World Drugs Policy

8/3/2019 World Drugs Policy

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/world-drugs-policy 1/17

WORLD

DRUGSPOLICY

Coordinator: Students:

Popa Alexandru Petroiu Bianca

Musat Valentina



2

Table of Content

Introduction«««««««««««««««««3

Global drug control system«««««««««««.3

Drug policy of United States«.«««««««««..4

European drug policy«««««««««««««..5

South America drug policy«««««««««««.7

Asia (India) drug`s policy««««««««««..«.9

Multilateral and Regional Efforts to

Combat Drug Trafficking in Africa«««««««..11

Australia¶s drug policy««««««««««««..13

Romania¶s drug policy««««««««««««..15

Bibliography««««««««««««««««..17



3

WORLD DRUGS POLICY

A drug, broadly speaking, is any substance that, when absorbed into the body of aliving organism, alters normal bodily function.There is no single, precise definition, as thereare different meanings in drug control law, government regulations, medicine, and colloquialusage.

A drug policy most often refers to a government's attempt to combat the negativeeffects of drug addiction and misuse in its society. Governments try to combat drugaddiction with policies which address both the demand and supply of drugs, as well as

policies which can mitigate the harms of drug abuse. Demand reduction measuresinclude prohibition, fines for drug offenses, incarceration for persons convicted for drugoffenses, treatment (such as voluntary rehabilitation or coercive care for drug abusers),awareness campaigns, community social services, and support for families. Supply sidereduction involves measures such as enacting foreign policy aimed at eradicating theinternational cultivation of plants used to make drugs and interception of drug trafficking.Policies which may help mitigate the effects of drug abuse include needle exchange anddrug substitution programs, as well as free facilities for testing a drug's purity.

Global Drug Control System

The present global drug control system is now 100 years old. It was inspired by therealisation that no country could regulate drug use in isolation, since these commodities were soreadily bought and sold across borders and jurisdictions. Effective control would require states towork together as an international community.



4

Three conventions make up the instruments of international drug law:

y The 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs which draws together previous drugcontrol legislation and forms the unified legal bedrock of the current system;

y The 1971 UN Convention on Psychotropic Drugs; andy The 1988 UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and PsychotropicSubstances

The overall objective of the conventions remains as it was specified a century ago - tolimit the production, distribution and use of drugs to scientific and medical purposes. The threeconventions provide the mandate and underpin the functioning of the UN agencies most involvedin drug control:

y The Commission on Narcotic Drugsy The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimey The International Narcotic Control Board

The three drug control conventions are not µself-executing¶ ± they require signatory statesto enact and enforce national legislation in order to comply with their treaty obligations.However, the international system provides the overarching regulatory framework, and itsagencies assist national governments in meeting their requirements under the treaties.

Only a few governments have not signed up to the treaties underpinning the global drugcontrol system, which has been viewed for many years as exemplifying the spirit of internationalco-operation in the name of humanity. Recently, however, there has been a growing realisationthat the system is far from perfect, and needs to be fundamentally reviewed. This insight wassupposed to have guided the UNGASS review of drug control in 2009, which ended by largelyreaffirming the current arrangements, thereby representing a missed opportunity of considerable

proportions.

Drug policy of the United States` The United States presents a complicated patchwork of drug laws and enforcement

practices. The complementary federal and state legislative regimes relating to illegaldrugs overlap and, at times, appear to be in conflict. From the time of the U.S. Civil War

(1861-1865) to the end of the 19th

century, the use and sale of opium, morphine, cocaineand other psychoactive drugs were legal and common. Opium was available with or without a prescription and was an ingredient in many patent medicines, including various

pain-killers, cough mixtures and teething syrups for infants. Cocaine was also usedmedicinally, as well as in soft drinks and wine.



5

` Things started to change around the turn of the century. Heroin was firstisolated in 1898 and was purported to convey the same benefits as opium or morphine,without the risk of addiction. The realization of heroin¶s addictive properties soon after its introduction coincided with racist appeals to protect American society from drugs.Initially, two drugs were targeted: Cocaine, associated mainly with blacks who were saidto go on violent rampages under its influence, and opium, the smoking of which wasassociated with the Chinese. Alcohol temperance societies and religious groups also

played key roles in lobbying for prohibition.

