Med venlig hilsen
Michael Benneke
Member of the ENCOD
Skovbakken 13
6340 Kollund
Danmark (DK)
Telefon: +45 74 43 74 95
E-mail: Inf0@Benneke.dk
Dear friends
We are in the final phase of Encods "Drugs and Diplomacy" project: the writing of the report with analysis, conclusions and recommendations to improve the participation of drug users organisations in the design and implementation of drug policies (on local and European level)
In the attachment you will find the draft report. If you wish to give comments or suggestions please do so by sending a message to info@encod.org before Saturday 24 January. If you wish to be involved in the final editing (which will take place in the weeks after, so it can be presented to both the Basque Government in February and the European Commission in March) please say so.
Best wishes
Joep
--
EUROPEAN COALITION FOR JUST AND EFFECTIVE DRUG POLICIES
Lange Lozanastraat 14 – 2018 Antwerpen - Belgium
Tel. + 32 (0)3 293 0886 / Mob. + 32 (0)495 122644 / +31 (0)6 30210357
E-mail: office@encod.org <mailto:office@encod.org> / http://www.encod.org <http://www.encod.org>
DRUGS AND DIPLOMACY
DRAFT FINAL REPORT OF A RESEARCH INTO THE PARTICPATION
OF DRUG USER ORGANISATIONS IN THE DESIGN OF DRUG
POLICIES
Herewith we present you the final report of a research on the participation of
associations representing drug users and their proposals to reduce harms in the
design and implementation of policies that directly affect their lives: drug policies.
Concretely the research has looked into the way this participation takes place on a
local level (the V Plan on Drug Dependencies of the Autonomous Community of
Euskadi – Basque Country, Spain) and on a European level (the EU Drug Action Plan
2005 – 2008).
This research has been elaborated by the European Coalition for Just and Effective
Drug Policies (ENCOD), in collaboration with various of its members in the Basque
Country: Ganjazz, La Regadera and Ekimen 2000, and in Spain: FAC and FAUDAS.
Objectives
This research had four objectives:
- To analyse the real possibilities that organisations formed by drug users have to
participate in the political debate in general and in the design and implementation of
action plans such as those that are formulated by local, national or European
authorities.
- To analyse the capacities of drug user organisations at the moment of intervening in
the political debate and identifying their difficulties in this intervention.
- To elaborate a series of recommendations towards improving the possibilities for
participation on behalf of associations and collectives of drug users in the drugs
debate, both at the level of the Basque Country as well as in the European Union.
- To contribute to a coordinated participation of ENCOD members in different drug
forums (at the local level in the Basque Country as well as on EU level)
Methodology
The methodology of the research consisted of a questionnaire that was sent from 20
October 2008 onwards to tens of organisations of drug users in Europe and the
organisation of a workshop in Murguía from 21 to 23 November, that was attended by
21 organisations of users (8 from the Basque Country, 7 from the rest of Spain and 6
from the rest of the European Union.
1. Questionnaire
The following organisations responded to the questionnaire:
ENCOD, INPUD (international)
Akzept (Germany)
Brugerforeningen (Denmark)
Legalise Cannabis Campaign (Scotland)
UISCE (Ireland)
Foreningen for Human Narkotikapolitik (Norway)
Green Cross (New Zealand)
Black Poppy, John Mordaunt Trust, Legalise Cannabis Alliance (United Kingdom)
Techno + (France)
Almadia, AMEC, Asociación Volver a la Vida, Asociación DESAL, Asociación
JOMAD, Ayuda al Toxicómano Nueva Ilusión, ARSECSE, Asociación Minera de
Ayuda a Toxicómanos, Alborada, Asociación Alternativa Joven, ALPRED, AFADU,
ALAT, Club de Tastadores de Cannabis del Collsacabra, Ekimen2000, Federación
ENLACE, MACA, SOS Nunca es Tarde (Spain)
Paotxa, Asociación Ai Laket (Basque Country)
Table
Result of the questionnaires from 33 organizations:
Training in political lobby: only 6 organisations received training in political lobby, and
4 of them by coincidence as they were member of other social movements.
