Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs (37th Parliament, 1st Session) (2024)

NATIONAL DRUG POLICY: FRANCE

Prepared For The Senate Special Committee OnIllegal Drugs

Chantal Collin
Political and Social Affairs Division

29 August 2001

LIBRARYOF PARLIAMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

NATIONAL DRUG POLICY

A. The Government’sPlan for the Fight Against Drugs and the Prevention of Addiction 1999-2001

1. Research: Investigation, Knowledge and Understanding
2. Communication: Informing the General Public and Creating a Common Frame of Reference
3. Prevention: Systematizing and Widening the Field of Prevention, Taking Account of Legally Imposed Restrictions
4. Training: Harmonizing the Knowledge of all Those Directly Involved
5. Welcoming, Counselling, Care and Rehabilitation of Users of Psychoactive Substances: Profile of Users of Psychoactive Substances
6. Law and its Applications: Applying Law and Reinforcing Suppression of the Traffic in Drugs
7. National and Local Coordination
8. Actions Outside France

B. Legislative Framework

1. Classes of Drugs
2. Offences and Penalties

C. Key Reports andStudies

1. The Pelletier Report
2. The Trautmann Report
3. The Henrion Report

D. Administration

E. Statistics onUse and Offences

1. Use
2. Offences

F. Costs

APPENDICES

INTRODUCTION

This paper provides a brief introduction to the national drugpolicy in France. It presents:

• a review of the Government’s triennial plan for the fight against drugs and the prevention of addiction for the years 1999-2001;
• highlights of key reports and studies that have influenced the drug policy and legislative framework in France;
• the French legislation with respect to illicit drugs;
• the agencies involved in law enforcement;
• statistical data related to drug use and drug-related offences; and
• the costs of the national drug policy.

This paper forms part of a series of country pictures that isbeing prepared by the Parliamentary Research Branch of the Library of Parliamentfor the Special Senate Committee on Illegal Drugs.

NATIONAL DRUG POLICY

A. The Government’sPlan for the Fight Against Drugs and the Prevention of Addiction 1999-2001

Until 1995, the French public policy towards drug users wasdistinct from other European countries such as Great Britain, Holland, Germany,Switzerland and Spain, and to a certain extent, Italy; in the mid- to late1980s, these countries implemented a harm reduction approach focused onaddressing the social and medical consequences of drug use. The focus ofFrance’s public health policy, on the other hand, was on curative treatmentsaimed at abstinence and on repression of drug use and drug trafficking via thecriminal justice system. Drug addiction was regarded mainly as a psychologicalissue that could be treated and cured through psychotherapy inspired bypsychoanalysis, whereas key players in other European countries perceived drugaddiction to be essentially the result of a biological/neurobiologicaldeficiency. Adopting a biological/neurobiological perspective led thesecountries to realize that: the road to abstinence may be extremely difficult forsome drug addicts; and there was a need to address the medical consequences ofdrug misuse and to develop measures to reduce the harm done to these individuals(such as needle exchanges and methadone treatment).⁽⁾

The shift towards a harm reduction policy only occurred inFrance in 1995 following three years of deep controversy and demonstrations froma group of actors – hospital physicians concerned with AIDS, members of NGOs(non-governmental organizations), drug addicts, experts, etc. – who criticizedthe knowledge base that guided the major aims of the French drug policy. One keyissue in that debate was the provision of methadone treatment to drug addicts.In February 1994, only 77drug users had access to a methadone treatment inFrance; at that time, the population of heroin users was estimated to be160,000. In 1998, substitution treatments (Methadone and Subutex) were providedto as many as 70,000 drug users in France. This shift clearly indicates that theFrench authorities now consider harm reduction as a core element of the drugpolicy in France.⁽⁾

On 16 June 1999, the French government presented itstriennial plan, which clearly reflects this paradigmatic change, as palliativeand preventive measures become legitimate goals of French policy. With respectto penal policy, the main legislative framework – the Law of 1970 – was notmodified and drug use remains an offence. However, a circular letter from theMinister of Justice invited prosecutors to avoid incarceration and promotetreatment in cases of drug use.

