Legalisation & Decriminalisation

Why EURAD opposes legalisation and decriminalisation of illegal drugs

Brief claims and replies

A EURAD Think Tank Production partially funded by the European Commission

EURAD - Europe Against Drugs - is a grass roots movement composed of European parent, youth and other concerned citizens' organizations co-operating in the prevention of drug abuse.

EURAD Foundation is not religiously or politically affiliated, and addresses social and political issues only when they concern drugs.

EURAD works closely with scientists and experts in the field of drug abuse.

EURAD Aims

To promote humane restrictive drug policies of prevention and early intervention against drug abuse in order to prevent further damage to individuals and society.
To prevent any form of legalisation of drugs, recognizing the 1961 UN Single Convention (amended in 1972) and the 1971 UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances as basic platforms for current and future drug control.
To improve European co-operation in support of families with drug problems.
To promote the education of parents, youth and other concerned citizens about all matters concerning drug abuse through accurate, relevant and up-to-date information and research findings.

EURAD advocates a preventive demand-restrictive strategy

What is decriminalisation and legalisation of drugs?

The term decriminalisation means to bring the drug problem out of the scope of penal (criminal) law. Law enforcement will no longer be provided for the export, import, manufacture, distribution, sale, publicity, possession and use of drugs that are up to now controlled within the scope of international conventions.

The consequence of decriminalisation of drugs is that society has no law or lever to use to direct drug addicts towards help and treatment, nor does society have the means to suppress trafficking.

Hand in hand with decriminalisation of drugs lies legalisation. In the case of legalisation, a form of more or less free distribution of drugs is to be organised. In the case of decriminalisation (with drugs out of the penal law) the Government will have to regulate the distribution and make rules for such. But regulations by Government will fail as users need more and more.

The consequence of legalisation would be that society would be subjected to increased pressure from the drugs market.

Are decriminalisation and legalisation the same thing in the end?

Yes, it is complete capitulation. Users, the root and motive force of the drugs market, will be more or less free to use and possess drugs, and traffickers will feel it worth the risks to extend the traffic to MORE people. Success is guaranteed due to the ADDICTIVE CHARACTER of the drugs.

Who wants what?

It is not difficult to argue against legalisation since it is accompanied by a large number of negative effects on the individual, the family and society.

On the other hand, it may be more difficult to argue against the advocates of legalisation as a whole, since they are not a unified group and entertain in their group a number of different proposals.

They argue for legalisation but then immediately start setting up restrictions and have different views on, for example:

WHICH drugs should be legalised?
Are ALL drugs to be sold freely? Only cannabis, opium, morphine, heroin and cocaine? What about crack? Should also synthetic drugs like amphetamines, PCP, LSD, ICE, CRANK, MDMA, just to mention a few, be freely available? Should also prescribed drugs like Valium be sold freely?
WHO is to be responsible for the quality and strength of the drugs?
If weak cannabis is sold, no one will buy it. A black market of strong cannabis will be set up across the street. On the other hand, who will take the responsibility for selling extremely potent drugs?
Are there going to be any age restrictions?
Will it be OK for 5-year olds to buy heroin? If not, how will we keep youngsters away from something that is easy for adults to get hold of?
How are drug-prices to be set?
If too expensive - a black market is set up! On the other hand - if too cheap - an unwanted rise in consumption. Are drugs to be taxed? If yes, are those taxes supposed to cover society's costs of health care and so on? In that case, the prices will have to be set very high and then we're back to creating room for a black market with cheap drugs.
Are drugs to be sold by anyone or in special state drugstores?
Will there be room for private profit-making in drug trade? If yes, how to avoid the now illegal drug cartels overnight becoming international monopoly enterprises with all steps from growing, transportation and so on, already in being?
If no, does anyone think that the same cartels will suddenly give up their lucrative source of income?
Should only consumption and not trafficking and dealing be legal?
It is illogical to keep trade forbidden in something that is legal to consume. On the other hand, if trafficking and dealing are allowed ...
Should certain groups with sensitive professions be governed by special restrictions?
Some of the most commonly consumed drugs stay in the body for a long period. That means that people with professions concerning public safety, like airline pilots, nuclear plant guards, surgeons, etc. can be affected for a long time and should therefore be restricted from using drugs.
Are there to be ANY kind of restrictions at all?
Any restriction increases the risk of a black market. But on the other hand, who wants ALL drugs to be let totally free?

The above examples indicate the virtual impossibility of setting the limits which some types of legalisation would require.

Page 1|2