Experiences with dialogue: 29
Physical meetings 27, By mail/Internet 13
Formal dialogues 25, Informal dialogues 12
Incidental meetings 25, Regular meetings 11
On particular issues 23, General debates 16
On own initiative 23, On the administration’s initiative 11
Good experience: 16, bad 11, neither bad nor good 2
Any difference in attitude of authorities, 13 yes, 14 no
Recommendations taken into account, 6 yes, 9 a bit, 14 no
Difference in own attitude: half yes, half no
2. Workshop
The following organisations participated in the workshop:
Basque Country: Pannagh, Ganjazz, Ai Laket, Comisión Ciudadana Antisida de
Alava, Itxarobide, Paotxa, Amalurra y LRKG, Ekimen2000
Spain: FAUDAS, FAC, Energy Control, Alacannabis, MACA, AMEC, Enlace.
Europe: Akzept (Germany), LCA (United Kingdom), PIC (Italy), MDHG - Amsterdam
Drug Users Union (The Netherlands), ENCOD and INPUD (International). Hungarian
Civil Liberties Union (Hungary) could not participate in the workshop due to technical
problems.
Results
The results of the research consist of:
A document with the analysis, conclusions and recommendations on the capacities of
interventions of the associations representing drug users and their proposals,
accompanied by a filmed impression and interviews with participants in the workshop.
In the coming months, this document will be presented to the authorities of the
Autonomous Community of the Basque Country, to the authorities of the European
Union, and in summarised form, to the press and the members of ENCOD.
The final document will also be published on the website of ENCOD and on the
websites of member organisations.
ANALYSIS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE CAPACITIES
OF ORGANISATIONS OF DRUG USERS TO INTERVENE IN THE DESIGN AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF DRUG POLICIES
1. ANALYSIS
To determine the capacities of drug user organisations to participate in and contribute
to the political process in which decisions are taken that are extremely important for
their lives, 4 separate elements need to be analysed: the weaknesses, strengths,
threats and opportunities.
WEAKNESSES
In the first place we identified the internal weaknesses that the organisations
themselves have encountered when they participated in meetings with politicians or
authorities during the process of drug policy design. These are things that
participants in the survey identified as internal obstacles to participate in the political
debate, problems that are related with their own position as drug user. Of course it is
within the organisations themselves that these obstacles should and can be resolved.
“We have to learn everything by doing”
Without doubt, the weakness most frequently mentioned is the lack of availability
among qualified people to carry out the work that is needed to participate in political
debates.
Among the 33 organisations that responded to the questionnaire, only 6 had received
some kind of political training, and only one of these was related to drug policy. This
obstacle is related to the lack of funding to organise political training, but also to the
lack of continuity in the common knowledge and competences, a result of the
concentration of these resources in too few people and the lack of conditions to
share these resources with others.
On the other hand the difficulty was mentioned to mobilise the user population, who,
for various reasons (fear to come out of the closet among others) are not motivated
to associate themselves, not to mention in order to express themselves politically.
Due to the social stigma on drug consumption many organisations are obliged to act
in a modest way, avoiding having a high profile in the media. This objective is
contrary to what an organisation should do in order to mobilise people or obtain the
attention of media or politicians with whom to debate.
“You need to give love to receive love”
The third internal obstacle is related to the psychological pressure on people who
carry out political lobby activities. Many of them express that their claims, which they
feel are legitimised by the existence of a profound injustice committed against
hundreds of millions of people throughout the world, are received with disrespect and
arrogance by the political circles. In the media, false and manipulated information on
drugs and drug users appear on a regular basis, sometimes originated by official
institutions and political representatives. Thus, the public opinion concerning drugs is
based on images in the press that are dominated above all by the association with
problems, criminality and social nuisance.
This situation implies that while the representatives of user organisations who are
involved in political lobby feel they have to show wisdom, patience and empathy in
their relation with counterparts, the treatment they receive on behalf of the authorities
or politicians consists, in the best case, of symbolical sympathy as a gesture of
politeness, or, in the worst case, of total indifference.
At the same time, these representatives do not always count on the support of the
people who they represent, because they usually consider politics to be something
that is taking place far away from their daily reality. Consequently, the psychological
pressure on these representatives can become very big, and many characterise this
work as frustrating, tiring and exhausting. As many of them do this work voluntarily, it
can be no surprise that several of them abandon it after some time.