The plan is based on European and international data as wellas on recent reports, broadly-based inter-ministerial consultations, andscientific studies that made a number of core observations about drug policiesand drug use in France. The emergence of new usage patterns such as multipledrug use (licit and illicit), increased cannabis and alcohol use among youth,and increased availability of synthetic drugs were a significant source ofconcern. The systems and knowledge base were also criticized for:

• the lack of coordination between prevention programs and their limited availability (i.e.,school prevention programs with respect to drugs are offered to less than 40% of students and with respect to alcohol and tobacco, to less than 20%);
• the lack of social and professional support;
• the lack of a shared culture between the various players (law enforcement, social welfare, education and public health);
• the excessive focus of the specialized drug treatments on heroin users at the same time as usage among this user group has stabilized; and
• the difficulty in reconciling law enforcement with a public health approach.

Application of the criminal law with respect to drug users has been constantly marked by the difficulties inherent in reconciling suppressive activities with public health imperatives. The number of users who have been questioned by the authorities has doubled over the last five years, whereas judicial procedures have not enabled adequate and effective co-operation with physicians and social workers.

Furthermore, elected representatives and the general publicexpressed concerns that the number of arrests for trafficking at the local levelhad declined since 1996 and found this fact difficult to understand consideringthe importance they thought should be attached to controlling the supply ofdrugs. Finally, the lack of reliable indicators had prevented in-depth andsimply meaningful evaluations of existing programs.

In view of all the above observations, the governmentdeveloped a three-year plan that defined priorities for action, objectives andspecific measures to achieve these objectives. The government chose thefollowing action priorities: research; communication; prevention; training; thewelcoming, counselling, care and rehabilitation of users of psychoactivesubstances; the law and its applications; national and local coordination; andactions outside France. Here are the objectives that were set along with somespecific measures as presented in the information booklet summarizing thegovernment’s plan.⁽⁾

1. Research:Investigation, Knowledge and Understanding

• The objective: To improve monitoring methods, studies and research, enabling French authorities to better anticipate developments, and take the right decisions at the right time.
• Measures: Development of a research program; generation of permanent survey machinery to evaluate the prevalence of the use of psychoactive products; establishment of a permanent watch-dog scheme for the real-time assessment of ongoing drug abuse habits and substances; development of a permanent network of programs for evaluating public policy in this area; and concentration of the currently dispersed instruments for measurement and knowledge under a central reference point and steering group (French Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction).

2. Communication:Informing the General Public and Creating a Common Frame of Reference

• The objective: To make valid and reliable information available to the general public, in order to improve the development of appropriate responses.
• Measures: Commitment to a long-term voluntary communications and information policy; engagement in more targeted activities directed at specific populations; launch of an Internet site; creation of a network of regional centres for information and resources concerning drugs and addiction; and re-organization of the drugs information service.

3. Prevention:Systematizing and Widening the Field of Prevention, Taking Account ofLegally Imposed Restrictions

• The objective: Building on the most recent studies and experiences, to facilitate an approach to prevention based on behaviour modification rather than specific products, and distinguishing between "simple" use, abuse and addiction.
  
• Measures: Definition of a national prevention program accompanied by a "best practice" guide, an evaluation guide and a commission for evaluation of preventative measures; development of a departmental program of prevention in schools (including out-of-school hours); professional training of those involved in prevention programs; widespread application of the "Health Education and Citizenship Committees" (CESC, Comités d’éducation pour la santé et la citoyenneté) in schools; implementation of prevention programs; development of welcome centres and counselling programs for youth; and the re-affirmation of legal policy with respect to the judicial response to those who use banned substances. Departmental structures are to be in line with the above objectives, which are to be harmonized across all departments (decentralization of funding for public health and social measures for offenders).
  

4. Training: Harmonizingthe Knowledge of all Those Directly Involved

• The objective: To create a common culture for all prevention, education, health care and policing professionals, based on validated data.
• Measures: Training of all non-specialized professionals who may find themselves dealing with drug users or those who consume excessive quantities of alcohol; establishment of a common training program for all those engaged in prevention; extending additional competencies to those specialized personnel who may require them; more targeted training for policing personnel; and improvement of initial and follow-up training for physicians and pharmacists.

5. Welcoming, Counselling,Care and Rehabilitation of Users of Psychoactive Substances:

Profile of Users of Psychoactive Substances

• The objective: To re-orientate health care approaches towards earlier action with respect to those who engage in multiple substance abuse.
• Measures: Regional and departmental assessment and programs will be undertaken to ensure that no regional disparities exist; professional networks will be developed and invited to develop appropriate competencies; hospital liaison teams will be set up; specialized care facilities will be developed; risk reduction policies to reach marginalized users will be established; continuity of care for users in police custody or in penal institutions will be set up; ensuring that drug users have access to the rehabilitation facilities provided by law; reinforcement of the social support of persons undergoing substitution treatment; early management of pregnant women with problematical drugs, alcohol or tobacco use; and to gain experience in managing adolescent substance abusers.

