Swiss Stand Firm Over Cannabis Law

Switzerland has dismissed an international report criticising its decision to decriminalise cannabis, saying its approach is honest and realistic. The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) said it would be a “historic mistake” if cannabis were effectively placed in the same category as alcohol and tobacco.

But the Swiss authorities disagree. “I’ve heard more people say it was a historic mistake to put cannabis on the list of substances that are totally prohibited,” says Ueli Locher, deputy director of the Federal Office for Public Health.

“We have to adapt to the changes in our society. We know more about how harmful – or harmless – cannabis is. We cannot continue to treat it like heroin and cocaine,” he told swissinfo.

In its annual report, the INCB says the draft Swiss law – which has already been approved by the Senate – would go much further than simply decriminalising cannabis consumption.

It would, the board believes, “amount to an unprecedented move towards legalisation of the consumption, cultivation, manufacture, possession, purchase and sale of cannabis for non-medical purposes”.

“It would entail additional health problems to those we have already with alcohol and tobacco,” INCB secretary Herbert Schaepe told swissinfo.

The INCB, an independent Vienna-based watchdog that oversees the implementation of United Nations drugs treaties, says the Swiss law would contravene the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

The Swiss government disagrees. It says four independent legal assessments have found that the law is consistent with the convention, and that under the proposed law, the cultivation and sale of cannabis would remain illegal.

However, prosecutions would likely be few and far between. It would be permissible to sell the drug to people over the age of 18, provided they do not publicise their dealing, do not sell hard drugs at the same time, and are not a public nuisance.

Schaepe argues that “Allowing people to sell cannabis to anybody for non-medical purposes is simply not in line with the conventions”.

In Locher’s view, though, the Swiss position is a common-sense reaction to a better scientific understanding of illegal substances, a change in public attitudes and a shortage of resources to pursue law-breakers.

“We are trying to deal with the reality – to have an honest and consistent approach to a problem - and not continue to have laws which are not applied,” Locher explains.

“Time will tell whether cannabis is also reconsidered at the level of international conventions,” he adds.

Schaepe says it is the job of the INCB to point out to governments and the public when countries fail to abide by their treaty obligations. It is up to governments, he says, to amend conventions if they feel they are no longer relevant.

“The conventions are not cast in stone. They can be amended. Ultimately, it is in the hands of governments to decide future drug policies,” he says. “But there is a procedure that has to be followed. We cannot have a lawless situation at the international level.”

November 11, 2000 - WEEKLY NEWS ANALYSIS - The World Seen From Rome
==================================================================

ANALYSES
* Drug Debate: Prohibition or Liberalization?
------------------------------------------------------------------
DRUG DEBATE: PROHIBITION OR LIBERALIZATION?
Needle Exchanges and Injecting Rooms Haven't Solved the Problem
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MELBOURNE, Australia, NOV. 11, 2000 (ZENIT.org).- Opinion over how to treat
drug addicts is divided between those who seek to minimize complications
for drug users, and those who want to discourage such use altogether.

Prohibition has been a dismal failure, the first group argues, so we should
at least ensure that drugs are used responsibly and safely. The other camp
highlights the serious health and social problems stemming from drug use
and seeks to reduce the demand for drugs and the number of addicts.

Here we will focus on the question of "hard" drugs, principally heroin, and
not on the possible legalization of "soft" drugs such as marijuana.

In a number of countries there are debates over whether to establish
centers where addicts can go to exchange needles, or even acquire the drugs
themselves. In Australia recently there were proposals to establish such
centers in Sydney and Melbourne.

Melbourne City Council, however, rejected a trial program of a supervised
injecting facility as part of its new drug action plan, The Age newspaper
reported Nov. 1. A neighboring local authority, the council for Greater
Dandenong, recently rejected a similar program.

