Table Of ContentDrug Policy Harmonization and the European Union
Drug Policy Harmonization
and the European Union
Caroline Chatwin
UniversityofKent,UK
Palgrave
macmillan
©CarolineChatwin2011
Softcoverreprintofthehardcover1stedition2011978-0-230-27186-9
Allrightsreserved.Noreproduction,copyortransmissionofthis
publicationmaybemadewithoutwrittenpermission.
Noportionofthispublicationmaybereproduced,copiedortransmitted
savewithwrittenpermissionorinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthe
Copyright,DesignsandPatentsAct1988,orunderthetermsofanylicence
permittinglimitedcopyingissuedbytheCopyrightLicensingAgency,
SaffronHouse,6-10KirbyStreet,LondonEC1N8TS.
Anypersonwhodoesanyunauthorizedactinrelationtothispublication
maybeliabletocriminalprosecutionandcivilclaimsfordamages.
Theauthorhasassertedherrighttobeidentified
astheauthorofthisworkinaccordancewiththeCopyright,
DesignsandPatentsAct1988.
Firstpublished2011by
PALGRAVEMACMILLAN
PalgraveMacmillanintheUKisanimprintofMacmillanPublishersLimited,
registeredinEngland,companynumber785998,ofHoundmills,Basingstoke,
HampshireRG216XS.
PalgraveMacmillanintheUSisadivisionofStMartin’sPressLLC,
175FifthAvenue,NewYork,NY10010.
PalgraveMacmillanistheglobalacademicimprintoftheabovecompanies
andhascompaniesandrepresentativesthroughouttheworld.
Palgrave®andMacmillan®areregisteredtrademarksintheUnitedStates,
theUnitedKingdom,Europeandothercountries.
ISBN978-1-349-32281-7 ISBN978-0-230-30683-7(eBook)
DOI 10.1057/9780230306837
AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Chatwin,Caroline,1978–
DrugpolicyharmonizationandtheEuropeanUnion/CarolineChatwin.
p. cm.
Includesindex.
1. Drugabuse—Governmentpolicy—EuropeanUnionCountries—
Evaluation. 2. Drugcontrol—EuropeanUnionCountries—
Evaluation. I. Title.
HV5840.E8C432011
362.29(cid:2)1561094—dc22 2011004889
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11
Contents
ListofTables vi
Introduction vii
Part I Harmonization,DrugPolicyandthe
EuropeanUnion
1 PolicyMakingataEuropeanLevel 3
2 DrugPolicyintheEuropeanUnion 28
3 StatisticalInformationontheDrugProbleminthe
EuropeanUnion 47
Part II DrugPolicyinIndividualMemberStates
4 Sweden 89
5 TheNetherlands 105
6 Denmark 121
7 Portugal 130
Part III Multi-levelGovernanceandtheWay
ForwardforEuropeanDrugPolicy
8 Multi-levelGovernanceandtheWayForwardforEuropean
DrugPolicy 149
References 165
Index 178
v
List of Tables
3.1 Lifetimeprevalencealladults:lastsurveyavailablefor
eachmemberstate(from2000onwards) 50
3.2 Lifetimeprevalenceyoungadults:lastsurveyavailable
foreachmemberstate(2000onwards) 52
3.3 Last12monthsprevalencealladults:lastsurvey
availableforeachmemberstate(2000onwards) 54
3.4 Last12monthsprevalenceyoungeradults:lastsurvey
availableforeachmemberstate(2000onwards) 56
3.5 Estimatesofprevalenceofproblemdruguseatnational
level,summary2003–08,rateper1000,age15–64 60
3.6 PrevalenceofHIVinfectionamonginjectingdrugusers
intheEU,2008ormostrecentyearavailable 65
3.7 Summaryofcharacteristicsofthedeceasedin
drug-induceddeathsaccordingtonationaldefinitions 68
3.8 Druglawoffences1995–2008,part(i)numberofreports
ofoffences 71
3.9 Druglawoffences1995–2008,part(ii)methodological
notes 73
3.10 Quantities(kg)ofheroinseized,1995–2008 76
3.11 Quantities(kg)ofcocaineseized,1995–2008 78
3.12 Quantities(kg)ofamphetamineseized,1995–2008 80
vi
Introduction
Theissueofillicitdrugsis,undeniably,aninternationalone.Drugsthat
originate in one country will often be trafficked through other coun-
triesbeforebeingconsumedelsewhere.Norisitjustthesegeographical
facts that make drugs an international issue. Every country has people
withinitthatusedrugsaswellaspeoplethathavebecomeproblematic
intheiruse,makingtheissueinternationalinthesensethatitisuniver-
sal–onethatisexperiencedbyallsocietiesandonetowhichthosein
authoritymustseeksolutions.Thereissomesenseofthisinternational
facettotheissueofillicitdrugsinthatmanycountriesaresignatoriesto
international conventions committing them to a broadly similar style
of drug policy centred around the notion of prohibition. International
bodies,suchastheUnitedNations(UN)throughitsofficeondrugsand
crime, or the European Union (EU) through its monitoring centre for
drugs and drug addiction, also seek to take ownership of the problem
andtodevelopstrategiesthatwillbeemployedacrosstheglobe.
