version française

The question of controlling drug consumption in France was temporarily put aside this summer with the conclusion of government discussions and the presentation of a five-year plan by the Inter-Ministerial Mission of the Fight against Drugs and Drug Addictions (MILDT) at the end of July. This plan, which was subject to much difference of opinion, even within the ruling party itself, does not present any spectacular innovation, and does little more than rephrase the existing policy: criminalization of consumption and limited development of health care and prevention. Is this timidity appropriate when one bears in mind the dimension of the drug problem at the beginning of the 21st century?

Let us examine the situation in a realistic way: Cannabis has become a banal product of mass consumption, sometimes more easily accessible than tobacco, especially for young people. It is true that it is easier and sometimes cheaper to find a bar of hashish at eleven at night than to find a packet of cigarettes. A recent study on the subject suggests that young people of 17 and 18 years of age spend almost 10% of their budget on cannabis!

As for ecstasy, its consumption at parties is widespread, even though the dangerousness of the product has been proven.

More worryingly, cocaine consumption is on the increase and gradually becoming more visible: at urban parties people no longer hesitate to “snort” a line in front of their guests. One could endlessly continue listing examples, but the conclusion is implacable: Illegal drug consumption has never ceased to increase; it obeys a profound, long-term tendency whose variations follow fashion trends much more than government actions.

We know that the spread of the use of these drugs is a factor in many societal and public health problems. Their consumption is a vector of numerous contagious pathologies, like AIDS and hepatitis. Dependency and a loss of self control strike the most fragile of consumers. Finally, the informal economy rots disillusioned youth, unjustly, even more so in underprivileged neighbourhoods, destroying the esteem our children have for legal work.

How did we get to this completely uncontrollable situation in France and in Europe? As a police officer, I must accept partial responsibility and admit that the management of the drug situation by means of repression has not reached its objective: to limit consumption by fighting the supply. However, the world’s policemen have done their best and have led their mission of fighting trafficking with exemplary commitment. Their governments gave them the maximum amount tools they could have: abundant materials and the latest technologies, high numbers of officers, exceptional penal procedures allowing extended investigations as well as a rapid and efficient international cooperation.

Why, then, despite these gigantic efforts, have we failed to protect the world from these products? After my long career, I have come to the conclusion that the war against drugs doctrine, inspired by the United States, is largely wrong, because it is based on an irrational approach to the question. That is why this “war” was lost and at the same time has caused many perverse side-effects. This is also why today we must look in new directions in order to rethink the strategy for reducing drug consumption without relying on preconceived ideas.

A new hope has been born these past years concerning the consumption and harmful effects of three major psychoactive substances which have been spectacularly and durably reduced: these are tobacco, alcohol, and heroine.

Concerning Tobacco, a price increase, the banning of marketing and advertising, the banning of smoking in public places, better information on its harmful effects, and the offer of better treatment for stopping smoking, together contribute to a remarkable deterioration of the image of cigarettes and a very clear reduction in their use.

For alcohol, the reduction of tolerance for drinking and driving or in the workplace, as well as intensified prevention have been equally fruitful by cutting consumption per capita in half in the past 25 years in France.

Finally, concerning heroin, the medical care given to dependant users and the prescription of pharmaceutical opiates have permitted the reduction of deaths by overdose by 80%, notably limited the spread of epidemics and sharply cut the delinquency of drug addicts. The number of heroin addicts has also been spectacularly reduced, on the one hand thanks to the new advances and a realistic approach to drug withdrawal programmes, and on the other to the fact that the illicit offer has deserted this now “medicalised” market and has not been able to seduce new generations of consumers.

Although these advances have not been caused by identical policies, they nevertheless obey the same doctrine: a strict regulation of the distribution of these substances and the voluntary intervention of governments in implementing socio-sanitary devices, or, in the case of drunk driving, an extremely targeted intervention by the law-enforcement sector. This approach, which has been courageously defended in France by public officials such as Michele Barzac, Bernard Kouchner, Simone Veil, or more recently Jean-Luc Romero, is today scientifically validated. A recent British study informs us that where drugs are concerned, one pound sterling invested in treatment permits the criminal justice system to save three pounds. It would thus be possible to free immense human resources for our judiciary systems, which as a matter of fact are greatly in need of them, whilst reaching the measurable objectives of lowering consumption of dangerous products and reducing the harm related to their use, as proposed by the World Health Organisation.

In France, there was talk of fining cannabis use, which would have allowed for the sanctioning of consumption in the streets, now a commonplace activity that also feeds an illegal and criminal procedure and makes no sense at all since the infractions reported are not prosecuted. For the moment, nothing has changed. Although I am not personally in favour of the legalisation of drugs, the general feeling is that this was a missed opportunity to completely reform a dangerous and obsolete legal framework and replace it by a modern and effective policy.

Beyond French borders, these policies should be equally acclaimed at an international level. Europe, which is at the origin of most of these innovative policies, does not sufficiently assert the success of these policies against the influence of the United States. In fact the latter still dominates the political stance of UN institutions specialised in the drug issue . These agencies promote an obsolete doctrine that limits the development of innovative policies despite the fact that it is Europe which finances most of their budget.

A reform of the current international conventions will doubtlessly be essential in permitting a decisive evolution of international drug policies and their multilateral institutions. France, whose officials courageously voice crucial opinions in the international arena, could lead the way in the combat of drug policy reform and head the group of European countries that are trying to export their successful experiences such as harm reduction and the control of consumption by regulation, to finally achieve significant success against drug abuse the world over. The United Nations conference in 2008 which will examine the relevance of the international framework ought to be the occasion to reform the Conventions, as has been suggested by the Senlis Council. France has an opportunity to play a unique role on the international stage, alongside the rest of the continent.

I will conclude with a quotation from lord Salisbury, Prime Minister of Queen Victoria. “The most common mistake in politics is to stick to the carcass of dead policies.” Let’s hope that in matters of drug control the current mistakes will not continue given the immense and legitimate expectations of citizens from France, Europe and the rest of the world.