Drug Abuse

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION

EUROPEAN UNION ACTION PLAN TO COMBAT DRUGS

Brussels, 7/8 June 1995

Resolution on the communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a European Union action plan to combat drugs (19951999), (COM(94)0234 - C4-0107/94)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

- having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a European Union action plan to combat drugs (199$ - 1999) (COM(94)0234 - C4~0107/94),

- having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular article K 1(4} and (9) and to the EC treaty and in particular article 129,

- having regard to its resolutions of g October 1g86 on the drug problemt and 13 May 1992 on the work of the Committee of Inquiry into Drugs Trafficking(2), in connection with the reports of its Committees of Inquiry into the Drugs problem, and into the spread of organized crime linked to drugs trafficking,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Social Affairs and Employment, the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Development and Cooperation, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Polity, the Committee on External Economic Relations, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy, the Committee on the environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media (A4-0136/95),

A. Whereas the main institutional developments since 1992 have been the coming into force of the Treaty of European Union with its specific references to drugs, the setting up of the Europol Drugs Unit in The Hague, and the setting up of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction in Lisbon, supported by the network of national information centres on drug addiction known as REITOX,

B. Whereas the rise of new drugs markets and trafficking syndicates in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and the channeling oœ funds into legitimate business concerns by the Mafia and other criminal organizations are giving rise to now problems,

C. Whereas, so long as there is a demand for drugs, and there always be, there will be a supply,

D. Whereas present policies have by no means prevented illicit drug trafficking from thriving for years now and whereas it is more intense than ever before,

E. Whereas there is a discrepancy in some European Union Member States between drugs policy actually implemented at regional level and in towns and cities and the official position on drugs at national level,

F. Whereas methods for collecting information on crops is presently uncoordinated and wildly divergent and whereas moneys allocated to eradication of opium and coca plantation and the consequent provision alternative crops has been largely wasted as the drugs trafficker is always able to increase the price offered for drug crops way above the prices of substitute crops,

G. Considering the vital importance of a global and integrated Strategy to combat the multifaceted problem of drugs and drug addiction which is linked to social sources such as social exclusion and unemployment in the European Union,

H. Considering the lack of adequate financial provisions both at national and EU levels, strongly suggests the use of assets seized in drug enforcement operations to provide increased financial assistance for actions aimed at drug reduction and rehabilitation programs targeted, particularly, at high risk groups,

I. Whereas the Commission communication despite many merits including the recognition that the drugs problem must be tackled as an integrated whole fails to put across the problem in human terms, fails to analyze in sufficient detail the causes and effects oœ this phenomenon and would have been weightier if the Commission had presented the Action plan to combat drugs and the proposals on the prevention of drug addiction as interrelated,

J. Whereas this is in part due to difficulties arising from the division of competence in drug matters brought about by Article K of the Treaty on European Union,

K. Whereas high echelons of the European Commission, the Director of the United Nations Program for Drug Control, the State Department in Washington and others have all made it clear that the Treaty on European Union far from improving resolve and effectiveness in tackling drugs on a coordinated basis has led to obfuscation and a new confusion over 'who should be doing what',

L. Whereas, despite improvements in a number of sectors, there is still insufficient cooperation between countries of the European Union themselves and with the United States. This is instanced by differing individual policies within areas such as the Caribbean and others providing tax havens and easy access for drug traffickers, in linking intelligence centre networks, in cooperation over money laundering techniques and systems and in implementing training and equipment programs in Eastern Europe particularly along the borders with the Bu,

1 Calls upon the European Council to adopt the 1995 - 1999 Action Plan which recognizes that prevention and harm reduction must be given at least as much attention as the laws and penalties relating to drugs and drug-trafficking and insists that clarity of responsibility between the Commission and the Council must be established to ensure that progress is not delayed;

2. Stresses that the Action Plan must tackle all links in the chain, from sourcing through criminal trafficking, to education, health and rehabilitation;

