1

The Quiet Wars

Adam Richard Tanielian Institution of International Studies Ramkhamhaeng University LLD English Program Bangkok, Thailand 2011 adam.tanielian@iis.ru.ac.th Abstract: This paper examines legislation on illicit trades like prostitution, drugs, and firearms. A survey of 100 people is used to compare real opinions with legal and political structures, and then to assess democratic function briefly. A comparison of 18 nations and international law is made. Legal, political, economic, social, and scientific references are used in analysis of the issues, and to given basic suggestions for the future of policies. Introduction Vice trades are fascinations, obsessions, fetishes of people all over the world. People sometimes keep lifelong secrets of their lusts for sex, intoxicants, gambling, and other compulsive behavior. Illicit behavior can end lives, break up families, and send once stableminded people into psychosis and other abnormal states. Historically, under the religious State, intoxicants including alcohol, sex, gambling and all manner of vices were easily criminalized, at least outside of the dregs of society. In modern times rights initiatives and economic expansion have made once forbidden products and services far more available than once before. In the past 50 years drugs, prostitution, alcohol, gambling, and other illicit enterprise have been at or near the core of a growth entertainment and pleasure industry. Puritanical rhetoric claims the sinful acts of manufacturing, procuring, buying, selling and or participating in, or merely supporting ideologically or economically, or maintaining a neutral opinion on vice trades are all morally reprehensible an akin to crime. Correlative studies have shown that certain trades are commonly associated with property and violent crime. The post-WWII international political agenda has been shaped and guided by ambitions of eradication of exploitation of peoples, of illicit drugs, and of organizations which supply demands for certain products and services. Meanwhile the arms trade has also proliferated and attracted attention from national and international governing bodies. With no foreseeable end to the trades themselves, regardless of increased budgetary expenditures and international cooperation over decades, many academic, policy, economic, social scientific, medical, and other experts have come out in support of full legalization or decriminalization of the drug trade and prostitution, while none with scruples seriously contest the bans on human and arms trafficking, and other clearly dangerous trades. A great debate is being missed by parties who fail to recognize the points and intentions of the opposition. The new advances in communication and information technology have made it possible for laypeople to read reports which were once private or classified, or on other

continents far out of reach. Over time, the facts on matters related to illicit trades are becoming more apparent as reports are disseminated to a global audience, and those facts are not so one-sided as one might have been led to believe 20, 30, 40 years ago or a little more. There are certainly legal prohibitions on certain trades, and for some good reason, but even the criminals in this world are entitled to legal representation and certain rights. Everybody deserves a fair shake. Depriving others of their rights and freedoms, prejudicing others, making our minds up without all the facts in mind, ignoring certain facts to support a political agenda, data mismanagement, exclusion, selection, and manipulation of data are all major ethical and strategic errors, and ultimately only aid the opposition. This report examines legislation, current reports, attitudes and opinions regarding illicit trades. Government and private sources are cited on all assertions. A survey is presented to help quantify and qualify opinions of the general public of sensitive issues. Prostitution, human trafficking, drugs, arms trafficking, and gambling are discussed. Current policies are outlined, and some suggestions are made given the facts discovered in this research. Prostitution and Human Trafficking Prostitution and trafficking are separate legal and moral issues, though they are often featured together in reports. For the purposes of this research, prostitution is defined as voluntary employment or work as an adult aged 18 or older for monetary reward in exchange for providing sexual services primarily consisting of but not limited to coitus, sodomy, fellatio, and cunnilingus. Human trafficking is the sale of human beings analogous to the slave trade, generally including abduction, fraud, deception, or coercion in the recruitment, transportation, transfer, and unlawful detention of persons bought and sold as products; trafficking of persons may be for the purposes of factory, farm, or in-home labor as in the cases of historical indentured servants or slaves, or in the form of sex slavery or involuntary prostitution. This section of the report examines the international agenda on prostitution and human trafficking and that at the domestic level in select nations. International Law The 2000 UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime includes a Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, which the UNODC oversees as the main piece of international law on the subject of trafficking. Forced prostitution, sex slavery, and extreme forms of exploitation fall within the definition for trafficking in persons. Party nations must enact legislation to establish as criminal offences acts falling under the trafficking definition. Prevention includes alleviating factors leading to trafficking, like poverty, underdevelopment, and lack of equal rights and opportunities . 1949s Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others is another key international agreement, which in Articles 1 and 2 made for punishments of persons who induce others into prostitution
1

See UNODC (2004), Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto, accessible at http://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNTOC/Publications/TOC%20Convention/TOCebook-e.pdf

3
2

including with consent of the prostitute , Article 6 prohibits the registration of prostitutes and State regulation of the trade, and Article 16 requires parties to prevent prostitution and provide rehabilitation and social justice for prostitutes via education, health, social, economic and other services, but this Convention relates more to trafficking and abuse of prostitutes than to voluntary individual sale and purchase of sexual services. UNICEFs Convention on the Rights of the Child contains an optional protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution, and child pornography , though this research will not cover laws designed with the sole intent of protecting minors. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) is also an important UN initiative. Article 6 of CEDAW states that parties are to enact legislation and take measures necessary to suppress traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women . However, the CEDAW Committee has called for the decriminalization of prostitution in certain countries (i.e. China), where prostitution and trafficking in women and children are problematic . There is, then, a moral and legal contradiction at CEDAW regarding prostitution, though it is one obviously founded in the need for a more pragmatic approach to the situation. International law is only given effect at the domestic and internal national level. Internationally, voluntary prostitution of adults may only be an issue related to migration aside from the correlated and ancillary trades involving smuggling, pimping, transporting, providing fake passports and documents, etc. National and local legislation generally handles prostitution, whereas international law is more concerned with larger-order violations of human rights and dignity, and though international law may indirectly address prostitution through anti-exploitation and trafficking policies, budgetary and other constraints limit the extent to which international organizations can focus on ordinary prostitution. Mainland Europe Prostitution in most of Europe is commonly viewed as a form of economic activity. Aside from a few religious moral complaints and national laws not following the norm, prostitution is often considered similar to any other profession. The recognition of prostitution as a form of trade, and as a profession or occupation, may be part of the egalitarian social structure in most European countries, or may be part of the feminist and womens rights movements of the middle to late 20th century. The following paragraphs give a brief explanation of domestic prostitution laws in select European nations.
5 4 3

2 3

See UN Convention 1949, accessible at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/trafficpersons.htm See UNICEF (2006), Convention on the Rights of the Child, accessible at http://www.unicef.org/crc/index_30204.html 4 See UN (1979), CEDAW, accessible at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm 5 See Amnesty International (2011), CEDAW, Myth #7, accessible at http://www.amnestyusa.org/violenceagainst-women/ratify-the-treaty-for-the-rights-of-women-cedaw/cedaw/page.do?id=1108216

Austria Prostitution is legal. Prostitutes are registered and undergo a weekly medical examination for diseases. Procuring prostitution is illegal. Belgium Procuring prostitution is illegal. As of 1995 it is legal to rent premises for prostitution so long as the prostitutes do not make abnormal profits. Prostitution is legal so long as it does not create a nuisance. A legal change to a system similar to the Dutch and Swedish one is expected soon. Denmark Since 1999 prostitution has been decriminalized. Prior to 1998 prostitution was recognized as a way to supplement income, but has since been considered a full-time job. Procuring of prostitution is illegal. Advertisement of sexual services is liberalized. Finland Prostitution is decriminalized though local governments can prohibit street prostitution, and as of 1999 prostitution is prohibited in public places. Buying sex is not criminal, though the law may change to penalize the client. France Active prostitution is criminal. Prostitution is tolerated so long as it does not disturb the public order, and thus it is restricted to specific areas. Germany Prostitution is legal except for in certain areas of Berlin, especially close to schools and child care centers. As of 2002, German national prostitutes can have social insurance, paid sick leave, and pension if they are hired by a brothel or own a company, though as of 2003 none had been employed and few owned companies. Advertisement for prostitution positions at employment agencies does exist. Netherlands As of 2001, prostitution was considered a profession like any other. Prostitutes have workers rights, and pay income tax. Portugal Prostitution is decriminalized, though procuring and facilitating prostitution is illegal. The law does not mention male prostitutes; the exploitation of men is not criminal.

Spain Procuring and prostitution are not criminal so long as it is voluntary. Brothels are illegal in some regions. Sweden Buying or attempting to buy prostitution services is illegal since 1999. Prostitution is seen as an offence against equality, against feminism, and as an act of violence, sexual harassment, and gender mutilation against women . Switzerland Prostitution is legal, considered a form of economic activity. Cantonal and municipal regulations are present. Income is subject to taxation and social insurance contributions. Foreigners must comply with relevant residence and employment regulations English-speaking Common Law Nations Australia Prostitution is regulated at the state and territory level. In New South Wales, the 1988 Offences Act makes soliciting near a school, church, hospital, and prostitution in residential zones an offence; brothel work not an offence if the premises are marked as massage, sauna, photographer service businesses. Victorias 1966 Vagrancy Act and 1986 Prostitution Regulation Act make soliciting and loitering and offence; brothel work an offence outside of towns that permit it. Queenslands 1931 Vagrants, Gaming and Other Offences Act make soliciting and loitering, creating a public nuisance, disorderly conduct, and soliciting in a public place an offence; one-woman brothel, brothel masked as another business not an offence. Western Australias 1892 Police Act and more recently 2000 Prostitution Act make loitering and soliciting in public places, advertising or seeking employment in a business, prostituting in the company of a child offences, and requires use of condoms . South Australias 1953 Police Offences Act makes soliciting or loitering for prostitution in public and offence; receiving money from a brothel for prostitution an offence. Penalties could be up to 10 years and AUS$50,000. The Tasmanian 1935 Police Offences Act does not consider a brothel to be a crime; public solicitation and loitering are offences. The 1987 Summary Offences Act in Northern Territory considers loitering and solicitation in public, public nuisance, etc. an offence; brothels can be offences. The 1930 Police Offences Ordinance
8 7 6

See European Parliament, A summary of the prostitution regulations in the EU member states, accessible at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/hearings/20040119/femm/document1_en.pdf 7 See Swiss Confederation (2010), Prostitution, accessible at http://www.ksmm.admin.ch/ksmm/en/home/themen/siehe_auch___/prostitution.html 8 See Western Australian Prostitution Act of 2000, accessible at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/pa2000205.txt/cgibin/download.cgi/download/au/legis/wa/consol_act/pa2000205.rtf

6
9

made persistent solicitation in public an offence ; 1992 Prostitution Act in Australian Capital Territory makes only aggravated condition incidents offences . Australians seem to have a calm and rational economic sense about the trade considering the case of Melbourne brothel The Daily Planet which made famous financial news with its IPO . Canada Federal law prohibits keeping or using bawdy-houses (brothels defined in Section 197), transportation of persons to such places, procuring, and prostitution in Sections 210 and 213 of the Criminal Code. Keeping a bawdy-house is punishable by imprisonment for up to 2 years. Procurement carries the most severe penalty for prostitution-related crimes, with up to 10 years imprisonment for cases involving adults. Attempting to sell sexual services in public, impeding the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic are offences punishable by summary conviction, though the law does not consider the actual act of exchanging sexual gratification for consideration as illegal, thus the law is designed to reduce the nuisance aspect of the trade by criminalizing certain manners of prostitutes. The 1867 Constitution Act s.91(27) establishes that the federal Parliament has jurisdiction over criminal law matters and that the provinces have no direct jurisdiction related to the criminal law on prostitution in each province. Provinces may legislate on and regulate morality, and provinces enforce the law, but if provincial governments were to apply severe punishments, they would encroach on federal powers. Highway and traffic, proceeds of crime, community safety, and child protection legislation, municipal deterrent programs, and injunctions have been used by provinces in efforts to control prostitution, which is not legalized, though is not a serious problem in the Canadian population and culture . Ireland All kinds of prostitution are illegal - procuring, selling sexual services, and keeping brothels (EUROPARL). New Zealand The Prostitution Reform Act of 2003 was passed with the purpose of decriminalizing prostitution while not endorsing or morally sanctioning prostitution or its use. Operators of prostitution businesses, who must hold a certificate under Part 3, must require use of condoms, give health information to sex workers and clients, display health information in
9

10

11

12

See Pinto, Scandia, and Wilson (1990), Australian Institute of Criminology, Prostitution Laws in Australia, accessible at http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/F/B/5/%7BFB5E3FDC-1AB5-4F04-A1B89D4B5C30B42C%7Dti22.pdf 10 See 1992 Australian Capital Territory Prostitution Act, accessible at http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/199264/current/pdf/1992-64.pdf 11 See BBC (2003), Bordello shares in high demand, accessible at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2990787.stm 12 See Barnett (2008), Prostitution in Canada: International Obligations, Federal Law, and Provincial and Municipal Jurisdiction, Parliament of Canada, accessible at http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/researchpublications/prb0330-e.htm

brothels, ensure regular health screening of prostitutes or face summary convictions leading to fines of up to NZ$10,000. Providers and receivers of sexual services must use condoms and take steps to minimize health risks or face summary convictions and fines up to NZ$2,000. Advertisements are banned from radio, television, newspaper or periodical except in classified sections, and public cinemas; violations of advert restrictions may lead to fines of up to NZ$50,000 for corporate offences, and up to NZ$10,000 for others. Inducing or compelling persons into prostitution is and offence punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment. All prostitutes are allowed to refuse services to any person including after a contract has been formed, though the breach of contract may lead to recovery of damages. Provisions are made to protect sex workers refusing service under the Social Security Act of 1964 and Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act of 2001, and the Health and Safety in Employment Act of 1992 is applicable while prostitutes are at work. Immigration for prostitution is prohibited . No mention of tax is made in the Act. United Kingdom Prostitution is not illegal if the work is done independently and without disturbing public order. Brothels and advertisements are criminal, and habitual clients can be fined. United States of America Prostitution is illegal throughout the USA with the rare exception of licensed brothels in counties in the State of Nevada with less than 400,000 residents , where local and State health departments in cooperation with law enforcement officials mandate condom use, onsite AIDS prevention education, and regular health screenings . Until 2009 prostitution was decriminalized in Rhode Island, though a legal loophole change has since outlawed it . Voters in San Francisco decided against decriminalizing prostitution in 2008 . The Federal government may prosecute in cases involving tax evasion, civil rights and or other abuses. Each State has its own law and policy. The State of Michigan can serve as a guide on the law related to prostitution. MCL750.448-462 is regarding prostitution. Soliciting, accosting, or inviting to commit prostitution, admitting persons to a place for the purpose of prostitution, engaging services for the purpose of prostitution, lewdness, or assignation, or offering to engage in prostitution, aiding and abetting acts related to prostitution are misdemeanors punishable by up to 3 months imprisonment and or a fine of up to US$500; persons 16 years or older with 1 prior conviction may face misdemeanor
13