“Lack of common aims and resources”
Other obstacles that are encountered within the organisations of drug users are
related with the difficulties in finding a minimum of common aims among users. This
is due to the lack of information among the different organizations, who although they
are operating in similar areas, do not always know or appreciate each other, to the
(auto) stigmatisation that exists between drug users, to internal differences between
users of different substances (cannabis users tend to look down upon heroin users
who tend to look down upon cocaine users etc.) or to the differences in social status
between persons who use drugs (professional vs. street user).
For instance while some users insist on the fact the most important issue of their
political participation should consist of the defense of the right to consume without
being considered as a criminal (“the State should not interfere in what I decide to put
in my body”), others choose to apply a more tactical strategy and try to promote
measures such as the reduction of harms and risks and even accept terms like
“patients” in order to “decriminalise” their situation. As a result it may become difficult
to develop a global vision among the organisations that encompass all these
concerns.
Finally there are problems caused by a lack of resources: most organizations lack
infrastructure to hold meetings, physical conditions to carry out office work, edit
letters or comments or gather scientific data. Besides these organizations often find
themselves in a situation of legal insecurity: either because of their status as users,
or because their activities can be seen as anti-establishment (as they are oriented
towards legal reform) the organizations run the risk of entering in conflict with legal
authorities, which reduces their capacities to mobilise and increase their influence.
STRENGTHS
As a second determining element in the participation of organizations of drug users in
the political debate the internal strengths of these organizations were analysed. With
this term, we refer to the positive and useful characteristics that these organizations
have to facilitate this participation, and who can be used by organizations that try to
strengthen their position in relation with politicians and civil servants.
“Street credibility”
As a first strength, the multiple field experiences can be mentioned that are present in
user organisations, and that often lack in governmental institutions. These
experiences are extremely valid, both in a theoretical sense (users have experience
in dealing with pleasure and risks in the use of a psycho-active substance that can
become very useful in planning prevention campaigns) as well as in the political
sense: the organizations can serve as a channel of information between authorities
and citizens, above all those who belong to a hidden population such as is the case
with drug users. The fact that these organizations operate from within this population
give them credibility, as they visibilise hidden problems and therefore contribute to
their solution.
This channel of information can prove to be useful in the two directions: to report
direct- and instantly to authorities on phenomena that occur on the drugs market or
which are the consequence of the impact of their policies, for instance in the case of
serious public health hazard. Likewise they can promote methods of risk and harm
reduction through networks of drug users and sensibilize the users of the need to
take these methods into account.
“Equality of opportunities”
It is important to mention the fact that user organisations tend to have mechanisms to
make persons participate in a direct way. Equality of opportunities and rights to issue
an opinion is deeply rooted in political model that is being used by the large majority
of the organisations, also because their political objective is precisely the
development of conscience among their members of their condition as a human
being with rights. Organisations have much experience in dealing with complicated
personalities, collective and individual frustrations, with feelings of having failed in
general. This characteristic makes that when entering in a dialogue with authorities,
user organizations will take care for their image of being seen as respectable
counterparts, putting forward critical but pertinent questions, in a persistent way.
Many organizations report that in this way, their participation in the dialogue has
contributed to the change of attitude on a personal level among civil servants and
politicians who are involved in the dialogue.
“Creativity and capacity to improvise”
Curiously, the lack of resources is mentioned both as a weakness and as a strength:
it forces organisations to be economical, patient and creative, and increases their
capacity to improvise. It also strengthens the internal character of the organizations:
people do not commit themselves in order to make money but because they are
convinced that it is necessary to change laws and policies and thus improve the
situation for many people around them and for society as a whole.
The lack of interest that is generally expressed by the media towards the claims of
users has in some ways strengthened the capacity of organizations to develop their
own tools of communication, through actions that communicate directly to the public
and intend to change the social perception, and through developing new methods
and instruments to which they have adapted rapidly.
The range of issues that user organisations are covering refer to a broad spectrum of
aspects of our society: social, health, legal, the situation in prisons, apart from the
discussion on the freedom of the individual, his human rights, the ecology,
international co-operation, democracy, the power of religion etc. This allows the
integration of the claims of drugs users in several other proposals that are made by
other social collectives. Also, it has given organizations the capacity to analyse
political issues, both on a national and an international level. Some organizations
have developed their own political strategies to obtain important political advances,
such as the cannabis social clubs in Spain.