` Despite strong opposition from the patent medicine industry, the U.S.Congress passed the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1906. This legislation required over-the-counter medicines to list the amount of drugs contained in them in the hope that thiswould reduce the use of such medicines. Soon to follow was the Opium Smoking Act of 1909 (as Amended, 1914) in which Congress banned the importation of the drug for non-medicinal purposes.

` There were court challenges to the legislation. However, the U.S.Supreme Court upheld the H arrison Act as a revenue act and not a policing measure.

` In 1970 the U.S. Congress enacted the federal Controlled Substances Act (the³CSA´) pursuant to the federal authority to regulate interstate commerce. This Actrepealed most of the earlier federal legislation, including the H arrison Act andthe Marihuana Tax Act, and is the foundation of U.S. federal drug law today. Based on aseries of schedules, drugs are categorized and controlled to varying degrees.

` The most restrictions are placed on Schedule I drugs which cannot be possessed byanyone, except for the purpose of research that has been licensed by the federal

government. This Schedule includes drugs such as marijuana, heroin, MDMA, LSD and peyote which are deemed to have no medical use and a high abuse potential. Schedule IIsubstances, which have an accepted medical use and are deemed to have an abuse

potential less than those in Schedule I, are also subjected to tight controls. Included inSchedule II are cocaine, opium In the U.S. a group called the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law has the task of drafting legislation that is to berecommended for adoption by all states in an effort to promote legislative consistencythroughout the nation. The most recent Uniform Controlled Substances Act was drafted

in 1994. The Act sets out the prohibited activities in detail but specific fines andsentencing are left to the discretion of the individual States. , morphine, meperidine(Demerol) and codeine.

E uropean drug policy



6

European drugs are a large problem in Europe just as they are in the US andelsewhere. It is fair to say that Europe has a drug problem. Just as elsewhere in the world,Europe has problems with drug trafficking as well as with recreational use and this leadsto many other problems such as health difficulties, crimes and financial strain for thegovernments. The EU is of course trying to tackle the problem of European drugs, but aselsewhere, this meets with mixed results.

Of course European drugs vary depending on the country and Europe is a largecontinent. This depends on the finances of the country, the access to drugs farms, andeven the individual laws which vary from country to country. In Belgium and Amsterdamfor example Marijuana is a legal drug, and many other mind-bending substances andhighs are also legal. Many Europeans then will travel to Europe in order to experienceEuropean drugs legally and more safely and may do this as part of a stag party or hen

party. Cannabis is also more widely used in other areas of Europe where it is illegal asit is generally classified as a less µsevere¶ drug. Meanwhile though other European drugsare less prevalent, such as Heroin which is far more rare in European countries as a rule(of course this statistic refers to the continent as a whole and it may not be the case inindividual countries) ± though it is the one most associated with marginalisation andaddiction when it is. The use of µMDMA¶ and µEcstasy¶ meanwhile are very popular European drugs particularly in England and some other European countries. Here it is

part of the µrave¶ scene where users will use the drug in order to achieve a high and toexperience the music in a different way. It is believed that across Europe, roughly .05%to 15% of the population over 12 years of age has at some point tried drugs (this statisticwas recorded by WHO in 1997, and similar results were found by the EMCDDA in 1996)

The EU understands drug use as a human problem, connected to mental and physicalhealth and wellbeing. This understanding clearly resonates with the Rome Consensus.

The substance of the European Union Drug Policy is encompassed in two sets of documents:

1) The EU Drug Strategy: Covers the principles and objectives of the EU drug policy

2) The EU Action Plans: Identify actions and benchmarks for implementation of EU drug policy

1) The EU Drug Strategy:

The Objectives of the EU drug policy are :

` To promote a high level of health protection, well being and social cohesion toindividuals and communities and to reduce drug use and drug related harm.



7

` To promote high levels of security and protection from drug production,trafficking and drug related crimes within the EU borders and producingcountries.

The principles of the EU Drug Strategy are:

` the right to health

` respect for human dignity

` respect for individual freedom

` democracy and solidarity

` rule of law and human rights.

2) The Action Plan:

The Action Plan 2005-2008 aims to work on three main areas: prevention, treatment andreducing drug related harm. In each of these areas a set of actions has been identified.

