The first edition of the Drug Law

Ten years have passed since the first edition of the Drug Law. Its author is no longer alone, but the purpose of the book remains the same: the study of the rules for licit and illicit drugs and evaluation of their effectiveness. As a critical study regarding the concept of drugs, improperly confused with the drug, the system of various controlled substances, unrelated to their real danger.

The question is whether this criticism has advanced the matter and if in ten years, prejudices, myths and ignorance fell over humanism and reason expected at the conclusion of Prologue. Hence the need for the Prologue Suite reflecting changes in the Law of the drug in the last decade.

Conceptually, the progress of the reason was obvious. The unity of the concept of drugs including both legal drugs (tobacco, alcohol, drugs ) and illegal drugs (narcotics) is now officially recognized.

The Ethics Committee (1994), the reports Heroin (1995) and Rouse (1998) all recognize that tobacco; alcohol and legal psychoactive are similar substances presenting the same risk of abuse addictive that Cannabis, cocaine or illegal opiates. Where the proposed extension of the competences of the Mission for fights against addiction to smoking, alcohol and drug dependence. And if this proposal was only partially acted upon, this is due exclusively to the action of some lobbies fiercely opposed to any assimilation of their goods for drugs. Rationally, however, the extension of the concept of drug will discuss more.

She has also just received a striking confirmation with the new Code of Public Health (2000) which includes in its third section devoted to the fight against addiction, smoking, alcoholism, drug abuse and doping. It is obviously not without consequences for the regime of controlled substances. Indeed it leads logically to the tightening of regulations permissive legal drugs and to softening of repression prohibitionist illegal drugs. For example, for two comparable drugs such as tobacco and cannabis, we should see a strengthening of the stresses on the first and Aunt controlled legalization of the second.

However, the past decade shows that if for legal drugs (tobacco, alcohol, tranquilizers, doping ...) positive law is slowly approaching this objective, in contrast to illegal drugs (cannabis, cocaine, heroin, ecstasy .. .), he resolutely away. As for legal drugs, the most significant text is the Even law (1991), most conspicuous political courage, reminiscent of the Mendes-France government laying the foundations for the beverage Code (1959) facing the lobby distillers. For its part, the 1991 law posits the prohibition of all forms of promotion of tobacco and alcohol. A strategic prohibition considering the importance of communication for such products.

A ban on surplus reinforced by other restrictive measures: obligatory health warning, increase in tobacco prices, banning smoking in public places, ban alcohol sales to minors and in stadiums, etc. All accompanied by criminal penalties triggered by associations fighting against smoking and alcoholism admitted ASE as a civil party. An indisputable victory of the health lobby apex face of alcooliers and tobacco. Subsequent events, however, is less glorious. The Loin Even, attacked from all sides, described as draconian by his many detractors, will be relaxed repeatedly: exemption for sponsorship of certain sporting events by tobacco companies (1993), deletion of display ban for alcoholic drinks (1994), Amendment refreshment restoring the sale of alcohol in stadiums (1999), etc.

The fight against alcoholism provisions are losing much of their coherence. Those targeting smoking are more resistant thanks to the support of European law and the international community. The European Union supports indeed the French provisions by Community Directives and the World Health Organization is inspired to prepare a draft Convention frame on tobacco. The result is a historic decline in cigarette consumption in France of five percent between 1991 and 1999. A notable success, although unnoticed past. As for alcohol, the decline is much less sensitive, but it is continuous for forty years: twenty-four liters of pure alcohol per capita per year in 1960 to eleven liters today.

We can certainly do better, but these figures are encouraging. They show that it is possible to fight with some effectiveness against addictive drugs such as tobacco or alcohol as cultural, thanks to strict regulation without prohibition. Clearly a controlled legalization policy - for the beverage Code and the even law are not something else - can be an effective tool for combating substance abuse. This is also confirmed that the example of the change of status of methadone.

In 1995, in fact, this synthetic opiate, classified as narcotics, becomes a substitute medication provided to heroin under medical supervision. Or substitute a legal drug to an illicit drug proves an excellent method of social treatment. The results in terms of public health are dramatic: the number of overdoses is divided by three (from 563 in 1994 to 167 in 1999). A real health success, past, too, relatively unnoticed. Methadone issue by the state is also one part of a broader political risk reduction that warrants further action resolutely news, such as the free distribution of syringes or supporting associations of addicts.