This defines also the “anti-establishment” character of these organizations, which
gives them particular attractivity to people who are not consuming drugs but wish to
support movements that are working for social reforms in general (“the fight against
prohibition as a forbidden fruit”).
“United we stand”
The heterogeneity among users, who share different social status and origins is
considered as a strength, as in their organizations people always seem to find issues
that can unite people and facilitate the efforts to draw common conclusions. In this
work, the experience with stigmatisation is important. Differences between women
and men, hetero- and homosexuals, persons with different ethnical or social origin
tend to be less important than is the case of other social movements, because all are
united by the desire of eliminating the stigma that they have in common, i.e. their
condition as drug user.
THREATS
The third element consists of the external obstacles that organizations encounter to
obtain a real participation in the debate on drug policy. These obstacles do not
originate from within the organisations, but from outside, and therefore they can be
referred to with the term “threats”.
“Legal insecurity”
The principal threat that organizations identify is legal insecurity. Apart from the
insecurity related with the fact of consuming illegal drugs, belonging to an
organization that defends the rights of drug users or advocates for the legalization of
prohibited substances can provoke dangerous situations or reactions from the legal
or political apparatus.
“Ignorance on behalf of politicians”
Then the lack of knowledge on behalf of politicians concerning the issue, and the
impact of current drug policies is felt as a threat, due to the fact that often, politicians
tend to avoid the debate on this issue, which is the harm produced by drug
prohibition, and they tend to concentrate the discussion on secondary issues.
The political use of drug prohibition as an instrument that can be used by any political
force to control society – maintaining it as a political taboo that hinders any innovative
approach, and that is never discussed – is felt as the real threat to the efforts to
create a sincere and constructive consultation of drug users by authorities. Politicians
might consider antiprohibitionism as a legitimate position, but as a sure political risk
too.
Some comments that reflect the opinion of drug user organisations:
“It is as if they need to come out of the closet only to defend an opinion”
“Even when they realise they agree with you, they will never take risks for you. To
support drug users is too dangerous for them.”
“They only accept what fits into their logic, and throw away the rest”
“Politicians listen to us, we are satisfied after a meeting with them, then after they do
not act and we become frustrated”
As long as this situation does not change, the reach of user participation seems to
remain limited to contextualise drug policies in a framework of risk and harm
reduction and respect for human rights, in the case of the situation in prisons, in
treatment centers etc... The threat exists that these proposals will be presented as
important achievements by governments, who therewith justify their passiveness
concerning fundamental proposals.
“We are only being used”
Another threat is the fact that it is difficult to measure the impact of the efforts to
participate in the political debate, which can become particularly important at the
moment of evaluating strategies. Due to the impact on policies being limited, the real
impact seems to be the influence that people have had on individual civil servants or
politicians with whom they have had meetings. But although this influence might have
been positive, this does not guarantee that this will continue to be the case for the
whole institution: someone new enters and all work can start all over again.
There is a fear among organisations of users that they are being used as an excuse
for others – special reference is made to the “industry of addiction”, health services
for addicts, such as treatment centres, social workers etc. – to look for financial
resources for their projects, which does nothing to essentially improve the situation of
drug users.
The reaction of the criminal organizations that are involved in the drugs market to the
proposals to legalise drugs (and diminish the influence of these organisations) is felt
as a possible threat. Likewise, people believe that also pharmaceutical companies
may be waiting for the moment that the proposals of drug users to legalise these
substances will be heard by politicians in order to take lead in the debate and ensure
that any kind of legalisation will end with the creation of patents on behalf of their
companies.
“Media are hostile”
The political taboo of prohibition seems also to extend itself to the media. Many
times, the form in which these report on the drugs issue with information that is
presented as “scientific” and therefore “trustworthy” leaves much to be desired: see
for instance the recent series of articles on the supposed dangerousness of
cannabis. The prohibitionist tendency in official investigations, that many times seem
to be designed in order to legitimate the official approach in stead of allowing a
description of reality, and the manipulation of the information on drugs in the press
are felt as an important threat to efforts to obtain a serious and sincere debate on the
subjects presented by organizations of users.
The way that the issue is put into context by the media, whose attention is more
focussed on the substances themselves than on the policies that are implemented,
contributes to an apparently strong social consensus that prohibition should remain.