6. Law and itsApplications: Applying Law and Reinforcing Suppression of the Traffic inDrugs

• The objective: To redefine public legal policy with respect to the application of the Law of 1970, which has led to a large increase in arrests of those who use drugs, stability in the area of international drug trafficking, and a relative reduction in the number of arrests for local trafficking.
• Measures: The Minister of Justice has sent a circular to public prosecutors with the aim of making the suppression of international and local drug trafficking more effective; improvement of local coordination in the fight against drug trafficking; and adaptation of their juridical and administrative processes to the massive and constant availability of new synthetic drugs (i.e., develop a new method of classification, put in place a flexible system of provisional classification, and make chemical industrial companies aware of the risks of diversion of their products).

7. National andLocal Coordination

• The objective: To make the MILDT a body capable of expanding interministerial work and experimenting with and evaluating competencies and knowledge.
• Measures: Enabling the mission to function over the long term and redefining the missions of local coordinating bodies to enable them to play a key role in developing and implementing the program.

8. Actions Outside France

• The objective: To redefine French geographical priorities as a function of the flow in drug traffic, and to prioritize cooperation with central and South-East Asian countries, Russia and the Ukraine. While efforts to reduce supply must remain of paramount importance, further activities to reduce demand, and especially to reduce risk, must be developed.
  
• Measures: Re-equilibration of their activities, based on a clear definition of geographical priorities; conduct activities designed to reduce demand; help to develop risk-reduction programs in countries close to France (i.e., Russia and Ukraine); and prepare for the French presidency in the European Union.

B. Legislative Framework

French law related to illicit drugs is drawn from manysources including four codes: the Code of Public Health (code de la santépublique), the Penal Code, the Code of Penal Procedure, and the Customs Code.The main legislative framework is the law of 31December1970,⁽⁾which amended the Code of Public Health and created a legislative frameworkbased on both the application of repressive measures and health-relateddispositions. The objectives of the Law of 1970 were to severely represstrafficking, prohibit the use of narcotics, and yet propose alternatives to therepression of use, as well as to ensure free and anonymous care for usersseeking treatment.⁽⁾

This law has not been fundamentally modified since then butmany ministerial directives (i.e., circular letters) have been issued and newlaw has been enacted to: exercise more control over trafficking; create newoffences; and increase penalties for trafficking while diverting users of softdrugs such as cannabis away from the criminal justice system. It must be notedthat most articles of the Law of 1970 (originally written into the Public HealthCode) have since been integrated into the new penal code that came into force in1994 except for infractions related to drug use, which are still sanctionedthrough the Public Health Code. French law is also governed by international lawsince France has ratified the UN conventions related to drugs: Single Conventionon Narcotics (1961); Convention on Psychotropics (1971); and Convention againstIllicit Trafficking of Narcotics and of Psychotropics (1988). We will only givea broad overview of the main legislative framework in France, as the complexityof this system would require a detailed analysis that is beyond the scope ofthis paper.

1. Classes of Drugs

French law does not distinguish between illicit substancesand thus, an offence such as drug use is prosecuted and judged in the same wayregardless of the illicit substance involved. However, judicial authorities maytake into consideration the nature of the substance, the quantity and any priorcriminal records in their decision to prosecute, reduce the charges or notprosecute an offender. Illicit substances are listed in an annex to Decree Lawof 22February1990 and include the following:

• List I: narcotic substances such as heroin, cocaine, cannabis, methadone, opium, etc.;
• List II: substances such as codeine, propiram, etc.;
• List III: psychotropic substances such as amphetamines, Ecstasy, LSD, etc.; and
• List IV: synthetic drugs such as MBDB, 4-MTA, Ketamine, Nabilone, THC, etc.

2. Offences and Penalties

Public or private drug use in France is prohibited andcriminalized by the Law of 1970 (article L3421-1 of the Code of Public Health).The penalty for illicit drug use is up to one year in prison or a fine of 25,000French Francs, or diversion to a court-ordered treatment program (therapeuticinjunction – in French, "injonction thérapeutique"). This articleof the Code of Public Health applies to all users without any distinction as tothe type of illicit substance used.

