players and aim to restrict adn comtrol everything.

There might be a kewl ACME hemp-soap, for the remainder of the revolutionists to go crazy with.

No marginalisation means, deny any positive effects, except it´s in a study written in a language the average woulnd´t even be intersted in learing it and just concernign the work and the fees for this work done on a drug.

And it means, make positive and recreational drug-use a hell for any user, eventhough it would be fun and a better world for all.

[Lunar Loops]

The following is from the Eurpean Parliament website. Whilst I would think that we all agree that it is a good idea to involve civil society and 'interested' parties in any discussion on drug policy, you have to ask yourself is this statement anything other than lip-service to an ideal? The following piece appears to focus solely on the anti-drug fight and offers little hope for those with alternative strategies for dealing with the 'problem':

Green Paper on the role of civil society in drugs policy in the European Union


17-04-2008 - 09:46

Parliament will vote on a report by Giusto CATANIA (GUE/NGL, IT) on the Green Paper on the role of civil society in drugs policy in the European Union. The report indicates that civil society has an essential role to play in promoting the emergence, definition, implementation, assessment and monitoring of drug policies.


With its experience gained at grass-roots level, its innovative capacity and its potential in terms of the exchange of information and sound practices, civil society can bring significant added value to planned measures. However, in order to do so, civil society must be recognised and supported in both its internal and external dimensions.

Civil society – the internal dimension: MEPs in the committee stress the importance of action by civil society in the achievement of the objectives set out in the EU's drugs strategy as regards prevention, the provision of information and the management of problems associated with drugs dependencies. They call upon all parties involved at both EU and Member-State level to better recognise the role of civil society in terms of damage-reduction, rehabilitation and social-reintegration policies. At the same time, MEPs in the committee call on the Commission and Member States to promote civil society initiatives, particularly those aiming to: i) reinforce the prevention of and information on the risks associated with drug use; ii) treat drug addicts in prison; iii) establish special preventive procedures in “at-risk” metropolitan areas; iv) organise, with the cooperation of parents’, students’ and teachers’ organisations, awareness and prevention campaigns on drugs and their harmful effects on health; v) implement damage-reduction policies through direct contact with people in the street and in neighbourhoods; vi) establish reintegration projects for street children and disadvantaged families.

Civil Society – the external dimension: MEPs call for a strengthening of the external dimension of the EU’s drug strategy in order to have a sustainable impact on drug-producing countries. The experience of European NGOs that are active in this area should also be taken into account in order to help the countries in question to switch local cultivation to therapeutic and medical uses. In particular, they call on the Commission and Member States to explore forms of cooperation with civil society organisations involved in the promotion of legal substances derived from coca leaves. Other initiatives have also been proposed such as those set out in the European Parliament and Council Recommendation of 25 October 2007 on the production of opium for medical purposes in Afghanistan or through the possibility of combating illegal poppy plantations by means of spraying, which is not harmful to humans, animals or the environment. Cooperation with the science industry is also highly recommended as well as with international networks of associations active in the area of combating drugs (for example, the Vienna NGOs Committee on Narcotic Drugs or the “Beyond 2008” initiative which aims to promote the role of civil society within the General Assembly of the United Nations (UNGASS) regarding drugs).

Role of the media: given the vital role of the media, and particularly digital media, in raising awareness among citizens, especially young people at risk of becoming drug addicts, MEPs call for these to become privileged partners in the fight against drugs by establishing awareness measures specifically aimed at female drug addicts. In this respect, MEPs call for targeted campaigns on the damaging effects of drugs to the physical and mental health of young girls, pregnant or breastfeeding women and on maternal health and the transmission of drugs between mother and foetus. Information campaigns should also be targeted at young consumers, in other words children and minors.

Role of the church: The report acknowledges that churches and religious communities have been very active in the fight against drugs, and their experiences should therefore be taken into account in the formulation, implementation and assessment of drugs policies.

MEPs in the committee also highlight the importance of the Civil Society Drugs Forum, which represents the first step towards more concrete and constructive involvement of European civil society associations in the dynamics of the EU in terms of the prevention of and fight against drug use. While regretting the selection process for participants in the Forum, MEPs recall that its aim is to establish direct contact with associations that are on the front line in the fight against drugs.