This view is often justified by an extremely emotional approach by the political
leadership that uses terms like war, menace, danger and social disease to describe
the issue, strengthening in this way a major stigmatisation of drug users among the
media, authorities and the public in general.
“Economic crisis”
Finally the economic crisis can play a role in reducing the political will of authorities to
create and maintain the dialogue with marginal groups, diminishing the available
resources to finance these programmes.
OPPORTUNITIES
The last element that should be taken into account in the analysis of possibilities that
user organizations have to participate in the design of policies that affect them is
formed by the opportunities that the political situation presents them. This situation is
dynamic, it depends on general cultural and political events and tendencies in
society, which do not originate from within the sector of drug users.
“The concept of civil society participation”
An important opportunity that is becoming reality at the moment is the apparent
openness on behalf of authorities towards the concept of participation of civil society
in public policies, a result of the general desire to reduce the distance between
citizen and public authority. This opportunity can benefit user organizations, as they
represent by far the largest proportion of citizens affected by drug policies, and those
who until now have received less participation.
“Failure of centralised drug policies”
Another opportunity is formed by the fact that official reports on the result of drug
policies continue to show these policies fail with regards to the fulfilment of their
principal objectives: i.e. the reduction of demand and supply of drugs. It is impossible
that politicians can continue to close their eyes for this failure, especially when
important amounts of public spending are involved.
In relation with this phenomenon there is an opportunity in the gradual
decentralization of policies to the regional and local level. On these levels, authorities
tend to be more willing to listen to users as legitimate counterparts.
At the local level, user organizations can present themselves not as service users,
but as service providers in the implementation of programmes that are aimed to
improve public health. In this way, they can succeed in being recognised as valid and
worthwhile contributors to the implementation of public strategies.
“Anti-prohibitionism becomes sexy”
Election periods are generally considered as an opportunity due to the fact that
during these times, young politicians or journalists can be induced to put the issue of
drug legalization on the agenda. Anti-prohibitionism, at least during a certain period,
can be considered as an issue with which votes or media attention can be gained.
As the majority of politicians have not elaborated a proposal to deal with the drug
issue in a post-prohibitionist period, the debate on this issue has barely started. User
organisations can profit from this situation by elaborating this proposal in a detailed
way and propose it as a basic document.
For instance, the establishment of collectives to grow cannabis for personal use
represents a solid response on the need to reduce the black market. Legal paths that
accompany the birth process of these clubs demonstrate that this option can become
a transformation from the prohibitionist model to a model of regulation. It may start to
have an important impact on the general drugs debate. The fact that citizens look for
own solutions to their needs without necessarily waiting for an intervention by the
state, generates self-confidence and respect from others.
“New technologies”
More exploitation of new technologies like Internet or mobile telephone, possibilities
to exchange experiences and ideas through internationalisation and globalisation and
more professionalization in the supply of services are opportunities that can be used
by organizations to improve and gain more attention for their messages.
Although they pass only from mouth to mouth, these messages can also reach
personalities within the political, scientific and legal apparatus, and even in
prohibitionist associations where open attitudes exist towards the need for change of
drug policies.
“Crisis, what crisis?”
The financial crisis is considered as an opportunity to make progress in the drugs
debate, as this obliges society to control public spending and save on useless
expenses. It can also lead to the fact that the entire political system will be
questioned more than before, which can increase the profile of pertinent and critical
questions on how this system is functioning.
2. CONCLUSIONS
Taking into account the weaknesses, strengths, threats and opportunities for drug
user organizations to intervene actively in the decision making process on drug
policies, which contributions can be identified that these organizations can make to
the general and specific objectives of this process? In other words, how can user
organizations contribute to make drug policies more effective?
General contributions
1. Channel of information
Organizations can serve as a channel of information between users and authorities.
This channel can serve in both directions: both to communicate direct- and instantly
to authorities about the impact of their policies, indicate both negative and positive
consequences, problems and good experiences, above all in the population that is
less visible, such as marginalized users or people in prison. In this way, they will
contribute to a complete analysis of the impact of policies on the user population,
reporting on possible unintended consequences in an early stage. At the same time,
organizations can communicate questions, demands, suggestions and proposals that
originate from the community of users and can be useful at the moment of
elaborating policies.
