Subject: POLITICAL INITIATIVES OF THE TRANSNATION RADICAL PARTY
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: The Transnational Radical Party List
(10) POLITICAL INITIATIVES OF THE TRANSNATION RADICAL PARTY
by Emma Bonino, Secretary of the Radical Party
Sofia, 15-18 July 1993, Radical Party General Council
(10) DRUGS
SUMMARY: Of all the Radical Party's political campaigns on the great
choices of our societies, for the affirmation of the rights of citizens and
against the idea of an "ethical State" which appoints itself as the
defender and protector of a presumed "morality" and a presumed "common
good", the campaign against the current prohibitionist drug policies is
perhaps the most representative.
Our analysis is clear: "prohibited" drugs are in fact on free sale in our
societies; the "war on drugs", the prohibitionist policy has failed to
achieve its objectives, just as the prohibition of alcohol in America in
the 1920s and the prohibition of gin in England in the first half of the
19th century also failed. This policy has brought and continues to bring
enormous profits to criminal cartels and Mafia organizations which exploit
what is currently the most profitable business in the world.
In the face of this situation, the transnational Radical Party can and must
make the battle for a revision of current drug policies one of its
immediate priorities. To do this, we must attack the juridical and
institutional instruments which determine the choice of prohibitionist
policies: the Vienna Convention on Drugs of 1961 (modified in 1972), the
1971 Convention on psychotropic drugs, and the 1988 Convention on the
Commerce of Drugs. We must promote a large-scale UN Conference to examine
possible new policies. Two parallel plans of action are possible. The first
is a campaign to "denounce", in accordance with article 46 and article 30
respectively, the current Conventions. The second is a proposal for
emendments to the Conventions which governments could put forward in order
to begin a process of revision leading to UN negotiations on the issue. The
two strategies are not alternatives; they are complementary.
In the meantime, we must pay great attention to the "harm reduction"
strategies which are gaining ground (see the political Declaration of the
Extraordinary Conference of Ministers of the Pompidou Group in the Council
of Europe, the final Declaration of the pan-European Ministerial Conference
on Drugs held in Oslo, etc.) and which must be encouraged, also bearing in
mind the implications regarding the battle against Aids: the legalization
of the use, or the sale of cannabis and its derivates, the controlled
distribution of substitute drugs (but also of drugs, according to projects
already in progress), the distribution of syringes, etc...
The possibility and the need to modify the conventions mentioned above are
also highlighted by the result of the referendum held recently in Italy: by
abrogating the penalties relating to the use of drugs, and also by
eliminating the term "illegal" attributed to the personal use of drugs, the
referendum result has led the Italian law to be in conflict with the
provisions of the Vienna Convention.
In order to bring about a modification of the 1988 Convention, we can
follow both the strategy of emendment and the strategy of denouncement. As
for the other two conventions, they could by overturned by a denouncement
from a number of States, following concerted action on the part of various
States, beginning with a forceful request for emendments in an
anti-prohibitionist direction.
--------------------
The anti-prohibitionist policy
Of all the Radical Party's political campaigns on the great choices of our
societies, for the affirmation of the rights of civilians and against the
idea of an "ethical" State which appoints itself as the defender and the
protector of a presumed general "morality", the campaign against the
current prohibitionist drug policies is perhaps the most representative.
Our analysis, outlined for the first time in a Congress motion as long ago
as 1972, is simple: "prohibited" drugs are in fact on free sale in our
countries and in our societies; the "war on drugs", the policy of
prohibition which has been imposed at international level for just over
thirty years, has completely failed to achieved its aim, just as the
prohibition of alcohol in America in the 1920s and the prohibition of gin
in England in the first half of the 19th century also failed; the enormous
profits guaranteed to the great criminal cartels which have a monopoly on
the traffic of drugs have allowed the Mafia organizations around the world
to prosper by exploiting what is currently the most profitable business in
the world. In the face of this situation, the social and economic costs of
the policy of prohibition are devastating: prisons all over the world are
full of people sentenced for the use or sale of drugs or for crimes
committed in order to procure drugs, and but this has not been matched by
any decrease in the phenomenon. At the same time, it is clear that, in the
face of this extraordinary, pointless arsenal of repressive measures, far
fewer people die as a result of drugs than as a result of tobacco or
alcohol (in the United States alone, for example, every year there are
4,500 drugs-related deaths compared to 80,000 alcohol-related deaths and as
many as 390,000 tobacco-related deaths, whilst government sources do not
attribute a single death to the use of cannabis or its derivates!).