More financial means: MEPs in the committee request that, subject to budgetary control, the EU becomes involved at a financial level in supporting civil society activities. They call on Member States to cover as far as possible, through public financing, the services proposed by professional civil organisations and request that financial measures be set out in order to assist voluntary organisations and parents’ associations that take action in the fight against drugs. While they welcome the launch of the 2007-2013 “Specific Programme on Drugs Prevention and Information”, they regret the delay in the implementation of the funding made available in connection with that Programme.



Giusto CATANIA (GUE/NGL, IT)
Rapporteur

[Lunar Loops]

I think that moda00 has done a good job in highlighting important points from the EP report listed at the head of this thread. Here are my views (although not radically different from those of moda00):

I would have thought that the glaringly obvious in (re-)defining any policy, whether it relate to drugs or anything else, is to perform a thorough review of past practice and what has worked and what has not. To my mind this makes point j above of prime importance, before even looking at anything else. How can we expect to come up with a workable and effective policy without considering past experience? Lessons have to be learnt and there is no point whatsoever in rehashing old policies that have already been seen to fail spectacularly. In looking at past policies it may also be useful to look outside the European Union at initiatives that have been attempted or are being attempted elsewhere. The fact that other countries are looking at the decriminalisation of personal amounts (e.g. Argentina) should also be taken into consideration. I am not saying that this is the final answer, but it does at least appear to be a step in the right direction (there appears to be little sense in making criminals out of individuals who otherwise lead a profitable and valuable life).

Once a thorough and scientific (there should be little room for emotion here) evaluation has taken place then we can move forward. Points b,c,d,e & f would seem to me to be of prime importance in shaping the future policy. Whilst not concentrating on any one of these points, I would like to state that it is vital that when thinking about point e in particular it is important that the research conducted is not merely ignored if it does not fit in with current political opinion, or what is perceived to be moral public opinion (take a look at what is currently hapening in the UK with regard to the reclassification of cannabis; where the findings of the advisory group are being ignored). Sometimes it is necessary to make brave decisions based on facts and not upon emotion. I would also like to say that it is not just scientific research that should be considered in this respect, but also the views of those 'on the ground' who have to implement any legislation (law enforcement, etc).

I think that research into alternative uses, and particularly medicinal ones, of currently illicit substances (or indeed those that are not) is also important. Scientific research and the allocation of grants should be free from political bias. The currently blinkered approach of all drugs being bad, blinds us to the potential benefits that may be derived from the use of certain substances in a medicinal or therapeutic context. Points ad & af are important in this respect.

I find point aa very worrying indeed. Does this essentially mean that the EU will essentially not do business with any country who fails to live up to their ideal of 'fighting the good fight' (namely supporting the failed war on drugs)? You have to take an anti-drug stance in order to do business with the EU? How does this affect countries like Argentina with respect to their proposed policy of decriminalisation (or for that matter Holland, although they seem to be changing)? No room for original thought or policy under such constraints.

Obviously harm-reduction should also be important and how we deal with those who have formed an addiction is very important. Effective treatment and NOT punishment must surely be the order of the day.

Just a few thoughts. Maybe some more of you out there have an opinion you wish to be heard?

[Encod]

Dear friends,

Thanks for all your comments, which are very useful. This coming Monday we will collect all comments that we received on this issue and prepare a strategy for the forum.

Meanwhile the following statement will be distributed at the forum that starts next Tuesday May 20. It will also be sent to press etc.

Best wishes

Joep

EUROPEAN COALITION FOR JUST AND EFFECTIVE DRUG POLICIES – ENCOD vzw

Statement to the Civil Society Forum on EU Drug Policy – 20/21 May 2008

In the conclusion of the progress review of the action plan on drugs 2005-2008 it is said that “available data do not always provide a proper insight as to whether the outputs of the Action Plan have had an impact on the problem they are trying to address.” In the evaluation of the EU Action Plan 2000 - 2004 by the EMCDDA in October 2004, the same problem had been noticed. Then it was explained as follows: “the indicators are considered too vague to allow evaluation reports to show if there has been any concrete impact on them”.