These objectives are evaluated against a set of standards. From the evaluation of theAction Plan 2005-2008 the European commission has set forward a number of priorities for thecoming years.

South America drug policyLatin America is the world's leading producer and seller of cocaine, with South

American drug centres representing real axes of power in control of considerableeconomic means and wartime arsenals. The primary countries interested in cocaine

production are Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Mexico, Ecuador, Argentina and Brazil. ButColumbia is the South American country most heavily involved in thThe illegal drugtrade in Latin America concerns primarily the production and export to the United Statesand Europe of cocaine, marijuana and heroin. Cocaine cultivation is concentrated inthe Andes of South America, particularly in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia; this is the

world's only source region for cocaine. Colombia also cultivates and exports opium poppy and Jamaica marijuana, while Mexico exports both. Drug consumption in LatinAmerica remains relatively low, but cocaine in particular has increased in recent years incountries along the major smuggling routes. As of 2008, the primary pathway for drugsinto the United States is through Central America and then Mexico; 90% of all UScocaine enters via Mexico or its territorial waters. This is a shift from the 1980s and early90s, when the main smuggling route was via the Caribbean into Florida. The United



8

States is the primary destination, but around 25 to 30% of global cocaine productiontravels from Latin America to Europe, typically via West Africa.

The major drug trafficking organizations (drug cartels) are Mexican andColombian, and said to generate a total of $18 to $39bn in wholesale drug proceeds per

year. Mexican cartels are currently considered the "greatest organized crime threat" to theUnited Statesproduction and trafficking of naAs a result of the concentration of drugtrafficking, Latin America and the Caribbean has the world's highest crime rates, withmurder reaching 32.6 per 100,000 of population in 2008. Violence has surged in Mexicosince 2006 when Mexican President Felipe Calderon intensified the Mexican Drug War narcotics.

Several Latin American and Caribbean countries have at times seen governments activelyinvolved in the illegal drug trade in the 1970s and 1980s. 1978 and 1980 saw "cocaine coups"in Honduras and Bolivia which brought such governments to power (see illegal drug trade in

Honduras and illegal drug trade in Bolivia). In Panama, Manuel Noriega, a long-term drugtrafficker, was President from 1983 to 1989, with CIA support. Chief Minister of the Turks andCaicos Islands, Norman Saunders, was convicted in July 1985 of conspiracy charges relating togiving safe passage to drug flights. Illegal drug trade in the Bahamas led to a 1980s governmentinquiry which saw five ministers resign or dismissed. Throughout the late 1980s and into the1990s, leading members of the Haitian military (including members of the late 1980s and post-1991 military governments), intelligence and police were involved in the illegal drug trade inHaiti, assisting Colombian drug traffickers smuggling drugs into the United States.

At other times, parts of the state apparatus have been co-opted by drug traffickers withoutclear evidence of endorsement at the highest levels. For example the illegal drug trade inGuatemala is said to be shaped by a reported relationship between the Mexican Los Zetas carteland the Guatemalan Kaibiles military force. The Colombian parapolitics scandal revealed links

between parts of the Colombian establishment and the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), a paramilitary group responsible for killing tens of thousands of Colombiancivilians, which controls over 75% of the Colombian cocaine trade. The illegal drug trade inPeru was until 2000 shaped by Vladimiro Montesinos's involvement ; he had been head of thecountry's intelligence service since 1990.

In 2010 it was alleged that the Mexican Sinaloa cartel had used bribery to co-opt thefederal government and focus the government's anti-drug efforts on its competitors. Accordingto Peter Dale Scott, "The Guadalajara Cartel, Mexico's most powerful drug-trafficking network in the early 1980s, prospered largely because it enjoyed the protection of the DFS, under its chief Miguel Nassar (or Nazar) Haro, a CIA asset.

CIA drug trafficking

For political reasons the US Central Intelligence Agency has at times used, supported or permitted drug trafficking in Latin America in order to support certain individuals or groups. Themost well-known instance is the CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US, which was oneaspect of what became the Iran-Contra Affair. The CIA also protected Panama President Manuel



9

Noriega from the US Drug Enforcement Administration, until its connections with him became aliability.

There have also been allegations that the CIA has been involved with the Illegal drug tradein Venezuela and the Illegal drug trade in Haiti.

