DECRIMINALIZATION, OR NOT?	"SUNDAY PRESS"
by Vassiliki Nikoloulia	26. 01. 2003

 

 

Two very different views on the controversial issue of the decriminalization of narcotics are expressed by Mrs. Marietta Yiannakou, New Democracy MP in Athens (Region B), and Mrs. Anna Karamanou, PASOK Euro-MP. Both, however, describe users as "patients" and stress the importance of citizen education on an ongoing rather than occasional basis, and of teenager education through specific school programmes.

 

Furthermore, they both ask of the state and particularly of the judicial system, to be ruthless in their stance against drug dealers. Mrs. Yiannakou also highlights not only the innate contradiction but the confusion caused in public opinion when the state appears to have two different, "valid" views on the question of decriminalization, or by the random division of narcotics in "heavy" and "soft".

 

Mrs. Karamanou puts forward the example of Holland, where the establishment of special shops for the sale of narcotics has enabled the state to control the amount and quality of drugs, while the number of drug-related deaths has dropped to almost nil.

 

In any case, however, the existing situation in our country is far from satisfactory considering the number of drug-related deaths, and the additional prevention and containment measures that need to be taken by the state on all levels. These measures, according to Mrs. Karamanou, must also include the necessary infrastructure for the social rehabilitation and de-demonization of addicts following their treatment.

 

Finally, it is worth noting that today the situation is more hopeful on a European level thanks to the binding "collaboration condition" for the fight against drug trafficking, which is included in international treaties between the EU and third nations following the proposal of Mrs. Yiannakou in her capacity as senior representative during her term in the European Parliament. Even so, it appears that there is great room for improvement with regard to existing prevention and containment measures on a European level as well.

 

 

 

 

Mrs. Marietta Yiannakou:

 

1. In your opinion, should the use of narcotics by addicts be decriminalized?

 

The matter is extremely complex. To begin with, addicts are considered patients and as such must be the responsibility of all competent entities, i.e. the health-care, police and judicial authorities. From there on, the point which must be examined is whether the patient, as an addict, is simultaneously involved in the trafficking procedure, or if in order to obtain narcotics for personal use, he/she is involved in some other illegal activity, such as theft. In such cases it is clear that the state cannot ignore the illegal activity, especially when it causes harm or damage to the social environment, and it cannot ignore the fact that the person, despite being an addict, is personally aiding the illegal trafficking of narcotics. This leads us back to the conclusion that practically speaking, the general decriminalization of drugs simply provides the patient-user with an alibi for failing to seek treatment, while creating "areas" and conditions of tolerance with regard to the activity of drug trafficking networks.      

       2. Do you think that the prevention and containment measures applied in our country are sufficient? What further measures could perhaps be taken?               

Unfortunately, given the extent of the problem on the international level, I would say that no matter what measures are taken, at least in the short-term, they could not be considered sufficient for a comprehensive resolution of the problem. With regard to containment measures, I believe that a stance of zero tolerance towards trafficking and dealing is extremely important. On this issue there cannot be any compromise, and it is a matter which primarily concerns the judicial system. With regard to prevention, there is considerable scope for reinforcing the infrastructure and measures applied today. The relevant actions must cover all aspects of the problem. For example, it is important to focus on public education on a continuous rather than an occasional basis – i.e. whenever a distressing report is made public. On the other hand, the development of citizens' consciousness of this issue requires a consistent and steady policy on the part of the state; otherwise there arise confusion and doubts as to the desired aim. If, let us say, the responsible state appears to hold two different "valid" views on the question of decriminalization, or supports a randomly expressed division of narcotics into "heavy" and "soft", what can one expect of the public? Generally, I would like to see greater involvement on the part of local authorities, especially in education, but also in social care, with emphasis on providing psychological support to patient-addicts. The deployment of "street units", i.e. local prevention units comprised of social workers and other specialized staff, can be extremely beneficial and effective. Finally, as regards the structural framework required, the infrastructure supporting alternative activities, such as the methadone programme, must be expanded so as to meet requirements not only in the large urban centers, but throughout the country. 

