Czech republic legalises heavy drugs

[His Divine Shadow]

In small amounts anyway. The change in the law decriminalizes possession of small amounts of drugs such as LSD, Cocaine, Heroin and Marijuana.

http://www.praguepost.com/news/3194-new ... beral.html

New drug guidelines are Europe's most liberal

Czech rules on narcotics possession designed to aid law enforcement

Long known for a liberal policy on drugs, the Czech Republic is now officially quantifying its status as one of European Union's most lenient member states when it comes to decriminalizing drug possession. But these new guidelines come among signs that the rest of Czech drug policy is not keeping pace with other EU members and contradicts law enforcement tactics being utilized to tackle alcohol abuse.

On Dec. 14, Prime Minister Jan Fischer's government approved new standardized limits, delineating criminal and misdemeanor drug offenses. Starting Jan. 1, the new numbers will allow a person to possess, for example, up to 15 grams of marijuana or 1.5 grams of heroin without facing criminal charges. Anybody possessing less than these amounts is eligible to be charged for a misdemeanor, but may also receive little more than a warning from police.

"It is a step in a right direction," said Michal Hammer, spokesman for the National Drug Squad (NPC). "To put it simply, for exceeding these amounts of narcotics possession, one can be prosecuted in Frýdek Místek as well as in Ostrava."

Authorities are quick to point out that these levels represent not a change in law, but rather a clearer definition for law enforcement, which has previously used the ambiguous term "a small amount" as the dividing line between misdemeanor and felony prosecution. In the Czech Republic, 87 percent of successful prosecutions are tied to cases involving drug sales or production, and only 13 percent are related to possession, according to the NPC.

Czech authorities insist their new guidelines fall in step with European norms, but they are in fact much more liberal than policies in most neighboring countries. According to the European Legal Database on Drugs (ELDD), Slovakia defines criminal drug possession as having more than three times a single dose of any substance, putting the Czech regulation of marijuana some 15 times over that threshold. In Hungary, anyone possessing any amount of drugs is eligible for a five-year prison sentence. Those defined as addicts are punished less severely but are still eligible for a one-year prison term for possessing any drugs.

The Czech philosophy on drug policy may in fact make the country the most liberal of all EU member states. Even the Netherlands, long known as a bastion of liberal drug policies, including businesses licensed to sell marijuana, draws a sharper legal distinction between hard and soft drugs. The Dutch also limit decriminalized possession of marijuana to 5 grams (one-third of the Czech amount) and any hard drugs to 0.5 grams (one-third of the Czech amount for heroin).

The logic behind decriminalizing drug possession is to treat drug addiction as a public health problem rather than a criminal one.

"If a person possess drugs for their own use, or is a drug addict and needs his daily dose, the prosecution of such a person does not solve the drug-abuse problem as a whole," Hammer said.

A shift in policy toward decriminalization is usually accompanied by a shift in resources from law enforcement and courts to drug treatment and counseling, and it is in this area, as well as in the overall resources dedicated to fighting drugs, that the Czech Republic lags far behind its European counterparts with liberalized drug policies.

In 2008, the Czech Republic spent a total of 597.3 million Kč on anti-drug policy with about two-thirds of that money coming from the national government. About 247 million Kč of the total was spent on prevention, addiction treatment and medical care.

The Netherlands spent 2.2 billion euros last year on drug policy, with 25 percent (550 million euros) spent on treatment, prevention and medical care.

While the Netherlands has about three times as many residents as the Czech Republic, a comparison between the two finds that the Dutch spend more than 30 times more money per resident on anti-drug policy (73 euros per person per year in the Netherlands versus 2.2 euros per person per year in the Czech Republic) and 20 times more per person per year on drug treatment and counseling (18 euros per person per year in the Netherlands versus less than 1 euro per person per year in the Czech Republic).

The loose Czech policy on drug possession does not match the philosophy being utilized to combat other substance abuse problems either, raising questions about whether the government is attacking addiction with a coherent policy.

On Dec. 15, the Czech Traffic Police announced they would begin using breathalyzer tests during every traffic stop to combat what they say was a doubling of people driving under the influence compared with last year. The Czech Republic is the only country in Europe test for alcohol on every traffic stop.

