Drug Law in Practice in a Polish City

Sobeyko J (1), Leszczyszyn-Pynka M (2), Duklas T Sobeyko J (1), Leszczyszyn-Pynka M (2), Duklas T (7), Parczewski M (2), Bejnarowicz P (1), (7), Parczewski M (2), Bejnarowicz P (1), Chintalova-Dallas R (4), Lazzarini Z (4)(6), Case P Chintalova-Dallas R (4), Lazzarini Z (4)(6), Case P (5), Burris S (3)(6).(5), Burris S (3)(6).

(1) Infectious Disease Prevention Association of (1) Infectious Disease Prevention Association of Western Pomerania, (2) Department of Infectious Western Pomerania, (2) Department of Infectious Diseases & Hepatology, Pomeranian Medical Diseases & Hepatology, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, (3) Temple University Beasley University, Szczecin, (3) Temple University Beasley School of Law, (4) University of Connecticut Health School of Law, (4) University of Connecticut Health Center, (5) Fenway Community Health Center, (6) Center, (5) Fenway Community Health Center, (6) Center for Law and the Public’s Health at Center for Law and the Public’s Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities, (7) Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities, (7) Association for Health Promotion and Social Risks Association for Health Promotion and Social Risks Prevention “TADA”Prevention “TADA”

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

NIDA: Grant # 5 R01 DA17002-02 NIDA: Grant # 5 R01 DA17002-02 Open Society InstituteOpen Society Institute

– Funded early development and training of Funded early development and training of RPARRPAR

Members of our Community Action BoardMembers of our Community Action Board Infectious Disease Prevention Association Infectious Disease Prevention Association

of Western Pomeraniaof Western Pomerania City Government of SzczecinCity Government of Szczecin

The Polish Drug Policy The Polish Drug Policy Debate , 1994-2000Debate , 1994-2000 Possession of small amounts of illegal drugs Possession of small amounts of illegal drugs

was not a crime under the law enacted in 1985was not a crime under the law enacted in 1985 Proponents of criminalization argued for a Proponents of criminalization argued for a

change on several grounds:change on several grounds:– Required by Poland’s ratification of 1988 UN Required by Poland’s ratification of 1988 UN

Convention on drug traffickingConvention on drug trafficking– Criminalization would increase demand for Criminalization would increase demand for

treatmenttreatment– Criminalization would deter new drug usersCriminalization would deter new drug users– Police need the ability to arrest users to get at Police need the ability to arrest users to get at

dealersdealers

The Polish Drug Policy The Polish Drug Policy Debate , 1994-2000Debate , 1994-2000 1997 legislation exempted possession of 1997 legislation exempted possession of

small amounts from criminal sanctionsmall amounts from criminal sanction In 2000, however, the exemption was In 2000, however, the exemption was

removedremoved– Users possessing small amounts “shall be subject Users possessing small amounts “shall be subject

to a fine, the penalty of limitation of liberty or to a fine, the penalty of limitation of liberty or imprisonment for a term up to 1 year.” Art. 62, imprisonment for a term up to 1 year.” Art. 62, para. 3para. 3

An effort to restore the exemption in 2005 An effort to restore the exemption in 2005 was unsuccessfulwas unsuccessful

1997 law also provided multiple Rx options1997 law also provided multiple Rx options

Methods: Rapid Policy Methods: Rapid Policy Assessment and Response Assessment and Response (RPAR)(RPAR)

RPAR mobilizes local knowledge and capacity to RPAR mobilizes local knowledge and capacity to fight HIV/AIDS among legally marginalized fight HIV/AIDS among legally marginalized populations at the city level. populations at the city level.

A research team from a site city works with a A research team from a site city works with a Community Action Board (CAB) to collect Community Action Board (CAB) to collect – laws and written policies;laws and written policies;– existing epidemiological and criminal justice data; existing epidemiological and criminal justice data; – qualitative interviews with police, judges, qualitative interviews with police, judges,

prosecutors, drug users, sex workers and others who prosecutors, drug users, sex workers and others who can describe how the laws are put into practice. can describe how the laws are put into practice.

Data collection and interpretation are guided by Data collection and interpretation are guided by the CAB, which develops an action plan and final the CAB, which develops an action plan and final report.report.

Methods: Rapid Policy Methods: Rapid Policy Assessment and Response Assessment and Response (RPAR)(RPAR)

RPAR began in January, 2005; research was RPAR began in January, 2005; research was completed in September and a final report was completed in September and a final report was released in March, 2006. released in March, 2006.

CAB included participants from law enforcement CAB included participants from law enforcement (tpolice, judiciary, prisons), public and private drug (tpolice, judiciary, prisons), public and private drug treatment providers, health care (physicians, nurses) treatment providers, health care (physicians, nurses) and social welfare agencies (Family Support office). and social welfare agencies (Family Support office).

Existing laws and formal policies in ten domains Existing laws and formal policies in ten domains relevant to drug policy and health (including harm relevant to drug policy and health (including harm reduction, drug treatment and prevention) were reduction, drug treatment and prevention) were collected. collected.

Three focus groups were conducted, and the team Three focus groups were conducted, and the team interviewed 24 people in law enforcement, health interviewed 24 people in law enforcement, health care and social services, as well as 14 IDUs. care and social services, as well as 14 IDUs.