2. Service providers
Organizations can play a crucial role in the offering of services to users, both to those
who need support for basic needs like a living, work opportunities, access to risk or
harm reduction services, etc. They can also indicate specific needs for people who
are particularly vulnerable.
3. Gender perspective
Among others, it is important to mention here the gender aspect in drug policies.
Apparently, very little information exists in official institutions on this aspect of the
impact of drug policies. Through information provided by user organizations data can
be collected on this impact, which generates situations of risk, for instance in the
case of women in prison or in treatment institutions, problems with taking care for
their children, the impact of social punishment that affects particularly women who
consume drugs etc. Organizations can play an important role at the time of indicating
these problems, gather the demands of women in this aspect and formulate
proposals to improve the situation.
4. Change of perception
Organizations may fulfil an important role in the change of perception of drugs and
drug users. Through their presence in the public domain these organizations can
illustrate the reality that “addiction” as such does not need to be considered as a
social problem, that responsible forms of consuming exist and that it is possible to
educate others on these forms.
5. Elaboration of political proposals
With their awareness activities (publications, conferences, campaigns) organizations
can fulfil a role in the development of proposals to elaborate drug policies that are
based on the regulation of access to adults. These proposals can serve as a basis for
a discussion on future drug policies, aiming at the protection of public health and the
reduction of the involvement of the black market.
In some cases these proposals to create a responsible drugs market can be
implemented in practice, such as the collective cultivation of cannabis through clubs
or the collective purchase of substances on the black market. In the creation of these
collective circuits deontological codes can be established with regards to the
production and distribution of illegal substances that will be important at the moment
of normalising drug policies. The idea is that through their organizations, users can
become principal actors in the reduction of risks and harms in their own consumption
and with regards to the impacts of this consumption on society as a whole.
Contributions to specific strategies of drug policies
1. Civil society participation
Currently, authorities wish to involve civil society in the design and implementation of
policies, in order to improve their public acceptance and effectiveness. In the field of
drug policies, user organisations can contribute significantly to the forums of
consultation that should support these policies.
Through their experiences in developing an open environment in which all opinions
are listened to and taken into account, giving room to groups that are particularly
vulnerable such as women, as well as elaborating and carrying out alternative
models of drug policies aimed at reducing risks and harms, user organizations are
valid counterparts in any sincere effort to make civil society participate in the
elaboration of drug policies.
Their primary role would be to indicate contradictions in current policies, aimed at
protecting public health, but whose methods often obtain the opposite. Afterwards,
they could develop research on the situation of the user and his surroundings that
may produce valid data on the reality of users. Thus, organisations could offer a
service to authorities that need to base their policies on a trustworthy view of reality.
And finally they could present alternative models to current policies, and carry them
out in practice in order to produce laboratory experiments that can be useful at the
time of taking political decisions.
The associative model as representation of users with national and international
networks, facilitates the exchange of experiences between persons and groups in
similar circumstances, and strengthens the sincereness with which the
representatives of these organizations are operating. It is important to respect this
model at the time of involving possible information sources in the forums of
consultation and participation.
2. Legislative proposals
User organizations can be crucial actors in the drafting of proposals to modernise
drug legislation.
In the first place they can channel proposals to improve the situation with regards to
human rights of users in both the legal and health system. This refers above all to
vulnerable populations like users in prison, or those without a home or labour
opportunities. Equally important is the work of organizations in order to defend the
rights of users, as a service of legal assistance.
Likewise, organizations can develop proposals to install legal models that are
alternative to those currently in place, such as the one to allow collective cannabis
cultivation for personal use.
The networking of user associations, including international experiences, facilitates
the exchange of experiences with different legislations among countries, which could
prove to be very useful at the moment of evaluating the consequences of certain
legal steps.
Organizations usually have broad experience with putting in practice the principles of
risk reduction and health protection, precisely the objectives that formally justified the
creation of prohibition. Now it is users themselves who may develop legal models to
put in practice this protection, based on the principle that where there is no victim,
there cannot be a crime.
3. Risk and harm reduction
In the field of risk and harm reduction (harms being considered as risks that have not
been sufficiently reduced) drug users can contribute to the analysis of the way in
which legislation and political practice can cause these risks. Not only in general
terms, but also specifically such as in the case of vulnerable populations.