3. Calls on the Commission to work out practical details of the action plan as quickly as possible;

4. Recommends that the Commission and the Council study and give serious consideration to possible alternatives to strategies pursued so far on the basis of a scientific and statistical study of the actual results of the present strategy;

5. Insists on the need for cooperation and not rivalry between the Institutions of the European Union and their related bodies, through a clear setting of objectives and definition of roles;

6. Believes that, too often, anti-drugs policies make insufficient distinction between consumers and traffickers and that, in future, efforts should therefore be concentrated on a cracking down on organized crime while runs trafficking in illicit drugs and drug addicts should be offered health care and social welfare programs that are not likely to be hindered by orackdowns;

7. Considers that questions relating to a reduction in demand should be considered on the grounds that the best form of prevention is one involving policies designed to reduce vulnerability which help to reduce unemployment, poverty and social exclusion and eradicate racism and xenophobia and which contribute to greater academic success, better training, better living conditions, greater stability and improved dialogue within both society and the family;

8. Wishes to see more extensive cooperation and permanent dialogue with all international organizations involved in combating the drugs problem, and also with the third countries concerned;

9. Asks that the report to be drawn up by the Commission in the second half of 1996, together with the adjustment which are deemed necessary, will also be submitted to the European Parliament;

as regards the Council

10. Pending revision of the Treaties, asks for maximum use of the possibilities for action $n the fields of justice and home affairs under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union, in particular

i) further increase in police and customs cooperation using intelligent tools such as computer data bases, satellite communication and profiling techniques to combat drug trafficking;

ii) conclusion of the Europol Convention before the Cannes European Council, in conjunction with the adoption of the necessary measures to ensure that the Europol Drugs Unit can operate effectively while the Convention is being ratified on condition that provision is made for appropriate judicial and (inter)parliamentary scrutiny, for the European Court An Luxembourg and the European Court of Auditors to be given jurisdiction, for practical and effective protection of human rights, of privacy and of the right of the citizens concerned to have access to information where it is collected;

iii) as regards europol wishes to see the creation of an effective central system for collecting information concerning the activities> methods and development of international organized crime, and drugs trafficking in particular. This should be done in such a way that the information can be used effectively by Member States in dealing jointly and severally with criminals and the syndicates and operations that they organize;

iv) insists that Europol must coordinate its activities with Interpol, the United Nations International Drug Control proqramme (UNDCP), the GAFI and with united States information sources to eliminate costly and unnecessary duplication and to agree upon roles to ensure maximum effectiveness. Recommends that an international crime committee should be set up to achieve this objective;

v) hopes that arrangements will be worked out in the EU whereby movable and immovable goods seized from persons convicted of drugs-related crimes can be declared forfeit throughout the territory of the Union; the funds collected in this manner should be used to finance rehabilitation and support measures for drug-addicts, prevention of drug addiction, the fight against drug trafficking and cooperation with international organizations;

vi) whilst recognizing that sentencing of drugs traffickers and others involved in the drugs trade must be for national courts to decide, nonetheless strongly recommends that there should be as close an approximation as possible and a full exchange of information between Member States on sentencing practices. In particular this must have as a main objective to give no safe refuge in the Bu to large-scale organized criminals and their gangs;

vii) simplifying and speeding up the extradition process between member States (which up to now have been governed by the European Convention on Extradition, to which all Member States except Belgium are parties>, by implementing or agreeing the relevant Conventions on simplified procedures, on which the European Parliament must Be consulted by the Council in due time, and on relaxing or removing the legal conditions which enable extradition to be refused;

11. Stresses the urgent need for an increase in human and technical resources at the major entry ports oœ the European Union so that there is no lack in profiling and analytical capability; hopes, wherever possible, that multinational units can be established to facilitate communication with likely countries of destination of suspected drugs shipments and to further improve the technique and use of 'controlled deliveries';

as regards the European Commission

12. Calls on those Member States which have not yet fully implemented the EC Directive on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering to do so as soon as possible; considers that it should be extended to other countries, in particular those of the EEG; calls for more thorough and coordinated measures to be taken within the XU and with FIN-CEN in the United States to tackle this increasingly important dimension in world organized crime and calls for proposals for more thorough and coordinated measures to tackle money laundering, stressing the special responsibility of banks and financial institutions for ensuring that their training arrangements concerning interception techniques are effective and that there should be dramatically increased investment in the latest techniques and equipment for tracking black money movements and those that organize these; stresses that the focus should be on Investigating in which areas of the economy proceeds from crime are reinvested and what impact such reinvestment has on the sectors concerned;