There is nothing in this progress review that allows the reader to conclude if the efforts to obtain the aim of the Action Plan (“to significantly reduce the prevalence of drug use among the population and to reduce the social and health damage caused by the use and trade in illicit drugs") have been successful or not. We read about the establishment of agencies, policy programmes, organisation of meetings, data collecting mechanisms, etc. But there is no information that allows us to judge the value of all these things for the impact of drug policy.

Some (quantifiable) data are mentioned, but there is no word on how these data should be interpreted. Is drug supply or demand being reduced? If yes or if not, what are the reasons? Which factors explain different patterns for drug use in different EU countries? What are reasons for drug use to become problematic? Apparently there are either no such data available, or the writers of the review lack the ability or the will to analyse these data and draw useful conclusions.

During the first session of the Civil Society Forum in December 2007, Mr. Carel Edwards asked the participants to always base their interventions on evidence, and leave the ideologies out of the room. Nevertheless, today the Commission requests us to discuss a progress review that is not based on evidence at all. And it invites us to make recommendations to the new action plan 2009-2012, while everybody here knows perfectly well that in order for any recommendation to leave this room and be tabled at the HDG meetings, it should be endorsed by the European Commission. Drugs should remain illegal, no matter what results from scientific evidence, the recommendations of the European Parliament, or the feedback of NGOs.

With this in mind, our proposal is to use this second session of the CSF to find common ground amongst ourselves about a set of recommendations that we as Civil Society Organisations could agree upon, taking into account minority views as well.

Therefore we propose the working groups to speak about the following issues:

1. The war on drugs in Europe, in the form of unnecessary, discriminatory and often violent criminalisation of people who use or produce drugs (for their own consumption).

2. The alternatives to drug prohibition. We are at the crucial first months of the so-called “year of reflection” that the UN has inserted between the 2008 and 2009 sessions of the CND. To ignore the alternatives to drug prohibition at this moment could be considered as dereliction of duty or even criminal negligence, in view of the continued suffering of people whose lives are directly affected by drug prohibition.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Thanks for the information and, as always, keep up the excellent work.

[MrG]

Thanks for keeping us informed, I hope this press release can get as much coverage as possible given the achingly valid points being presented.

[Encod]

Dear friends

Today we distributed the following statement at the EU Civil Society Forum:

http://www.encod.org/info/STATEMENT-...ETY-FORUM.html

A report follows later

Best wishes and thanks for all your help

Joep

Statement to the Civil Society Forum on Drug Policy – 20/21 May 2008

In the executive summary of the first session of the Civil Society Forum on Drugs in the EU (held on 13 & 14 December 2007) the European Commission stated that the agenda for the second meeting would consist of a discussion on the current Action Plan with a view to providing input for the next Action Plan, due for adoption by the end of 2008.

This is the second meeting of the Civil Society Forum. Herewith we present you the contribution of the European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies to this discussion. This contribution is based on the comments of various members of ENCOD and interested individuals who have responded to our call for reactions on the EU Progress Review of the Action Plan that was published in December 2007. This call was published on our website in various languages, as well as on various Internet forums, reaching all together tens of thousands of individual citizens from different EU Member States.

The contribution is divided in two: a statement on the progress review of the Action Plan on Drugs 2005-2008, and a number of recommendations on the future Action Plan 2009-2012, that will be published later this year.

1. A progress review without conclusions.

In the conclusion of the progress review of the EU Action Plan on Drugs 2005-2008 it is said that “available data do not always provide a proper insight as to whether the outputs of the Action Plan have had an impact on the problem they are trying to address.” In the evaluation of the EU Action Plan 2000 - 2004 by the EMCDDA in October 2004, the same problem had been noticed. Then it was explained as follows: “the indicators are considered too vague to allow evaluation reports to show if there has been any concrete impact on them”.

There is nothing in this progress review that allows the reader to conclude if the efforts to obtain the aim of the Action Plan (“to significantly reduce the prevalence of drug use among the population and to reduce the social and health damage caused by the use and trade in illicit drugs") have been successful or not. We read about the establishment of agencies, policy programmes, organisation of meetings, data collecting mechanisms, etc. But there is no information that allows us to judge the value of all these things for the impact of drug policy.