"The change in practice only applies to alcohol," said Veronika Benediktová, a police spokeswoman. "The screening test to detect that a driver is under the influence of drugs will only be applied in cases where the police have suspicions of drug use."

The new clarification of the drug-possession law is being praised by most experts as a positive step to giving police officers clear, uniform guidelines, but government offices either proved unable or unwilling to provide answers to follow-up questions related to the policy. The Health Ministry declined to provide information about how much is budgeted each year for drug treatment. The Justice Ministry was equally tight lipped, though it did say the policy is scheduled for a review in early 2011.

Even amid signs that the rest of Czech drug policy is not in-step with liberal possession laws, most drug counseling professionals see the emphasis on drugs as a public health problem as a good thing. But, with 44 percent of Czechs between 15 and 24 years old reporting they have used cannabis, and 29 percent of the same group using the drug in the past year - the highest rates in the EU - some remain skeptical whether the policy will make much of a dent.

"It looks more as if it will not have any effect on the drug situation," said Ivan Douda, a psychologist and co-founder of Drop In, an NGO focused on treating drug problems. "Drug consumers and dealers will most likely adjust."

And, with new laws decriminalizing marijuana in amounts with a street value of between 3,000 and 4,000 Kč, Douda has another suggestion.

"It would be better to take into account the purpose of drug - possession or production - rather than just the amounts," he said.

- Klára Jiřičná contributed to this report.

I am not sure how this will turn out, but I am watching with interest to see if a liberal policy will reduce or increase drug problems. If things go well for them, the rest of europe might eventually follow, in a few decades or so. Also note it is still illegal to sell drugs.

[Vendetta]

I am not sure how this will turn out, but I am watching with interest to see if a liberal policy will reduce or increase drug problems. If things go well for them, the rest of europe might eventually follow, in a few decades or so. Also note it is still illegal to sell drugs.

Portugal decriminalised posession of all drugs some time ago.

The apocalypse failed to occur, drug use fell and the secondary harms of drug use like HIV infection among heroin users fell dramatically.

[Shroom Man 777]

How can drug use, and the hazards associated with drug use, fall when drug use is decriminalized? That's kind of counter-intuitive.

[Highlord Laan]

Because legalization paves the way for quality and dosage to be standardized, and generates tax revenues from sales, allowing more safeties to be put in place. This I can understand. Economics is pretty cut and dry.

Also, part of the allure (I guess) for a lot of drugs is the social taboo. I've actually met people that do drugs just because they feel like it, and feel that they shouldn't be told that they can't. "Stick it to the law" and all that. This I can barely grasp. Slowly destroying oneself for a bit of chemical high seems the pinnacle of stupid to me.

[Teebs]

I can't say I was impressed by the article's idea of incoherency in policy being apparent conflict between testing all drivers stopped by police for alcohol and allowing possession of small amounts of drugs.

[Vendetta]

How can drug use, and the hazards associated with drug use, fall when drug use is decriminalized? That's kind of counter-intuitive.

It's easier to obtain the kind of social support required to kick drug habits when one is not criminalised merely for taking them.

[Ryan Thunder]

How can drug use, and the hazards associated with drug use, fall when drug use is decriminalized? That's kind of counter-intuitive.

Because people are so marvellously stupid that they will start doing things for no better reason than because they were told not to.

[Serafina]

If drugs are legal, they can be treated like every other addiction and other pschological condition. Help by trained professionals is always better than help by streetworkers (they do a good job, but are not psychologists).

And ask yourself - would you search help with your drug-problem if you fear that you might go to prison for it? That's a pretty obvious incentive not to search for help.

[Ryan Thunder]

I say what I did because the majority of drug users would probably be using "soft" drugs like marijuana. If I'm mistaken I'll rescind it.

[Simon_Jester]

How can drug use, and the hazards associated with drug use, fall when drug use is decriminalized? That's kind of counter-intuitive.

Some of the hazards, at least, are associated with the context: if I'm using heroin and I have to shoot it up in secret, the odds that I'll start using dirty needles increase. Otherwise my sudden purchases of so many clean needles might raise questions, because it's not like the average person buys all that many hypodermic syringes. Likewise a lot of the brutality and crime that goes with the drug trade.