13

14

15

16

17

See Parliamentary Counsel Office of New Zealand (2010), Prostitution Reform Act of 2003, accessible at http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2003/0028/latest/whole.html#dlm197850 14 See Ramirez (2008), Feeling the Pinch, Newsweek, accessible at http://www.newsweek.com/2008/06/15/feeling-the-pinch.html 15 See Richwald and Williams (1990), The Nevada legal brothel system as a model for AIDS prevention among female sex industry workers, accessible at http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102196554.html 16 See Donnis (2009), Prostitution now outlawed in RI, but is that good?, NPR, accessible at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120359052 17 See Lagos (2008), Election results for San Francisco propositions, SFGate, accessible at http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-11-05/bay-area/17127067_1_anti-prostitution-million-bond-measure-city-voters

penalties up to 1 year imprisonment and or US$1,000; 2 or more prior convictions is a felony with penalties up to 2 years and or US$2,000. Leasing houses for prostitution is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months imprisonment and US$750. Pandering inducing, persuading, encouraging, inveigling, enticing a female to become a prostitute, or doing so by way of coercion, threats, or violence or placing ones wife in a house of prostitution, or accepting earnings from prostitution, or transporting a female for prostitution is a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison . Thailand The 1996 Prevention and Suppression of Prostitution Act relates to prostitution at various ages, though this section will cover only adult provisions. Section 5 makes public solicitation and loitering, street prostitution an offence punishable by up to 1,000 Baht. Section 6 provides for penalties of up to 1 month and or a fine of 1,000 Baht for voluntary prostitution at an establishment. Section 7 makes advertisement of sexual services an offence punishable by 6 months to 2 years and or 10,000 to 40,000 Baht. Owners, supervisors, or managers of prostitution businesses or establishments, or controllers of prostitutes may face penalties of 3 to 15 years and 60,000 to 300,000 Baht. Drugs International cooperation in reducing access to and supply of illicit drugs is one of the greatest successes of international political, legal, and inter-governmental organizations such as the United Nations. In the past 100 years, broad and massive changes to laws have been made to conform with international agreements on drugs, and millions of individuals have been imprisoned due to newer laws which sometimes carry harsh penalties. In the modern communication age, where information asymmetry between governments and the public is reduced, trade and consumption of illicit drugs is an issue which is increasingly morally polarized, and as such the topic is politically sensitive and volatile. Both private and government funded clinical scientific studies involving various illicit drugs are regularly featured in specialty journals and news, and with new discoveries, the issue has evolved since the beginning of the war(s) on drugs. Extensive study of the subject is likely to lead to awareness of various logical fallacies, moral-ethical-legal conflicts, and differences of opinions among expert professionals. Though private and public research and debate on the subject varies between and within nations featured in this report, the legislation and standard legal actions are somewhat generic given rare and slight deviations from a globalized form. This section of the paper examines international laws, agreements, and policies on illicit drugs and those across select nations. International Law The 1909 Shanghai Opium Commission was the start of modern international cooperation on illicit drugs, specifically opium and morphine. In 1912, the International Opium Convention
18

18

See Chapter LXVII Prostitution, Michigan Legislature, accessible at http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(bnermc45youjlk45xosun345))/mileg.aspx?page=MCLIndex&objectname=mcl -328-1931-LXVII

was passed in The Hague with the intent of addressing two other substances: cocaine and heroin. By the end of WWI the Hague Convention was ratified by many countries which had suffered drug-related problems in the less than 60 years since the invention of cocaine by German chemist Albert Niemann . In 1920, the League of Nations became the Custodian for the Opium Convention and in 1925 the Opium Convention was expanded to include cannabis. The 1931 Convention for Limiting the Manufacture and Regulating the Distribution of Narcotics drugs and 1936 Convention for the Suppression of the Illicit Traffic in Dangerous Drugs were designed and implemented to reduce the supply of narcotic drugs to medical and scientific purposes only, and to make other trafficking of narcotics international crimes. After WWII, the League of Nations was closed and the United Nations (UN) gained control of the international drug control policies under the Economic and Social Council (UNESCO) Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND). In 1948 the Synthetic Narcotics Protocol came into force which added new drugs to controlled substances lists. The 1953 Opium Protocol limited opium production and trade to medical and scientific purposes. The 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs was the first international agreement which influenced todays drug control policies. The Single Convention, amended in 1972, listed all controlled substances and created the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB). Ten years later another landmark agreement was made at the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances in response to growing drug use in various nations. In 1988, the third keystone agreement was made at the Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances with the aim of increasing security measures to handle drug cartels which were then posing significant threats. In 1991, the United Nations International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) was established in Vienna. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) was established in 2002. In 2003, the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime came into force to help handle modern threats posed by international criminal organizations like drug trafficking cartels . Mainland Europe The European Union is a guide model for international economic, political, social, monetary, and legal unions worldwide. Small and medium sized nations involved in regional unions like ASEAN, AU, GCC, MERCOSUR, OAS, SAARC, and other similar groups may look to the EU for tested and proven methods and policies on key and sensitive issues. EU members, despite their difficulties, have managed to work together and maintain sovereignty. European Union laws follow the 1961, 1971, and 1988 UN Conventions on drugs . Narcotic and psychotropic substances are placed on lists at the national levels and individual nations design their own treatment, rehabilitation, and punishment standards. In 11 countries
19

19

20

21

See UNODC (2011), The 1912 Hague International Opium Convention, accessible at http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/frontpage/the-1912-hague-international-opium-convention.html 20 See UNODC (2009), Chronology: 100 years of drug control, accessible at http://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR_2008/timeline_E_PRINT.pdf 21 See European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2008), accessible at http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index5622EN.html

10

Belgium, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, and the UK, the law provides for different penalties depending on the drug, whereas in the other 14 EU member nations and Norway, the law does not distinguish between drugs and the penalties may be the same regardless of the substance(s) involved. In Latvia, Malta, and Portugal, the penalties only vary for drug trafficking, and in Belgium, Ireland, and Luxembourg the penalties only vary for possession of marijuana for personal use. Marijuana has been stated to be decriminalized in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg, Belgium, and Austria, and either de facto decriminalized or in the process of decriminalizing in Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, France, Switzerland, and the UK . Discretion is exercised by the judiciary in drug cases when determining the appropriate sentences. Variations in drug law interpretation, in policy development, and in attitudes and beliefs directed at suppression initiatives are noticed between urban and rural regions, and between cities themselves. In 1990, the European Cities on Drug Policy (ECDP) union was formed among a number of cities which consider the prohibitionist strategy on drugs to be a failure and desire to take a more pragmatic approach at the long-term problem. The ECDP ideology includes discussions and debates on legalization, liberalization, and harm reduction. In 1994, during the Mayors Conference in Stockholm, a resolution was signed by the European Cities Against Drugs (ECAD) union. The ECAD emphasizes zero tolerance prohibition and repressive policy measures . The stark contrast between the two rival models of handling drug use, abuse, addiction, sales and trafficking has no doubt had political and legal implications nationally and internationally in the EU system. All European nations discussed in this document have laws pertaining to money laundering and specifically related to the financial aspects of drug trades, but those laws are not a focus in this research. A review of drug policies in mainland European nations is provided in the following pages paying attention to legislation, penalties, and treatment options. Austria Austrian law recognizes a long list of historical international Conventions in its federal law . The Narcotic Drugs Act was passed in 1951, amended in 1971, 1974, 1977, 1980, and 1985, and made clear distinction between drug traffickers and tertiary consumers. From 1980, therapy instead of punishment became the standard in Austria. In 1998, the Narcotic Substances Act (SMG) replaced the earlier act. Quantity, type of substance, and frequency of use by the offender are taken into consideration when prosecuting. In cases where offenders
24 23 22

22

See Boyd (2006), Drug Policy Action Group research paper on the Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Decriminalization and Legalization for Hawaii, accessible at http://www.dpfhi.org/A_PDF/Budgetary_Implications_Marijuana_Decrim.pdf 23 See NCJRS Tale of Two Cities: Drug Policy Instruments and City Networks in the European Union (1996), accessible at http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=164153 24 See Federal Chancellery Austria (2011), accessible at http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Ergebnis.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Index=89%2f05&VonParagraf=0&ResultPag eSize=100

11

are drug addicts, the condition is treated as a medical concern and the offender as a sick person, and sentences may be suspended contingent upon completion of treatment programs. An offender who acquires, possesses, produces, imports, exports, delivers, or supplies drugs to somebody or a third person may be sentenced up to 6 months in prison or to pay a fine for smaller amounts of drugs. Such an offender who induces minors to consume drugs may be sentenced up to 3 years in prison. Article 28 of the SMG defines large quantities as over 20g of THC, 3g of heroin, 15g of cocaine, 10g of amphetamines, 30g of MDMA, MBDB, MDE, etc. Acquisition or possession of large quantities of drugs with intent to distribute is punishable by up to 3 years in prison, with sentences up to 5 years for import/export trafficking. Commercial offences as part of a gang may yield up to 10 years in prison; up to 15 with prior convictions, as part of a drug trafficking organization with 10 or more members, or in cases involving 25 times or more than the definition for large quantities. Leaders of drug trafficking organizations may be sentenced 10 to 20 years or up to life in prison as of a 2001 amendment. Police have no discretionary power in drug cases and must notify on any offence discovered while on duty. There has to be an official reaction for all criminal acts that prosecutors learn about while on duty. As of 1998, the Vienna City Council has allowed cannabis consumption for medicinal purposes, and since 2000, cannabis products have been permitted under prescription guidelines . In 2008 the Parliament approved a deal where the Health Ministry would oversee production and distribution of medical marijuana . Belgium According to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA),
26 25

Belgian drug law is based on three main domains: prevention, treatment and law enforcement. The main objective is to prevent and reduce drug use and to decrease the number of new drug users. The second priority is to protect the community and its members who are facing the drug phenomenon and its consequences. This concerns also the drug addicts who should be helped to guarantee them a better life despite their drug use. Finally the judicial approach, particularly imprisonment, should be the last resort' in order to deal with problematic use of drugs.
Legislation dates back to 1921, revised in 1975 and 1994; defined by Royal Decree in 1931, 1998 and 2003. A 2001 Policy Note and the 2003 law provided for separate penalties in cases of cannabis possession for personal consumption. Possession of up to 3g of cannabis or resin, or of one cannabis plant can be punished by a police fine of 75-125, a fine which rises to 130-250 for a second offence within one year, and to 8 days 1 month imprisonment and a fine of 250-500 for a third offence within one year of the second. Such offences where there is an element of public nuisance may be punishable by 3 months to 1 year in prison and
25

See Austria Country Profile, EMCDDA (2004), accessible at http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index5174EN.html#_ftn1 26 See NORML (2008), accessible at http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7654

12

or a fine of 5,000-500,000. Problematic use will result in therapeutic counseling. Possession of negligible amounts may result in a verbal warning without confiscation of the drug . Soporific and narcotic substances include opium, heroin, cocaine, morphine, methadone, cannabis and resin. Psychotropic substances include amphetamines, hallucinogens, pipradol and MDMA. Prosecutors exercise discretion in handling of drug cases, and in accordance with a 1993 directive, distinction is made between occasional users, regular users, and dealers. Regular users are given options to seek treatment. Addicts are treated as sick people who need protection from themselves, as it is also thought that society needs protection against addicts. The nature of the offence is considered in prosecution, and special attention is paid to the presence or lack of aggravating circumstances, quantity and type of substance involved, whether a dealer is financing his/her own habit or making profit, whether minors are involved. Therapy and treatment are a popular options for small-quantity offenders and prosecutors with the aim of convincing users to change behavior, stop using drugs, not refuse urine tests, look for a job, have active leisure time, obtain treatment and prove completion of programs; upon completion of treatment programs, community service, etc. offenders may have their judicial record destroyed after 6 months. Trafficking is prohibited and penalties include 3 months to 5 years in prison and or a fine; increased to 10-20 years in cases involving minors; up to 15 years for cases involving death of third persons; and up to 20 years for cases involving large scale commercial trafficking organizations . Denmark The Euphoriants Act of 1955 is the main law for drug offences. Sections 1 and 2 declare it is illegal to import, export, sell, purchase, supply, receive, manufacture, process or possess euphoriants, though drug use is not mentioned as an offence. As of 2008, 5 schedules are featured on the euphoriants list. Schedule A includes cannabis, heroin, prepared opium; Schedule B includes cocaine, MDMA, amphetamines, methadone; Schedule C includes codeine; Schedule D includes barbiturates; Schedule E includes tranquillizers. Section 191 of the Criminal Code defines large quantities as about 25g or more of cocaine or heroin, about 50g or more of amphetamine, and about 10kg or more of cannabis. Drug law violations are punishable by a fine or imprisonment up to 2 years under section 2(4) of the act, and though the law does not distinguish between drug types with regards to penalties, courts do consider the nature of the drug and circumstances of the offence when sentencing. The emphasis of the Eurphoriants Act was changed in 1996 to the number of deals or attempted deals rather than the amount of the substance. 1-2 deals with no prior convictions often result in 2 weeks or less imprisonment, increased to at least 3 months imprisonment for more than 10 deals. Severe and or repeat offences are punishable by
27 28

27

28

See NORML (2005), accessible at http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6431 See EMCDDA (2004), Belgium Country Profile, accessible at http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index5174EN.html#

13

imprisonment of up to 10 years under the act, with penalties increased to 16 years for large quantities of the most dangerous drugs. For first cases of illegal possession of less than 10g of hashish for personal use, offenders are normally punished with a fine of about 260, which is raised 50% for a second offence, and 100% for subsequent offences. Cases involving heroin dealing nearly always result in criminal proceedings. Medical and social treatments for drug abuse are the responsibility of municipalities. Suspended sentences can be granted on condition of a supervised treatment program. Drug dependent offenders may serve their prison sentence or part of it in treatment facilities outside of the prison system . Trends in social and life sciences have influenced courts to direct sentencing initiatives toward treatment, both in-patient and out-patient, and to treat the judicial process as a way to help drug users and addicts overcome their health problems. Progressive policy and legal actions have been designed to help rather than harm drug criminals, and these more scientific standards grow in popularity over years. Finland In 1966, Finland was the first Nordic country to make drug use criminal. A 1986 study showed that 2/3rds of all drug offences involved possession and use of relatively small amounts of drugs for personal consumption, and this kind of report led to 1994 and 2001 revisions of drug laws. The Narcotics Act classifies drugs as the 1961, 1971, and 1988 US Conventions list them, and national legislation complies with EU regulations. Chapter 50 of the Penal Code defines drug offences as including possession, manufacture, growing, smuggling, selling and dealing of drugs. Possession and personal use are offences punishable by a fine or maximum of 6 months in prison. Ordinary drug offences may be punished by up to 2 years in prison, and aggravated offences including trafficking up to 10 years with forfeiture of assets possible. For small amounts of drugs, section 50:7 allows prosecutors to waive punishment if the offence is insignificant or if the suspect has sought treatment, and 1991 and 1994 laws were designed to encourage prosecutors to waive judicial proceedings in drug use cases. The 1994 law states that in ordinary cases there should be no prosecution, and then usual punishment when one is given has been a fine. By 1998, about 10% of drug cases investigated and submitted by police led to non-prosecution, and in the first half of 2001 prosecution was waived in about 20% of narcotics offence cases. Prosecutors can also offer suspended sentencing. The Act on Welfare for Substance Abusers, Public Health Act, Social Welfare Act, Child Welfare Act, and Mental Health Act regulate services for drug abusers. Local needs are emphasized in application of many treatment options under the acts. Detoxification and substitution treatment are options for drug dependency reduction. Quality of patients life is a focus of treatment in hospitals, public and private treatment and care facilities. Long-term and close-proximity treatments are stressed as important under the law. Short prison
29

29

See EMCDDA (2004), Denmark Country Profile, accessible at http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index5174EN.html#