Some (quantifiable) data are mentioned, but there is no word on how these data should be interpreted. Is drug supply or demand being reduced? If yes or if not, what are the reasons? Which factors explain different patterns for drug use in different EU countries? What are reasons for drug use to become problematic? Apparently there are either no such data available, or the writers of the review lack the ability or the will to analyse these data and draw useful conclusions.

During the first session of the Civil Society Forum in December 2007, Mr. Carel Edwards asked the participants to always base their interventions on evidence, and leave the ideologies out of the room. Nevertheless, today the Commission requests us to discuss a progress review that is not based on evidence at all. And it invites us to make recommendations to the new action plan 2009-2012, while everybody here knows perfectly well that in order for any recommendation to leave this room and be tabled at the HDG meetings, it should be endorsed by the European Commission.

In short the message seems to be: drugs should remain illegal, no matter what results from scientific evidence, the recommendations of the European Parliament, or the feedback of NGOs.

Our proposal is to use this second session of the CSF to find common ground amongst ourselves about a set of recommendations that we as Civil Society Organisations could agree upon, taking into account minority views as well.

Therefore we propose the working groups to speak about the following issues:

· The current state of play of the war on drugs in Europe, in the form of unnecessary, discriminatory and often violent criminalisation of people who use or produce drugs (for their own consumption).

· The alternatives to drug prohibition. We are at the crucial first months of the so-called “year of reflection” that the UN has inserted between the 2008 and 2009 sessions of the CND. To ignore the alternatives to drug prohibition at this moment could be considered as dereliction of duty or even criminal negligence, in view of the continued suffering of people whose lives are directly affected by drug prohibition.

2. Recommendations without impact?

It is still quite unclear what the exact value of the recommendations is that this second meeting of the Civil Society Forum will put forward. The question concerning which role the CSF will play in the decision-making process on this Action Plan remains unanswered. At the same time, the composition of the members of the Civil Society Forum cannot be considered as a legitimate representation of European Civil Society Organisations working in the field of drugs. At least two of the 26 invited organisations are not representing citizens, but local authorities (ECAD and EFUS). Within the remaining 24 organisations there is a high proportion of networks of professionals providing services to drug users or doing research, but this does not qualify them as representatives of affected citizens. At the same time, various organisations present in this forum provide very little information about the transparency and accessibility of their organisation to citizens. It could well be argued that the current composition of the present Civil Society Forum represents nothing more than a group of organisations which have been selected by the European Commission to give the feedback it wants.

The European civil society has a legitimate representation already: it is called the European Parliament. In December 2004, the European Parliament issued a report concerning the future drug strategy of the EU. ENCOD proposes to use this report as the basis for the design of the coming Action Plan 2009 – 2012. In a modern and open democracy, the opinions of the directly elected representatives are the basis upon which policies are carried out.

The main recommendations (approved by a majority of the European Parliament on 15 December 2004) for the next Action Plan (2009-2012) in the European Union are to:

· set clear, precise, quantifiable goals and priorities which can be translated into operational indicators and measures, very clearly establishing responsibilities and deadlines for implementation, and taking account of the subsidiarity principle.

· take account of the fact that the assessments made to date of the six main objectives set by the EU Drugs Strategy (2000-2004) show that none of them achieved favourable results and draw political and legislative lessons from this.

· base the new strategy more on scientific research and in-depth, structured consultation with those involved in this field in the Member States;

· increase social and scientific research on illegal substances for relevant medical and social purposes;

· create a specific budget line in order to facilitate an ongoing process of consultation with affected civil society organisations and independent professional experts about the impact of drug policies at the level of citizens;

· carry out a detailed evaluation of the effectiveness of the implementation of the previous strategy, with particular regard to: prevention of use and dependence, a reduction in the supply of and the demand for illicit drugs, the limitation of social damage (marginalisation), the limitation of health damage, reduction in drug-related petty crime and organised crime

· inform the European Parliament periodically in accordance with the principles of democratic legitimacy, transparency and cooperation between the institutions.