The Swiss experiment
A recent book examines the experience of Switzerland and other places that
have used injecting facilities or needle exchange programs. "Drugs Dilemma:
A Way Forward" [ISBN 0-646-39664-1], edited by Dr. Joseph Santamaria,
quotes a group of Swiss physicians who say their country's liberal policy
has led to an increase both in the number of addicts and HIV infections.

A Zurich clinic, for example, gives out government-supplied heroin to
addicts. The doctors note that the director general of the World Health
Organization has criticized the lack of evidence provided to justify using
heroin instead of substitutes. Moreover, after five years the clinic has
not managed to cure a single addict.

Santamaria notes that a heroin distribution program established in the late
1980s in Merseyside, England, had no more success. In 1994, authorities
closed down the experiment. Dr. John Strang, head of the Drug Dependence
Clinical Research and Treatment Unit at the Maudsley Hospital in London,
commented that "merely supplying drugs and injecting equipment is unlikely
in itself to bring about an adequate and durable change in behavior."

Needle exchanges
Another type of program supplies addicts with fresh needles, in an effort
to halt the spread of disease via shared syringes. This program too has
failed, according to Santamaria. In Australia, he notes, since the
introduction of needle exchange programs there has been an enormous
increase in hepatitis C infections among drug users. Apparently those who
receive clean needles still pass them around to others.

Similarly, Dr. Janet Lapley, writing in "Drug Dilemmas," notes that a
Canadian study, of a Vancouver needle exchange program, reported that HIV
infections have increased -- and this despite a program that distributed
more than 2 million needles a year.

Prohibition
If needle exchanges or supplying heroin doesn't work, what will then?
Santamaria suggests that the Swedish model may have more success.

In the 1960s Sweden adopted a liberal policy in which drugs were prescribed
for intravenous users. Within a couple of years, both the number of addicts
and crimes had increased. So the liberal policy was abandoned and
eventually the government implemented the goal of a drug-free society.
Instead of needle exchanges and drugs the authorities offer detoxification
services and residential treatment centers.

Santamaria remarks that one of the major arguments used in favor of a
liberal policy is that the greatest harm is produced by the criminalization
of drug use. However, he notes, these drugs are not harmful because they
are illegal, but illegal because they are harmful.

The Vatican and injecting rooms
Injecting rooms are where addicts can go to inject themselves without fear
of being arrested. There are doubts over the rooms' usefulness, as well as
over the participation of Catholic groups.

In Sydney, Australia, an order of nuns, the Sisters of Charity, had offered
their help to the state government in a center to be established in Kings
Cross. On Sept. 23, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that the Vatican
issued a decree that no Catholic organization should participate in the
trial of a legal heroin-injecting room, ruling this would involve
cooperation with "grave evil." The paper said it obtained a copy of the
six-page document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The Herald noted the Vatican's opposition to injecting rooms and quoted
from the document: "The good intention and the hoped-for benefits are not
sufficient to outweigh the fact of its constituting an extremely proximate
material cooperation in the grave evil of drug abuse and its foreseeable
bad side effects."

The document continues: "One of the most important bad side effects to this
proposed service is scandal, which the Sisters of Charity are aware of and
would take serious measures to address. Nevertheless, precisely because of
the extreme proximity of the cooperation of a Catholic institution in a
serious evil, some people will still be scandalized; it will seem to them
to be formal cooperation."

The document concedes that the supervised injecting service is not a case
of "explicit or implicit" formal cooperation in evil, but insists that it
is "beyond question" that it does involve "some degree of material
cooperation in the evil of drug abuse." And while cooperation in evil may
not be formal, this does not mean that it is "morally neutral," and it is
therefore "in itself undesirable" and should be avoided.

The Church's opposition to a permissive type of drug treatment -- versus
detoxification and discouragement -- was confirmed in a recent address by
John Paul II. "Drugs are not combated with drugs," he told an audience of
35,000 former addicts, members of the Encounter Community, Oct. 19.

In his comments (published in the weekly English edition of L'Osservatore
Romano, Nov. 1) the Pope explained that "the Church has said repeatedly
that drugs are never a solution." He noted that the Church would continue
to oppose the liberalization or legalization of drug use.