For an example of this, consider the US's experience with trying to illegalize alcohol in the 1920s. Within a few years we saw a massive rise of organized crime dedicated to smuggling alcoholic beverages (this was when the Mafia first became a major influence in crime in the US). Likewise, suddenly lots of people were trying to make crappy gin in their bathtubs and to distill alcohol out of wood chips and shit like that. Which meant that we got more deaths from exploding stills and more people getting poisoned by byproducts in the alcohol brewed up by amateurs.

[Broomstick]

I should point out that the illicit nature of the amateur alcohol brewing is what led to most of the dangers - the US does permit home brewing and wine making, up to 200 gallons per household per year. Some of these homebrewers have turned their hobby into a business, resulting in a rise of microbeers and small wineries. By making this legal people can openly buy proper equipment, they don't need to worry about hiding their activities, help and advice can be openly sought, and when a hobbyist decides to turn it into a business government safety and purity regulations come into play to protect the customers.

[Simon_Jester]

Very true, and closely related to what I was getting at. Almost anything will be done with less of an eye to safety, reliability, and compliance with the law when it is done in secret, especially when the entire activity is illegal to begin with.

For instance, there's not much point in making sure your meth lab handles chemicals safely if you're guaranteed to spend the rest of your life in prison the moment anyone finds out it exists. It's not like you get time off your prison sentence for having been OSHA-compliant.

[Singular Intellect]

I also feel we should legalize all heavy drugs for safety reasons (among others) people have stated here. Obviously it should still be illegal to sell drugs unless licenced to do so.

My biggest concern with regards to legalizing said drugs and making them more available to the general public is the obvious health care issues, both for the individual and the public tax payers.

Public funds going into a health care system that provides health care for those who delibrately seek out drug usage and means of harming themselves rubs me the wrong way.

I would seriously advocate a system where any usage of drugs in this context means the user automatically waives any health care coverage that doesn't come out of their own pocket. You want to do drugs, knock yourself out. If you want to float the bill for any medical issues this choice entails, I can't complain too much on that issue. You want public tax dollars to cover your ass because you chose to do drugs? Now I have a serious problem.

[RedImperator]

I would seriously advocate a system where any usage of drugs in this context means the user automatically waives any health care coverage that doesn't come out of their own pocket. You want to do drugs, knock yourself out. If you want to float the bill for any medical issues this choice entails, I can't complain too much on that issue. You want public tax dollars to cover your ass because you chose to do drugs? Now I have a serious problem.

Yeah, because untreated addicts and the side-effects of untreated addiction present no cost to the taxpayer. And it's totally ethical to let sick people suffer because you have a "serious problem" with bad decisions they may have made decades before (not to mention, it's completely fair to punish some people for bad decisions--drug addicts--but not others, like the obese, or extreme sports enthusiasits, or an electrician who carelessly left a circuit breaker open to do a "quick" job).

[Singular Intellect]

Yeah, because untreated addicts and the side-effects of untreated addiction present no cost to the taxpayer.

Where did I say anything about not treating people for drug addiction who want it? There's nothing wrong with the public floating the bill until said individuals pay it back.

So they made a bad decision, and thus must pay the price for it. Boo hoo, cry me a fucking river. Explain why someone who choses to use drugs and then ends up in a bad way because of it suddenly means they don't have to take responsibility for it?

And it's totally ethical to let sick people suffer because you have a "serious problem" with bad decisions they may have made decades before (not to mention, it's completely fair to punish some people for bad decisions--drug addicts--but not others, like the obese, or extreme sports enthusiasits, or an electrician who carelessly left a circuit breaker open to do a "quick" job).

By all means, quote me where I stated other people making other bad decisions should not be held accountable for them?

While you're at it, feel free to point out where I insisted we should be letting people suffer?

Are you trying to build a strawman army over there?

Let me guess, you must think I object to being legally binded to paying vehicle insurance because I chose to operate a potentially lethal and dangerous motor vehicle, right?

[RedImperator]

Yeah, because untreated addicts and the side-effects of untreated addiction present no cost to the taxpayer.

Where did I say anything about not treating people for drug addiction who want it? There's nothing wrong with the public floating the bill until said individuals pay it back.

Are you a moron, or a liar, or both, or what? These are your exact words:

I would seriously advocate a system where any usage of drugs in this context means the user automatically waives any health care coverage that doesn't come out of their own pocket.