Asia (India) drug`s policy

1.Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) 1985.Prior to the present drug control legislation, the focus of Indian drug policies was control

of the drug trade and the collection of revenues through licensed sales (Hasan, 1975).The change in policy direction had much to do with India¶s international commitments. As asignatory to the UN 1961 Single Convention, India, like many other nations, was obliged toeradicate culturally ingrained patterns of druguse, including those involving cannabis and opium.Indian delegations at the UN had long objected to aproposed policy of international cannabis

prohibition, but had ³made little headway against the massive,´predominantly Western and US-led, ³anticannabis bloc.´ (Bruun, Pan and Rexed, 1975). Yet, in order to gain widespreadacceptance, the final draft of the Single Convention included transitional reservations allowingsocalled grace periods for phasing out traditional drug use.

This meant that the ³quasi-medical use´ of opium had to be abolished within 15 years of the Convention coming into force. Similarly, the non-medical or non-scientific use of cannabiswas to be discontinued as soon as possible, ³but in any case within 25 years´ from the date theconvention came into force (United Nations 1972). Referring to cannabis, one expert hascommented that it was a rather optimistic timetable when ³matched against three thousand yearsof use by untold millions´ (see Bewley-Taylor, 2001).

In political terms, any moves to phase out cultural drug use within India were problematic, since it was difficult for any party in power to tamper with popular religious andcultural feelings concerning the use of opium and cannabis.

Consequently, mindful of international obligations regarding the UN grace period andthe political sensitivity of the issue within the country, the NDPS Act was quietly put on to thestatute books with little national debate (Charles et al, 1999). The only provision for non-medicalcultural use within the 1985 Act was that drinks made from cannabis leaves were to besanctioned (Britto, 1989).



10

As such, the legislation made many traditional forms of drug use a criminal act that could be punishable by imprisonment. Some of the significant measures taken under the NDPS Act(1985) include:

For the consumption of substances such as narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances or anyother substance specified by the Central Government, the punishment is imprisonment for aterm, which may be extended to one year, or a fine, which may extend to twenty thousandrupees, or both.

In the case of consumption of cannabis products other than b hang , imprisonment may be for aterm of six months, or a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or both.

The quantity specified for various substances that could lead to arrest for trading in drugs wasnot verylarge. For example, 250 milligrams of heroin, five grams of opium, five grams of charasor hashish, 500 grams of ganja (marijuana) and 25 milligrams of cocaine (NDPS Act, 1985).

2.The 2001 Amendments of NDPS Act (1985) and unaddressed concerns

The criminalisation of drug use and the increasing rates of arrest for possessing smallquantities of drugs led to officials, social scientists, members of the judiciary and others toquestion the suitability of such harsh legislation.

According to one observer, the Act failed because of delay in trials, a weak bail law thatleft the poor languishing in prisons, the failure of investigating agencies to follow the proceduralrequirements of NDPS Act and a poor understanding of the addiction problem (Anuradha, 2001).

As a consequence of such criticisms, including those from the National AddictionResearch Centre, a reassessment of the Act in 2001 resulted in amendments relating to the lengthof imprisonment and the quantity and type of drug seized. This ensured that, where traditionaldrugs are concerned, only individuals with large quantities of cannabis can be arrested for drug

trafficking and face imprisonment.Further changes in the law in 2002 created two categories that are based on quantity

seized. These are defined as small quantities and commercial quantities. For trafficking incommercial quantities, the sentence is imprisonment for more than twenty years and a finevarying between 100,000 and 200,000 Rupees. The categorisation of quantity varies according tothe substance seized; for hashish, a small quantity is classified as below 100 grams andcommercial quantity as 1 Kilogram and above; for heroin, a small quantity is below 5 grams andcommercial quantity above 250 grams.This is arguably a more realistic figure than the former law that classified those possessing morethan a quarter gram as drug traffickers. Nonetheless, despite the efforts made to revise the Act,one contradiction persists. This is that any form of use remains a criminal offence, which canresult in imprisonment for a period of six months. Such an offence appears to be unrealistic in acountry where the use of cannabis and opium retains widespread cultural acceptance in manystates across the country.