The failure of repressive policies is equalled by the failure of policies
of dissuasion, which aim to reduce the production and the illegal
international traffic of drugs. Again according to US government sources,
only 1% of the entire world production of drugs is seized, whilst
production increases every year instead of falling.
The criminal organizations which prosper as a result of the prohibitionist
policies currently in force do not only draw enormous profits from their
business - they also obtain increasing power: the power to corrupt those
involved in public life, the power to infiltrate, and finally the indirect
power to limit the freedom of the people.
In reality, the result of the "war on drugs" is an increasing lack of
safety in our cities, an exponential increase in the prison population, and
an increase in the risk of Aids and other diseases contacted by exchanging
syringes.
In the face of this situation, the Radical Party can and must make the
battle for the total revision of the current prohibitionist drugs regime
one of its immediate priorites: we must immediately bring about widespread
political debate on an issue that has, with significant exceptions, been
confined to discussions among experts, and then only to discussions of
specific problems which do not address the entire drugs issue.
To do this, we must keep in mind our fundamental aims: the legalization of
all psycho-active drugs, with the consequent drastic reduction in their
cost, and controlled production and sale of such drugs - in short, the
elimination of all economic motives for illegal drug-trafficking.
In order to achieve our aims, we must first of all attack the international
juridical instruments which determine the choice of prohibitionist
policies: the Vienna Convention on Drugs of 1961, modified in 1972, as well
as the 1988 Convention on the Commerce of Drugs. We must demand the
immediate international revision of these two documents, promoting a
campaign for a large-scale UN Conference on the issue of drugs with the
task of evaluating the results obtained so far and of examining alternative
policies for the future. In this respect we have two parallel plans of
action. The first is simply a plan to "denounce", in accordance with
article 46 and article 30 respectively, the current Conventions. If the
governments of our countries were to denounce the Conventions, new
international negotiations would necessarily have to be opened. It is worth
remembering, in fact, that the 1961 Convention constitutes the watershed
between the non-repressive policy pursued up to that time by the
international community and simply regulated by a series of treaties, all
abrogated by the 1961 Convention, and the current prohibitionist line
corroborated by the 1988 Convention. In reality, a denouncement of the
Conventions is a denouncement of the failure of the current policy.
The second is a proposal for emendments to the Conventions, which our
governments could present, in accordance with the Conventions themselves,
in order to open a procedure of revision that could lead, in this case too,
to new negotiations within the UN. The two strategies are complementary,
all the more so in that any emendment of the Conventions would overturn
their philosophy and would consequently become the starting point for a new
international treaty on drugs.
Having indicated our fundamental line, I believe we should also pay
considerable attention to the various "harm reduction" options which are
slowly gaining ground and which must be supported and encouraged. I am
thinking of the legalization of the use, or also of the sale of cannabis
derivates, the controlled distribution of drugs and substitute drugs as
already carried out in a number of important European cities, the
distribution of syringes, etc.
Concerted action for the modification of the current system of obligations
(laid down by the international conventions) on the subject of drugs.
1. The system of international agreements
Within the framework of the United Nations, an international system of
treaties has been adopted for the regulation of the production and the
commerce of drugs.
The Single Convention on Drugs of 1961 consolidated previous agreements on
drugs and simplified the international control mechanisms. It lists the
substances which must be subject to control and requires member states to
consider as criminal offences the violations laid down by the provisions of
the Convention concerning the cultivation, production, fabrication, sale
and distribution of drugs (article 3). The 1972 Protocol to the Single
Convention updated its provisions and insisted on the need for the
treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts. The 1971 Convention on
Psychotropic Drugs concerns the problem of the abuse of substances not
included in the 1961 Convention. In the case of hallucinogens such as LSD,
the 1971 Convention establishes a stricter system of control than that
applied to narcotics. The 1988 Convention against the illegal traffic of
narcotics and psychotropic substances, adopted during the Conference
organized by the United Nations at the end of 1988, came into force in
November 1990. Whilst the previous international treaties were based on the
control of particular substances, the 1988 Convention primarily concerns
the profits and the techniques of drug-trafficking.