14

sentences may be replaced by in-patient programs with the focus of treating the substance abuser as a sick person in need of health care rather than as a common criminal . France A 1970 law created the basic laws on drugs, and a policy designed to repress trafficking, prohibit drug use and provide diverse forms of repression of use, and to ensure free and anonymous care for users who seek treatment. A 1986 law declared selling and supplying drugs for personal use to be illegal. The Penal Code from 1994 refreshed the 1970 laws while including provisions criminalizing offences like leadership of drug trafficking organization, and other organized crime-related activities. A 1996 law covered trafficking of narcotics on the high seas, which authorized the boarding and inspection of any ship suspected of narcotics trafficking outside of territorial waters, which corresponds with Article 108 of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea . The Ministry of Justice has issued numerous directives regarding the drug trade and legal actions pertaining thereto, including a 3 years plan written in 1999 and a new strategy for the local level in 2001. Illicit substances are classified on four lists according to the 1990 decree. Lists I and II correspond to those in the Single Convention of 1961; List I includes heroin, cocaine, cannabis, methadone, and opium; List II includes codeine and propiram; List III includes psychotropic substances of the 1971 Vienna Convention, such as amphetamines, ecstasy (MDMA), and LSD; List IV includes substances not controlled at the international level, such as MBDB, 4-MTA, Ketamine, Nabilone, and THC. The criminal justice system does not distinguish between substances, though the judicial authorities exercise some discretion in handling of cases. The nature and quantity of the substance, and history of the offender help officials decide whether to prosecute, reduce charges, or non-prosecute offenders. The 1970 law makes public or private use punishable by up to one year in prison and a fine of 3,000. A 1999 directive requested prosecutors help offenders seek treatment and offer alternatives to prisons for drug users, stating that the imprisonment of drug users not having committed other related offences must be the last resort. In most cases, offenders caught only using drugs receive a warning which may be accompanied by a request to contact a social or health service, though the offender may not be required to undergo treatment or counseling. Prosecutors have a range of options whereby they may waive and end prosecution of mere users, including voluntary payment of a fine or community service. One survey showed that only 10% of all persons arrested by the police for drug use are prosecuted. Trafficking entails the import, export, transportation, possession, supply, delivery, acquisition of large amounts of drugs, and is punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a multimillion Euro fine for standard cases, with penalties increasing up to life in prison for extreme cases. Trafficking cases prosecuted under article 414 of the Customs Code may yield a maximum 3 year sentence and fines of 2.5 times the value of the merchandise.
30

30

31

See EMCDDA (2004), Finland Country Profile, accessible at http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index5174EN.html# 31 See 1982 Convention, accessible at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf

15

Application of drug laws, sentencing, punishments, prosecution or non-prosecution, and opinions of the court vary between local government offices in France, as is the case in the majority of the world. Drug users may legally be held in custody by police at the station for up to 48 hours, though the 1999 directives of the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Interior recommended authorities finish insignificant cases with a warning. For roughly 90% of cannabis cases, the law has provided for practical decriminalization. Medical detoxification is generally used for arrests in cases involving drugs like heroin to which users develop physical dependency. Drug user offenders may avoid imprisonment by seeking treatment, and the prosecutor will generally close criminal proceedings so long as the offender completes treatment programs. Cases involving sales, transportation, and importation of drugs are usually treated under the highest measures allowed. Probation, community service, delayed sentencing, and therapeutic order alternatives are options prosecutors have to work with, though in cases involving large quantities, imprisonment is obviously more attractive . Germany Like much of Europe, Germany had an Opium Act from the time between WWI and WWII that was the rule on drug abuse and trafficking until more modern legislation was made. The Narcotics Act of 1971 was based on the 1961 and 1971 UN Conventions. In 1981, the Act to Regulate the Trade in Narcotics was passed and later amended several times to give prosecutors options to waive criminal proceedings in minor personal use cases (decriminalization in section 31a), to provide treatment and therapy alternatives to incarceration (sections 35-38), and to introduce severe minimum penalties for serious drug trafficking under the Crime Suppression Act and the Act on Combating Organized Crime. Section 1 of the Narcotics Act classifies not only drugs included in the UN Conventions, but also those not regulated internationally. Schedule I includes non-marketable narcotics; Schedule II includes licit narcotic drugs, but not available as such on special prescription; Schedule III includes marketable narcotic drugs available on special prescription. Sections 29-34 define criminal offences, administrative offences and penalties. Basic criminal offences are punishable by up to five years in prison or a fine; up to 15 years for serious offences including trafficking; fines for minor regulatory offences. The law does not distinguish between the type and classification of drug, but in determining sentencing, the judge will consider the type and quantity of drug, nature and conditions of the offence. The court urged prosecutors to take into consideration the ban on excessive punishment written in the Basic Law for cases of personal use of cannabis. The Narcotics Act is designed to control the supply of legitimate narcotics such that the population has sufficient access to medical drugs like diacetylmorphine (heroin) for pain management, but the Act has the dual purpose of assisting the public with addiction management. Since 1981, a number of treatment options have been written into codes, laws, and procedures to ease the criminal sanctions placed on drug using offenders and redirect the policy toward a more scientific-based method of therapy and treatment. Prosecutors are
32

32

See EMCDDA (2004), France Country Profile, accessible at http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index5174EN.html#

16

encouraged to postpone up to two year prison sentences for addicts on the condition that the offender undergo rehabilitation treatment. Therapy instead of punishment, substitutionbased treatment, distribution of clean syringes, drug consumption room, and diamorphinebased substitution treatment have been parts of the programs. In 1995-96, the Police Presidents supported heroin trials . As of 2008, 27 drug consumption rooms and 222 consumption places were set up in 16 cities with the aim of contacting drug addicts regularly, stabilizing their health, offering counseling, providing survival assistance, and preventing the spread of disease. The safe-spot program has helped reduce the number of drug-related deaths. The Criminal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, and Juvenile Courts Act include important pieces of legislation that help design more humanitarian policing of drug crime . Netherlands The 1912 International Opium Convention at The Hague led to the first Opium Act of 1919, which was revised in 1928, and amended in 1976. The 1976 Opium Act distinguished between hard drugs and soft drugs. The Abuse of Chemical Substances Act, Collective Prevention and Public Health Act, Primary Education Act, Basic Education Act for Secondary Education, Care Institutions Quality Act, and the Act on Medicines are also relevant to drug users and offenders. Under the Opium Act, drugs are divided into two classes. Schedule I includes drugs presenting unacceptable risks like opiates, cocaine, cannabis oil, codeine, amphetamines, processed hallucinogenic mushrooms, and LSD; Schedule II includes tranquillizers and barbiturates, fresh hallucinogenic mushrooms, and cannabis. Drug use is not a crime. Possession of drugs for personal use is not considered an offence of public interest where a prosecutor would institute criminal proceedings, though the police may confiscate drugs and refer the offender to a care agency. The separation of markets principle allows coffee shops to sell at most 5 grams of cannabis per person per transaction so long as no more than 500 grams is kept in stock, hard drugs are not sold, drugs are not advertised, no public nuisance is made, no alcoholic beverages are sold, drugs are not sold to minors (under 18) and minors are not admitted on the premises. Still, article 13a of the Opium Act provides for criminal prosecution for drug possession, with a penalty of 1 month in prison and or a 3,500 fine for cases not exceeding 30 grams of cannabis; up to 1 year and or a 6,700 fine for a small amount of other drugs; up to 8 years imprisonment and or a 67,000 fine for the production of substances; penalties can increase by 1/3 for subsequent offences. The Opium Act provides maximum penalties of 6 years imprisonment and a fine for dealing Schedule II drugs; 12 to 16 years for hard drug trafficking; maximum penalties for importing or exporting any quantity of cannabis are 4 years imprisonment and or a 67,000 fine.
34 33

33

See Public Health Agency of Canada (2003), Harm Reduction and Injection Drug Use: an international comparative study of contextual factors influencing the development and implementation of relevant policies and programs, accessible at http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/hepc/pubs/hridu-rmudi/germany-eng.php 34 See EMCDDA (2004), Germany Country Profile, accessible at http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index5174EN.html#

17

Articles 167 and 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enable waiver of prosecution. 90% of criminal cases are penalized with less than 6 years in prison. Suspended sentences provide options for prosecutors and offenders. Drug addicts who commit small offences are pressured to participate in treatment programs. Community service and residence in addiction clinics are used by courts as alternatives to prison. Cooperation between justice and care is highlighted . Portugal Decree Laws from 1993, 1995, 1996, 1999, and 2000 define some basic elements of the drug control policies, criminal codes and procedures. The Decree Law of 1993 classfies drugs into 6 lists; List 1 includes opiates, coca derivatives, cannabis and derivatives; List 2 includes hallucinogenic drugs, amphetamines, and barbiturates; List 3 includes preparations with controlled substances; List 4 includes tranquillizers and analgesics; Lists 5 and 6 include precursors. In 2001, possession for use of all illicit drugs was decriminalized. Offenders caught with drugs for personal use, whom the police do not suspect or have evidence are involved in sales or trafficking, will have their drugs seized and the case will be transmitted to a local Commission which meets with the person to evaluate the offenders situation with the aim of treatment and rehabilitation. In cases when offenders are proven to be an addict, prosecutors usually ask for a fine, which is rarely waived since decriminalization has been in effect. Drug addicts are considered sick people rather than criminals, and the system supports therapy. Chapter III Article 21 of the 1993 Decree defines trafficking as producing, offering, selling, preparing or cultivating illicit drugs. The nature of the substance and state of addiction of the trafficker are considered when prosecuting. Trafficking of drugs on Lists 1-3 is punishable by 4-12 years imprisonment; 1-5 years for List 4 drugs; penalties are reduced to 3 years (Lists 1-3) and less than 1 year (List 4) for traffickers selling to finance their own habits under Article 26 of Decree Law 15/93. Article 25 defines cases of minor importance, for which penalties of between 1 and 5 years imprisonment (Lists 1-3) and up to 2 years or a fine (List 4) can be assigned . Spain Prior to a 1992 law, drug possession and use in public places were not prohibited by law. Law 17/1967 implemented the 1961 UN Convention, and Royal Decree 2829/1977 implemented the 1971 UN Convention, which defines and classifies drugs under domestic national law. Autonomous Communities within the nation have passed drug laws for their own jurisdiction. Local regulations often determine the course of action.
36 35

35

See EMCDDA (2004), Netherlands Country Profile, accessible at http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index5174EN.html# 36 See EMCDDA (2004), Portugal Country Profile, accessible at http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index5174EN.html#

18

Personal drug use and possession is not a criminal offence under the law, though the Organic Law 1/1992 considered drug consumption in public and illicit possession serious order offences punishable by fines ranging from 300 to 30,000. Fines can be suspended if an offender freely attends an official drug treatment program in accordance with the procedure outlined in the Royal Decree 1079/1993. Articles 368 and 378 of the Penal Code regulate penalties for illicit drug and precursors trafficking, which can reach up to 20 years and 3 months in prison. Penalties can be among the severe in Europe when the drugs are adulterated, large quantities of drugs are involved, drugs are sold to minors under 18, drugs are introduced into schools, prisons or military establishments, drugs are sold in public establishments by employees of the establishment or are offered to persons undergoing drug treatment. Cases involving no aggravating circumstances can yield 1-3 years imprisonment, and 3-9 years when the drugs cause serious health damage. Drug addicts may be offered alternative treatment measures upon sentencing for not more than 3 years; probation and delayed sentencing . Sativex, cannabis-based medicine, was approved for sale and marketing by Spanish regulators . Spanish medical researchers have been essential in studying the medicinal effects of illicit drugs. Sweden The Narcotic Drugs Punishments Act of 1968 is the main law regulating manufacture, acquisition, supply, etc. of illegal drugs. Consumption of narcotics has been considered a punishable offence since 1988. The 2000 Law on Penalties for Smuggling relates to trafficking. The Act on Control of Narcotic Drugs criminalizes unlawful handling of narcotics. Behaviors associated with drug misuse and trafficking are held together with narcotic drug offences. The Doping Criminal Act and Act on Prohibition of Certain Substances which are Dangerous to the Health are concerned with intoxicants and health hazards. Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs Punishments Act considers narcotics to be medicines or substances which are hazardous to the health, which have addictive properties, which induce a state of euphoria. No distinction is made between narcotic preparations and psychotropic substances. Three degrees of offences are written into the law: minor, ordinary, and serious. Penalties for minor offences include fines or up to 6 months in prison; up to 3 years for ordinary offences; 2 to 10 years for serious offences. The nature and quantity of the drugs and other circumstances of the offence are considered when determining the degree of an offence. Minor offences involve personal use or possession for personal use. If drugs are sold or if the offender possesses drugs with intent to distribute, with the exception of small amounts of cannabis or other drugs within a closed circle of abusers, then the minor offence concept is excluded.
38 37

37

See EMCDDA (2004), Spain Country Profile, accessible at http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index5174EN.html# 38 See NORML (2010), Spain Approves Marijuana Spray as Medicine, accessible at http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=8322

19

Various alternatives to prison sentencing are provided under the law. Suspended sentencing, probation, treatment, etc. are options for prosecutors and defendants. Methadone maintenance treatment has been used since the 1960s for opiate addicts. Social and local authorities are responsible for handling cases. For sentences of less than 2 years, for ordinary cases, therapy and treatment options are attractive to both government and offenders . Switzerland A 4 pillars harm reduction policy is in effect. The first pillar is prevention, the second treatment, third harm reduction, and fourth enforcement. The 1924 Narcotics Act followed Switzerlands signing the 1912 Opium Convention. The Act was revised in 1951, 1970, 1975, and 1996. Dependence-producing substances like morphine, cocaine, and cannabis are targeted under legislation. Opium, heroin, hallucinogens like LSD, and hash are specifically prohibited under Section 8 of the Narcotics Act. Section 19 provides for penalties including prison sentences and fines, dependent upon seriousness of the offence; personal use offences are punishable by detention or a fine; prosecution may be stayed or waived for petty offences. Offences are handled differently in some of the 26 cantons . In 1998, the Swiss Parliament passed a resolution allowing for controlled heroin prescription as a new form of therapy . As of 2001, the government endorsed a draft legislation that recommended police stop enforcing laws regarding the cultivation and sale of small amounts of marijuana , and as of 2008 penalties for private use of cannabis were rarely enforced . Decriminalization has been proposed and debated as Switzerland continues to take a rational economic look at the illicit trades . English-speaking Common Law Nations The major 6 English-speaking nations Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and United States account for about 1/3rd of the world GDP (official exchange rate) . English is the second language of the world and worlds international business language, and thus the English-language systems have immense influence globally. The British Empire once spanned the globe and the English Common Law system is still in force
39

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

See EMCDDA (2004), Sweden Country Profile, accessible at http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index5174EN.html# 40 See Collin (2002), Parliament of Canada, Switzerlands Drug Policy, Prepared for the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, accessible at http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/library/collin1-e.htm 41 See Parliament of Canada (2002), Chapter 8, Switzerland, accessible at http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=1032297&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=37 &Ses=2&File=285#3 42 See NORML (2001), Swiss Government Moves to Okay Marijuana Use, Cultivation and Sale, accessible at http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4276 43 See Bachmann (2008), Swiss Heroin Program is Put to a Vote, Time, accessible at http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1862656,00.html 44 See LOC (2010), accessible at http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?browse_country_Switzerland 45 See CIA (2011), World Factbook, country profiles, accessible at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/theworld-factbook/geos/xx.html

20

in about 80 countries which were once part of or influenced by the Empire, though Civil Law is the most popular system worldwide as it is practiced in about 150 countries, with Islamic Law in force in over 30 nations . The English-speaking nations have thorough anti-drug legislation in place and have some of the worlds most active enforcement agencies. Source and transit nations in the drug trade pay close attention to the drug policies of the English nations, which are mobile and wellfunded internationally, and remarkably persuasive at the global level due perhaps primarily to their economic valuations. The United States most notably has impacted international drug policy, and has an aggressive agenda under its 40 year old War on Drugs strategy. Money laundering and other drug-related financial crime are written into various pieces of legislation in these countries, but for the purposes of this report, mere drug laws are the focus. Australia The 1909 International Opium Commission (Shanghai Conference), 1911 Opium Conference at the Hague, the second Opium Convention in 1925, 1931 Convention for Limiting the Manufacture and Regulating the Distribution of Narcotic Drugs, 1948 Paris Protocol, 1961 and 1971 UN Conventions helped Australia develop its own drug policies. The first domestic laws prohibiting the importation and use of non-medicinal cannabis were written in the 1920s. In the 1960s and 1970s, public awareness of drug use increased with rises in use of illicit drugs, especially among middle class whites, property crime increased with heroin dependence, and funding for policing drug offences increased. The 1979 Woodward Commission and Williams Inquiry encouraged more and better law, improved enforcement, raised maximum penalties, relaxation of strict burden of proof standards, new government agencies, and generally increased regulatory action. The 1979 report of the South Australian Royal Commission into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs recommended that minor cannabis consumption not be treated as a criminal offence, and today some states have decriminalized marijuana while others have not. In 1985, the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse announced that drug use should be treated as a health issue, especially regarding intravenous drug use during the first years of the HIV/AIDS scare. In 1992, the National Drug Strategy was implemented with the goals of minimizing negative health effects of illicit drug use, minimizing criminal behavior correlated with drug offences, minimizing loss of quality of life, productivity, and economic costs associated with drug use, and prevention of the spread of diseases like hepatitis and HIV/AIDS. The plan was founded upon the ideals of harm minimization, social justice, maintenance of controls over the supply of drugs, an intersectoral approach, international cooperation, evaluation and accountability. Partnerships between health, law enforcement, education, NGO, and private industry were highlighted not only to reduce consumption and trade of illicit drugs, but also to address problems associated with alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceuticals. In 1997, Health and Police Ministers in Australia approved of prescription
46