Apart from the legal issue, also in the current situation user organizations may be
able to make several contributions. Based on their insight gained in real life they can
play an important role in elaborating prevention programmes that are oriented to the
family environment, with regards to conflict prevention, support of self-confidence and
other elements that can help to prevent irresponsible drug use.
Due to its proximity to daily reality and their facility to communicate, user
organizations are able to advert authorities when risks occur in the situation of
homeless people, as well as in prisons, and they can play an important role in
projects aimed at improving the labour opportunities of situation of marginalized
(former) drug users.
Organizations contribute effectively in preventing consumption by minors, by creating
spaces that are only accessible for adults, and educate these, fathers and mothers,
within the context of each substance.
Also concerning the prevention of risks in consuming drugs, organizations can
support with programmes to avoid adulteration (like testing the quality of different
substances, or like promoting home-grown cultivation of cannabis), and spread the
knowledge about how to deal with pleasure and risks.
Possibly, user organizations can act together with conventional public health services
in order to respond to questions that these services have difficulties in responding.
Among others an idea could be to install an urgent 24 hour help desk on Internet
where users could address their urgent questions that can be responded by people
with experience and insight knowledge or who know where to find these.
They could also help to (re-) install a culture of substance consumption oriented
towards the protection of people’s well being, by participating in the elaboration of
campaigns to educate on consumption in a consumption society.
The participation and consultation of organizations should be constant element in
current harm reduction programmes in order to improve their accessibility to users
and therefore their effectiveness. Organizations should count with the resources to
organize this participation and to carry out internal and external research in order to
extend their base of knowledge.
This research could also have the character of a study on the form in which social
and health services can adapt themselves to the needs of users, in other words, how
they can improve the client’s satisfaction.
4. Training of professionals
User organizations can fulfil a role in the formation of professionals that are working
in the legal or medical field and maintain a regular contact with drug users: doctors,
social workers, policemen etc. Often, these professionals lack detailed information on
drug consumption and its social and health implications, and only drug users
themselves can give them this information.
To spread the knowledge of basic data on drug consumption and ways to reduce
risks and harms related to drug consumption it is necessary to include this issue in
specific courses or in the general training of people who work in social and health
services, as well as in police corpses or other institutions that are involved in the drug
issue: in universities, academies etc.
If they participate in the design of plans and objectives of these training courses, user
organizations can help to strengthen them.
Organizations can also contribute to a better training of users, with communication
strategies that fit to the target group. Reference can be made among others to the
experience of the “Gadejurister” (Street Lawyers, from Denmark), who elaborated an
information system on legal and health issues with cards that are distributed to
injecting users together with hygienic injection materials.
Thanks to the participation of users in this project, it has been possible to find and
spread a lot of information that is crucial to avoid harms to health such as the spread
of diseases, overdose or other problems. Also information has been provided on the
human rights of users, which has also contributed to the sensibilisation among police
corpses and an improvement of the communication with these institutions.
In order to be able to train others, it is also important that investments are made into
the training of people who represent drug users. Events can be organised with the
character of a “summer school”, using a participative methodology with participants
exchanging information and training each other. In this case participants would be
representatives of organisations invited according to the characteristics of the people
or the substances that they consume.
3. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the analysis of the questionnaires and the results of the workshop we
would like to present the following recommendations to improve the participation of
user organisations in the design and implementation of drug policies. We separate
these recommendations into the two political levels that have been analysed in this
study: the local/regional level (in concrete: the Autonomous Community of the
Basque Country) on one hand and the international/multilateral (the European Union)
on the other.
This separation is due to the logistical division of the participants in the workshop that
formulated the basic principles of these recommendations. That does not necessarily
mean that there is a division in the content. Recommendations for a local level are
also valid for the European level, and the other way around.
Local level (recommendations to the Basque Government)
To map all organisations of illegal drug users in the region.
To guarantee the participation of these organizations in the design of strategical
plans.
To put in motion a process of internal training of personnel that is involved in
strategical plans with the participation of user organizations which can contribute with
information coming from the experience of users
To guarantee the participation of representatives of drug user organizations within
the Technical Commissions that operate in the framework of the Social Initiative, in
the elaboration of risk maps in the Plan Drogo Legal
To take measures in favour of the insertion of active users in the labour market.