A humanistic and pragmatic doctrine that refuses to treat drug users as criminals or sick, but considers them as ordinary citizens. Abstinence is no longer sought. It is satisfied with the maintenance to reduce the risks of delinquency, overdose or AIDS. Several thousand people and get their daily dose of opiates and syringes to community fees. An oasis of tolerance in a sea of ​​prohibition. However, there is another tolerance much more debatable, although it emanates from the legislature itself: the case of doping. Thus the use of drugs by an athlete is first Bam buck decriminalized by law (1989), the criminal sanction of the judge being replaced by the disciplinary sanction federations.

Then, before the reluctance of the sports world to exercise self, the penalty is transferred by law Buffet (1999), an independent administrative authority. But at the same time, the text legalizes the administration of doping under medical control. Worse, he organized a hypocrite control system, which makes cannabis one of the first controlled products, while real doping (EPO, growth hormones, steroids ...) remain undetectable. Generally, the amateurism of control measures against the professionalism of doped athletes is evident. So do not be surprised if we are witnessing the inevitable failure of the legal device to a scientifically organized doping. In this context of widespread complacency, however, is an island of severity rating vis-à-vis the providers of doping products assimilated to drug traffickers. But the side of illegal drugs, times are tougher repression.

The war against drugs is officially declared. At the international level first, with the Vienna Convention on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic trafficking (1988), the hardest ever adopted in this regard. Nationally then with an avalanche of repressive laws which follow one another at breakneck speed (1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1999), all in the direction of the greatest rigor. When it comes to drugs the legislator seems seized Medellin syndrome: always-ready-to-vote-any-any-available to show it is ruthlessly with traffickers. The problem is that a written emergency legislation by thinking of the great Colombian cocaine cartels are mainly applies to small local marijuana dealers.

And drug trafficking by organized gangs is today the most severely repressed in French law offense. More than the crime against humanity and murder of a minor with barbaric act. Especially since he is on trial at the special foundation course without jurors. As for single traffic, it is the most severely punished crime of all crimes with sentences of ten years' imprisonment and a fine of fifty million francs, not counting the additional penalties and customs penalties. Penalties that apply equally to the importer of one ton of heroin or bearer ten grams of hashish.

As for cannabis, which represents two thirds of the prosecution, the law provides for twenty years in prison for the production of a plant, ten years for possession of a barrette and one year for the consumption of a seal! Clear sentences disproportionate to the gravity of the acts. Especially since the procedures are added very special totally exorbitant common law (prolonged detention, night raids, police provocations and customs, etc.) to enhance the effectiveness of policing. Procedures that apply, again,  to the trafficker as the small holder. Thus the holder of a few grams of hashish-it may be subjected to detention for four days without seeing a lawyer for three days, while a child rapist murderer or a professional killer cannot be kept in custody until forty -eight hours with a lawyer from the first hour.

Grossly unfair. So the police and justice have space to act with utmost rigor. In this regard the Narcotics legislation is a good indicator of the rights of citizens in a democratic society limits. And it is clear that eligible terminals are often outdated. It is no coincidence that the first conviction of France for torture and barbaric act by the European Court of Human Rights (1999) aims of abuse suffered in custody by a drug dealer. The police are also not only abusing this category of staff. Justice is no exception and does not hesitate to shake up some of its principles for the purposes of repression. During the investigation, detention is the principle and freedom apart, while the law establishes the contrary principle.

During the trial, the prison is often the rule, even for a first appearance. After conviction, imprisonment for debt, real customs debt in prison, in addition to the imprisonment of common law, and in disregard of the rule of non-accumulation of penalties. Customs a law narcotic drug is also a lawless zone, since the customs notification or without counsel retained the rights to the astronomical fines that directly benefit Customs officers. More generally, the right drug criminal law draws all down cunningly eroding its fundamental principles: the principle of criminal legality, non-retroactivity of criminal law, the retroactivity of the more lenient criminal law, the non- copulation of penalties, the highest criminal sense, the need for a material element of the offense, etc.