46

See CIA (2011), World Factbook, Legal System, accessible at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/theworld-factbook/fields/2100.html

21
47

heroin trials by a vote of 6:3, though the PM vetoed the trial later that year . In 2003, the Premier of New South Wales proposed a four year trial of medical cannabis . Tasmania remains one of the worlds largest producers of licit opium . In 1998, a tough on drugs strategy was implemented with funding allocated for supply reduction, treatment, prevention, training and skills development for users, monitoring and evaluation, and research. In 1999, Ministers agreed on a plan designed to divert illicit drug users from the criminal justice system into education and treatment. Depending on the seriousness of offences, drug offenders may be warned, referred to treatment, and given various alternatives to prison sentences in criminal cases. Community-based treatment and local controls were provided. Senate reviews of the drug policy have featured oral arguments in favor of a harm minimization strategy rather than the need to eliminate all drug use, and due to the complexity of drug issues, a pragmatic approach has been employed. Legislation related to drugs is made and enforced at the state and territorial level. In New South Wales, the 1985 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act and 1998 Drug Court Act are key pieces of legislation on the subject; the 1981 Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act in Victoria; the 1986 Drugs Misuse Act and 2000 Drug Rehabilitation Act in Queensland; 1981 Misuse of Drugs Act in Western Australia; 1984 Controlled Substances Act in South Australia; Poisons Act of 1971 in Tasmania; 1990 Drugs of Dependence Act in the Northern Territory; 1989 Drugs of Dependence Act in the Australian Capital Territory; and at the Commonwealth level the 1901 Customs Act, 1967 Narcotics Act, 1976 Psychotropic Substances Act, and 1990 Crimes (Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) Act. Each act contains schedules similar to the 1961 and 1971 UN Conventions, with the most dangerous drugs at the top. Quantities and types of drugs involved, criminal history, conditions of the offence are used to determine an appropriate course of legal action. Penalties in Australia are potentially severe though the majority of possession for personal use cases end with a fine of a few hundred AUS dollars and no criminal conviction recorded. Since 1987 in South Australia, 1992 in the Australian Capital Territory, and 1996 in the Northern Territory, minor cannabis offences have been considered civil infractions which may be handled with an on-the-spot fine. Cultivation of cannabis plants (3 in S AUS, 5 in ACT, 2 in NT) and possession of plants (100g in S AUS, 25g in ACT, 50g in NT) are considered civil infractions rather than criminal offences, though failure to pay tickets can result in court appearances. Under the 1981 Misuse of Drugs Act mere possession can yield 3-5 years imprisonment and fines of AUS$12,000-20,000; selling of ice pipes to a minor is
49 48

47

See Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform, Dutch trial of prescription heroin strongly endorses benefits, accessible at http://www.ffdlr.org.au/archives/Media%20Releases/Dutch%20trial%20of%20prescription%20heroin%20stron gly%20endorses%20benefits.htm 48 See Rickard (2003), Parliamentary Library of Australia, accessible at http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2003-04/04rn13.htm 49 See CIA (2011), World Factbook, Illicit Drugs, accessible at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/theworld-factbook/fields/2086.html

22
50

punishable by up to 2 years in prison and or a fine of AUS$24,000 . Violators of the 1967 Narcotic Drugs Act may be faced with 2-10 years imprisonment and a fine of AUS$1,0004,000 . The Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 provides for penalties between 2 and 5 years for mere possession of listed drugs . Serious offences, such as commercial scale trafficking, especially of dangerous drugs like heroin and cocaine, can easily yield 25 years to life in prison . Canada The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is the most important law in the national drug policy. 4 major schedules plus one for precursors are featured in the act. Schedule I includes opiates, cocaine, phencyclidine, ketamine, and methamphetamine; Schedule II includes cannabis and its extracts; Schedule III includes amphetamines, psilocybin, mescaline; Schedule IV includes barbiturates, tranquillizers, and anabolic steroids. Part I (4-7) declares that possession of Schedule I substances can yield up to 7 years imprisonment; up to 5 years imprisonment for Schedule II; up to 3 years imprisonment for Schedule III; up to 18 months imprisonment for Schedule IV; CA$1,000 fine and or 6 months imprisonment for first offences; CA$2,000 fine and or 1 year imprisonment for subsequent offences. Trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking carries maximum penalties of life in prison for Schedule I or II offences; 10 years for Schedule III, 18 months for summary conviction; 3 years for Schedule IV, 1 year for summary conviction. Production of Schedule I or II substances has a maximum penalty of life in prison, 7 years for marijuana; 10 years for Schedule III, 18 months for summary conviction; 3 years for Schedule IV, 1 year for summary conviction. Under Part I (10), the courts are to take into consideration the type of substance, whether violence or threat thereof was involved in the offence, whether minors or schools were involved, prior criminal history of the defendant, and in accordance to the Criminal Code, the court is encouraged to provide rehabilitation, treatment, and alternative sentencing options to offenders in promotion of respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society. Forfeiture of offence-related property is possible under Part II (16) . In 2005, the Health Officers Council of British Columbia (HOCBC) published a paper on drug control, which featured debate points on legalization and decriminalization. In the paper, a 2004 Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse survey was cited which found that 60.4% of Canadians and 66.5% British Columbia residents somewhat or strongly
50

51

52

53

54

See Misuse of Drugs Act 1981, accessible at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/moda1981184.txt/cgibin/download.cgi/download/au/legis/wa/consol_act/moda1981184.rtf 51 See Narcotic Drugs Act 1967, accessible at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C2004A07597 52 See Drugs of Dependence Act 1989, accessible at http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/alt_a198911co/current/pdf/alt_a1989-11co.pdf 53 See MacKay (2001), National Drug Police: Australia, Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, Canadian Parliament, accessible at http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/library/robin-e.htm 54 See Controlled Drugs and Substances Act 1996-2011, accessible at http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C38.8/

23

supported decriminalization of 15g or less of marijuana. A 2000 City of Vancouver poll found that support for legalization of marijuana reached 57%, and support for medical use of heroin for drug treatment was 61%. HOCBC researchers argued that removal of criminal penalties for drug possession for personal use could assist a harm-reduction strategy, and consider individual drug use as a health issue, rather than continue on with the failed criminal-prohibition approach . Safe-injection sites in Canada have helped define the nation as remarkably open-minded and healthcare-oriented regarding drug issues . Ireland The 1977 and 1984 Misuse of Drugs Acts are the main drug laws. Drugs like cannabis, LSD, mescaline, and opium are on Schedule 1; cocaine, heroin, methadone, and morphine on Schedule 2; other psychotropic substances on Schedules 3 and 4; preparations on Schedule 5. Penalties for cannabis possession for personal use under the 1984 act are in first offence cases 500 for a conviction, 300 for a summary conviction; for second offences 400 for summary conviction, 1,000 for conviction; for third and subsequent offences 1,000 and or up to 1 year imprisonment for summary conviction, an appropriate fine and or up to 3 years in prison for a conviction . The 1984 Criminal Justice Act is also relevant to prosecution in drug cases, especially those which are of a serious nature; amendments and revisions of that law have provided for potential seizure and confiscation of assets derived from drug trafficking and dealing; allowing suspects in drug trafficking cases to be detained for up to seven days; mandatory 10year minimum sentences in cases involving drugs valued at 12,700 or more; maximum sentences up to life in prison. Judiciary official exercise discretion and it is possible that minimum sentences may be avoided when certain circumstances are present which would make the minimum sentence unjust (i.e. if the offender were an addict). Type and quantity of drugs, and conditions of the offence are considered when deciding on an appropriate sentence for offenders. Community service, fines, supervised probation, suspended sentencing, orders to complete in-patient and or out-patient treatment programs, random urinalysis, methadone treatment for dependents, and standard treatment options are alternatives to lengthy jail stays for common, non-violent offenders . New Zealand As a party to the 1961, 1971, and 1988 UN Conventions, New Zealand has a domestic policy which highlights international commitments. The 1975 Misuse of Drugs Act is the most
55

55

56

57

58

See HOCBC (2005), A Public Health Approach to Drug Control in Canada, accessible at http://www.cfdp.ca/bchoc.pdf 56 See IDPC (2011), International coalition to save Vancouver safe-injection site, accessible at http://www.idpc.net/alerts/international-coalition-vancouver-injection-site 57 See Irish Statute Book, Misuse of Drugs Act 1977, accessible at http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ResultsTitle.html?q=misuse+of+drugs+act&Simple_Search=Acts&Simple_Searc h=SIs 58 See EMCDDA (2004), Ireland Country Profile, accessible at http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index5174EN.html#

24

relevant piece of legislation on the topic, though the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act is important too. Four Schedules of drugs are listed. Schedule 1 drugs are Class A and they include cocaine, heroin, lysergic acid, mescaline, and methamphetamine. Schedule 2 drugs are Class B and they include amphetamine, cannabis, MDMA, methcathinone, morphine, opium, GHB, hydrocodone, methadone, and oxycodone. Schedule 3 drugs are Class C and they include cannabis plants and seeds, coca leaves, codeine, ketamine, ephedrine, and amphetamine analogues. Schedule 4 drugs are precursors . The maximum penalties for dealing Class A drugs under the main Act is imprisonment for life; up to 14 years for Class B drugs; up to 8 years for Class C drugs. Possession of Class A drugs can lead to 6 months in prison and or a fine of NZ$1,000; up to 3 months in prison and or a NZ$500 fine for Class B and C drugs, though the Act discourages imprisonment for Class C drug possession. Medicinal cannabis is allowed under license . Drug policy is based on the principle of harm minimization, with the aim to improve social, economic and health outcomes for the individual, the community and the population at large . Objectives of the national policy include organizing the local governments and communities with the federal government to prevent all drug use, including alcohol and tobacco; reduce harm to individuals, families, and communities caused by tobacco smoking, second hand smoke, and risky consumption of alcohol; reduce the supply and use of illegal drugs; reduce the costs of drug misuse to individuals, society, and government. Partnerships with NGOs, employers, individuals, communities, industry, local and voluntary groups are a focus to involve all stakeholders. Drug related harm may be death, illness, disease, mental illness, injury, violence, poor relationship development and sustainability, child neglect, criminal activity, property crime, decreased economic productivity, work and school absenteeism, and costs to health services. The harm may be acute or chronic, temporary or permanent. The national drug policy provides various treatment options for addicts and users seeking to appeal to the interests of the criminal justice system. Detoxification, withdrawal management, opioid substitution (primarily with methadone), outpatient counseling, cognitive psychotherapy, cognitive-behavioral approaches, and community reinforcement are options for drug abusers and addicts. Judges may take into account an offenders treatment needs when deciding on an appropriate sentence; deferred sentencing may be assigned contingent upon the defendant voluntarily undergoing treatment. District Health Boards fund community-based alcohol and drug treatment programs. Drug Courts help implement policy designed to reduce drug demand and dependency, and their teams of interdisciplinary specialists take a collaborative approach in a wide range of cases, including high-end offenders.
59

59

60

61

See Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, New Zealand Parliamentary Counsel Office, accessible at http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1975/0116/latest/viewpdf.aspx 60 See New Zealand Law Commission (2010), Controlling and Regulating Drugs, accessible at http://talklaw.co.nz/document/show/71 61 See New Zealand Ministry of Health, National Drug Policy 2007-2012, accessible at http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/national-drug-policy-2007-2012-part1

25

United Kingdom The UK is another nation with a Misuse of Drugs Act from 1971. This Act follows the 1961 and 1971 UN Conventions. The Customs Excise and Management Act of 1979 provides penalties for import and export of drugs. The Criminal Justice Act of 1990 follows the 1988 UN Convention. The Drug Trafficking Act of 1994 allowed courts to seize and confiscate assets gained through the drug trade. The Crime and Disorder Act of 1998 takes a community-based approach which compels drug offenders to enter into treatment. The Criminal Justice and Police Act of 2001 allows courts to impost overseas travel bans on drug traffickers. The Drugs Act of 2005 amended the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, and grants elevated powers to police for handling of drug crimes, including drug testing on arrest, involuntary treatment of offenders who test positive for drugs, and rights to detain offenders who have swallowed drugs for up to 192 hours . Like other Misuse of Drugs Acts, the UK Act has 3 classes: A, B, and C. Class A includes ecstasy, LSD, heroin, cocaine, crack, magic mushrooms, amphetamines prepared for injection; possession can lead to up to 7 years in prison or an unlimited fine or both; dealing can lead to life in prison and or an unlimited fine. Class B drugs include amphetamines, cannabis, methylphenidate, and pholcodine; possession is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and or an unlimited fine; dealing is punishable by up to 14 years in prison and or an unlimited fine. Class C drugs include tranquillizers, pain killers, GHB, and ketamine; penalties for possession are up to 2 years in prison and or an unlimited fine; up to 14 years in prison and or an unlimited fine for dealing. Cannabis was reclassified as a B drug from the C list in 2009; adults caught possessing cannabis may be issued a warning or a disorder notice with a fine of 80 . United States of America The 1913 Harrison Act marked the start of a major prohibitionist movement in American law, but today the Controlled Substances Act is the main federal law pertaining to drugs. Most criminal cases are handled in State and local courts, whereas the federal government is concerned primarily with trafficking rather than personal use possession, which is the most common variety of case in lower courts. There are five basic schedules. Schedule 1 includes MDMA, DMT, heroin, LSD, mescaline, methcathinone, cannabis, psilocybin, peyote, THC, and china white. Schedule 2 includes amphetamine, cocaine, codeine, hydrocodone, methamphetamine, morphine, methylphenidate, opium poppy, opium, and oxycodone. Though peyote is listed on Schedule 2, the Native American Free Exercise of Religion Act of 1993 protects the use, possession, or transportation by an Indian of peyote for bona fide ceremonial use in a Native American religious activity . Schedules 3-5 include anabolic steroids, barbiturates, tranquillizers, and precursors. Trafficking penalties vary depending on
62 63

62

63

64

See EMCDDA (2004), accessible at http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index5174EN.html# See Home Office (2010), Drugs and the law, accessible at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs/drug-law/ 64 See Native American Free Exercise of Religion Act of 1993, accessible at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/bdquery/z?d103:S.1021:

26

the quantity and type of drug, the criminal history of the offender, and conditions of the offence. Cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, LSD, and PCP first offences can lead to 5 to 40 years in prison; 20 years to life for cases involving death or serious injury; fines up to US$5 million for individuals, US$50 million for organizations. Second offences are punishable by 10 years to life in prison; US$8 million to US$75 million in fines. First trafficking offences involving 1,000kg or more of marijuana is punishable by 10 years to life in prison; 20 years to life for cases involving injury or death; fines of US$4 million for individuals, US$10 million for organizations. Second offences are punishable by 20 years to life in prison, mandatory life in cases involving serious injury or death; fines of US$8 million for individuals and US$20 million for organizations. First offences for trafficking of 100999kg of marijuana are punishable by 5-40 years in prison, not less than 20 for violent cases, fines of US$2 million for individuals, US$5 million for organizations; second offences 10 years to life, life mandatory in cases involving violence, US$4 million for individuals, US$10 million for organizations. First offences for trafficking of 50-99kg of marijuana not more than 20 years, 20 years to life for cases involving death or injury, fines up to US$1 million for individuals, US$5 million for groups; second offences up to 30 years, mandatory life for cases involving death or injury, fines up to US$2 million for individuals, US$10 million for organizations. First offences for trafficking of less than 50kg of marijuana not more than 5 years, fines up to US$250,000 for individuals, US$1 million for organizations; second offences not more than 10 years, fines up to US$500,000 for individuals, US$2 million for organizations . Marijuana has been decriminalized in Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Oregon . Marijuana has been legalized for medicinal prescription purposes in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Washington DC, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington . Although State laws vary, for this paper Michigan can offer sample penalties for other drugs. Possession of narcotics such as cocaine and heroin is a felony under MCL Section 333.7403. For offences involving 1kg or more, a penalty of up to life in prison and or a fine up to US$1 million may be assessed; for 450g to 1kg, up to 30 years in prison and or up to US$500,000; 50-450g up to 20 years and or US$250,000; 25-50g up to 4 years and or US$250,000; less than 25g up to 4 years and US$25,000. Penalties for methamphetamine, ecstasy, and MDMA are up to 10 years and or US$15,000. Possession of other controlled substances can be punished by up to 2 years and or a fine of US$2,000. Possession of LSD, peyote, mescaline, psilocybin and other hallucinogens is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year and or a fine of US$2,000. Marijuana possession is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in prison and a fine of up to US$2,000. Misdemeanor prescription drug possession is punishable by up
65 66

65

66

67

See DEA, Drug Policy, accessible at http://www.justice.gov/dea/ See Scott (2010), Marijuana Decriminalization, OLR research report, accessible at http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0204.htm 67 See NORML (2011), Active State medical marijuana programs, accessible at http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3391

27

to 1 year and a fine of US$1,000. Lifetime probationers may be granted release from probation after 5 years. Narcotics manufacturing, delivering, and possession with the intent to distribute penalties in Michigan under Section 333.7401 are basically the same as possession penalties. Methamphetamine and ecstasy dealing and manufacturing penalties are increased to up to 20 years imprisonment and or US$25,000; up to 7 years and or US$10,000 for other controlled substances other than cannabis. Cannabis cases involving 45kg or more, or 200 plants or more are punishable by up to 15 years in prison and or a fine up to US$10 million; 5-45kg, 20-200 plants up to 7 years imprisonment and or US$500,000; less than 5kg, less than 20 plants up to 4 years imprisonment and or US$20,000. Property obtained through illegal drug dealing may be seized and confiscated by the State under Section 333.7521 . Minor drug offenders are often granted delayed sentences, community service, treatment options, and other alternative remedies to criminal prosecution in State and local courts. First offences are given special treatment, and some minor dealers may be given light sentences depending on the type and quantity of the drug involved and circumstances of the offence. The health care economic sector in the USA is robust and there is a variety of private and public service agencies for offenders and courts to choose from in designing a treatment program. Some States and locales have enacted much tougher policies on drugs than other jurisdictions. Conservative Republican districts generally have stricter regulations and harsher penalties than liberal Democratic districts, but such is not always the case. Judicial independence has given judges much room for variations between districts and within courthouses. Discretionary methods among police, prosecutors, and judges can vary a great deal between individuals, locales, counties, States, and regions in the USA. Drug offences consistently rank among the highest recorded categories of offences in the USA. Officials may seek extralegal punishments via pre-trial and pre-conviction detention, which may last up to 180 days . Harsh penalties are a strong deterrent to use among some sects of the population, though the USA remains the worlds largest illicit drug market and debate on the subject is often featured in national and international news and politics. Thailand History Thailand is a classic opium producing nation with parts of its northern borders with Myanmar and Laos well within the Golden Triangle. Historically, opium was traded and taxed. The British Empires East India Trading Company sailed through the region and colonial SE Asia was a hub for opium trading, importation and exportation. Then known better as Siam, Thailand joined the 1912 Hague Convention. In 1922, like many nations in the two decades
68

68

69

See MCL 333.7401, 7403, 7407, 7521, Michigan Public Health Code, accessible at http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(0vnxi5ydjlugpw45yfxh2eet))/mileg.aspx?page=GetMclDocument&objectnam e=mcl-chap333 69 See MCL 780.131(1), 180 day rule, accessible at http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zfxunz45lm2u2u45fdndbq45))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl -780-131

28

after the International Opium Convention, Thailand passed the Narcotics Act which regulated importation, sale, possession, production and consumption of narcotics. Following the 1925 Opium Convention, Thailand enacted the 1934 Cannabis Act and later the 1939 Kratom Act, though Kratom is not a focus of international law. Smoking and selling of opium was legally allowed in Thailand between the mid-1800s and 1959 when rising use of heroin led to a revision of the Narcotics Act to include death as a potential penalty for trafficking. Thailand became a member of the 1961, 1971, and 1988 UN Conventions and established the modern Narcotics Act and Psychotropic Substances Act to follow the international lead in drug control . Current Legislation The 1979 Narcotics Act repealed the previous Narcotics Acts, the Marijuana (Cannabis) Act, and Kratom Act. Section 7 lists 5 classifications: category I consists of dangerous narcotics such as heroin; category II includes ordinary narcotics like morphine, cocaine, codeine, and medicinal opium; category III includes prescription drugs like opioid analgesics; category IV includes preparations like acetic anhydride and acetyl chloride; category V includes marijuana and kratom. Chapters 2 and 3 cover licensing requirements and duties of licensees. Section 57 states that consumption of any category I or V substances is prohibited; category II drugs are permitted for prescription consumption under Section 58. Import or export of category I drugs without appropriate licenses is punishable by up to life imprisonment and a fine of 1 million to 5 million Baht under Section 65; offences committed for the purpose of disposal are punishable by death; retailing or wholesaling less than 15 doses of LSD, 1.5g of amphetamines or derivatives, 3g of heroin is punishable by 4 to 25 years imprisonment and 80,000 to 300,000 Baht; 4 years to life and a fine of 400,000 to 5 million Baht for disposal of drugs. Unauthorized disposal or possession for disposal of category I drugs less than 15 doses of LSD, 1.5g of amphetamines or derivatives, 3g of heroin may be punished by 4 to 15 years in prison and a fine of 80,000 to 300,000 Baht; 3 to 20g 4 years to life and a fine of 400,000 to 5 million Baht; over 20g of heroin life imprisonment or death, and 1 million to 5 million Baht. Possession of category I drugs less than 15 doses of LSD, 1.5g of amphetamines or derivatives, 3g of heroin may be punishable by 1 to 10 years in prison and 20,000 to 200,000 Baht fines. Import or export of category II drugs is punishable by 10 to 10 years and 100,000 to 1 million Baht; 20 years to life and 2 million to 5 million Baht for morphine, opium, or cocaine. Possession of category II drugs is punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment and or up to 100,000 Baht; disposal or possession for disposal 1 to 10 years and or 20,000 to 200,000 Baht; less than 100g morphine, opium, or cocaine 3 to 20 years and 60,000 to 400,000 Baht; 100g or more of morphine, opium, or cocaine 5 years to life and or 500,000 to 5 million Baht. Import or production of category III is punishable by 1 to 3 years and 100,000 to 300,000 Baht; export of category III up to 1 year and 100,000 Baht. Import, export, disposal of or possession for disposal of category IV drugs is punishable by 1 to 10 years and 20,000 to
70

70

See Thailand FDA Ministry of Public Health (2003), Narcotics Control Division, Brief history, structure, roles and responsibilities, accessible at http://www.fda.moph.go.th/fda-net/html/product/addict/index_eng.html

29

200,000 Baht; 10kg or more of category IV 1 to 15 years and 100,000 to 1.5 million Baht; possession of category IV up to 5 years and 100,000 Baht. Production, import or export of category V 2 to 15 years and or 200,000 to 1.5 million Baht; up to 2 years and 200,000 Baht for kratom plants; possession of category V up to 5 years and 100,000 Baht; up to 1 year and 20,000 Baht for kratom plants; disposal of or possession for disposal of category V less than 10kg, 2-10 years and or 40,000-200,000 Baht; 10kg or more, 2-15 years and or 200,000-1.5 million Baht; up to 2 years and or 40,000 Baht for less than 10kg of kratom; up to 2 years and or 200,000 Baht for 10kg or more of kratom. The Psychotropic Substances Act of 1975 lists 4 schedules. Schedule 1 includes DMT, MDA, mescaline, psilocybine, THV, and methcathinone; Schedule 2 includes ephedrine, phencyclidine, pipradrol, pseudoephedrine, and ketamine; Schedule 3 includes barbiturates; Schedule 4 includes barbiturates and tranquillizer. Chapters 2 and 3 contain provisions for licenses and licensees. Section 62 states that no person may possess or utilize any psychotropic substance without a license; no person shall consume any Schedule I substance; no person shall consume a Schedule II substance without a prescription. Chapter 12 provides penalties. Possession or utilization of Schedule I or II substances may be punishable by 5 to 20 years and or a fine of 100,000-400,000 Baht. Section 88 provides from treatment options for addicts, who may be compelled to enter rehab facilities for up to 180 days or until specialists determine the addict is fit to re-enter society. The Ministry of Public Health shall have the duty to provide appropriate treatment, education, training, after-care or rehabilitation and restoration of ability for [addicts] in order that such persons may be socially reintegrated, free from addiction to the psychotropic substances. Under Sections 114 and 115, addicts who refuse to accept treatment or rehabilitation and restoration of ability, and escapees from rehab centers may be imprisoned for up to 3 months and fined up to 10,000 Baht, and then reordered to complete treatment. The 2002 Narcotics Addict Rehabilitation Act Chapter 3 grants the courts and prosecutors options to delay sentencing, postpone criminal sanctions, offer treatment and care, provide health services, require offenders to undergo therapy and counseling, and offer probation and other alternatives to prison. Prosecution is not the main focus in handling of narcotics cases according to this act. Occupational therapy, education, training, social or community service for the offender helps the addicts and abusers regain skills necessary for life outside of the institution. Assessment of individual cases, biographical information, and life conditions of offenders helps the treatment staff design personalized strategies to assure successful completion of programs . Arms & Firearms Commonsense, religious morals, social ethics, health and humanitarian doctrine, the basic principles of the United Nations system outlined in the Charter all support vast gun control, especially at the international level involving military-grade arms. The UN Disarmament
71

71

See Narcotics Act, Psychotropic Substances Act, and Narcotics Addict Rehabilitation Act at www.thailaws.com

30

Commission recommends measures not only related to nuclear disarmament but also that of conventional weapons and armed forces, reduction of military expenditures, and considers dissolution of military alliances and dismantling of foreign military bases, prohibition of development, production and deployment of conventional weapons of great destructive power, etc. The 2001 Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects resolves that parties will coordinate efforts to prevent the flow of war weapons across international boundaries . The UN Firearms Protocol expects party States to enact domestic legislation to eradicate the illegal manufacture of firearms; cooperate to prevent, combat, and eradicate the illegal manufacture and trafficking of firearms, tighten controls on the export and import of firearms; and exchange information about illicit firearms . The Inter-American Convention on the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials reinforces the larger UN agenda in the OAS . Europe In Austria, the 1997 law following a European Council Directive required firearms owners to specify a reason for obtaining a gun, and prohibited most acquisition of guns over 60cm. Psychological testing, minimum age of 21, and background checks were for the first time required for category B weapons, which include handguns, semi-automatic firearms or repeating firearms. Safe firearm storage regulations were enacted, and a 3 day waiting period for category C and D weapons, including long firearms with smooth bore and rifled barrels, was required . In Belgium, France, and Germany, citizens are allowed to own handguns. German laws are strict for Europe, and licenses are required to buy or own a firearm, and obtaining a license entails passing a test; different licenses are given to hunters, recreational shooters, and collectors. A near-ban on private ownership of firearms is in effect in England, where licenses for rifles, shotguns and handguns are required; semi-automatic and pump-action rifles, handguns larger than .22 caliber were prohibited in 1991, and the .22 pistols banned in 1997 . In Switzerland, gun laws are similar to those in Israel, and availability is similar to
78 77 76 75 74 73 72

72

See UN General Assembly (1996), Review of report from Disarmament Commission, accessible at http://www.un.org/Depts/ddar/discomm/2102.htm 73 See UN (2008), Convention on Illicit Trade of Arms 2001, accessible at http://www.poaiss.org/poa/poahtml.aspx 74 See UN (2010), Firearms Protocol, accessible at http://www.poaiss.org/FirearmsProtocol/FirearmsProtocol.aspx 75 See Browne (2005), The United Nations and Gun Control, CRS Report for Congress, accessible at http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/45451.pdf 76 See OAS Convention text, available at http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-63.html 77 See Kapusta et al (2007), Firearm legislation reform in the EU: impact on firearm availability, firearm suicide and homicide rates in Austria, British Journal of Psychiatry, accessible at http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/reprint/191/3/253.pdf 78 See NRA-ILA (2001), Gun laws, culture, justice & crime in foreign countries, accessible at http://www.nraila.org/issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=78

31

the USA. Switzerland enlisted militiamen are required to keep a STGW90 assault rifle at their home, and retired militiamen may buy their issued firearms . The European Parliament, after 18 months of negotiations with national governments and gun advocates, set new rules for gun ownership starting in 2010, making 18 the minimum age for purchase and ownership of firearms provided the owner is not deemed a threat to public safety; member States are obligated to keep a computerized database of firearms for 20 years, details about model, caliber, serial number, names and addresses of buyers and sellers; handguns and semi-automatic weapons are more tightly controlled, requiring authorization from a local authority consisting of a background check and passing an exam . Some European countries have plenty of guns, still, with average guns per 100 people at 46 in Finland, 36 in Cyprus, 32 in Sweden; lower in other countries like Estonia and Ireland with 9/100, Netherlands 3, and Poland 1 . Finland banned the ownership of firearms by anyone under 20, Denmark raised maximum sentences for unauthorized possession of arms, Portugal moved to increase penalties for the use of guns in crimes . In Netherlands gun owners must be 18, a member of a gun club for at least one year, approved by police for licenses which must be renewed annually; firearms must be registered; automatic and semi-automatic weapons are banned. Spain law requires gun owners to be licensed and to undergo medical and psychological testing; up to 6 rifles and 1 handgun are permitted per owner, and the guns must be registered and inspected annually; machine guns, submachine guns and imitation pistols are banned . Australia Firearms access is limited to persons with a genuine need, including government and police, sporting shooters with valid membership of an approved club, recreational shooters or hunters that produce proof of permission from a landowner, primary producers, pest controllers and bona fide collectors. All governments have agreed that self-protection is not a genuine need. Fully and semi-automatic long arms, and high powered concealable handguns are prohibited. Licensing is mandatory for all firearm owners; age limitations, firearms safety training, and safe storage are required .
84 83 82 81 80 79

79

See Kates (2001), Gun laws around the world: do they work?, NRA-ILA, accessible at http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=72 80 See Bilefsky (2007), European legislators back tough gun control rules, NY Times, accessible at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/world/europe/29iht-29union.4.8530991.html 81 See European Parliament (2007), MEPs to debate tightening gun laws, accessible at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+IMPRESS+20071126STO13628+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN 82 See Crumley (2009), Massacre raises issue of gun control in Europe, Time, accessible at http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1885130,00.html 83 See Time Magazine (2002), Shadow of the Gun, accessible at http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/2002/0513/guns/laws.html 84 See Australian Attorney-Generals Department (2011), Firearms Regulation, accessible at http://www.ema.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Firearmsregulation_Firearmsregulation