The National Drug Policy follows the lines drawn by legislation and the focus has beenon demand reduction through prevention and treatment, and supply reduction through



11

enforcement activities. However, there has been a clear emphasis of political support andresource allocation to supply reduction. One example of this relates to one of the 2001amendments to the act, which created a National Fund for Control of Drug Abuse. This wasdesigned to support the expansion of demand reduction programmes, but has yet to becomeactive (NDPS Act, 2003; Anuradha, 2001).

At present, efforts on the demand side focus on prevention, treatment, rehabilitation andafter care services undertaken within institutional and community settings. There are currently450 centres funded across the country for deaddiction and counselling services. National levelDrug Abuse Monitoring Systems have also been established in an effort to understand trends indrug use and its implications for drug abuse management. Most efforts in the area of demandreduction are funded by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and United Nations Officeon Drugs.

Multilateral and RegionalE

fforts to Combat DrugTrafficking in Africa

In addition to the United States, multiple African and donor governments and multilateral

organizations are involved in combating drug trafficking in Africa. In general, while most actors

involved at the multilateral and regional level agree that drug trafficking through Africa is a

growing phenomenon and poses a variety of law enforcement challenges, a shared consensus on

how to address these challenges has not emerged.

Limited resourcecnes and, in some cases, limited political will, often hamper theeffectiveness of African and multinational efforts to combat the illegal drug trade.

Nevertheless, there is growing support among African governments for efforts to address thedrug situation, both at the national level and in multilateral fora. Some West African countries,notably Cape Verde, Senegal, Ghana, and Sierra Leone, have recently won praise from U.S.

officials for their efforts to mount effective law enforcement responses to the problem, and for their willingness to cooperate with U.S. and international counternarcotics efforts. Forty-five of 53 African countries have signed all three international U.N. drug control conventions. Keymultilateral, European, and African country groupings that are developing efforts to combat drugtrafficking in Africa include the following:

U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Established in 1997, UNODC ismandated to assist Member States in their efforts to combat illegal drugs, transnational crime,



1 2

and terrorism. UNODC publishes an annual report on drug trafficking, called the World DrugReport, and collects data on drug cultivation, production, seizures, and other drug-relatedstatistics. In Africa, UNODC maintains five field offices: one in Egypt, covering Northern Africaand the Middle East; one in Kenya, covering Eastern Africa; one in Nigeria; one in Senegal,covering West and Central Africa; and one in South Africa, covering Southern Africa. Theseoffices report on drug trafficking and other criminal activity trends at the regional level. Theyalso help to build anti-crime policy and institutional capacities at the regional and country level,including with respect to counternarcotics efforts, through programs that foster drug lawenforcement mentoring and training, justice and penal sector reform, and drug demandreduction.UNODC also supports Data for Africa , a project launched in 2005 that is designed toincrease the amount and reliability of data and information on African crime and drug trends.

U.N. Office for West Africa (UNOWA). Established in 2001 by the U.N. SecurityCouncil, UNOWA is mandated to further the United Nations¶ peace and security objectives inWest Africa. UNOWA focuses on cross-border illicit activity in the sub-region, among other issues, and helps to raise West African government¶s awareness of the challenges posed by drugtrafficking.

African Union (AU). Established in 2002, the African Union is a regional multilateralgrouping of all states in Sub-Saharan and North Africa except Morocco. The African Union hasaddressed drug trafficking through its R evised AU Plan of Action on Drug Control and Crime

Prevention (2007-2012) . In March 2009, the A.U. Commission and the UNODC launched a project to support the implementation of the A.U. Plan of Action, building on earlier joint effortsfocused on drug demand reduction and drug trafficking, among other crime prevention andcriminal justice issues.

E conomic Community of West African States ( E COWAS). Established in 1975,ECOWAS is a 15-member multilateral grouping of West Africa states that promotes regionaleconomic integration and security cooperation. Recently,ECOWAS has begun to play a greater role in combating drug trafficking in the region. In October 2008, an ECOWAS ministerialconference, organized in collaboration with the UNODC and UNOWA and held in Praia, CapeVerde,adopted a draft Political Declaration on Prevention of Drug Abuse, Drug Trafficking andOrganized Crimes in West Africa. One of the organization¶s stated goals for 2009 is to completean ECOWAS convention against drug trafficking and abuse.

F inancial Action Task F orce ( F AT F ) and F AT F- Style Regional Bodies ( F SRBs) inAfrica. Established in 1989, is a multilateral organization that establishes international standardsfor legislative and regulatory reform to combat money laundering, including drug-related moneylaundering and terrorist financing.