All are more or less excluded for purposes of the case by case law. Besides it describes systematically traffic, the mere transport of small quantities of drugs for personal use. A qualification that turns  all young users by drug traffickers. As for the flagrancy, it is no longer what it was: the veiled look of a young man walking through the subway now characterizes the act of cannabis ... Ultimately, it is clear that the Criminal Chamber is no longer the guardian of the rights and freedoms it should be; she became a zealous auxiliary of repression. The effectiveness of the repressive machine is impressive. Violations of drug laws serve alone more than five percent of French prisons. They are the same since 1995 the leading cause of incarceration all offenses.

They thus contribute significantly to overcrowding. This does not lead to a decline of as much drug abuse, quite the contrary. All indicators (arrests, seizures, surveys ...) show an exponential growth in the use and trafficking since the 1970 law Total arrests increased from 3 000 in 1972 to 30 000 in 1988 and 90 000 in 1998. A thirty-fold increase. Between 1970 and l998, total seizures rose from 340 kilos 77A for heroin, 2 grams to 1,000 kilos of cocaine and 600 kilos to 60 tons of cannabis. Multiplying by one hundred. Worse, in the last ten years have witnessed the explosion of a drug that did not even exist during the vote on the law, which is ecstasy tablets seized increased from thirty in 1987 to more than million in 1998. An increase by thirty miles.  

As the official estimates of the number of users, they increased for cannabis alone 800 000 people in the Pelletier report (1976) to three and five million in the Heroin report (1995). Ultimately, what was a relatively marginal position in seventy years, has become a fact of life in ninety years. The failure of the prohibitionist and repressive legislation is obvious. And it is not only French, but global. Thus, the United States, advocates of abstinence with their zero tolerance program and champions all categories of repression with their Czar anti-drug, ending the century with over half a million Americans in prison and a creeping legalization of therapeutic cannabis. US authorities claim to be beautiful on the verge of winning the war against drugs, in reality they have long lost.

Moreover, she was lost in advance. For impose by force a drug-free world, as Tobacco Free or without alcohol, is a typically American goal unrealistic, which has no chance of succeeding. Worse, it is dangerous not only for individual freedoms, but also for security and public health. For judicial, police and customs armada is obviously incapable of intercepting the growing body of substances in circulation. It contributes only increase the price of goods and profits for traffickers. It also leads users to commit crimes to obtain their doses. The Trumann report (1990) and figure between thirty and fifty million francs a day the sampling of heroin only on the community.

Delinquency factor in the streets, drug prohibition is also a factor in the spread of AIDS and other serious diseases. Extended to the sale of syringes, it resulted in France the death of tens of thousands of people. Not to mention overdoses due mostly to adulterated products or growing risks of police corruption, etc ... Ultimately, where legislation turns against those it is supposed to protect (users) and benefits those it is supposed to fight (traffickers), it's time to reconsider. After thirty years of implementing the 1970 Act appears to be a historical mistake, pure product of ignorance and prejudices of its authors. Symbol of the legislative obscurantism: the sentence of one year in prison for a lonely and major private individual who absorbs a substance of choice to procure sensations. In the land of human rights and of Cartesians, is more than a mistake: it is a fault.

 It is time that France act together and give the world an example of a realistic and humane policy of fight against drugs. It is all the more able to do that it has a credible alternative: controlled legalization. The lessons of the last decade of the right drug, as are those of history are clear enough effect. The objective superiority of the regimes applied to those imposed on licit to illicit drugs is widely demonstrated. It may also be explained easily. Replacing an unattainable ideal of abstinence by a reasonable ideal of moderation, the legislator increases its chances of success. It may confine itself to fight against Abuses youth, society and third parties.

And he can enjoy significant benefits from the fact that drugs are controllable and taxable goods. So could the legalization of cannabis alone create tens of thousands of jobs, provide billions of francs to the State and to social security, decriminalize millions of consumers, decongest the prisons, and even better protect the health public by appropriate safeguards (information for users, bans sales to minors, use in public and behind the wheel).

Undeniable benefits that cannot be ignored indefinitely, especially in view of the adverse effects of torque prohibition-repression. The prohibitionist approach of seventy years is obviously more suitable in the Third Millennium. It is time to replace the war against drugs by civil struggle against drug abuse.