Levels of Prohibition

A TOKER'S GUIDE

Some Countries Are Pushing the Boundaries of Liberalisation

UNDER a trio of conventions passed by the United Nations in 1961,
1971 and 1988, most countries have little discretion over how they
manage drug-taking. Other than for medical or scientific purposes,
those that have signed up to the conventions--more than 140 countries
to date, including nearly all of the rich world--must maintain the
prohibition on the selling and possession of narcotics.

Some are enthusiastic in their upholding of the treaties.

But others have grown frustrated, and are finding ways of bending the rules.

For the past century the standard-bearer of the prohibition movement
has been America, which imprisons more people for drug offences than
any other country.

But in 13 states the police are instructed not to arrest people for
cannabis possession. In Europe, the coffee shops of Amsterdam
famously sell cannabis alongside croissants. And other European
countries are lenient about stronger drugs.

Personal possession of any drug is not a criminal offence in Spain,
Portugal, Italy, the Czech Republic or the Baltic states.

Some German states and Swiss cantons are similarly relaxed, as are a
few Australian states.

Decriminalisation means that possessors may be stopped by the police
but do not earn a criminal conviction, and that punishments are
light: a fine in Spain, for instance, or suspension of one's driving
licence in Italy. Drug-takers can escape even this unless aggravating
circumstances apply, such as taking the drug in public or after
repeated warnings.

The legal gymnastics that allow countries to soften their line in
spite of the UN conventions are extraordinary. A country must ensure
that drug possession is a criminal, not civil, offence--but only
"subject to its constitutional principles and the basic concepts of
its legal system". This caveat has allowed countries to treat drug
possession as a civil matter.

Further wriggle-room is given in the UN's official commentary on the
convention, which states that the spirit of the rule is the
"improvement of the efficacy of national criminal justice systems in
the field of drug-trafficking". On this basis, countries may tell
their police to turn a blind eye in the name of policing efficacy.

It is an embarrassing mess for the UN's Office on Drugs and Crime
(UNODC), which prefers to highlight Sweden, a country that has
implemented strict drug laws and can claim some success in its quest
for a "drug-free society". In Sweden possession of any banned drug,
including cannabis, earns a criminal record and sometimes a jail
sentence (albeit one with an emphasis on treatment). Many countries
have such laws in theory, but Sweden carries them out: most of its
prosecutions for drug offences are for mere possession, rather than
dealing. A report from the UNODC in 2007 highlighted the country's
lowish levels of drug use compared with elsewhere in Europe, and
praised recent falls in consumption. Sweden has a below-average
number of "problem" drug users too, though there is less in it,
suggesting that the main effect of harsh laws may be to deter casual
pot-smokers rather than to prevent serious addiction.

Should other countries follow Sweden's example?

A different UN agency suggests not. A survey last year by the World
Health Organisation examined drug-taking in 17 countries and found no
link between the strictness of prohibition and the amount of drug
consumption. (The lenient Netherlands, interestingly, has one of the
lowest rates of "problem" drug use in Europe.) "Countries with more
stringent policies did not have lower levels of such drug use than
countries with more liberal policies," the researchers concluded.

For every strict regime like Sweden, there is another such as Britain
or America where a tough approach co-exists with widespread drug use.
Drug-taking was more closely linked to being wealthy, single and male
than anything else, the researchers found.

Changing drug policy over time also seems to have little impact.

In Britain, drugs are classified A, B or C to indicate how harmful
they are and to determine how severely offenders should be punished.

But after cannabis was downgraded from class B to C in 2004, usage
actually fell. All the same, the Home Office last year decided to
bump it back to B again, and last month announced that it would
ignore expert advice to downgrade ecstasy from A to B, fearing that
to do so would "send a message" that the drug was now safe. Is anyone
listening?