Largely,however,individualcountrieshavedevelopedtheirdrugpoli-
ciesinisolation,resultinginawidevarietyofpoliciesbeinginoperation
today.Thisindividualizationofnationaldrugpolicyhasmostobviously
occurredsincethewell-documentedexplosionofdruguseinthe1960s
whenthelinkbetweendrugsandpopularculturewasforged.Different
countries reacted in various ways to this initial rise in use and, since
then, have developed policy along, in some cases, radically different
lines. While all countries can agree that drug trafficking should be pri-
oritized and drug traffickers should be met with the full weight of the
law,itisintheirattitudestowardsdruguseanddrugusersthatmostof
thepolicydifferencesaretobeseen.Somegovernmentshaveconceptu-
alizeddrugusersaseitherdiseasedandinneedofhelporyoungandin
an experimental phase of their lives, and, as such, have afforded them
a certain degree of leniency and tried to protect them from unneces-
sarycontactwiththecriminaljusticesystem.Othershavepursueddrug
usersasaggressivelyasdrugdealersandtraffickersastheybelievethatif
drugsaretobeeradicatedfromsocietythendemandreductionmustbe
asmuchofapriorityassupplyreduction.
Since its inception, in 1951, the EU has grown in both the strength
and breadth of its power, until it has become, arguably, the most
vii
viii Introduction
powerfulsupranationalinstitutionintheworldtoday.Whileitsbegin-
nings were very much concerned with uniting the economies of the
powerhouses of Europe, it has become involved, although less success-
fully, with political and social policy. As time has passed, efforts to
harmonize and coordinate ever-increasing aspects of national policy
in these three areas have grown and European powers have expressed
the desire to draw “ever closer”. Drug policy, then, should have been
an early contender for the development of a harmonized European
agenda.Theinternationalnatureoftheproblem,aswellasitsuniversal-
ity,shouldhaveensureditssuitabilityforconcertedintegrativeefforts.
Yet it is an area that has remained remarkably resistant to attempts to
harmonize. Individual countries have remained wedded to their sep-
arate, and often idiosyncratic, national policies and, ultimately, the
decisionhasbeenmadetodeclaredrugpolicyanareainwhichnational
governmentsshouldretaincontrolofpolicymaking.
This book attempts to understand why this has been the case
and what the future possibilities are for harmonization in this area.
It explores the desirability for harmonized drug policy within the EU,
from the perspectives of both the institutions of the EU itself and the
headsoftheindividualmemberstates.Italsoconsiderstheviabilityofa
harmonizedEuropeandrugpolicyundertraditionaltop-downmethods
ofcontrolthroughtheformulationofpolicyatboththeEuropeanand
the national level. Finally, it attempts to apply the increasingly popu-
lartheoryofmulti-levelgovernancetotheissueofthecontrolofillicit
drugs and suggests that, if the aim of a harmonized policy in this area
isaseriousone,thenmulti-levelgovernancepresentstheonlyrealistic
wayforwardtoachievethisaim.
Aguidetothisbook
In order to systematically and comprehensively examine the possibili-
ties for harmonization of drug policy at the European level, this book
has been divided into three distinct parts. The first deals with harmo-
nization of policy, including drug policy, in the EU, the second with
historical case studies of the development of drug policy in individual
member states and the third with a summary of both the desirability
andtheviabilityofaharmonizedEuropeandrugpolicyandtheapplica-
tionoftheEuropeanintegrationtheorymulti-levelgovernancetopolicy
developmentinthisarea.
Chapter1outlineskeyconceptsandtheoriesrelevanttotheharmo-
nization debate in Europe and gives a historical presentation of the
Introduction ix
development of economic, political and social policy at a European
level.Chapter2chartsthecourseofthedevelopmentofdrugpolicyat
aEuropeanlevelanddocumentsthefundamentalinabilityofEuropean
powerstodecidewhetherabroadlyliberalorbroadlyrepressivestrategy
is more appropriate in seeking to control this issue. Statistics collected
by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction are
presentedandcritiquedinChapter3.Ultimatelytheyarejudgedtobe
toobesetbycomparativeproblemsandtooinconclusivetoprovideevi-
dence of the superiority of either a liberal or a repressive drug policy
approach.
In the second part of the book, the variety of national drug pol-
icy currently in operation within the EU is explored in more detail.
The introduction to this part provides a brief round-up of current pol-
icy practices in Europe and emphasizes the differences between them.
The drug policies of Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark and Portugal
are then examined in more detail in the following four chapters using
a historical framework for analysis. The policies of Sweden and the
Netherlands have been chosen for further exploration due to their
respectivepositionsatoppositeendsoftheliberal–repressivedrugpolicy
continuum.Sweden,withitsaimofadrug-freesocietyanditsstrategy
of targeting users as much as dealers, represents a relatively restrictive
drug policy and the Netherlands, with its strategies of normalization
of drug use and separation of the markets, represents one that is rela-
tivelyliberal.Together,thecasestudiesprovidedforthesetwocountries
demonstrate the depth of difference in national style of drug policy in
operationinEurope.
While Sweden and the Netherlands are revealed as being strongly
attached to their national drug policies, other countries within Europe
have shown more willingness to change policy direction in recent
years. The case studies of Denmark and Portugal have been chosen to
reflectthistendency.Denmarkhaslongbeenacountrywithanational
drugpolicythatfalls directlyin between Sweden andthe Netherlands:
law enforcement strategies have been consistent and sometimes force-
fully applied, yet cannabis users have been treated relatively leniently.
Since2001,however,Denmarkhasabandonedthisstrategyofleniency
towards cannabis users and has introduced a raft of new measures
directed against them. Portugal, meanwhile, introduced a radical new
lawin2001basedfirmlyontheprincipleofharmreductionanddecrim-
inalizing the possession of all drugs for personal use. Case studies of
these two countries therefore evidence movement towards both more
liberalandmorerepressiveapproachestodrugpolicywithinEuorpe.