International Narcotics Control Board (INCB). The INCB is an independent andquasi-judicial control organ that monitors the implementation of U.N. drugcontrol treaties. In



13

2007, the INCB conducted a program to monitor and preventillicit trade in precursor chemicalsthrough Africa, called Operation Crystal Flow.The findings from that operation proved thatAfrica is a transshipment point for international trade in illegally diverted precursor chemicals. Inits recent annual reports, the INCB has urged African countries and donor nations to continue totake steps to curtail cocaine trafficking and the emergent precursor trade in Africa.

INT E RPOL. Established in 1923, the International Criminal Police Organization, or INTERPOL, is a 187-member state organization that facilitates international police co-operationand efforts to prevent and combat international crime. With respect to counternarcotics issues,INTERPOL assists its member states to identify new drug trafficking trends and criminalorganizations, and supports law enforcement efforts to combat drug trafficking. In Africa,INTERPOL launched Project COCAF (Cocaine Trafficking from Western Africa to Europe) in2006, which facilitates information sharing between European and African law enforcementagencies to identify and target emerging drug trafficking routes, particularly cocaine shipment oncommercial air flights from West Africa.INTERPOL has also facilitated two other relatedefforts, Project PROTEUS, which was designed to combat cocaine trafficking originating inSouth America and transiting Western Africa en route to Europe, and Project DRUM, an effortto target the diversion of precursor chemicals in Africa.INTERPOL is also involved in policycapacity building in Africa, through a project called OASIS Africa (Providing OperationalAssistance, Services, and Infrastructure Support to African Police Forces).The organization alsodeploys Response Teams that provide specialized expertise and investigative aid to countriesfacing major or serious police issues or cases.

Australia`s drug policy

1. Strengthened powers of the policeOne aspect of Australian drug policy, which is not widely known outside the country, are

the farreaching powers for the police to detect and investigate drug offences, which go further than inseveral other industrialized countries. While rising powers of the police must be alwaysweighed against the consequences of reduced civil liberty for the individual, there can be nodoubt that larger powers of law enforcement institutions facilitate the detection of criminalorganisations, including drug trafficking syndicates, and Australia has clearly had major successes in this regardin recent years.

Under the Queensland Drugs Misuse Act of 1986 , for instance, police has the power - inrelation to any quantity of illegal drugs - (i) to stop, search, and seize motor vehicles, (ii) todetain andsearch persons or order internal body searches, and (iii) enter and search premises withor withouta warrant. Linked to potential offences of drug trafficking, Queensland¶s police is alsoempowered to install listening devices on private premises and to use the results before court.For other states,telecommunications interception powers are available for the investigation of serious drug offences under the Commonwealth Telecommunication (Interception) Act of 1979.



14

In some Australian jurisdictions it is also possible for the police to obtain detailed informationfrom electricity companies on the electricity consumption of their clients which can be used asan indication for the existence of hydroponic cultivation of cannabis or the existence of clandestine amphetamine-type stimulants laboratories.

In 2001, the Australian parliament passed µ The Measures to Com b at Serious and

Organised Crime Act¶ which enables the Australian Federal Police to undertake strategicundercover operations related to a broad range of criminal activities in order to being leaders of drug syndicates before the court even if it cannot be proven that they dealt in illicit drugsthemselves. In the National Crime Authority Legislation Amendment Act 2001 , the Australian

parliament increased the powers of the National Crime Authority (NCA) in their hearings intoorganised criminal activity ± most of which is linked to drug trafficking. It increased the

penalties for noncompliance with NCA hearings from 6 months imprisonment and AUD$1,000fines to 5 years imprisonment and AUD$20,000 fines.