13. Considers that legislation should be adopted concerning the prevention of money laundering involving the economic sectors which are increasingly used for such a purpose

14. Asks the Commission to Promote in the framework of the 91/308/EEC Directive the constitution of a permanent coordination body between the financial institutions ef the Member States in order to exchange information concerning suspicious transactions and to support all police cooperation bodies within Europe involved in combating drug trafficking

15 Underlines its recommendation to establish closer links between large chemical manufacturers and chemical associations and to eliminate obstacles to inspection;

16. Considers it essential for Community law on the control of the illegal production and sale of certain substances used in the production of narcotics snd psychotropic drugs to be extended to all the Member States and taken up by all the ZZA countries. Also considers that it should continue to be incorporated into bilateral agreements to be concluded with all sensitive third countries;

17. Subscribes to the Commission's call for the setting up of 8 centralized system for collecting scientific data based on a technical analysis of drug seizures in Europe;

18. Demande qu'il soit procEdf fi une evaluation approfondie des experiences pilotes de developpement alternatif dans les pays producteurs de cultures illicites;

19. Asks for n coordinated full-scale survey across all states of the EU and in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe of the growth of organized crime linked to drugs trafficking and money laundering, but also of corrupt practices involving government bodies and politicians, which benefit organized crime; .

20. Calls for the promotion of even better international cooperation by EU countries, always within the framework of the UN Drugs Control Policy and itG Conventions;

21. Requests a comprehensive survey into the state of drugs and drug addicts within prisons across the EU and policies effected to assist drug addicts in prisons, also to rehabilitate themselves into society after release, wherever possible to find alternatives to prison for drug users where other crimes are not involved;

22. Recommends, with the information available from these Surveys, to examine the effects of drugs policies being carried out in different countries, including aid initiatives, in order to ascertain which are most effective and so come close to a common approach to the whole subject of tackling crime and the drugs problem in the most effective way possible, in terms of both crackdowns and prevention, and to make the results of the surveys available to both the European Parliament and national parliaments

23. Stresses that such an examination should include an in-depth comparison between the risk-reduction policies being carried out by cities such as Frankfurt, Hamburg, Amsterdam and Zurich, which are signatories to the Frankfurt resolution of 22 November 1990 and are members of the organization European Cities on Drug Policy (ECDP) on the one hand and the stricter drug control policies being carried out by cities such as Berlin, Dublin, London, Paris, Madrid and Stockholm and 1g other European cities which are signatories to and members of the "European cities against drugs";

as regards the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drugs addiction

24. Recognizes that in the EU there are different approaches to the drugs problems as instanced by the attitude towards cannabis in the Netherlands compared to Germany, and consequently stresses the need for the Center to set out those differences through Multidisciplinary research associating policy options such as repression, prevention and harm reduction and also the situation in the field of public health, criminality and corruption, in coherent policy impact reports; also stresses the need for the Center to give priority to establishing a-data base showing the number and trend of different drugs being used, the effects upon users and addicts, the findings of both medical and epidemiological research and Research into the background to and social reasons for drug use and the responsibility of drug users themselves; the data base should also stress the efficacy of different measures being applied at not only national but also regional and local level, the effect of criminal acts being carried out by drug users to obtain monies for purchasing drugs and the consequent stability oœ society, with the data base relating to each aspect of the policies in force and of the pilot projects so as to provide an accurate assessment of their scope, costs and effectiveness, taking account of the health and social aspects, the aspects concerning crackdown by the police, customs authorities and the courts, and the economic, financial and criminological aspects, etc.;