       3. What measures have been advanced on the European level towards eradicating international drug-trafficking networks?

 There is a system of co-ordination and collaboration on the European level that is functioning satisfactorily. The flow of information with regard to the activities of organized trafficking networks is sufficient, and also facilitates the authorities in countering such activity on the national level. I will remind you however, that as official mover of proposals at the European Parliament for the Action Plan 2000-2004 for the fight against drugs in the European Union, I had proposed that a binding "collaboration condition" be included in treaties between the Union and third countries. In any case, there is an objective difficulty when dealing with this scourge, mainly because drug dealing is now entangled with international terrorism and organized crime in general.

 

Ms Marietta Yiannakou is MP for Athens (Region A), former Minister of Health, Welfare and Social Insurance, and former chairwoman of New Democracy MPs in the European Parliament. www.marietta.gr

 

 

Mrs. Anna Karamanou: 

       1. In your opinion, should the use of narcotics by addicts be decriminalized? 

Experience has shown that the penalties provided by criminal law for users do not yield results. This happens because addiction to narcotic substances is a malady, not a criminal offence. Individuals addicted to narcotic substances need treatment, not punishment. The self-destructive behaviour expressed through the use of drugs cannot constitute a criminal offence. I do believe, therefore, that the use of drugs should be de-criminalized. We cannot afford to ignore the international experience of countries where the decriminalization of drug use has brought very positive results. Finally, we must not forget that the safeguarding of human dignity, whether in life or death, must be treated with parity and equality before the law.

 

2. Do you think that the prevention and containment measures applied in our country are sufficient? What further measures could perhaps be taken?

  

The recent report of the "Eurobarometer" with regard to the use of narcotics in the EU's member-states is rather disappointing for Greece. The report reveals that our country pays the heavy toll of 300 drug-related deaths annually. These results remind us yet again of our responsibility, remind us that initiatives must be taken if this scourge is to be confronted effectively. The prevention and containment measures applied in our country have not yielded results, and this is why we need new approaches, new ideas:

1. Emphasis must be laid on prevention, not containment. Educational campaigns about the consequences of drug use must be promoted, and teenagers especially must be educated through school programmes, so that there is decrease in demand.

2. An extensive public dialogue must be promoted concerning how to best deal with the problem. It should include all competent authorities and politicians. It is only through dialogue and co-ordination of actions that solutions can be reached, solutions that can deal with the complex problem of narcotics in an all-encompassing way. In any case, however, international experience must be taken into account.

3. More rehabilitation and treatment centers must be established.

4. Greater care and further measures need to be taken in attaining the social re-integration and de-demonization of drug-addicts following their successful treatment.

5. Judicial enforcement must be aimed mainly at the producers and dealers of narcotics, so that supply decreases.

 

We must take international experience into account. Holland's example is important, because with the establishment of special shops for the distribution of narcotic substances, Holland has succeeded in controlling the quantity and quality of drugs in circulation, while it has brought the number of drug-related deaths down to almost nil. 

       3. What measures have been taken on a European level for the eradication of international drug-trafficking networks?  

I consider it a very important step that within the framework of the European Council at Tampere, the EU's strategy against drugs was approved in its entirety. This strategy constitutes a very good framework for dealing with the problem, as it lays the foundation for judicial and police collaboration between member-states. Furthermore, and this is very important, it has imposed anti-drug action as an obligatory clause in international treaties between the EU and third countries. Afghanistan however, despite being generously funded by the European Union, was responsible for 70% of the world's opium production in 2002. Furthermore, every member-state has its own approach on the issue of narcotics, as reflected in its legislation. Thus, considerable obstacles arise in the attempt to harmonize national legislations, obstacles which render the formulation of a common European policy against drugs more remote.