Cannabis Policy Reform in Europe Bottom up Rather Than Top Down
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
transnational institute Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies No. 28 December 2014 Cannabis policy reform in Europe Bottom up rather than top down Tom Blickman1 With the regulation of recreational cannabis Keypoints markets in Uruguay and the US states of • While in the Americas cannabis policy Colorado and Wash ington in 2013, and – in reform is taking off, national governments November 2014 – the approval of cannabis in Europe are in a state of denial about the regulation bal lots in the states of Oregon changing policy landscape and suffer from and Alaska, a breakthrough in conventional inertia in acting upon calls for change from cannabis policy is emerging. The current local authorities. policy trend towards legal regulation of the cannabis market is increasingly seen as a • Local authorities are con fronted with a more prom ising model for protecting people’s range of problems that, in the end, cannot health and safety and has changed the drug be solved without some kind of a regu lated policy landscape and the terms of the debate. and trans parent supply chain of recreational The prohibitive model has failed to show any cannabis. sustained impact in reducing the market, • Increasingly, local and regional while imposing heavy burdens upon criminal authorities, and grassroots movements – justice systems; producing profoundly centred around the Can na bis Social Club negative social and public health impacts; movement in Europe – are advocating and creating criminal markets supporting change, and various initiatives are under way. organised crime, violence and corruption. • European cities and regions that want While in the Americas cannabis policy reform should follow the example set by their reform is taking off, Europe seems to be predecessors when they con stituted Euro pean lagging behind. That is to say, in European Cities on Drug Policy (ECDP), advocating nations at the level of national governments a more pragmatic, less prohibitionist drug – where denial of the changing policy policy and initiating a set of innovative harm landscape and inertia to act upon calls for reduction measures change reigns. At the local level, however, • Such a network provides opportunities disenchantment with the current cannabis to ex change experiences and best practices as regime gives rise to new ideas. In several well as fund raising and sharing human and countries in Eu rope, local and regional financial resources needed for policy change. authorities are looking at regulation, either • While the ECDP is now defunct after pressured by grassroots movements – in achieving its goals, it is time for an ECDP particular the Cannabis Social Clubs (CSCs) – 2.0 to do the same for the regula tion of the or due to the involve ment of criminal groups recreational cannabis market in Europe. and public disorder. This briefing will give an overview of recent developments in Europe. • As happened with harm-reduction, In the Nether lands, municipalities want to sooner or later the cannabis reform pressure regulate the supply of coffeeshops currently building up from local levels will have not allowed. In Copenhagen (Denmark), to lead to legislative reforms at national and Berlin, Frankfurt-am-Main, Hamburg levels, and the EU policy framework –and and Cologne (Ger many), local au thorities ultimately also the UN conventions – have to pro mote coffeeshop-like dispen saries with a accommodate the policy trend towards legal regu lated supply. In Spain and Swit zer land regulation. Transnational Institute 1 re gional and local authorities want to allow related EU Action Plan Con cerning Drugs Cannabis Social Clubs, while in Belgium, 2013-2016, which do not foresee any kind Por tugal, France and the UK campaigns for of change regarding canna bis.4 How ever, the CSCs are gaining momentum. door to reform is not completely closed, since there is some room for manoeuvre for “en- The European Union (EU) lacks competence couraging an active political dis course and to embark upon can na bis pol icy reform, analysis of develop ments and challenges of which falls under the remit of member drugs at EU and inter national levels.”5 One states.2 Neverthe less, European law builds on of the initiatives in the previous EU Drugs the three UN drug control conven tions that Strategy (2005-2012) was the commission restricts cannabis exclusively to medical and of a report to look at the drug market “as if scientific purposes and obliges member states it were a licit market”, which resulted in A to adopt measures to establish recreational report on global illicit drugs market, published cannabis as punishable offences – either in 2009 as a contribution to the 10-year penal or administrative. Although outright UNGASS review at the Commission on criminalization of the recreational use is Narcotic Drugs.6 exempted and the obligations are sub ject to constitu tional limitations of a country, The report noted that “[e]nforce ment of when it comes to cultivation, pro duction, drug prohibi tions has caused substantial distribution, im port and export, possession unintended harms; many were pre dictable”, or any other action for recreational purposes, concluding that “[t]he challenge for the next options – other than non-enforcement of in- ten years will be to find a constructive way of fractions – are very limited. Moreover, EU building on these lessons so that the positive mem ber states have agreed to cooperate and bene fits of policy interventions are increased to take the most ap pro priate measures against and the negatives ones averted.” That could cannabis culti vation for recrea tional use – include look ing at regulation of cannabis including obligations to prohibit such acts.3 markets as local administrations and well- organized grassroots move ments have put The current legal and political straitjacket forward various regulation proposals, as well in Europe is extremely difficult to reconcile as guide lines for good practices for collec tive with the request of local authorities to can nabis growing. effectively regulate the supply of can na- bis for recreational use as an alternative to Whereas cannabis policies are considered to the negative consequences of the current be relatively liberal in Europe in comparison restrictive arrangements. It would mean that to other parts of the world, cannabis-related European states would have to violate the offences are increasing. According to the 2014 UN conventions, just as Uruguay and the European Drug Report: federal US govern ment have done. This is not impossible, but would require political Since about 2000, many countries have will to do so. As in the US, different policies reduced the severity of penalties applied regarding personal use and pos session for for simple use or pos ses sion offences. per sonal use al ready exist in Europe, from More generally, European discussions on de jure decriminalisation in Portugal and cannabis control have tended to focus on the Czech Republic to full prohibition in target ing drug supply and trafficking rather Sweden, as well as intermediate de facto than use. In contradiction to this, however, decrimi nalisation in countries such as the overall num ber of possession and the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, use offences related to cannabis has been Switzerland, Ger many and Spain. The ques- steadily increasing for nearly a decade.7 tion is why this could not be extended to regulating cul tivation practices. If this is According to the report, more than one possible in a federal state like the US, why million drug use or possession offences should that not be possible in the European were reported in Europe in 2012, a 17 per Union? cent increase compared to 2006. More than three-quarters of the reported drug offences EU member states are also committed to in volve cannabis. Even in the Netherlands, the EU Drugs Strategy 2013-2020 and the often seen as the most liberal country when 2 Cannabis policy reform in Europe canna bis is con cerned, the amount of offences bring us into conflict with our treaty related to cannabis possession is significant. obligations. The Gov ern ment shall explore In 2012, there were 4,594 recorded offences; in in ternational consultations whether it 71 per cent of which concerned pos session is feasible that agree ments as the Single of five grams cannabis or less – the threshold Convention be amended in a way that quantity for can nabis to be purchased in nations will be free to insti tute, at their coffee shops.8 That amounts to nine offences discretion, a separate regime for cannabis per day. Never the less, the risk of being products.9 caught in the Netherlands is relatively low, since detection of possession is generally the Both the Minister of Justice, Dries van Agt, result of non-targeted detection rather than and the Health Minister, Irene Vorrink, targeted control. wanted to go beyond decriminalising cannabis: “We wanted to fully legalize cannabis and regulate all other drugs,” Van Going backwards … to go forward? Agt said years later. International pressure made the government decide differ ently.10 The leniency towards cannabis in traditionally tolerant European countries Around 1995 a new Dutch government again such as the Nether lands and Denmark has considered regulating the back-door supply been declining in the past decade with the of cannabis.11 The stated policy would have rise of liberal-conservative govern ments. allowed municipalities to experiment with The original public health focus of those the supply of locally