· propose measures totally different from those currently selected to achieve the overall EU Drugs Strategy objective, giving priority to protecting the lives and health of users of illicit substances, improving their wellbeing and protection by means of a balanced and integrated approach to the problem, since the relevant proposals are inadequate;

· improve the coordination and exchange of information within the Union on drugs policy following the accession of the ten new Member States so as to achieve an integrated, multidisciplinary and balanced approach to the problem of drugs, which also takes account of the encouraging results achieved and fully documented by the various Member States, and other European countries, that are implementing alternative drugs policies;

· establish minimum standards to improve the availability and effectiveness of intervention and rehabilitation measures based on best practice in the Member States, with the goal of reducing the impact of drug use on society;

· increase the availability of harm-reduction programmes (especially to prevent the spread of HIV and other blood-borne diseases) among drug users;

· set minimum standards for rehabilitation measures, based on best practice in the Member States, in place of too strong a focus on treatment with drug substitutes; to that end, particular efforts must be made to promote social rehabilitation;

· lay much greater stress on harm reduction, information, prevention, care and attention to protecting the lives and health of people with problems caused by the use of illicit substances, and define measures to prevent them from being marginalised, rather than implementing repressive strategies which verge on and have frequently led to violations of human rights;

· place emphasis on stepping up information measures, which should be based on scientific knowledge about the consequences of various types of drugs (above all synthetic drugs), so as to be able to warn everyone in clear, strong terms;

· define and exponentially step up the involvement and participation of users of illicit substances, civil society, NGOs, the voluntary sector and the general public in resolving drug-related problems, in particular by involving organisations operating in this area more closely in the work of the Horizontal Drugs Group and by organising an annual European prevention initiative and by setting up, on an experimental basis, easily accessible informal centres pursuing an anti-prohibitionist strategy and a harm-reduction strategy;

· significantly increase development aid to drug-producing countries, by means of programmes to fund sustainable alternative crops and the radical reduction of poverty, exploring also the possibility of promoting and safeguarding production for medical and scientific purposes, of opiates for example, and to take into consideration the possibility of launching pilot projects for the industrial manufacture of legal products derived from plants covered by the 1961 Convention, such as coca leaf and Indian hemp;

· increase research into the use of plants that are currently illegal or in a grey area, such as hemp, opium or coca leaves, for medicinal applications, food security, sustainable agriculture, generation of alternative energy sources, substitution for tree- or oil-based products and other beneficial purposes;

· carry out a scientific study into the costs and benefits of current policies for the control of narcotic substances including, in particular: an analysis of cannabis and its various legal and illicit derivatives, inter alia to assess their effects, their therapeutic potential and the results of criminalisation policies and possible alternatives; an analysis of the effectiveness of programmes to distribute heroin under medical supervision for therapeutic purposes in terms of the objective of reducing drug-related deaths; an analysis of the economic, legal, social and environmental costs of prohibition policies in terms of the human and financial resources required to enforce the law; and an analysis of the impact on non-member countries of current policies under both the EU Strategy and the global drug control system;

And from the recent European Parliament report on the Green Paper on the role of civil society in drugs policy in the European Union (12.03. 2008):

· To strengthen the dialogue at EU level with organisations representing drug users – a necessary aspect of any response to the challenges of social reintegration and providing support for those emerging from dependence.

· To call upon the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights to carry out an analysis on the effects of antidrug policies and to assess their effectiveness, and whether and to what extent such policies have overstepped the mark and represented an infringement of individual rights.

· To explore ways of cooperating with EU civil society organisations involved in promoting substances derived from coca leaves for lawful use purely as a means of contributing effectively (by absorbing raw materials) to international action against drugs trafficking, ensuring at the same time the safe use of such substances.

· To take the view in order to learn lessons for the future strategy, that ten years after the 1998 UNGASS on Drugs – whose main objective was a “world without drugs” within ten years – it is necessary to proceed an assessment of the actual results of the current drugs policies to determine which strategies were successful.

[Encod]

Dear friends,

On http://www.encod.org/info/REPORT-ON-...ION-CIVIL.html

you can read a report on the Civil Society Forum.

Many thanks to all who contributed to our position!

Best wishes,

Joep