2. Penalties relating to the possession and personal use of drugs.
The Vienna Convention of 1961 allows states to depenalize sanctions and
replace them with measures for the re-education and treatment of less
serious cases regarding the possession and use of drugs (article 3, section
3; and article 36).
The Vienna Convention of 1988 leaves to the discretional choice of the
contracting parties the possibility of dealing with cases of unauthorized
possession of narcotics by means of measures other than penal sanctions and
of subjecting people to treatment, education, care, readaptation and social
rehabilitation measures (article 3, section 4, letter c).
However, article 3, no. 2 of the Convention of Vienna of 1988 (rendered
executive by law no. 158 of 5.11.1990) states that "in conformity with the
principles of their constitutions and the fundamental concepts of their
legislations, each party shall adopt the measures necessary to classify as
a criminal offence ("infraction pe'nale" in the original text), in
conformity with their own laws, if the act has been committed
intentionally, the detention and purchase of narcotics and psychotropic
substances and the cultivation of drugs for personal use."
3. Alternatives to imprisonment for drug addicts.
Having imposed a penal sanction on those found to be guilty of the
possession and use of narcotic substances, the above-mentioned
international Conventions allow the possibility of alternative measures.
The 1961 Single Convention on Drugs already stated that the parties (the
States that signed the Convention) should take into particular
consideration the measures to be adopted for the treatment and
rehabilitation of drug addicts.
In 1988, with the Convention against the illegal traffic of narcotics and
psychotropic substances, it is stated that the parties should adopt
appropriate measures to reduce the illegal demand for drugs with the aim of
alleviating human suffering.
In 1990, the United Nations adopted the Programme of Global Action adopted
by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 23 February 1990, in the
course of the 17th special Session devoted to the problem of international
co-operation against the production, the supply and demand, the traffic and
the illegal distribution of narcotic and psychotropic substances.
This Programme encourages the WHO. to work with governments in order to
facilitate access to programmes for the treatment of drug addiction (point
34), to develop "policies for the reduction of the risk and the harm caused
by the abuse of drugs, with means of prevention of the transmission of HIV"
(section 45).
The Political Declaration of the World Summit on the Reduction of the
Demand for Drugs, held in London in April 1990, contains several points
which indicate the evolution at international level of strategies regarding
the treatment of drug users. The first of these points regards the "need to
develop global options (... omissis) which should include programmes for
establishing contact with groups of addicts" (section 14).
This new approach is completed in section 15 of the Political Declaration
with the statement that since it is not always possible to achieve
detachment from drugs in a short space of time, "we must also accept
partial objectives in order to avoid further harming the health of drug
addicts".
4. The policy of "harm reduction"
Agreements at European level also underline the need to set up harm
reduction programmes aimed at drug addicts.
The political Declaration of the Extraordinary Conference of the Pompidou
Group in the Council of Europe (London, 18-19 May 1989) recognizes:
a) the maximum priority of measures aimed to attract an increasing number
of drug addicts to health and social services;
b) the need to introduce "measures aimed at helping high-risk drug addicts
who are not immediately willing (or are unable) to abstain from the use of
intravenous drugs in order to reduce the risk of contacting HIV." The
Ministers believe that such measures, if correctly applied, are not in
conflict with the aim of total emancipation from addiction.
The Final Declaration of the Pan-European Ministerial Conference on Drugs,
held in Oslo, also underlines that the programmes offered by Drug Addiction
Services can include an approach aimed at "limiting the harmful effects of
the abuse of drugs" (point XIX).
In the ambit of the European Community, the Resolutions of the Council and
of the Ministers of Health of 16 May 1989 on the prevention of Aids among
drug addicts recognize the need, in the formulation of strategies, to
consider "not only the final objective of abandonment of the use of drugs,
but also intermediate objectives such as the reduction of mortality and of
the risk of contacting HIV or other viruses, the reduction of
marginalization, etc., the achievement of which should be considered to be
of fundamental importance." To that end, the section on "programmes for the
treatment of addiction" underlines the need to re-evaluate the various
therapeutic options available in view of the appearance and the spread of
HIV."
In this respect, the document underlines "the need to consider the launch
or the extension of programmes such as personalized treatment with
substitute drugs which allow the adoption of forms of assumption that do
not involve the risk of infections."
