La politique des drogues, finalement, se centre sur deux aspects: ce qui fonctionne; et ce qui est acceptable pour les personnes, selon Tony Duffin, du projet Ana Liffey. Pour en savoir plus, en anglais, veuillez lire les informations ci-dessous.

Abonnez-vous à l'Alerte mensuelle de l'IDPC pour recevoir des informations relatives à la politique des drogues.

The last year has seen Ireland make huge strides in how we think about drug policy. As we face into an uncertain political future in Ireland, it is important that we maintain this momentum and keep driving towards policies that work.

This is particularly true in 2016 as our own National Drug Strategy only runs to the end of the year, and as global drug policy is considered at the United Nations General Assembly Special Session. Regardless of the composition of the incoming government, there are a few key messages we can keep focused on.

The way that we have historically addressed drugs and drug use globally has been an expensive failure. It is now widely recognised that drugs and drug use are not discrete issues to be ‘solved’ by criminal justice mechanisms. Rather, much more benefit and value can be accrued from having a health focus, which is why the London School of Economics have called for a massive global shift from criminal justice spending to health spending.

The simple reality is that the primary reason we spend money on the criminal justice side is supply control. We want dealers off the street, which means that there are less drugs available for sale, price will go up and demand will go down, shrinking the size of the market. The problem is that it doesn’t work like that.

The UNODC estimates that only 3% of pure heroin that is imported into Ireland is seized. Our best efforts have only a temporary impact on price and availability, and consequently do not significantly affect either supply or demand in the market.

This is not to say we shouldn’t try to control supply or have sanctions for those that deal in illegal substances, merely that the way we are currently addressing these issues is ineffective and expensive.

As an example, in our zeal to criminalise dealing so we can control supply, we have also criminalised those who use drugs. It is not only an offence to possess for the purposes of supply, but also just to possess for personal use.

Criminalising possession in this way does not really discourage use – rates of problematic drug use in societies are largely independent of a simple criminalise / decriminalise variable – but it does have repercussions.

It disproportionately impacts on people from poorer areas, it acts as a barrier to future employment for people convicted, and permits negative stereotyping of drug users. It’s easy to label someone a criminal in this way, but this doesn’t solve anything.

This is why grassroots community organisations like Citywide have been outspoken in their calls for the decriminalisation of possession. It is also why a Joint Oireachtas Committee – with cross party and cross house membership – also concluded that possession for personal use was best dealt with outside the ambit of the criminal law.

However, not only have we criminalised those who use drugs, but also potentially those who work with people who use drugs. Our current laws contain a range of permissive offences – so for example, not only is it a crime to possess drugs, but it is a crime to permit someone else to possess or use drugs on your premises.

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

Criminaliser la possession de drogues n’en décourage pas l’usage – Nous avons besoin de réelles solutions 

Apres près d’un an de débats depuis sa proposition initiale, le projet de loi britannique a obtenu l’accord royal le 28 Janvier 2016, et va devenir une loi le 6 avril 2016. Pour en savoir plus, en anglais, veuillez lire les informations ci-dessous.

After almost a year of debate since its initial proposal, the Psychoactive Substances Bill reached Royal Assent on the 28th of January 2016, and will become law on the 6th of April 2016.

It is essential that all staff at drug services, services supporting people who use unbanned new pyschoactive substances, and people who use drugs are aware of the law and what this new Act potentially means for them.

The Act will make it an offence to produce, supply or offer to supply any psychoactive substance if the substance is likely to be used for its psychoactive effects, regardless of its potential for harm. The only exemption from the Act are those substances already controlled by the Misuse of Drugs Act, nicotine, alcohol, caffeine and medicinal products.

The Act doesn’t replace the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) so laws around existing illegal (controlled) drugs will remain the same. Temporary Class Drug Orders (TCDOs), which are rapidly implemented temporary bans, can still be applied and the Human Medicines Regulations (2012) will remain the same.

The Intoxicating Substances Supply Act (1985) will be scrapped, which made it an offence to sell volatile substances (e.g. glues, gases) to under 18s if it was believed they would be inhaled to cause intoxication.

At present a substance causing concern must be reviewed by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) to assess any potential harm. The ACMD then advise the government on a course of action. The government do not have to take this advice, but are bound to consult with the ACMD first. The ACMD will still have a role and a ‘new’ or emerging psychoactive substance can still be brought under the Misuse of Drugs Act, but this Act was introduced without fully consulting the ACMD and will fundamentally change drug legislation.

Is it a criminal offence to possess a banned psychoactive substance?

Possession of a psychoactive substance will not be an offence, except in a ‘custodial institution’ (prison, young offender centre, removal centre etc.). Possession with intent to supply, importing or exporting a psychoactive substance will all become offences.