To install a legal arrangement for the testing of substances and make the results
available to users and administration
To specify between the various associations of users and their participation
To allow the presence of users in the official evaluation reports on drug policies
European level (recommendations to the European Union)
We propose the governments of the European Union to adopt a drug action plan that
protects the health and safety of the European society instead of deteriorating them.
European citizens need strategies that contribute to a safer environment around the
phenomenon of drugs, that allow a more rational use of public funds, that respect
human rights take into account the implications for vulnerable populations and
especially women, and which don’t threaten the livelihoods of farmers in developing
countries.
In short a drug policy that causes benefits to society instead of harms.
This new drugs action plan should include the following priorities:
1. INFORMATION, INVESTIGATION AND EVALUATION
To increase the investigation of and extend the knowledge base concerning forms in
which drug users can intervene directly in the reduction of risks and harms related to
their own consumption of drugs.
To investigate and evaluate the innovative strategies, programmes and interventions
in the area of drug policy, including alternative treatments such as the controlled
distribution of substances.
To encourage the participation of organisations of drug users in the design and
development of investigations.
To take into account the gender perspective in investigations and evaluations.
To guarantee the objective analysis of the data produced by investigations, without
political manipulations.
To promote international workshops that facilitate the exchange of information and
experiences among the different groups of people affected by drugs, according to the
complexity of themselves and the substances they use.
Investigate the ties between the industry of legal drugs (alcohol, tobacco and
pharmaceutical companies, etc.) and health institutions.
2. COORDINATION
To promote the decentralisation of drug policies to the local and national levels, and
coordinate the co-operation between neighbouring countries and regions in order to
avoid possible frictions.
To defend in the meetings of the UN the sovereignty of every nation to establish
forms of regulation of the drugs market that are socially and culturally acceptable to
the local populations involved.
To allow a broader margin to local authorities to experiment with alternative policies
and innovative interventions (that may include steps towards the legalisation of
certain substances), from which others may learn useful lessons in their search for
more just and effective drug policies, based on the respect of human rights and the
protection of public health.
To increase and strengthen the participation of civil society in the design of drug
policies.
To extend the membership of the EU Civil Society Forum on Drug Policies to all civil
society organizations that wish to take part in it.
To formalise the character of the conclusions of this forum as a direct consultation of
civil society to the Member States, without the unnecessary interference of the
European Commission in the formulation of conclusions and recommendations of this
forum.
3. SUPPLY REDUCTION.
To rationalise the supply of drugs and reduce as much as possible the criminality
associated with the black market, making use of effective measures.
To facilitate, analyse and evaluate the establishment of legal circuits to control the
drugs market with the aim of reducing the presence of the illegal market.
4. DEMAND REDUCTION.
To reduce the problems that are related to drug consumption within a context of
illegality; to improve, innovate and support ways to make drug users and distributors
responsible (among others with initiatives such as the testing of illegal substances)
To facilitate and encourage the establishment of self-support groups of drug users,
and develop intervention methods that are more effective in reducing risks and harms
associated to the use of substances.
To strengthen the establishment of self-support groups formed by peers (parents,
young people, users etc.) and support the contributions of this kind of groups.
To limit the intervention of institutions exclusively to non-repressive strategies
concerning the problematic use of drugs, which should be understood as the use that
is considered problematic by the user him/herself.
To establish and respect ethical codes for the publicity and promotion of drugs, legal
or illegal.
To give specific attention to vulnerable groups, such as mothers who consume drugs
and minors in situations of high risk; to apply prevention policies that are aiming at
“safe neighbourhoods” and the reduction of marginalisation and social exclusion that
is affecting these vulnerable groups.
5. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.
To respect the sovereignty of third countries and their autonomy to formulate own
drug policies. The principle of European policy should always be the protection of
health, the respect of human rights and the prevention of conflicts.
To support the proposals of farmer communities in developing countries in order to
create legal channels of commercialisation for the derivatives of plants that have
been prohibited by the UN Conventions, such as coca leaves in South America,
cannabis in Morocco and opium in Afghanistan.
To exchange experiences of good practices between the European Union and third
countries, based on the respect of sovereignty and avoiding the imposition of policies
that have proved to be a failure.