32

Canada The Firearms Act and Criminal Code require businesses and individuals to keep a valid license to possess a firearm; minimum age 18 for a license with a public safety check required; registration for restricted firearms weapons is required . New Zealand The Arms Act of 1983 regulates firearms. Seven basic rules are laid out in section one: treat every firearm as loaded, always point firearms in a safe direction, load a firearm only when ready to fire, identify your target beyond all doubt, check you firing zone, store firearms and ammunition safely, avoid alcohol and drugs when handling firearms. License holders must be 16 years old and some firearms need special endorsement (B - member of a pistol club and possession of a pistol; C collector of pistols and/or restricted weapons; E use a MSSA firearm; E&F sell MSSAs, pistols and or restricted weapons as a firearms dealer or employee of a dealer); licenses allow the holder to have and use sporting type shotguns and rifles; licenses are valid for 10 years. Licenses are required for 16 and 17 year olds to have an airgun. Dealers licenses are separate from firearms licenses . New gun control laws have been proposed recently . United States of America The US Constitution is the main law that regulates firearms manufacture, sale, purchase, possession, and ownership. Amendment II states that A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Other gun control legislation has been used in attempts to reign the gunrelated problems, but the Acts remain unpopular among outspoken gun advocates. Thailand The Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, Fireworks, and the Equivalent of Firearms Act 1947 and Arms Control Act 1987 require any person owning or possessing a gun to be licensed. Threats to public order, vagrants, unemployed persons, persons incompetent or unsound of mind, and persons with certain criminal histories are prohibited from being granted a license .
89 88 87 86 85

85

See RCMP (2004), Highlights of Canadas Firearms Laws, accessible at http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfppcaf/pol-leg/hl-fs-eng.htm 86 See 1983 Arms Act, accessible at http://www.police.govt.nz/service/firearms/arms-code.pdf 87 See NRA-ILA (2010), New Zealand: new gun control laws proposed, accessible at http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=14197 88 See Congress of the United States (1789), Bill of Rights, accessible at http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html 89 See Firearms Act 1947 and Arms Control Act 1987 at www.thailaws.com

33

Illicit Trades Survey & Comments A convenience sample of 100 people in Chiang Mai, Thailand was taken, and respondents were asked to report on their opinions regarding illicit trades, relevant legislation, and morality. 53 were male and 47 female. Ages ranged from 18 to 70, with 80% aged 46 and below, 70% aged 36 and below, 55% were aged 29 and below, 33% were aged 24 and below. 3 were Danish, 10 French, 10 German or Austrian, 8 Dutch, 2 Swedish, 3 Swiss, 13 Australian or New Zealander, 7 Canadian, 25 British or Irish, 15 American, 1 Mexican, 2 Ukrainian, and 1 Italian. 13 were retired or reported no occupation, 22 were students, 7 worked in customers services including foods, 4 worked in legal professions including police and attorneys, 12 worked in technical fields like engineering, 3 worked in manual labor or manufacturing, 8 were social workers or volunteers, 5 were artists, 9 were teachers, 13 provided business services, 2 were government employees not in legal fields, and 2 worked in health or medicine fields. 25 had high school diplomas only, 56 had some college or a bachelors degree or career training, 16 had masters degrees, and 3 had doctoral degrees. 62 had no official religion or chose not to report, 2 were atheist, 35 were Christian, 1 was Buddhist. By a vote of 57:43, participants voted against legalized gambling; 73:27 against legalized prostitution; 99:1 against legalized arms trading; 56:44 for legalized marijuana; 92:8 against legalized LSD; 81:19 against legalized magic mushrooms; 95:5 against legalized cocaine; 96:4 against legalized heroin; 96:4 against legalized opium; 93:7 against legalized ecstasy. Participants decided against decriminalized gambling 64:36; 73:27 against decriminalized prostitution; 92:8 against decriminalized arms trading; 51:49 for decriminalized marijuana; 86:14 against decriminalized LSD; 81:19 against decriminalized magic mushrooms; 88:12 against decriminalized cocaine; 86:14 against decriminalized heroin; 87:13 against decriminalized opium; 88:12 against decriminalized ecstasy. 2 participants recommended no sentence for drug trafficking; 25 found 0-5 years in prison to be reasonable; 24 chose 5-10 years in prison; 17 preferred 10+ years in prison; 4 chose the death penalty; 14 chose rehabilitation and counseling; 6 chose up to 5 years imprisonment and rehabilitation and counseling; 4 chose up to 10 years imprisonment plus rehabilitation and counseling; 4 abstained. Of the 95 who responded to the question regarding whether or not drugs should be available for prescription use, 80 said yes and 15 said no. 73 respondents stated that gambling was a 0-2 grade offence on a scale of 0-10, with 10 the highest, 1 the lowest, and 0 nil; 36 responded that gambling was not an offence; 6 rated gambling above 5. 38 stated that operating a casino is not an offence; 71 rated operating a casino between 0 and 3; 20 rated it a 5 to 10. The most common grade for prostitution was 5, which 23 respondents chose; 15 chose 0 and 15 chose 10; 28 chose 1-4; 19 chose 7-9. 47 participants grade pimping at a 10; 75 believed pimping was a 7-10 level offence. 89 respondents rated sex trafficking of minors at 10; 1

34

graded the offence a 3; 1 graded it a 0. 85 believed human trafficking is a 10; 1 a 0; 1 a 5; 6 and 8; 2 a 9. 30 rated marijuana possession at a 0, meaning a nil offence; 20 rated it a 1; 13 a 2; 7 a 3; 4 a 4; 11 a 5; 3 a 6; 2 a 7; 1 an 8; 3 a 10. 21 rated narcotics possession a 5; 10 a 10; 8 a 0; 29 rated it between 1 and 4; 26 rated it between 6 and 9. Marijuana distribution was most commonly a 0; 34 ranked it a 1-4; 29 between 5 and 9; 6 at 10. 10 was the mode for narcotics distribution with 30 respondents; 5 was the second most popular choice with 17; 2 chose 0; 13 between 1 and 4; 31 between 6 and 9. 10 was the mode for drug trafficking with 39 respondents; 18 chose 5; 16 chose 8; 2 chose 0. 26 chose 10 for poppy farming; 26 between 5 and 6; 6 at 0; 23 between 1 and 4; 14 between 7 and 9. 24 respondents chose 0 for marijuana farming; 17 at 5; 12 at 10; 29 between 1 and 4; 14 between 6 and 9. 32 chose 10 for methamphetamine production; 16 at 5; 3 at 0; 9 between 1 and 4; 34 between 6 and 9. Arms trafficking rated at a 10 for 59 people; 11 chose 9; 10 chose 8; 2 chose 0; 15 responded between 5 and 7 with none between 1 and 4. Murder ranked at a 10 for 92 respondents; 1 chose 0; 1 said 5; 1 chose 8; 2 chose 9. Participants were given an opportunity to voice their opinions on the topics contained in the surveys, and discussion was encouraged. The majority of persons who commented expressed that they had no thorough knowledge of the illicit trades. A range of opinions was expressed verbally as was recorded in the surveys. Morality, especially of a religious nature, and Anglo-American political rhetoric reminiscent of the 1950s-60s were the apparent basis for most opinions of a negative valence regarding prostitution and drugs; health concerns and economic productivity were second most prevalent. People who commented in favor of legalizing or decriminalizing prostitution recommended supervision, licensing, frequent health screening, registration, and taxation. Taxation and reduction of corrections spending were the most common reasons for supporting legalization and decriminalization of recreational drugs like cocaine. Most respondents had some knowledge of the medicinal purposes of marijuana, and commented in favor of marijuana for medicinal use, but very few had any knowledge of the medicinal uses of opium, heroin, psilocybin mushrooms, MDMA, and LSD. The reasons for criminalizing arms trafficking, human trafficking, sex trafficking of minors, and murder were generally no-brainers for respondents on surveys and in comments. Many people stated that the severity of the offence varies from case to case. There was some contradictory reporting on single topics between sections of the survey. One middle aged native English speaking couple responded in favor of drug prohibition on account of immorality, yet both the man and the woman approved of adult prostitution and failed to recognize the immorality of English-speaking nations wars, the suffering caused to Iraqis and Afghanis, and other rampant immorality throughout society. This couple admittedly reported with their drug-addict/abuser son and his addict/abuser friends in mind. The mother and wife expressed her opinion that a change of mind comes with age, and stated her hypothesis that only the younger participants would respond in favor of legalization or decriminalization of drugs. (See appendix for more data)

35

Relevant Facts and Statistics Pornography Companies like LFP Inc., Playboy Enterprises Inc., Vivid Entertainment LLC, FriendFinder Networks Inc., Private Media Group, and the Floyd Agency operate globally in multimedia publishing and entertainment. Pornography is a multibillion dollar industry and what a lot of people fail to recognize is that it is essentially a form of prostitution whereby people are rewarded for providing sexual services. Pornography remains legal in many locales where prostitution is strictly prohibited and now with the internet pornographic content providers can reach new and once unreachable markets, upsetting many parents of minors. Health Effects of Specific Drugs Marijuana can cause anxiety, depression, sleep problems, lowered sex drive, learning difficulties, memory problems, respiratory illnesses, increased risk of lung, mouth, throat and tongue cancer, paranoia and psychosis, hallucinations, increased risk of schizophrenia, mood swings and other side effects . Marijuana can also help relieve pain, control nausea and vomiting, stimulate appetite, and reduce anxiety. Marijuana has been used for more than 3,000 years by the Indian and Chinese to help treat beriberi, constipation, gout, malaria, rheumatism, absent-mindedness, depression, insomnia, vomiting, tetanus, coughs, muscle and joint pain, gonorrhea and angina, chest pains from heart disease, intestinal pain, cholera, epilepsy, strychnine poisoning, bronchitis, whooping cough, and asthma . Marijuana may help reduce memory loss in old age, prevent or delay the onset of Alzheimers disease, and stimulate new brain cell growth . THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, hashish, kief and other similar drugs, may kill brain cancer cells . In the United States, prescription drugs are the second most abused category of drugs after marijuana. Prescription drug abuse is the fastest growing drug problem in the USA. In 2009, 257 million prescriptions for opioids were dispensed, a 48% increase from 2000, leading to increased overdoses and deaths . In 2002 in the USA, drug overdose became the second leading cause of unintentional injury death, just behind motor-vehicle injuries. In 2007, more
90

90

91

92

93

94

95

See Ackman (2001), How big is porn?, Forbes, accessible at http://www.forbes.com/2001/05/25/0524porn.html 91 See Australian Government, Department of Health and Ageing, National Drugs Campaign, all drug facts, accessible at www.australia.gov.au/drugs 92 See American Cancer Society (2008), Marijuana, accessible at http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/HerbsVita minsandMinerals/marijuana 93 See Alleyne (2008), Marijuana may improve memory and help fight Alzheimers, Telegraph UK, accessible at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3485163/Marijuana-may-improve-memory-and-help-fightAlzheimers.html 94 See Mozes (2009), Active ingredient in marijuana kills brain cancer cells, US News & World Report, Health Day, accessible at http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/cancer/articles/2009/04/01/activeingredient-in-marijuana-kills-brain-cancer 95 See White House (2011), Prescription Drug Abuse Strategy, accessible at http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/rx_abuse_plan.pdf

36
96

teenagers used opioid analgesics like Oxycontin recreationally than used marijuana . Prescription drugs obviously have a wide range of side-effects and benefits for users. Heroin, or diacetylmorphine, is a highly addictive drug which is may have side-effects of mood swings, depression, menstrual irregularity and infertility in women, loss of sex drive in men, anxiety disorders, chronic constipation, infection at site of injections, HIV and hepatitis infections through needle sharing, non-fatal and fatal overdose, vomiting, diarrhea, insomnia, restlessness, low blood pressure, elevated heart rate, and cramping. Injectable diacetylmorphine was found to be more effective than oral methadone in treatment of opioid addiction . Heroin, morphine, opium, and the entire class of opioids derived from the papaver somniferum are an important class of medicines which are in short supply worldwide. The World Health Organizations Access to Controlled Medications Programme works with policy development on licit opium poppy farming in efforts to supply the demand for essential medications . Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), or ecstasy, can cause sleep problem, grinding of teeth, high blood pressure, dehydration, anxiety, decreased emotional control, lethargy, severe depression, memory impairment, nerve cell damage, serotonin syndrome, and death, MDMA has empathogenic effects and can assist in psychotherapy for treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder and end-of-life anxiety in late-stage cancer patients . Psilocybin magic mushrooms can cause anxiety, psychosis, hallucinations, and various traumatic mental conditions. Magic mushrooms can also create mystical experiences may have medicinal use in reducing anxiety in cancer patients
102 101 100 99 98 97

, and

LSD can induce paranoia, hallucinations, anxiety, and a range of mental illnesses. A single dose of LSD is also an effective treatment for alcoholism .

Amphetamines can cause chronic sleep problems, panic attacks, insomnia, anxiety, decreased emotional control, severe depression, violent behavior, psychosis, nerve cell damage, and

96

See USCDC/ASTHO (2008), Prescription Drug Overdose: State Health Agencies Respond, accessible at http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/pubs/RXReport_web-a.pdf 97 See Oviedo-Joekes et al (2009), Diacetylmorphine versus methadone for the treatment of opioid addiction, NEJM, accessible at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19692689 98 World Health Organization (2007), Access to Controlled Medications Programme, accessible at http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/index/assoc/s14860e/s14860e.pdf 99 See MAPS (2011), MDMA Research, accessible at http://www.maps.org/research/mdma/ 100 See Johns Hopkins Medicine (2006), Hopkins Scientists Show Hallucinogen in Mushrooms Creates Universal Mystical Experience, accessible at http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/press_releases/2006/07_11_06.html 101 See Johns Hopkins School of Medicine (2009), Psilocybin Cancer Project, accessible at http://www.bpru.org/cancer-studies/study-info.html 102 See Laurance (2006), LSD helps alcoholics put down the bottle, Independent UK, accessible at http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/lsd-helps-alcoholics-put-down-thebotttle-419523.html

37

death. Adderall is an amphetamine class prescription psychiatric drug that helps treat narcolepsy, obesity, and attention deficit hyperactive disorder Alcohol Harm & Crime The World Health Organization found that harmful use of alcohol results in approximately 2.5 million deaths per year, which is almost 4% of all deaths worldwide, greater than deaths caused by HIV/AIDS, violence or tuberculosis. Alcohol is a causal factor in 60 types of diseases (i.e. cirrhosis of the liver, cancers of the colorectum, breast, larynx and liver) and injuries and a component cause in 200 others. The WHO stated that many lesser health risks have higher priority in public and health policy . Alcohol causes 9% of all deaths aged 15 to 29 and up to 1/3rd of deaths among young people in some regions of the world, 6% of all male deaths and 1% of all female deaths worldwide
105 104 103

In Australia an estimated 5% of the population is dependent on alcohol or engages in high risk drinking, 15% are at-risk drinkers, 65% are low risk drinkers, and 15% are non-drinkers. Alcohol consumption in Australia causes over 5,000 deaths per year
106

. About 47% of
107

Australian homicides between 2000 and 06 were classified as alcohol related . A 2003 study found that 34% of regular violent prisoners self-reported addiction to alcohol, while 44% reported being intoxicated at the time of their most serious offence; 22% of homicide offenders were addicted to alcohol and 44% were intoxicated at the time of the offence. Friday (49%), Saturday (60%), and Sunday (54%) homicides were more likely alcoholrelated than homicides on weekdays in a study which found that nearly half of all homicides were alcohol related. 73% of homicides where a male victim was killed by a female intimate were related to alcohol consumption
108

The number of alcohol-related hospital admissions in England nearly doubled between 2002/03 and 2009/10, from nearly 511,000 to about 1.05 million. Alcohol-attributable male deaths in England for 2008 were over 10,000; over 5,000 for females. In 2007-08, more than 1 million crimes involved alcohol use; 37% of domestic violence cases involve alcohol; and