Etes-vous prêts à ce que le projet de loi sur les substances psychoactives devienne une loi en avril 2016 ?

Alors que d’autres juridictions ont commencé à mettre en œuvre des lois de bons samaritains, le Royaume-Uni accuse un certain retard dans sa mise en œuvre. Pour en savoir plus, en anglais, veuillez lire les informations ci-dessous.

While other jurisdictions have begun implementing Good Samaritan laws, allowing those at the scene of a drug overdose to contact emergency services without fear of police intervention, the UK is lagging woefully behind in their implementation.

At the launch event for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) UK on February 29, Rose Humphries spoke of how two of her son had suffered fatal heroin overdoses, attributing their needless deaths to punitive drug laws.

Speaking as part of think tank Transform’s campaign Anyone’s Child: Families for Safer Drug Control, Rose mentioned in particular how 13 years after the death of her younger son, Roland, she was still wondering whether the delay in calling the ambulance was because his friends were worried about getting in trouble with the police.

Medical amnesty, a concept which has yet to be enshrined in UK law, could have prevented this situation. Also known as a “Good Samaritan” policy, caller amnesty grants legal protection to people who give assistance to those who they “reasonably believe” to be in danger, and, in some cases, imposes a legal duty to assist. In the context of drug overdoses, it would provide reassurance to witnesses that they, and the person overdosing, would not be arrested after calling for help.

Under current UK law, this is not a guarantee. Callers in life-threatening overdose scenarios face the risk of the police attending their ambulance call out, and the fear of undergoing searches for drugs and arrests for possession. Penalties for possession of heroin, for example, can be up to seven years in prison.

In practice, this is rarely enforced: NHS guidelines for drug helpline operators advise that local ambulance protocol for overdose responses has in many areas been changed, such that the police no longer routinely attend unless there has been a death, a child is involved, or the ambulance crew perceive themselves to be at risk. In localities where police attendance is routine, callers can be reassured that police normally do not conduct searches for drugs.

The uncertainty, however, can be enough to deter someone making a potentially lifesaving call, and the guidelines highlight that many drug users delay calling for help as a result of their fear. For Roland, this may have been fatal.

Well-written medical amnesty laws can prevent this, and indeed they already exist elsewhere in the world, including in large parts of the United States, and are being explored as a possibility in Canada. In the former, notable developments have occurred on college campuses, with the intent of reducing judicial consequences both from drug use and underage drinking.

Lutter contre les décès par overdose: Il est temps pour le Royaume-Uni d’introduire les lois de bons samaritains

En cette journée internationale de la femme, en perspective de l’UNGASS, nous mettons l’accent sur les femmes consommatrices de drogue, qui sont souvent négligées dans les programmes relatifs au VIH et à la réduction des risques, en dépit d'être de plus en plus touchés. Pour en savoir plus, en anglais, veuillez lire les informations ci-dessous.

This International Women’s Day, in the run up to the UN’s General Assembly on the ‘World Drug Problem’ we’re focusing on women who use drugs who are often overlooked in HIV and harm reduction programmes, despite being increasingly affected.

Women are especially vulnerable to HIV and hepatitis C transmission. HIV rates are generally higher among women who use drugs, compared with men who use drugs. Women who use drugs often suffer the consequences of harmful drug policy more intensively than men. Women are incarcerated for drug offences, mostly non-violent, more than for any other crime.

In Ukraine, where the Alliance’s largest HIV and harm reduction programme operates, women account for almost half of all HIV cases among adults.

The sharing of injecting equipment is the main driver of HIV transmission in Ukraine, though increasing numbers of new infections are attributed to unprotected sex. Despite this, very few HIV programmes have integrated harm reduction and sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) services.

“There is a general idea that people who use opiates are not capable of having sex,” believes Liudmyla Shulga, head of the technical support team at the Alliance for Public Health.

In Kenya, where an estimated 18,000 people inject drugs, research showed that only around 15% of people who inject drugs receive SRHR services, which means women are missing out on vital interventions including condoms and family planning, access to safe abortion, and maternal health services including prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT) services.

In Kenya and Ukraine there are also two examples of Alliance Linking Organisations addressing this imbalance by combining harm reduction and SRHR services.

Actualités

Criminaliser la possession de drogues n’en décourage pas l’usage – Nous avons besoin de réelles solutions

Etes-vous prêts à ce que le projet de loi sur les substances psychoactives devienne une loi en avril 2016 ?

Lutter contre les décès par overdose: Il est temps pour le Royaume-Uni d’introduire les lois de bons samaritains

Le « projet femmes »: Pour les femmes consommatrices de drogues