Cooperation between drug law enforcement, health, and social services in South Eastern Europe

Drug policies and their implementation during the last fifty years have been increasingly criticized for their punitive character and their ineffectiveness. At all levels and in all regions of the world, a lively debate is taking place about reform of current policy. The practice of treatment of drug depend- ence and policies to combat drug production and trafficking are changing. Although there is not yet consensus about these proposals for change, in several countries round the world alternative measures to imprisonment have already been implemented. At the local level, law enforcement agencies and social and public health services are increasingly cooperating and developing initiatives for more humane and effective approaches.

The debate on reform of current drug policies has significantly intensified following publication of a study by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) on the 100th anniversary of the implementation of the international drug control system. The study provided data and information that UN member states could use to evaluate the political declaration adopted by the UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs (UNGASS) held in New York in 1998. The slogan that was adopted at UNGASS 1998 was "A drug free world. We can do it."

The UNODC report on progress of the drug control system from 1909 to 2008 found that the international community had managed to create a control system which has been ac- cepted and applied in more than 180 countries. The production and use of drugs decreased, compared to the number of opium users in China and South-East Asia in the late 19th century, but the current system was found also to have negative aspects. The study points out five negatives that are ‘unintended consequences’ of the system. The most important negative aspect is the creation of a lucrative and violent black mar- ket of illicit drugs controlled and managed by powerful networks of criminal organisations.

The second negative aspect is the emphasis on criminal sanctions, and the use of pun- ishment and imprisonment as the major means for discouraging and preventing drug use. As a consequence, there is large ex- penditure of public funds on police and prison systems. Resource allocation to ad- dress dependence treatment and prevention programs and access to health services lags well behind expenditure on repressive measures.

The third unintended consequence is geo- graphical displacement, often called the ‘balloon’ effect – because squeezing (by tighter controls) one place produces a swelling (namely an increase) in another place ... The result is not a real reduction of availability but simply a change in location of the market.

The fourth negative consequence is the phenomenon of ‘substance displacement’: when demand for one drug weakens on the market, suppliers and users move to another substance (for instance, from heroin to cocaine, or more generally, from illicit drugs to alcohol).

The fifth negative aspect is the effect of criminal justice system interventions dispro- portionately affecting vulnerable populations, resulting in further marginalization and shrinkage of services for treatment and so- cial reintegration. The Executive Director of UNODC summarizes the image that exists in the media and the public mind about the effectiveness of the current drug control system thus:

• too much crime, and too much drug money laundered around the world;
• too many people in prison, and too few in health services;
• too few resources for prevention, treat- ment and rehabilitation;
• too much eradication of drug crops, and not enough eradication of poverty.

Keep up-to-date with drug policy developments by subscribing to the IDPC Monthly Alert.