SzczecinSzczecin Port on Baltic Sea at the Port on Baltic Sea at the

German border German border Region: 1.1-1.5 million; Region: 1.1-1.5 million;

City: 420,000City: 420,000 Substantial industrial Substantial industrial

base and shippingbase and shipping Active harm reduction Active harm reduction

and methadone programsand methadone programs Regional HIV prevalence Regional HIV prevalence

= = 0,4/100 000 , primarily 0,4/100 000 , primarily among IDUsamong IDUs

Drug Treatment: 2 Drug Treatment: 2 Routes in the Criminal Routes in the Criminal Justice SystemJustice System

DrugArrest

Def. enters

Rx

Pros. puts case on

hold up to 5 years

Trial Conviction

Sentence suspended pending

Rx

Art. 57

Art. 56)

Practice: Drug Treatment Practice: Drug Treatment and Imprisonment of and Imprisonment of UsersUsers Defendants and their lawyers Defendants and their lawyers

(when defendants have them) (when defendants have them) don’t ask for treatment don’t ask for treatment

Prosecutors don’t suspend Prosecutors don’t suspend casescases

Judges don’t put users in jail, Judges don’t put users in jail, but also don’t require but also don’t require treatmenttreatment

Disposition of AoCDA Disposition of AoCDA CasesCases

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

1999 2000 2001

Prison sentencesSuspendedSus'd w/ Rx

Drug TreatmentDrug Treatment Qualitative interviews with legal professionals confirm the Qualitative interviews with legal professionals confirm the

rarity of treatment. rarity of treatment. – JJudges and prosecutorsudges and prosecutors in two focus groups said in two focus groups said they they had had

nneverever used the treatment provisions and did not know used the treatment provisions and did not know anyone who hadanyone who had. . Some believed that neither article had Some believed that neither article had ever been invoked in ever been invoked in SzczecinSzczecin. .

– ““IIt is not t is not the the court’s duty to cure/treat the drug user. It’s court’s duty to cure/treat the drug user. It’s his his duty is to adjudduty is to adjudicateicate”” – Judge, Focus Group – Judge, Focus Group

– In a key informant interview, a prosecutor ascribed the In a key informant interview, a prosecutor ascribed the problem to performance measures: for prosecutors, a case problem to performance measures: for prosecutors, a case is “closed” for statistical purposes when it is resolved by a is “closed” for statistical purposes when it is resolved by a judge; judge; “If we apply for treatment [under Article 57 ], the “If we apply for treatment [under Article 57 ], the case is not closed.”case is not closed.”

Police Tactical Use of Police Tactical Use of Article 62Article 62 Police we interviewed said they used the Police we interviewed said they used the

threat of arrest to get users to identify threat of arrest to get users to identify dealers.dealers.

IDU interviews corroborated this. They IDU interviews corroborated this. They quoted police:quoted police:– ““TTell us who sold you the drug. Then we will let you goell us who sold you the drug. Then we will let you go.”.”

The police are interested in dealers, but The police are interested in dealers, but buyers.buyers.– Small-time dealer-users are treated as Small-time dealer-users are treated as

dealers.dealers.

Drug TreatmentDrug Treatment Defendants don’t know about the law.Defendants don’t know about the law. Defense lawyers are not much helpDefense lawyers are not much help

– Although free legal aid is mandated by law, Although free legal aid is mandated by law, defendants can rarely obtain it. defendants can rarely obtain it.

– Defense lawyers are not interested in drug casesDefense lawyers are not interested in drug cases– ““TThe defence lawyer paid by the state did nothing to he defence lawyer paid by the state did nothing to

help mehelp me..””– ““ It was better when I defended myself. In previous case It was better when I defended myself. In previous case

I had a laweyr and I was sentenced to prison. When I had a laweyr and I was sentenced to prison. When some time later I defended myself, I managed o make some time later I defended myself, I managed o make the court feel sorry for me and i was sentenced to fine the court feel sorry for me and i was sentenced to fine for the same crimefor the same crime.”.”

– ““My lawyer read files during the trial for the first time, My lawyer read files during the trial for the first time, He has never met me before, he didn’t talk to me”He has never met me before, he didn’t talk to me”

DeterrenceDeterrence

Both rural and urban drug users Both rural and urban drug users we interviewed reported that we interviewed reported that drugs were easy to get and drugs were easy to get and widely consumed.widely consumed.

Amphetamine and club drugs are Amphetamine and club drugs are currently the drugs of choice.currently the drugs of choice.

ConclusionsConclusions

In the Szczecin area at least, Poland’s In the Szczecin area at least, Poland’s “get tough” drug policy as “get tough” drug policy as implemented has not served the implemented has not served the purposes that justified it in debate:purposes that justified it in debate:– Arrest has not been a route to treatmentArrest has not been a route to treatment– Small-time user-dealers and some users Small-time user-dealers and some users

are being arrested, but very few go to jailare being arrested, but very few go to jail– Szczecin appears to have a serious new Szczecin appears to have a serious new

amphetamine problemamphetamine problem

ConclusionsConclusions

Because drug laws are used Because drug laws are used primarily as leverage for primarily as leverage for information, drug users remain a information, drug users remain a hidden population with little access hidden population with little access to drug treatment. The intent of the to drug treatment. The intent of the law was to promote treatment for law was to promote treatment for convicted drug users, and these are convicted drug users, and these are not in place to prevent or minimize not in place to prevent or minimize drug-related harms. drug-related harms.

ConclusionsConclusions

RPAR findings support return to legal RPAR findings support return to legal status before 2000, when possession status before 2000, when possession of small amounts was exempt from of small amounts was exempt from criminal punishment.criminal punishment.

Final action planning in the RPAR Final action planning in the RPAR project included preparation of project included preparation of seminars for prosecutors and judges seminars for prosecutors and judges to enhance applicability of the to enhance applicability of the treatment alternatives. treatment alternatives.