25. Insists that, from the outset, it should provide for effective communication between its central data base and national data bases to make maximum use of existing collections of knowledge and to avoid duplication. Common analytical methods must be agreed with the Center and with Member States for collecting drugs data. Insists that one of the first priorities for the Drugs Monitoring Centre must be to examine the fundamentals of why people take drugs and what measures have succeeded best in preventing and alleviating the problem;

26. Takes the view that it is essential for Multidisciplinary research that the Center has at its disposal at all times the most recent information from the Member States on legal aspects, the allocation of responsibilities among the various levels of government, prevention policy and treatment, and practical information and statistics on trafficking and use, transmissible diseases, crime and safety;

27. Notes that the EMCDDA is called on to play a central role in the implementation of the action plan and hopes that it will be provided with all the technical, human and financial resources which it needs in order to operate satisfactorily;

28. Considers it essential for the ENCDDA's annual reports, the three-year work program and other documents drawn up by the governing body to be submitted in addition to the European Parliament;

29. Considers it essential for the workings oœ the ENCDDA to be transparent so that it i6 trusted by the general public, and calls for easy access by public bodies to the information gathered and the statistical data produced by the Center;

as regards the Member states

30. Calls upon the 1996 Intergovernmental conference to bring the fight against drugs within the remit of Community policy, so that it is no longer seriously hampered by division between the three pillars, compounded by further divisions of competence within the third pillar;

31. Requests the Member States concerned to transpose into national law the EC directive on chemicals and precursors without further delay, and to sign the ON convention on the manufacture and marketing of substances used in the illicit manufacture of narcotic and synthetic drugs;

32. Calls on those member States which have not already done so, to introduce policies to reduce risks connected with drug use;

33. Proposes that, in addition to cooperation at European level, Member States also enter into an intensive dialogue and cooperate on a regional basis, at urban level and in border regions, in the context of which specific experience concerning drugs policy at regional level in towns and cities and in border regions should serve as the basis for debate;

34. Proposes that a national drugs intelligence unit is set up in each EU country wherever possible incorporated in, but as a distinct part of a National Criminal Intelligence Service, and in each Country bordering with the EU, and that they are properly financed, and manned by trained staff;

35. Stresses the need to raise awareness and dialogue concerning the matter of arrest, trial and sentencing, and to make a serious effort to bring current practices closer together, whilst recognizing that this has to remain a matter to be decided upon and implemented within each Member State;

36. Prompts the Member states to engage in more cooperation in the criminal justice field on drug-related crime, in particular with regard to extradition, and urges that cooperation at local level between police services, the judicial authorities and aid workers be encouraged;

37. Urges the Member States to devote more resources to their national programs for the training of counselors and to programs for the rehabilitation of drug addicts within society, taking into account experiences at EU level and actively promoting the bast methods of

rehabilitation and the dissemination of information;

38. Urges that Member States consider improved ways in which to obtain and coordinate information from banks that will allow an effective trace to be put on transactions suspected to be linked to drug profits;

as regards producing countries

39. Asks fox far bettor cooperation An the compilation of meaningful statistics on She areas given over to the seeding, growing and harvesting of opium, coca and cannabis crops using the latest satellite techniques backed up by systematic 'on the ground' surveys;

40. Stresses the importance of providing an alternative in supplier countries, so that growing crops for purposes of drug production is no longer a vital necessity for farmers; notably through joint actions under the common foreign and security policy or under cooperation agreements with third countries (Lomf Convention and development policy)

41. Hopes to receive from the Commission evaluations of its participation in UNDCP programs and, in particular, to be regularly informed on the extent to which the people concerned in the growing countries are involved in the planning and implementation of drug-substitution programs, as urged in the Commission's remarks on budget heading B7-$08;

42. Considers it important to promote alternative trading options for the druggrowing countries and urges the Commission to support 'fair trade' projects and imports from drug-growing countries so that more farmers may have an opportunity to grow crops other than drugs and market them at attractive prices;

43. Welcomes the retention of the GSP in the agreements already drawn up and those still under negotiation, provided that it first undergoes accurate, systematic, independent periodic assessment which will reveal its actual effects on reducing the production of raw materials intended for the manufacture of drugs,

