It might be thought that all modern states have approximated their drugs legislation. This turns out to be generally true of legislation in relation to trafficking. However, as this study demonstrates, European states vary quite considerably in their legislation on drug possession and related issues, including self-supply (e.g. through self-cultivation) and 'social supply' or sharing of drugs amongst users. In some states, this middle ground is towed 'upwards' (towards supply) and becomes criminalized, whilst in other cases it is towed 'downwards' by its association with drug use, and middle ground acts are not criminalized.

The result is that, depending on where in Europe one commits an act such as possession of drugs for personal use, the act might be disregarded, or proceeded against administratively/civilly, or prosecuted under criminal law. It should be emphasised that, in practice, the responses of police, prosecutors, courts and tribunals will be influenced by the general 'climate' in a particular region or locality and by the circumstances of the particular case. It is hazardous to generalise about the implementation of legislation (see chapter 1).1 Nevertheless, considering only law-in-the-books (in codes and statutes, in the judgements of constitutional and, appeals courts and other higher courts, in regulations and guidance that has legal applicability) it is clear that there is a veritable 'variable geometry' in the ways in which European legal systems define, proscribe and punish (or do not punish) drug use and closely related actions. And this is in spite of the fact that all European states have signed the international conventions' 2 which, on the face of things, would seem to constrain the options for domestic drug policies and drug laws (discussed in the first and last chapters to follow).

What are the implications for our understanding of the options that exist for future development of drug control in European contexts? In particular, given the origins of this study, what could be the implications for discussions about UK legal and policy developments? This study originates in a request by the Independent Inquiry on the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 for 'a comparative study of the legislation on illegal drugs across six European Union States... In order to inform the Independent Inquiry's investigation of the room for manoeuvre in altering UK drug legislation'. The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (as amended over the years) contains the heart of the UK's regulatory and control regime on drugs. The legal systems examined in this study are those of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Sweden. The diverse ways that these deal with drugs are put in the context of the requirements of the three international drug conventions. The aim is to understand how different national legal systems respond to drugs, how each reconciles its approach with the international conventions and other sources of law and the possibilities for future developments.

The study was contracted to DrugScope (formerly ISDD and SCODA) and was done in the period 1998-2000. In each of the six states during 1998 a national legal expert wrote a draft paper about drugs legislation in their country of residence. An international expert researched and wrote about the international drug conventions and the extent to which they constrain signatory states' choices in drug legislation. A seminar followed, attended by the experts and members of the Independent Inquiry, at which the features of national drug laws and the 'room for manoeuvre' in the context of international and European law were discussed. Following the seminar, the experts re-wrote their papers and a comparative overview was written. The resulting full report was made available to the Independent Inquiry in 1999 and then put 'on ice' until the Independent Inquiry published its deliberations in the spring of 2000 (see www.CHECKIT). DrugScope then published a summary of part I of this present book (www.drugscope.org.uk) and now follows up with this print version—which includes the full texts of the six national chapters and discussion of compliance with the international conventions.

DrugScope is very grateful to the national legal experts for their sustained efforts: Yann Bisiou (France), Tom Blom (the Netherlands), Lorenz Bollinger (Germany), Maria Luisa Cesoni (Italy), José Luis de la Cuesta and Isidoro Blanco (Spain), Josef Zila (for Sweden) and Alison Jamieson (international work and co-editing). Nicholas Dom coordinated the study. Thanks are also due to the Independent Inquiry for the opportunity to carry out this work. Nevertheless, this work does not represent a point of view or policy of the Independent Inquiry, the Police Foundation, or DrugScope. Responsibility for accuracy, interpretation and appraisal of options for the future is shared between the editors and contributors. Lastly, Pascale Darchy-Robinson most effectively administered the project throughout, Harry Shapiro arranged for publication and Barbara Lisgarten and Jan Hodgson helped us into print.

1 Further work is being carried out in 2000 by DrugScope together with Ghent University and national legal experts in all fifteen members states of the European Union to begin to chart the contours of implementation as far as drug users are concerned.

2 The Single Convention on Narcotics Drugs, 1961, Done at New York on 30 March, as amended by the Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1972, Done at Geneva on 25 March.
The Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971, Done at Vienna on 21 February 1971.
United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988, done at Vienna on 20 December.