European Work - Influence & Co-operation
At present it is very important to oppose legalisation/decriminalisation. However, all eventual victories which force the legalisation and anti-prohibition movement into retreat will be temporary as long as the individual countries do not change the focus of their drugs policy. As long as everything is permitted to remain as it is and the root of the drugs market (the user) is untouched, the market will continue its activity and it will only be a question of time before fresh calls for legalisation arise.
EURAD therefore wishes to promote cooperation which will bring about an emphasis on demand restrictive drug policies within the countries of Europe.
EURAD fully supports the recommendations of the "European Parliament Committee of Inquiry into the Drugs Problem in the Member States of the Community, September 1986: Rapporteur - Sir Jack Stewart Clark," wherein it is stated:
24. Whatever measures are taken against the production of drugs and the illegal cultivation of source crops, they will remain ineffective as long as demand in the consumer countries is not eradicated or substantially reduced. On the demand side, strenuous efforts therefore need to be taken to reduce consumption by a comprehensive series of measures to be taken in the fields of preventive education, rehabilitation and training. At all levels of action, a flexible approach is needed to take account of the wide availability of different drugs and polydrug use and the widely differing reasons which lead to drug use and abuse. This results in a constantly changing pattern of drug taking. There is no typical addict and no set drugs of addiction: there is therefore no one simple solution, but rather a variety of solutions which may be subject to rapid change according to the country and the various individual and collective cultures concerned.
EURAD recommends that EURAD DRUG POLICY - DEMAND RESTRICTIVE - THE THIRD WAY - be considered as a model for community action in European countries.
Europe constitutes a major target for drug trafficking. No European country can ignore the power of the combined political and economic forces of the 12 countries in the European Community. Legalisation and directives emanate from the EC and here we quote from paragraphs 18 - 20 in above-mentioned report:
18. The European parliament itself can use its considerable political influence by increasing the awareness of those it represents and encouraging national authorities, on their behalf, to work more closely together in reducing drug abuse.
19. We are critical of the fact that drugs problems have so far not been addresses adequately at either national or European Level. A radical change in drugs policy is essential and should be brought about as quickly as possible.
20. New strategies in tackling the problem of drugs can be worked out and implemented by the Commission of the European Communities and the EEC Council of Ministers.
National work - Shortcomings of existing policies and strategies.
In order to attain permanent and real success in the struggle against drug abuse, the national measures must be placed in the foreground and emphasis placed on demand restrictive strategies. This means that the struggle against drugs must primarily be of a domestic nature focussing on the user. Attention should naturally be paid to the historic and cultural nature of the different countries.
The prevailing standpoint on combating drugs in the western world has largely been based on the belief that the drugs market can be successfully combated only by more or less unilateral attacks on gangs and syndicates i.e. the suppliers. But the drugs gangs which are broken up today are quickly replaced by newer and often better-organised gangs as long as the demand exists and the trade is profitable. Excessive reliance on the mafia and gang oriented strategy and the type of control strategy it represents can be questioned from many points of view.
The strategy automatically causes, among other things, the minimisation of the decisive importance of consumption and demand. In practice this means that while the police concentrate on arrest of as many of the top figures in the drugs field as possible, drug abuse spreads and demand increases with the trivialisation of the role of the drug user.
Sooner or later the strategy also leads to the demand for advanced detection techniques with Police working methods which can directly endanger important legal principles such as the individual's security under the law. It may also lead to a demand for enormous resources.
Mobilisation of ever increasing resources is not sufficient. The decisive factor for success is the orientation on the whole problem and practical utilisation of existing resources. The constantly escalating "war" which is the result of this tragedy cannot achieve permanent success, no matter how great the resources which are supplied.
A strongly contributing reason for the vicious circle of constantly increasing warfare is, primarily, the ignorance of and the liberal attitude toward individual abuse. If one claims to have a 'humane attitude', and does not want to 'over react to a hash pipe', and does not want to 'hunt addicts', the result can be that which least desired: inhumanity, excessive reaction and hunting down of addicts. The consequences of a liberal attitude toward drug abuse and a unilateral attack on the large gangs within the drugs trade give rise to an addiction situation which is so extensive and difficult to manage that legalisation appears to be the only 'way out' since in practice drugs have already become established in the society.
The paradoxical situation is that a one-sided war against drug gangsters and a permissive view of drugs usage are actually two extremes of the same standpoint: an underestimation of the dynamics of a demanding market.
The market of drugs is complicated by the facts that many drugs cause tolerance (increased dosage necessary to get highs) and addiction (inability to cease drug-taking). This means that drug addicts are extremely faithful buyers.
The legalising viewpoint opens the door to greater demand and one-sided repression against top-traffickers tries to stop supply. The basic flaw of both strategies is that they ignore the market's (consumption's) own dynamic development in their thinking.
 |
 |
