Decriminalisation and Regulation Pragmatic responses to drug use &

supply

Niamh Eastwood Release

The importance of language in the drug policy debate

Decriminalisation ‘A Quiet Revolution’

• Portugal well evidenced • Other jurisdictions not discussed or used as

advocacy examples

• Challenge the fallacy that decriminalisation results in increased drug use

Definition of decriminalisation

• No criminal record

• Included ‘de jure’ and ‘de facto’ models• ‘de jure’ schemes included any type of legislative

process that decriminalised possession including discretionary schemes

• Ignored escalated approaches e.g UK

• Included states where only cannabis decriminalised

Orange = states have decriminalised some cannabis offences Green = possession deemed unconstitutional - no statutory response. Yellow= statutory decriminalisation of drug possessionPurple – de facto decriminalisation

Positive examples of decriminalisation (1)

• Portugal introduction of decriminalisation of all drugs in 2001 & investment in public health led to:

– Decrease in use amongst vulnerable groups including problematic users and young people;

– Reductions in the number of young people becoming dependent on harder drugs such as heroin.

– The estimated numbers of injecting drug users in Portugal also decreased by over 40 per cent during that period.

– Increases in the number of drug-dependent individuals in treatment. – Significant reductions in transmission of HIV and tuberculosis. – Significant decrease in the number of drug-related deaths and the increased investment

in harm-reduction services.– Reduced number of criminal drug offences from approximately 14,000 per year to an

average of 5,000 to 5,500 per year after decriminalisation & reduced prison population – Reduced burden on criminal justice system allowing police to focus on more serious

crime – Improved relationship between the community and police.

Positive examples of decriminalisation (2)

• Czech Republic – 2002 Cost benefit Analysis of criminal justice approach:

1. Penalisation of drug use had not affected the availability of illicit drugs;

2. There was an increase in the levels of drug use within the country;

3. The social costs of illicit drug use increased significantly.

Positive examples of decriminalisation (3)

• Australia (4 states have decriminalised cannabis possession) & have shown a capacity to keep individuals out of the criminal justice system. A comparative study showed individuals who were given criminal penalties suffered: – Negative employment, relationship and

accommodation consequences – Increased likelihood of further contact with

criminal justice system

Positive examples of decriminalisation (4)

• USA – 23 states have decriminalised possession of cannabis – No significant difference in cannabis prevalence

amongst states – Economic savings: CA introduced cannabis

decriminalisation in 1976, in the first six months of implementation enforcement savings of $12.6 million.

Implementation Problems

• Threshold quantity to determine personal possession

• The role of the decision maker

• Sanctions

Threshold Quantity (‘TQs’)

• Overwhelmingly TQs utilised either as the definitive determinant (strict liability) or as a factor in deciding whether someone was in possession or intended to supply.

• Only four out of 21 jurisdictions had chosen not to use threshold amounts and instead used broader terms such as ‘reasonable quantity’ (Uruguay) or ‘small amount’ (Poland).

Threshold amounts Argentina (draft bill) (Const) NO Colombia (Const – will be de jure) New Bill – cocaine 1g & 20 g

cannabis Paraguay (de jure) 10 g cannabis

2g cocaine/heroin

South Australia – cannabis only CEN (de jure)

100 g cannabis (CEN)

Czech Republic (de jure) 10g cannabis1g cocaine 1.5g heroin 4 ecstasy tablets 40 pieces of mushrooms

Peru (de jure) 5 g cocaine paste 2 g cocaine hydrochloride 200 mgs heroin 8 g THC

Western Australia (de jure) 10 g cannabis (CIN) (prev. 30 grams)2 non hydro plants

Estonia (de jure) 10x single dose Poland (de jure) No thresholds – ‘small quantity’

Australian Cap Territory (de jure)

50 grams cannabis (SCON)2 plants

Germany (Const) Depends on Lander6 – 15 grams cannabis 1 – 3 grams cocaine

Portugal (de jure) 10 days worth of average daily dose – in practice:5 g resin/ 25 g herbal 1 g MDMA 1 g heroin 2 g cocaine

Northern Territory (de jure) 50 grams cannabis (civil fine)Non cannabis – no thresholds (diversion)