A further section was devoted to the distribution of safe material for
injection (section C, point III, of the text agreed on by the
representatives of the EC Ministers of Health) and outlined a number of
options ranging from free sale to needle and syringe exchange programmes.
As for the Resolution on Aids of 3 December 1990, the member states are
invited "to promote, in services for drug addiction and in residential
communities, access to immediate intervention and, when necessary, to
treatment for HIV-positive addicts and for subjects with clinical symptoms
of HIV infections."
Still in the ambit of the European Community, it is worth remembering the
"European Plan of Action against Drugs" of the Anti-Drugs Committee; the
Council of Europe held in Rome on 13 and 14 December 1990 also underlined
the need, in the approach towards drug addicts, to establish intermediate
objectives in addition to the primary aim of the abandonment of drugs,
taking account in particular of the needs to reduce, through appropriate
forms of treatment, morbidity and mortality related to the parenteral use
of drugs.
5. Depenalization in Italy as a result of the referendum of 18 April 1993
The experience and the results of the Italian referendum on certain aspects
of the system of sanctions regarding the use of drugs are a recent victory
in the battle to modify the repressive system stemming from the 1988
Convention.
Following the recent referendum, which was promoted by the Radical Party,
the penal sanctions regarding the use of drugs have been abrogated. The use
of narcotic or psychotropic substances is only subject to administrative
sanctions in the case of refusal to follow, or interruption of, therapeutic
and rehabilitation programmes.
In evaluating the admissibility of the text of the referendum, the Italian
Constitutional Court did not identify any conflict with the New York
Convention of 1961 or the Vienna Convention of 1988.
The result of the Italian referendum, however, means that the use of drugs
is no longer classified as "illegal". It would seem, therefore, that the
new provision which implements the referendum results (DPR 5 June 1993,
no. 171, Official Gazzette no. 130 of 5 June 1993) creates a substantial
conflict between the provisions of the Vienna Convention and the situation
of the Italian legislation which, in conformity with the obligation pacta
sunt servanda, must "adhere" to the international commitment, otherwise the
international responsibility of the Italian State will be undermined.
Article 22 of the Vienna Convention of 1971 (rendered executive by law no.
385 of 25 June 1981) also appears to be in conflict with the result of the
referendum, which lays down that the personal use of drugs cannot be
considered a "punishable offence", least of all through "imprisonment or
other penalties involving loss of liberty".
6. The procedure for the denouncement or emendment of the international
agreements
It is therefore necessary to work for the modification of the
above-mentioned agreements according to the procedures laid down for the
purpose by each Convention.
The 1988 Convention allows the possibility both of emendment and
denouncement. In view of the length of the process for the emendation of
provisions, it could be possible to begin with a request for a denouncement
of the entire Convention (article 30), which would take effect one year
after the date on which it is received by the Secretary General.
As far as the other two Conventions are concerned, a considerable number of
denouncements would lead to the invalidation of the conventions in their
entirety and with respect to all the contracting parties (article 46 of the
1971 Convention). Therefore denouncement by a number of States could bring
down the present system of conventions following concerted action by a
number of States involving modification of the anti-drugs system in an
anti-prohibitionist direction. According to the procedures for emendment
laid down by the Conventions of 1961 and 1971, any party can propose an
emendment to the Convention. The Economic and Social Council of the United
Nations (ECOSOC) - which is the organ that manages the conventions - can
decide to convene a Revision Conferencene or ask in advance whether the
parties accept an emendment presented by a single State. If any State
rejects the emendment, the Council can decide to convene a Revision
Conference. If, on the other hand, no objections to the emendment are
forthcoming, then the emendment comes into force for all States eighteen
months after it has been circulated. This is evidently a hypothesis that
can only be applied to minor emendments.
The 1988 Convention reproduces the same emendment procedure, but makes the
original text "untouchable" in that any emendments will be included in an
ad hoc Protocol which will be binding only for those States that manifest
their explicit agreement on the matter.
As is clear, the procedure for emendation of the Conventions is subject to
the "filter" of a majority of the member States of the ECOSOC. Moreover, in
the case of the 1988 Convention, emendments can only be binding for all
member States if it is adopted by a Revision Conference.
The denouncement of the Conventions by a certain number of States may
therefore render the repressive system laid down in them more "vulnerable".
(more)