103 104

See Adderall info at http://psychiatricdrugs.org/meds/adderall.html See WHO Global status report on alcohol and health 2011, accessible at http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_alcohol_report/msbgsruprofiles.pdf 105 See VOA (2011), WHO says alcohol abuse a leading cause of death, disability, accessible at http://www.voanews.com/learningenglish/home/World-Health-Organization-Says-Alcohol-Abuse-is-anInternational-Problem---116281509.html 106 See Health Australias Prevalence of Alcohol Consumption and Related Harms in Australia report, accessible at http://www.health.gov.au/internet/alcohol/publishing.nsf/Content/33F1F1299AD53EA3CA257693001776BE/$ File/tre2.pdf 107 See IAS (2006), Global Alcohol Policy Alliance, Almost half of all Australian homicides involve alcohol, accessible at http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/publications/theglobe/globe200902/gl200902_p16.html 108 See Dearden and Payne (2009), Australian Institute of Criminology, Trends & Issues, Alcohol and homicide in Australia, accessible at http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/361-380/tandi372.aspx

38
109

45% of all violent crimes, victims believed their attackers had been drinking . Over 415,000 alcohol-attributable crimes were recorded in England for 2009/10, including nearly 300,000 violent, and over 6,600 sexual offences . In a 1995 British Medical Association study, alcohol was found to be a factor in 60-70% of homicides, 75% of stabbings, 70% of beatings, and 50% of fights and domestic assaults . Alcohol played a role in roughly 40% of homicides in England and Wales in a 1996-99 study, whereas drugs played a role in about 15% of homicides in the same period
112 111 110

In 2005-06 in Europe, 7 million adults reported being in fights when drinking. The alcoholattributable crime cost for 2003 in the EU was 33 billion, 15 billion for the police, courts, and prisons, 12 billion for crime prevention and insurance administration, and 6 billion for property damage. Drunk driving property damage was estimated at 10 billion, and the intangible cost of the physical and psychological effects of crime was valued at 9 billion to 37 billion. At least 23 million Europeans are dependent on alcohol in any given year. Pain and suffering and other intangible costs to family members has been estimated at 68 billion. 5% of drinking men and 2% of drinking women have reported a negative impact of alcohol on their work, and the costs of loss of productivity and unemployment due to alcohol has been estimated at 15 billion to 42 billion. Alcohol is responsible for about 195,000 deaths each year in the EU. Treatment of ill-health caused by alcohol is estimated to cost 17 billion with 5 billion spent on treatment and prevention Budgetary and Economic Considerations If the IMF estimates the global money laundering industry share of global GDP at 2-5% , then we can probably use at least half that as a rough estimate for the actual share of world GDP that the illegal drug trade makes up considering that only the top people in the supply chain of illicit drugs need money laundering services. Considering that US$1 trillion is paid in bribes each year
115 114 113

, the likely scenario is that our statistical discrepancy is rather large,

116

and the US$5 trillion dollar annual mark for illicit drugs alone is not an impossible estimate. We could have an illicit trades sector at near 10% of world GDP, but certainly were looking at 5% between drugs, bribes, money laundering, prostitution, human
109

See Directgov UK, Alcohol and crime, accessible at http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/CrimePrevention/DG_181558 110 See Local Alcohol Profiles for England at http://www.nwph.net/alcohol/lape/download.htm 111 See IAS Factsheet at http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/factsheets/crime.pdf 112 See Shaw et al (2006), The role of alcohol and drugs in homicides in England and Wales, accessible at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16869841 113 See Anderson and Baumberg (2006), IASUK, Alcohol in Europe, accessible at http://ec.europa.eu/healtheu/news_alcoholineurope_en.htm 114 See Debusmann (2010), Drugs, terrorism and shadow banking, Reuters, accessible at http://blogs.reuters.com/bernddebusmann/2010/03/ 115 See World Bank (2004), The Costs of Corruption, accessible at http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20190187~menuPK:34457~pagePK:3 4370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html 116 See Coyle (1999), Drugs trade the third largest economy, Independent UK, accessible at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/drugs-trade-the-third-largest-economy-1072489.html

39

trafficking, and arms trafficking. So what should we do with that? Certainly we cant legalize and tax human trafficking, and bribes paid are no longer tax deductible in many countries , but that only means that laundering activity will take up much of the corrupt payments, and it is certainly not economically advantageous to legalize laundering. On this 5-10%, though, rests much of the stability and reliability of our global economic system, so it is not rational to continue on ignoring and denying these illicit proceeds as if they were not influencing major financial markets, local, provincial, national, and international economies. The 2009 UN World Drug Report (WDR) mentioned the economic argument for drug legalization. The 2008 WDR mentioned legalization of cannabis. The 2006 WDR mentioned that some commentators say legalize drugs to reduce crime . So who are these commentators? Legendary American economist Milton Friedman and more than 500 other economists in 2005 publicly endorsed a Harvard University economists report in support of ending prohibition of marijuana and changing to a legal sale and tax regime . Jeffery Miron, the Harvard economist, estimated that legalizing drugs in the USA would save US$44.1 billion per year in government expenditures on enforcement of prohibition; US$30.3 billion at the State and local level; US$13.8 billion at the federal level; US$12.9 billion from marijuana, US$19.3 billion from cocaine and heroin, US$11.6 from other drugs. Additionally, tax revenues would increase an estimated US$32.7 billion annually; US$6/7 billion from marijuana, US$22.5 billion from cocaine and heroin, US$3.5 billion from other drugs. Thats a net economic gain of over US$75 billion annually
120 119 118 117

. More recent estimates

121

from the Cato Institute are US$41.3 billion in savings and US$46.7 billion in tax revenue . We may take these estimates and the political play with as many grains of salt as we wish, no pun intended, but the inclusion of a prominent member of the faculty at one of the worlds most prestigious universities makes the case for legalization a bit different than some would make it out to be. Certainly Miron, Friedman, and their colleagues are not mere drug addicts spreading propaganda for their own self-interest, in desperate need of a fix or something otherwise entirely spooky. The simple truth is that if the drug control strategies were working so well, there would not be significant opposition or calls for decriminalization and legalization. 40 years after President Nixon famously declared war on drugs (and American Presidents do not legally have power to declare war on anything or anyone), it is probably time to end that war and close that part of our history, to move on and change. Journalists are saying it for the sake of

117

See OECD (2009), Tax legislation regarding bribes to foreign public officials, accessible at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/58/10/41353070.pdf 118 See UNODC for WDR Archive, accessible at http://www.unodc.org/unodc/data-and-analysis/WDR.html 119 See Hardy (2005), Milton Friedman: Legalize It!, Forbes, accessible at http://www.forbes.com/2005/06/02/cz_qh_0602pot.html 120 See Miron (2008), The budgetary implications of drug prohibition, accessible at http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/miron-economic-report.pdf 121 See Miron and Waldcock (2010), Making an economic case for legalizing drugs, Cato Institute, accessible at http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12192

40
122

the global economy

, and because countries like the USA have spent far too much money
123

on it (like US$2.5 trillion)

125

. Top national anti-drug officials have called for it by preferring . Heads of State have spoken in favor of decriminalizing
126

treatment over incarceration drugs like cocaine

124

and former Heads of State have spoken in favor of legalizing drugs in .

efforts to reduce loss of life in street-wars

The main points to the legalization argument are the increases to tax revenues, increased transparency in economics and banking, and increased reliability and accuracy in financial reporting. Decriminalization would reduce spending and show a more compassionate approach to handling what many nations consider a health issue rather than common crime. Statistics show that budgetary expenditures have not made impacts on crime or use of drugs consistent with spending. Between 2000 and 2009 in the USA, for example, drug strategy spending increased nearly 50%
129 127

, though drug abuse violations increased 6.0% in that

128

period, including an adult offence increase of 9.1%

against a population increase of 9.1%

in the same period . A stalemate has formed in Europe too, with over 1 million drug users a year in treatment, and over 1% of the population using hard drugs like cocaine per year amid budget cuts Conclusions The war strategy will likely always inspire the worst in people. Wartime is a time of secrets, of hidden agendas, lies and double-talk, of grandeur and psychosis made to look like virtue and bravery. Prisoners of wars are deprived of basic human rights and life in general is devalued. People dont allow themselves to develop genuine relationships with others in wartime, awkwardness and insincerity becomes normal so much that people stop noticing how awful things are. Maybe folks play rotten games and nasty tricks on each other, and develop a system based upon shame, guilt, mutual and self abuse because they dont want to know the best parts of life, because they dont want to allow themselves to feel compassion
122

130

See Hari (2009), Obama must end the war on drugs, Huffington Post, accessible at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/obama-must-end-the-war-on_b_165785.html 123 See Suddath (2009), The War on Drugs, Time, accessible at http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1887488,00.html 124 See WSJ (2009), White House Czar calls for end to War on Drugs, accessible at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124225891527617397.html 125 See Malkin and Lacey (2008), Mexican President proposes decriminalizing some drugs, NY Times, accessible at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/world/americas/03mexico.html 126 See Somaiya (2010), Legalize Drugs, says Mexican Ex-President, Newsweek, accessible at http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/10/ex-mexican-president-adds-his-voice-to-calls-to-legalize-drugs.html ; see also Global Commission on Drug Policy report at http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/Report 127 See National Drug Control Strategy budgets, 2006 at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ondcp/203723.pdf, 2010 at http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/10budget/fy10budget.pdf 128 See FBI (2009), Ten Year Arrest Trends, Table 32, accessible at http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/about/table_title.html 129 See US Census (2010), Quick Facts, accessible at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html 130 See EMCDDA (2010), Annual report on the state of the drugs problem in Europe, accessible at http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/annual-report/2010

41

and love for themselves or others, in case of death or spontaneous violence necessitating lethal self-defense including against friends and family. Parents send their young men, and wives their husbands, and sisters their brothers, and children their fathers out to die and suffer the most depraved of conditions in the midst of the mania and delusion that seems to be war. A war is nothing that we should want to have around for 40 years or more, and nothing we should defend our rights or duties to engage in, and nothing we should hold dear, and nothing we should honor or obey or commit ourselves to in any way to any extent. War is something we should avoid, end at all costs, and reject from our lives. Needless to say, there is sufficient evidence available to support an end of the war paradigm on handling illicit trades. In matters involving public opinion at this time, we must question thoroughly why people report as they do, and accept that their opinions may vary a great deal when reporting in private, and among close friends or families, or under certain conditions. Progressive policies worldwide are supportive of treatment over imprisonment. We have a great world of sciences, facts, methodologies, and a wide range of experts on various subjects. We have choices today that we did not have until recently. We should probably choose to respect our own and each others privacy rights, and not interfere with other peoples lives if they wish to not be bothered. We should respect peoples rights to privacy in their homes and not enter without permission. We should respect peoples rights to privacy of their person and of their belongings, and not search them for contraband which does not pose a threat to others. We should genuinely respect peoples rights to develop their own minds and personalities as they desire, and to work in a field of their choosing, and we can all benefit by allowing people to pay taxes on their incomes and purchases of certain nonessential goods and services. Moreover, we should stop harassing others simply because they think differently, or because they have a different style or attitude about them. We should stop trying to control others arbitrarily and without clear reason, and we should allow others to define themselves and listen to others when they say they are being harmed or done an injustice. If people are willing to go to incredible lengths and take immense risks to obtain a product or service which they say makes them feel good, then we should probably start respecting their rights to do so and their reasons for desiring to do so. In summary, the handling of the prostitution and drug trades has been absurd, ill-tempered, illogical, irrational, without clear reasoning, lacking sufficient scientific backing, and has most certainly led to harm being done rather than alleviated. It was an interesting try at maintaining historical cultural values, but a pathetic and feeble-minded effort which was inadvisable from the beginning and grew only more so with every blundering repeat of enactments of the same silly agenda year after year. In other words, it was a bad joke, and a costly one at that. The fact remains that not even the elders have any experience with any time before their birth, and so this idea that the ancients and middle ages and Victorian era and cultures of times before are being done any service via the charade that has been the act in the legislative bodies is poppycock, plain and simple. We should try to live in the here and now quite a bit more, and work for and with each other, and be tolerant and accepting of diversity, and include even the untouchable castes, and live in accordance with a much higher purpose than what the lot of the voters and elected officials seem to have been

42

living in accordance with through the farce that has been the War on Drugs and other policies on harmless economic activities that happen also to upset the clergy and ruthless sinners with the firearms stockades. In closing, do try to imagine what real progress could have been made toward peace on earth and goodwill toward fellow human beings with all of the moneys and offices, agencies, congregations, officials, and other resources that have been utterly wasted on policing the lifeless products and women, neither of which has shown itself to be any greater harm to any person than what that person allows them to be. This author supports vast changes of some kind; that is for certain. Appendix

legalize gambling Cumulative Frequency Valid no yes Total 57 43 100 Percent 57.0 43.0 100.0 Valid Percent 57.0 43.0 100.0 Percent 57.0 100.0

legalize prostitution Cumulative Frequency Valid no yes Total 73 27 100 Percent 73.0 27.0 100.0 Valid Percent 73.0 27.0 100.0 Percent 73.0 100.0

legalize cannabis Cumulative Frequency Valid no yes Total 44 56 100 Percent 44.0 56.0 100.0 Valid Percent 44.0 56.0 100.0 Percent 44.0 100.0

legalize arms trafficking Cumulative Frequency Valid no yes 99 1 Percent 99.0 1.0 Valid Percent 99.0 1.0 Percent 99.0 100.0

legalize lsd Cumulative Frequency Valid no yes Total 92 8 100 Percent 92.0 8.0 100.0 Valid Percent 92.0 8.0 100.0 Percent 92.0 100.0

43

legalize arms trafficking Cumulative Frequency Valid no yes Total 99 1 100 Percent 99.0 1.0 100.0 Valid Percent 99.0 1.0 100.0 Percent 99.0 100.0

legalize mushrooms Cumulative Frequency Valid no yes Total 81 19 100 Percent 81.0 19.0 100.0 Valid Percent 81.0 19.0 100.0 Percent 81.0 100.0

legalize cocaine Cumulative Frequency Valid no yes Total 95 5 100 Percent 95.0 5.0 100.0 Valid Percent 95.0 5.0 100.0 Percent 95.0 100.0

legalize heroin Cumulative Frequency Valid no yes Total 96 4 100 Percent 96.0 4.0 100.0 legalize opium Cumulative Frequency Valid no yes 96 4 Percent 96.0 4.0 Valid Percent 96.0 4.0 Percent 96.0 100.0 Valid Percent 96.0 4.0 100.0 Percent 96.0 100.0

44

legalize opium Cumulative Frequency Valid no yes Total 96 4 100 Percent 96.0 4.0 100.0 Valid Percent 96.0 4.0 100.0 Percent 96.0 100.0

legalize ecstasy Cumulative Frequency Valid no yes Total 93 7 100 Percent 93.0 7.0 100.0 Valid Percent 93.0 7.0 100.0 Percent 93.0 100.0

decriminalize gambling Cumulative Frequency Valid no yes Total 64 36 100 Percent 64.0 36.0 100.0 Valid Percent 64.0 36.0 100.0 Percent 64.0 100.0

decriminalize prostitution Cumulative Frequency Valid no yes Total 73 27 100 Percent 73.0 27.0 100.0 Valid Percent 73.0 27.0 100.0 Percent 73.0 100.0

decriminalize arms trafficking Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

45

Valid

no yes Total

92 8 100

92.0 8.0 100.0

92.0 8.0 100.0

92.0 100.0

decrim cann Cumulative Frequency Valid no yes Total 49 51 100 Percent 49.0 51.0 100.0 Valid Percent 49.0 51.0 100.0 Percent 49.0 100.0

decrim lsd Cumulative Frequency Valid no yes Total 86 14 100 Percent 86.0 14.0 100.0 Valid Percent 86.0 14.0 100.0 Percent 86.0 100.0

decrim mush Cumulative Frequency Valid no yes Total 81 19 100 Percent 81.0 19.0 100.0 decrim coc Cumulative Frequency Valid no yes Total 88 12 100 Percent 88.0 12.0 100.0 Valid Percent 88.0 12.0 100.0 Percent 88.0 100.0 Valid Percent 81.0 19.0 100.0 Percent 81.0 100.0