Most jurisdictions have also passed confiscation of profits legislation which can be usedto attack the assets of drug producers and drug traffickers. In most cases such action could only

beundertaken after a person was convicted. In New South Wales a confiscation order can even be

made before, as long as the Supreme Court is satisfied that µis it more probable than not¶ that the person concerned is engaged in drug-related activities.58 In 2001, the Federal Governmentalsointroduced a Proceeds of Crime Amendment Bill which allows a Court to confiscate theassets of organised criminals.2. Drug Courts

Drug courts aim to help adult offenders, who have serious drug problems, break the cycleof drugs and crime by providing a supervised program of treatment and rehabilitation. Eligibilityrequirements and some other details of the operations of drug courts vary in each jurisdiction. Ingeneral, the defendant must plead guilty to his or her charges and satisfy the court that the drugdependency contributed to the commission of their offence(s). In New South Wales, for instance,entry is only possible for adult drug offenders who (i) participate in a detoxification

process, (ii)have a potential for rehabilitation, and (iii) were not charged with violent or sexualoffences, or with a wholly indictable drug offence. Once a drug court order has been made,

participants follow a three-phase program over a 12-month period. During this time they willengage in a variety of drug rehabilitation and life skills programs aimed at reducing offendingand drug use and preparing participants for community re-integration as non-drug usingindividuals.

Australian Drug Courts feature an integrated community-based treatment program,monitoredthrough regular appearances before a judicial officer. The treatment program requiresdrugabstinence, verified through frequent, random drug testing. Participant accountability isincreased through a series of sanctions and rewards. Unlike US drug courts, which generallytarget first-time offenders, the Australian programs primarily aim at offenders with a long historyof property offending and are used as a final option before incarceration.

Typically, the drug court team develops an individual program for each participant thatlasts 12months. This involves regular drug treatment and rehabilitation sessions, counsellingsessions,education and job training, drug screening and reporting back to the Court. A casemanagermonitors each participant. The Judge and the drug court team monitor individual

progress and may change or end the program if required. At the end of the program offendersreceive a fsentence from the drug court. This takes into account the offender¶s original sentenceand their progress in the drug court program.



15

3 . The National Drug Strategic F ramework (1998/99 ± 2002/0 3 )Almost in parallel with the implementation of the National Illicit Drugs Strategy ³Tough

onDrugs´ (1997) , the Australian Federal, State and Territory Governments drafted and adopted a National Drug Strategic Framework .

Main objectives of the National Drug Strategic Framework were to:

increase community understanding of drug-related harm; reduce the supply and use of illicit drugs in the community; prevent the uptake of harmful drug use; reduce the level of risk behaviour associated with drug use; reduce the risks to the community of criminal drug offences and other drug-related crime,

violence and anti-social behaviour; reduce the personal and social disruption, loss of quality of life, loss of productivity and

other economic costs associated with the harmful use of drugs; increase access to a greater range of high-quality prevention and treatment services; and promote evidence-based practice through research and professional education and

training.

One of the additional elements for the success of Australia's drug policy seems to have beenrelated to the creation of the Australian National Council on Drugs (ANCD) in 1998. TheCouncilbrought together expertise from various sectors of the community - from volunteer andcommunity organisations, to law enforcement, health and social welfare - engaged in the struggleagainst drug use, and, in a consolidated way, advised the Australian Government and assisted itin the implementation of it's drug policies.

Romania`s drug policy

While illicit drug trafficking makes money for traffickers, it can end up hurting nationalgovernments and their populations. The government of Romania acknowledges that increaseddrug trafficking can lead to disease, social isolation, unemployment and poverty.

National Anti - Drug Agency

o Romania's National Anti-Drug Agency (NADA) was established by theRomanian government in Dec. 2002. One of its chief objectives is controlling theillegal production and trafficking of drug supplies within the country.

Problems

o With an official policy against trafficking, drug traffickers still find ways of thriving in Romania. According to the Organized Crime and CorruptionReporting Project (OCCRP), some Romanian judges don't view drug traffickingas a social threat.



16

Strategy

o Romania exercises a prevention policy by spreading information about the risksof drug use and building a network of counseling and prevention centersthroughout the country under the authority of NADA, according to the European

Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA).

Assistance

o The European Commission (EC) cooperates in Romania's fight against drugtrafficking by sending EC specialists to help hone and modify traffickinglegislation.

H indrance

Challenges in bringing drug traffickers to justice continue in spite of legal infrastructure setagainst trafficking. For example, witnesses often fear speaking out because of an insufficientwitness protection program



17

Bibliography:

STAVROS, C. Droguri concomitente 1988

Steven R. Belenko: Drugs and drug policy in America

Alex Wodak, Timothy Moore : Modernising Australia's drug policy

Documents

World Drugs Policy