44. believes that the GSP must be oœ direct benefit to impoverished farmers who have hitherto sought to make a living by producing raw materials for drugs, or are in danger of being so, and wishes to be kept informed by the Commission of the percentage of the GSP for which the sectors re{erred to account;

45. Wishes to be informed by the Commission of the measures it intends to take in the Andean region and in the Central American countries to promote the growing of legal crops to which the GSP does not apply;

46. Considers it essential for future agreements with sensitive countries to be properly thought out and to involve extensive 100D1 dialogue, so as to ensure that they include new ways oœ encouraging crop substitution by moans of support for the establishment of other activities in agriculture, trade and industry which are economically attractive to the local people;

47. Wishes to see a substantial change in the way money is expended on crop eradication and substitution. In this respect points to the relative failure of the United States and others to make headway in Peru and Bolivia and of the United Nations and others to progress in both South West Asia (Burma) and North East Asia (Afghanistan) and in the knowledge that the southern CIS states provide new and fertile ground for the growing of both opium poppy and cannabis;

48. Calls on the Commission to carry out a study of the rise in drug production associated with the increase in exports of cheap foodstuffs from the EU to the drug-growing countries and to inform it of any conclusions drawn from this study

49. Considers that support should not be provided for crop eradication through the use of repressive measures;

as regards the financial implications

50. Considers that the drastic reductions of public financing in national budgets, especially in health care, render impossible any policy of care and prevention and stresses the need for a sufficient provision for the next five years in the European Union budget;

51. Demands an assessment of the efficacy of devoting scarce funds to eradication and crop substitution as compared to criminal intelligence and improved surveillance and detection work at the borders;

52 Asks for every assistance possible through the PHME and other programs to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe for devising their own drugs prevention policy and their own harm reduction strategy, as well as for bringing their own intelligence services and operational resources up to the Mark;

53. Recommends greater cooperation between Member States and the United States in training and equipping customs and police in the previous countries of the Soviet Union and, in particular, to see a European participation in the new US-instigated Hungarian National Police Training Academy;

54. Calls for the allocation of confiscated funds, in addition to the extra monies needed from the EU and national budgets, firstly to improve prevention policy and harm reduction programmes and secondly to provide better police and customs resources in the war against drugs traffickers;

55. Recommends that a conference should be arranged to involve Member States, the European Parliament, the European Commission snd other relevant bodies, to discuss the present situation in the European Union on the basis of carefully compiled information with emphasis on demand reduction (including M study of the social reasons for drug-taking), as well as on an aid policy assessment;

56. is conference will also aim to encourage discussion and analysis of the results of the policies in force as laid down by the relevant 1961, 1971 and 1988 UN Conventions so as to permit a possible revision of those conventions;

57. Would like to see more programs and proposals formulated for the purpose of prevention; stresses that as far at prevention of drug use is concerned, health care measures are not just a matter of Care and treatment of the sick; on the contrary, the health promotion approach, which stems from the principle 'prevention is better than cure', is aimed at addressing problems at their source, i.e. encouraging individuals to adopt a responsible lifestyle and behavior; therefore the primary focus of health promotion must be health-oriented rather than disease-oriented ICOM(94)O2O2, pp. 4 and 5, paragraphs 7 snd B);

58. Stresses the important complementary and indispensable role of the family and of school in the fight against drugs in connection with preventive measures aimed at children and adolescents. There is a need to make parents and teachers fully aware of their educational responsibilities. One reason young people take drugs is due to a lack of a sense of purpose in their lives. Moreover, education should tackle escapism at an early age and teach children to face up to problems;

59. Recognising the different aspects to the drugs problem, which results in a disparate number of budget lines, recommends that an annual report should be submitted by the Commission to the Civil Liberties Committee showing how monies have been expended on drugs action programmes and related activities and with what result;

60. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the council and the Commission, the governments and the parliament of the Member States, and of the applicant states to the Union and to the governments of the other countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the Council of Europe and the United Nations.