46

decrim heroin Cumulative Frequency Valid no yes Total 86 14 100 Percent 86.0 14.0 100.0 Valid Percent 86.0 14.0 100.0 Percent 86.0 100.0

decrim opium Cumulative Frequency Valid no yes Total 87 13 100 Percent 87.0 13.0 100.0 Valid Percent 87.0 13.0 100.0 Percent 87.0 100.0

decrim ex Cumulative Frequency Valid no yes Total 88 12 100 Percent 88.0 12.0 100.0 Valid Percent 88.0 12.0 100.0 Percent 88.0 100.0

drug traff sen Cumulative Frequency Valid nothing 0-5 years in prison 5-10 years in prison 10+ years in prison death penalty rehab and counseling -5 yrs & rehab -10 years & rehab Total 2 25 24 17 4 14 6 4 96 Percent 2.0 25.0 24.0 17.0 4.0 14.0 6.0 4.0 96.0 Valid Percent 2.1 26.0 25.0 17.7 4.2 14.6 6.3 4.2 100.0 Percent 2.1 28.1 53.1 70.8 75.0 89.6 95.8 100.0

47

Missing Total

no answer

4 100

4.0 100.0

prescription use Cumulative Frequency Valid no yes Total Missing Total 2.00 15 80 95 5 100 Percent 15.0 80.0 95.0 5.0 100.0 Valid Percent 15.8 84.2 100.0 Percent 15.8 100.0

gambling Cumulative Frequency Valid .00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 7.00 8.00 10.00 Total Missing Total 11.00 36 22 15 4 3 8 1 4 1 94 6 100 Percent 36.0 22.0 15.0 4.0 3.0 8.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 94.0 6.0 100.0 Valid Percent 38.3 23.4 16.0 4.3 3.2 8.5 1.1 4.3 1.1 100.0 Percent 38.3 61.7 77.7 81.9 85.1 93.6 94.7 98.9 100.0

Operate Casino Cumulative Frequency Valid .00 38 Percent 38.0 Valid Percent 40.4 Percent 40.4

48

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 7.00 8.00 10.00 Total Missing Total 11.00

17 9 7 3 14 2 2 2 94 6 100

17.0 9.0 7.0 3.0 14.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 94.0 6.0 100.0

18.1 9.6 7.4 3.2 14.9 2.1 2.1 2.1 100.0

58.5 68.1 75.5 78.7 93.6 95.7 97.9 100.0

Prostitution Cumulative Frequency Valid .00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Total Missing Total 11.00 15 9 2 5 5 23 7 7 5 15 93 7 100 Percent 15.0 9.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 23.0 7.0 7.0 5.0 15.0 93.0 7.0 100.0 Valid Percent 16.1 9.7 2.2 5.4 5.4 24.7 7.5 7.5 5.4 16.1 100.0 Percent 16.1 25.8 28.0 33.3 38.7 63.4 71.0 78.5 83.9 100.0

Sex Traff Minor Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

49

Valid

.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Total

1 1 1 1 1 2 89 96 4 100

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 89.0 96.0 4.0 100.0

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.1 92.7 100.0

1.0 2.1 3.1 4.2 5.2 7.3 100.0

Missing Total

11.00

Mari Possess Cumulative Frequency Valid .00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 10.00 Total Missing Total 11.00 30 20 13 7 4 11 3 2 1 3 94 6 100 Percent 30.0 20.0 13.0 7.0 4.0 11.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 94.0 6.0 100.0 Valid Percent 31.9 21.3 13.8 7.4 4.3 11.7 3.2 2.1 1.1 3.2 100.0 Percent 31.9 53.2 67.0 74.5 78.7 90.4 93.6 95.7 96.8 100.0

Narco Possess Cumulative Frequency Valid .00 8 Percent 8.0 Valid Percent 8.5 Percent 8.5

50

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Total Missing Total 11.00

8 4 8 9 21 9 7 7 3 10 94 6 100

8.0 4.0 8.0 9.0 21.0 9.0 7.0 7.0 3.0 10.0 94.0 6.0 100.0

8.5 4.3 8.5 9.6 22.3 9.6 7.4 7.4 3.2 10.6 100.0

17.0 21.3 29.8 39.4 61.7 71.3 78.7 86.2 89.4 100.0

Mari Distrib Cumulative Frequency Valid .00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Total Missing Total 11.00 16 10 11 8 5 13 3 8 11 4 6 95 5 100 Percent 16.0 10.0 11.0 8.0 5.0 13.0 3.0 8.0 11.0 4.0 6.0 95.0 5.0 100.0 Valid Percent 16.8 10.5 11.6 8.4 5.3 13.7 3.2 8.4 11.6 4.2 6.3 100.0 Percent 16.8 27.4 38.9 47.4 52.6 66.3 69.5 77.9 89.5 93.7 100.0

51

Pimping Cumulative Frequency Valid .00 2.00 3.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Total Missing Total 11.00 2 1 2 10 2 10 11 7 47 92 8 100 Percent 2.0 1.0 2.0 10.0 2.0 10.0 11.0 7.0 47.0 92.0 8.0 100.0 Valid Percent 2.2 1.1 2.2 10.9 2.2 10.9 12.0 7.6 51.1 100.0 Percent 2.2 3.3 5.4 16.3 18.5 29.3 41.3 48.9 100.0

Narco Dist Cumulative Frequency Valid .00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Total Missing Total 11.00 2 2 2 4 5 17 6 9 14 2 30 93 7 100 Percent 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 17.0 6.0 9.0 14.0 2.0 30.0 93.0 7.0 100.0 Valid Percent 2.2 2.2 2.2 4.3 5.4 18.3 6.5 9.7 15.1 2.2 32.3 100.0 Percent 2.2 4.3 6.5 10.8 16.1 34.4 40.9 50.5 65.6 67.7 100.0

52

Drug Traffic Cumulative Frequency Valid .00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Total Missing Total 11.00 2 1 1 1 4 18 5 4 16 5 39 96 4 100 Percent 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 18.0 5.0 4.0 16.0 5.0 39.0 96.0 4.0 100.0 Valid Percent 2.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.2 18.8 5.2 4.2 16.7 5.2 40.6 100.0 Percent 2.1 3.1 4.2 5.2 9.4 28.1 33.3 37.5 54.2 59.4 100.0

Arms Traffic Cumulative Frequency Valid .00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Total Missing Total 11.00 2 6 4 5 10 11 59 97 3 100 Percent 2.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 10.0 11.0 59.0 97.0 3.0 100.0 Valid Percent 2.1 6.2 4.1 5.2 10.3 11.3 60.8 100.0 Percent 2.1 8.2 12.4 17.5 27.8 39.2 100.0

53

Human Traff Cumulative Frequency Valid .00 5.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Total Missing Total 11.00 1 1 6 2 85 95 5 100 Percent 1.0 1.0 6.0 2.0 85.0 95.0 5.0 100.0 Valid Percent 1.1 1.1 6.3 2.1 89.5 100.0 Percent 1.1 2.1 8.4 10.5 100.0

Poppy Farming Cumulative Frequency Valid .00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Total Missing Total 11.00 6 2 7 11 3 16 10 9 4 1 26 95 5 100 Percent 6.0 2.0 7.0 11.0 3.0 16.0 10.0 9.0 4.0 1.0 26.0 95.0 5.0 100.0 Valid Percent 6.3 2.1 7.4 11.6 3.2 16.8 10.5 9.5 4.2 1.1 27.4 100.0 Percent 6.3 8.4 15.8 27.4 30.5 47.4 57.9 67.4 71.6 72.6 100.0

Mari Farming Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

54

Valid

.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Total

24 9 7 7 6 17 5 5 2 2 12 96 4 100

24.0 9.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 17.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 96.0 4.0 100.0

25.0 9.4 7.3 7.3 6.3 17.7 5.2 5.2 2.1 2.1 12.5 100.0

25.0 34.4 41.7 49.0 55.2 72.9 78.1 83.3 85.4 87.5 100.0

Missing Total

11.00

Meth Produc Cumulative Frequency Valid .00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Total Missing Total 11.00 3 2 1 1 5 16 3 12 14 5 32 94 6 100 Percent 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 16.0 3.0 12.0 14.0 5.0 32.0 94.0 6.0 100.0 Valid Percent 3.2 2.1 1.1 1.1 5.3 17.0 3.2 12.8 14.9 5.3 34.0 100.0 Percent 3.2 5.3 6.4 7.4 12.8 29.8 33.0 45.7 60.6 66.0 100.0

55

Murder Cumulative Frequency Valid .00 5.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Total Missing Total 11.00 1 1 1 2 92 97 3 100 Percent 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 92.0 97.0 3.0 100.0 Valid Percent 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.1 94.8 100.0 Percent 1.0 2.1 3.1 5.2 100.0

56

57

nationality * legalize gambl Crosstabulation Count legalize gambl no nationality danish french german and austrian dutch swedish swiss australian or new zealander canadian british or irish american other NA 2 10 8 1 1 3 9 5 9 7 1 yes 1 0 2 7 1 0 4 2 16 8 0 Total 3 10 10 8 2 3 13 7 25 15 1

58

other Euro Total

1 57

2 43

3 100

nationality * legalize prost Crosstabulation Count legalize prost no nationality danish french german and austrian dutch swedish swiss australian or new zealander canadian british or irish american other NA other Euro Total 3 10 8 5 1 3 7 5 17 11 1 2 73 yes 0 0 2 3 1 0 6 2 8 4 0 1 27 Total 3 10 10 8 2 3 13 7 25 15 1 3 100

nationality * legalize arms tr Crosstabulation Count legalize arms tr no nationality danish french german and austrian dutch swedish swiss australian or new zealander canadian 3 10 10 8 2 3 13 7 yes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 3 10 10 8 2 3 13 7

59

british or irish american other NA other Euro Total

24 15 1 3 99

1 0 0 0 1

25 15 1 3 100

nationality * legalize cann Crosstabulation Count legalize cann no nationality danish french german and austrian dutch swedish swiss australian or new zealander canadian british or irish american other NA other Euro Total 0 7 4 2 0 2 8 1 16 3 0 1 44 yes 3 3 6 6 2 1 5 6 9 12 1 2 56 Total 3 10 10 8 2 3 13 7 25 15 1 3 100

nationality * legalize lsd Crosstabulation Count legalize lsd no nationality danish french german and austrian dutch 3 10 10 8 yes 0 0 0 0 Total 3 10 10 8

60

swedish swiss australian or new zealander canadian british or irish american other NA other Euro Total

1 3 12 7 23 12 1 2 92

1 0 1 0 2 3 0 1 8

2 3 13 7 25 15 1 3 100

nationality * legalize mush Crosstabulation Count legalize mush no nationality danish french german and austrian dutch swedish swiss australian or new zealander canadian british or irish american other NA other Euro Total 2 10 10 4 1 3 12 6 22 8 1 2 81 yes 1 0 0 4 1 0 1 1 3 7 0 1 19 Total 3 10 10 8 2 3 13 7 25 15 1 3 100

nationality * legalize coc Crosstabulation Count legalize coc no yes Total

61

nationality

danish french german and austrian dutch swedish swiss australian or new zealander canadian british or irish american other NA other Euro

3 10 10 7 1 3 12 7 24 14 1 3 95

0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 5

3 10 10 8 2 3 13 7 25 15 1 3 100

Total

nationality * legalize heroin Crosstabulation Count legalize heroin no nationality danish french german and austrian dutch swedish swiss australian or new zealander canadian british or irish american other NA other Euro Total 3 10 10 8 1 3 12 7 24 14 1 3 96 yes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 4 Total 3 10 10 8 2 3 13 7 25 15 1 3 100

62

nationality * legalize opium Crosstabulation Count legalize opium no nationality danish french german and austrian dutch swedish swiss australian or new zealander canadian british or irish american other NA other Euro Total 3 10 10 8 1 3 12 7 24 14 1 3 96 yes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 4 Total 3 10 10 8 2 3 13 7 25 15 1 3 100

nationality * legalize ex Crosstabulation Count legalize ex no nationality danish french german and austrian dutch swedish swiss australian or new zealander canadian british or irish american other NA 3 10 10 7 0 3 12 7 23 14 1 yes 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 2 1 0 Total 3 10 10 8 2 3 13 7 25 15 1

63

other Euro Total

3 93

0 7

3 100

nationality * decrim gamb Crosstabulation Count decrim gamb no nationality danish french german and austrian dutch swedish swiss australian or new zealander canadian british or irish american other NA other Euro Total 3 8 8 5 0 3 10 5 11 8 1 2 64 yes 0 2 2 3 2 0 3 2 14 7 0 1 36 Total 3 10 10 8 2 3 13 7 25 15 1 3 100

nationality * decrim prost Crosstabulation Count decrim prost no nationality danish french german and austrian dutch swedish swiss australian or new zealander 2 9 8 4 2 3 10 yes 1 1 2 4 0 0 3 Total 3 10 10 8 2 3 13

64

canadian british or irish american other NA other Euro Total

7 16 9 1 2 73

0 9 6 0 1 27

7 25 15 1 3 100

nationality * decrim arms tr Crosstabulation Count decrim arms tr no nationality danish french german and austrian dutch swedish swiss australian or new zealander canadian british or irish american other NA other Euro Total 0 9 9 5 2 3 13 7 25 15 1 3 92 yes 3 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Total 3 10 10 8 2 3 13 7 25 15 1 3 100

nationality * decrim cann Crosstabulation Count decrim cann no nationality danish french german and austrian dutch 1 6 5 5 yes 2 4 5 3 Total 3 10 10 8

65

swedish swiss australian or new zealander canadian british or irish american other NA other Euro Total

0 3 9 3 14 1 1 1 49

2 0 4 4 11 14 0 2 51

2 3 13 7 25 15 1 3 100

nationality * decrim lsd Crosstabulation Count decrim lsd no nationality danish french german and austrian dutch swedish swiss australian or new zealander canadian british or irish american other NA other Euro Total 1 8 9 6 1 3 13 6 24 12 1 2 86 yes 2 2 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 1 14 Total 3 10 10 8 2 3 13 7 25 15 1 3 100

nationality * decrim mush Crosstabulation Count decrim mush no yes Total

66

nationality

danish french german and austrian dutch swedish swiss australian or new zealander canadian british or irish american other NA other Euro

2 6 9 6 1 3 13 5 24 9 1 2 81

1 4 1 2 1 0 0 2 1 6 0 1 19

3 10 10 8 2 3 13 7 25 15 1 3 100

Total

nationality * decrim coc Crosstabulation Count decrim coc no nationality danish french german and austrian dutch swedish swiss australian or new zealander canadian british or irish american other NA other Euro Total 1 8 8 6 1 3 13 6 24 14 1 3 88 yes 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 12 Total 3 10 10 8 2 3 13 7 25 15 1 3 100

67

nationality * decrim heroin Crosstabulation Count decrim heroin no nationality danish french german and austrian dutch swedish swiss australian or new zealander canadian british or irish american other NA other Euro Total 1 8 7 5 1 3 13 6 24 14 1 3 86 yes 2 2 3 3 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 14 Total 3 10 10 8 2 3 13 7 25 15 1 3 100

nationality * decrim opium Crosstabulation Count decrim opium no nationality danish french german and austrian dutch swedish swiss australian or new zealander canadian british or irish american other NA 0 8 9 5 1 3 13 6 24 14 1 yes 3 2 1 3 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 Total 3 10 10 8 2 3 13 7 25 15 1

68

other Euro Total

3 87

0 13

3 100

nationality * decrim ex Crosstabulation Count decrim ex no nationality danish french german and austrian dutch swedish swiss australian or new zealander canadian british or irish american other NA other Euro Total 1 8 9 7 0 3 13 6 24 13 1 3 88 yes 2 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 12 Total 3 10 10 8 2 3 13 7 25 15 1 3 100

69