Since when the fuck does "out of their own pocket" mean "Oh, the public will float the bill, until they pay it back". If that's what you actually meant, then you seriously need to work on your communication skills.

And of course, your idea is still stupid. It's a disincentive to seek treatment for addiction or addiction-related illnesses. It's just as stupid as any other disincentive to seek medical treatment, with the added bonus that, unlike when future heart attack candidates skip their regular checkups, addicts are out committing petty theft and missing work to support a habit.

So they made a bad decision, and thus must pay the price for it. Boo hoo, cry me a fucking river. Explain why someone who choses to use drugs and then ends up in a bad way because of it suddenly means they don't have to take responsibility for it? I have to pay for it.

Fixed that for you. Let's stop pretending this is about anything except your precious tax dollars, shall we?

Fine, let's talk money. According to this study (warning: PDF), in 2002 the indirect costs of substance abuse in Canada were $24.3 billion (Canadian). That's basically lost productivity. The direct health care costs were $8.8 billion. Already we can see that while you're harmuphing about your taxes, the public health care costs are only a little more than a third the indirect costs to the economy. Your idea, then, is to save $8.8 billion by reducing the effectivenes of treatment programs designed to save the Canadian economy $24.3 billion.

But of course, that 8.8 billion isn't all addiction treatment. Half of that money, 4.4 billion of it, goes to hospitalization alone. Another $2.34 billion goes to prescription drugs--not to treat addiction, but treat addiction related illnesses; everything from stomach pumps to immunosuppressant medication for transplant patients. Inpatient and outpatient drug treatment combined cost the Canadian taxpayer $1.21 billion dollars--approximately 5% of the indirect costs. Your idea, again, is to pinch these pennies, reduce the number of people going to rehab (and remember, many addicts need multiple trips to rehab to get their lives back in order; even if they're willing to go the first time, how many are going to return if they're still paying off the first attempt?), and, I guess, eat the indirect costs. Incidentally, if treatment costs 5% of the indirect costs, guess how many addicts it has to help to pay for itself? 5%.

And it's totally ethical to let sick people suffer because you have a "serious problem" with bad decisions they may have made decades before (not to mention, it's completely fair to punish some people for bad decisions--drug addicts--but not others, like the obese, or extreme sports enthusiasits, or an electrician who carelessly left a circuit breaker open to do a "quick" job).

By all means, quote me where I stated other people making other bad decisions should not be held accountable for them?

How about you quote the part where you did, numbnuts, since you only talked about drugs and I can't read minds?

Of course, part of why I assumed you didn't want to "hold other people accountable" because it would be irredeemably stupid to do so. I should have known better than to give you any credit. So you have now taken the position that anyone in Canada who smokes, drinks, overeats, rides a skateboard, doesn't wear his seatbelt, or ignores workplace safety regulations is de facto uninsured. Presumably the latter three will only be charged if they suffer an accident, so they'll merely be impoverished for life (but hey, you don't want them to suffer, so I guess bankruptcy or having your wages garnished for the rest of you life isn't suffering...somehow). The former, however, now have a disincentive to get regular checkups, stress tests, go on the patch, get sober, take their insulin. Instead, they'll wait until they have a heart attack, develop emphyzema, enter acute liver failure, or go into a diabetic coma, at which point the taxpayers are on the hook for a whopping medical bill which realistically will never be paid back (just like what happens in America). Great way to save your tax dollars, smart guy.

While you're at it, feel free to point out where I insisted we should be letting people suffer?

That would be the part where you said the public health system shouldn't pay for the treatment, brainiac. Then you backpedaled to "oh, they can go on credit", but that's not any better because there's still a massive disincentive to recieve treatment and, for those that do need major medical care, trades suffering without treatment for suffering without money. Nice ethics you have there.

Are you trying to build a strawman army over there?

Are you trying to be a penny-pinching fuckoff idiot douchebag? Because you're doing a great job of that.

Let me guess, you must think I object to being legally binded to paying vehicle insurance because I chose to operate a potentially lethal and dangerous motor vehicle, right?

Well, congratulations. You've descended from ordinary stupidity into total incoherency. What the fuck are you even talking about?