Italy (de jure) Maximum quantity amount:500mgs of cannabis (psychoactive ingredient) 250 mgs heroin 750 mgs E750 mgs cocaine

Russia (de jure) 6 g cannabis 0.5 g heroin/cocaine

Belgium (de jure) 3 grams cannabis Mexico (de jure) 5 grams cannabis 0.5 grams cocaine 50 mgs heroin 1 E

Spain (de jure) 200 grams herbal 25 grams resin 2.4 grams MDMA 3 grams heroin 7.5 grams cocaine

Chile (de jure) No threshold Netherlands (de facto) 5 grams cannabis 1 dose of hard drugs

Uruguay (de jure) ‘reasonable quantity exclusively for personal consumption’

Washington DC 56 grams 3 plants 28 grams gift

Switzerland 10 grams Jamaica 56 grams

Threshold Quantities (‘TQs’)

• TQs do not appear to have any impact on prevalence - South Australia anything less than 100 grams of cannabis would be treated as a civil possession offence, whereas in Western Australia the limit was 10 grams.

• Other jurisdictions, including Italy and Peru, use purity levels to determine the threshold amount.

• Hollow examples – Mexico & Russia

Russia – thresholds in practice• Prior to 2004:

– cannabis was 0.1 grams– heroin 0.005grams

• In to 2004:– cannabis was 20 grams– heroin 1 gram

Resulting in: • 40,000 people previously convicted being released or their

sentences reduced • 2004 -05 it is estimated 60,000 people avoided criminal

prosecution as a result of the change in thresholds.

The Decision Maker (‘DM’)

• Police determination: the main benefit is that the decision is made at a very early point in the process but can result in net widening

• Prosecutorial guidance: often prosecutorial guidance will be provided to assist police e.g. Netherlands

• Judicial determination: can delay proceedings and possible issues of pre trial detention (especially problematic in Latin American countries)

Sanctions

• No sanction – appears to have no impact on prevalence e.g. Belgium & Netherlands

• Street fines – can lead to increased policing of offence, net widening & perverse outcomes such as harsher punishment for non payment e.g. Spain & South Australia

• More comprehensive approach – Portugal

Why campaign for decriminalisation of drug possession?

• Reduces immediate harms for people who use drugs – Criminalisation – Stigmatisation – Barriers to integration

What decriminalisation does not achieve

• Little evidenced impact on supply side

• Drug related violence

• Destabilisation of states (‘narco-states’)

• Trade still in the hands of organised crime

Incremental Change

• Decriminalisation is part of an incremental reform process:

– Netherlands – Spain – Czech Republic – Washington & Colorado – Uruguay

The political landscape internationally and how this plays into the domestic arguments

• Increasing number of countries/ states moving towards decriminalisation – Switzerland (who else?)

• Impact of Uruguay and US on international drug control framework

• UNGASS 2016– WHO – UNAIDS – UNDP – OCHR – UNODC

1. The Committee strongly recommends the introduction of a harm reducing and rehabilitative approach, whereby the possession of a small amount of illegal drugs for personal use, could be dealt with by way of a civil/administrative response and rather than via the criminal justice route.

2. The Committee recommends that discretion for the application of this approach would remain with An Garda Síochána/Health Providers in respect of the way in which an individual in possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use might be treated. 3. The Committee recommends that any harm reducing and rehabilitation approach be applied on a case-by-case basis, with appropriately resourced services available to those affected, including resources for assessment (e.g. similar to the Dissuasion Committees used in Portugal) and the effective treatment of the individuals concerned. 4. The Committee draws attention to the success of ‘informal’ interaction with users when referred to the ‘Dissuasion Committees’ in Portugal and recommends that such an approach should be employed in Ireland if the recommendations in this report are to be adopted.

5. The Committee recommends that resources be invested in training and education on the effects of drugs and that appropriate treatment be made available to those who need to avail of same. The Committee feels that out-of-school ‘informal’ interaction by Youth Services could have a major role to play in this context.

6. The Committee recommends that research be undertaken to ensure that the adoption of any alternative approach be appropriate in an Irish context.

7. The Committee recommends that in addition to other measures, enactment of legislation in relation to Spent Convictions be prioritised.