John Paul II told the ex-addicts that "drugs are not overcome by drugs, but
an extensive work of prevention is needed to replace the culture of death
with the culture of life. Young people and their families must be offered
concrete reasons for commitment and must be given effective support with
their daily problems."
ZE00111120

----

The Swiss people voted against drug legalization, but the PC government pushed it down their throats the same way the legalizers are trying to push it here.

Swiss Reject Legalization of Drugs

c The Associated Press

(Swiss Reject Proposal To Legalize Use of Drugs, Including Heroin and Marijuana)

GENEVA (AP) -- Heeding government warnings against turning their pristine Alpine nation into a drug haven, Swiss voters rejected proposals Sunday to legalize consumption of heroin and other narcotics.

With a majority of results declared by mid-afternoon, not a single state accepted the proposal. For it to pass, it needed a majority of the 26 cantons and an absolute majority of votes.

Polls published for Swiss television forecast a 75 percent vote against the proposed constitutional amendment that ``the consumption, cultivation or possession of drugs, and their acquisition for personal use, is not punishable.''

The rejection was in contrast to the overwhelming approval given last year to state distribution of heroin to hardened addicts.

The government opposed the misleadingly-worded proposal ``for a sensible drug policy.'' Ministers said it was a health risk and would turn Switzerland into a haven for drug tourists and traffickers and anger neighboring European countries.

The government said its current policy of helping hardcore addicts while clamping down on dealers was the best way ahead.

Church groups, police chiefs, social workers, doctors and other professionals working with addicts also said the proposal should be rejected.

Pubdate: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 Source: Reuters Copyright: 1998 Reuters Limited. Author: Michael Shields SWISS VOTERS BLOCK BID TO LEGALIZE NARCOTICS

ZURICH (Reuters) - Swiss voters Sunday rejected by a thumping three-to-one margin a sweeping proposal to legalize narcotics that backers said would eliminate the drugs mafia but critics said would make Switzerland a drugs haven.

The plan would have made Switzerland the only country in the world where anyone aged 18 or older could buy narcotics of their choice, from marijuana to heroin, from state-run outlets or pharmacies after consulting a physician.

With 22 of 26 cantons (states) reporting, the measure had not carried a single canton and had garnered the support of only 26.8 percent of votes counted so far.

The proposal had been widely expected to fail, but the drubbing that voters administered at the polls disappointed organizers who were hoping a sizeable minority would support making liberal Swiss drugs policy even more tolerant.

"I am very disappointed. We had expected a much better result," said Francois Reusser, co-organizer of the committee that collected enough signatures to trigger the referendum under the Swiss system of direct democracy.

"We were unable to mobilize a wide range of (drugs) consumers themselves, the dope-smokers and ravers, or there would have been a different outcome," he told Reuters.

He said he hoped government officials would still move to liberalize the possession and use of soft drugs like marijuana, adding he was ready to launch a fresh initiative if need be.

"We will keep the pressure on for this, of course," he said. Thomas Zeltner, director of the Federal Health Bureau in Berne, saw the vote as popular confirmation of Switzerland's policy of combating the drugs trade but helping the most severe drug addicts. But he said Berne was ready to take a fresh look at how to treat soft drugs like marijuana and hashish. "We have to continue the discussion about the legalization of cannabis. There is now such a big gap between the legal regulation of cannabis and reality that we need to act," he said, adding draft legislation due next year would address this. The Swiss government and other opponents had called the initiative an extreme measure that would fuel addiction and isolate Switzerland from international police and justice cooperation. But backers said drugs prohibition had failed to stop the supply, instead creating a black market with no health standards and high prices that forced addicts into theft or prostitution to fund their habit. Launched by a committee of drugs experts, doctors and lawyers, the referendum proposal was backed by leftist politicians and youth chapters of two of three conservative parties in the Swiss government center-right coalition.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.