The Code of Public Health also provides for the monitoring ofdrugs users by health authorities (article L3411-1). Prosecutors may notundertake legal action against an offender if that person can provide medicalcertification that he has undertaken some form of therapy or has submittedhimself to medical supervision since the commission of the infraction. However,if the offender does not supply a medical certificate to that effect,prosecutors may request that an individual who has made use of illicit drugsfollow a drug addiction treatment program or be placed under medical monitoring(article L3423-1). The involvement in a court-ordered treatment program suspendslegal proceedings and these will not be pursued if the individual completes thedetoxification program.⁽⁾ It is not uncommon for a repeat offender tobe subjected to more than one court-ordered treatment program as more repressivemeasures are rarely used for simple drug use, particularly cannabis use.

As mentioned above, the Ministry of Justice – in adirective dated June 1999 – asked prosecutors to prioritize treatment overincarceration for small-time offenders and problematic drug users. Practice hasshown that therapeutic alternatives are used mainly for simple users and thatmost cases of simple drug use receive a warning with the request to contact asocial or health service. When legal proceedings are undertaken, the magistratemay also force, and not simply order, the accused to undertake a detoxificationprogram but in this case, judicial authorities take charge of the case ratherthan health authorities. In these cases, if the user completes the treatment, nopenalties may be imposed on the individual but the use of such measures areextremely rare.⁽⁾ As well, a detoxification treatment may be acondition attached to a conditional prison sentence, parole or judicialsupervision. In France, the delinquent user is thus seen mostly as a sick personto whom therapy must be offered.⁽⁾

On the drug trafficking side, the Law of 1970 has beenmodified on several occasions, creating new offences such as selling orsupplying drugs for personal use (17 January 1986) and drug-related moneylaundering (31 December 1987), or enacting new procedures such as theconfiscation of drug trafficking profits (14 November 1990) to comply withArticle 5 of the United Nations Convention (19 December 1988).⁽⁾Currently, trafficking offences include selling or supplying drugs for personaluse with a penalty of up to five years and a fine of up to 500,000 F (articles222-39 of the Penal Code) and a more serious offence for transportation,possession of, supply, sale and illicit purchase of narcotics with a penalty ofup to 10 years and a fine up to 50 million F (article 222-37). Illicit importsand exports of narcotics are also punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment and afine up to 50 million F but when the offence is committed by a criminalorganization, the penalty increases to 30 years of imprisonment (article222-36).Furthermore, trafficking in narcotics might also be punishable as a customsoffence (contraband and similar offences) with a maximum sentence of threeyears’ imprisonment and fines equalling two-and-one-half times the value ofthe illegal merchandise. Prosecutions under the Customs Code do not excludepenal prosecution, and customs sanctions can be added to penal sanctions.⁽⁾

Other offences include the illegal production ormanufacturing of narcotics punishable by 20 years in prison and a fine of 50million F. Here again, when a criminal organization commits the offence, thepenalty increases to 30 years’ imprisonment (article222-35).Drug-related money laundering defined as "facilitating by any means, falsejustification of the source of assets or revenues of the author of an infractionto narcotics legislation"⁽⁾ is punishable by 10 yearsimprisonment and a fine of 5 million F (article 222-38). Incitement to drug useor to commit any offence sanctioned by articles 222-234 to 222-239 of the PenalCode or to present these offences in a favourable light is punishable by fiveyears in prison and a fine of 500,000 F (article L3421-4 of the Code of PublicHealth). This offence is aimed at the media and literary or artistic works.⁽⁾Inciting a minor to use narcotics is punishable by five years’ imprisonmentand a fine of 700,000 F and in the case of a minor under the age of 15 years orif the offence is committed in or around an educational establishment, thepenalty increases to 7 years in prison and a fine of 1 million F (article227-18). Finally, heading or organizing a group engaged in the production,manufacturing, import and export, transportation, possession, supply, sale,purchase or use of narcotics can lead to a life sentence and a fine of 50million F (article 222-34).

C. Key Reports andStudies

The implementation of the Law of 1970 which included bothlegal and health measures was not easy. It led to the publication of manyadministrative documents, implementing decrees, circular letters and notes.Numerous legal questions were raised dealing with such issues as the distinctionbetween use and trafficking, the notion of use and court-ordered treatment.Health authorities also had to devise practical ways of treating drugs users.⁽⁾The implementation of the law and public policies related to fighting drugs anddrug use were assessed in 1978 by the Pelletier Commission, in 1990 in theTrautmann Report, and again in 1995 by the Henrion Commission. The conclusionsof these three reports are briefly discussed below.

1. The Pelletier Report

The first assessment of the Law of 1970 and of the Frenchpolicies with respect to drugs and drug addiction was completed in 1978 by acommission presided by Monique Pelletier who studied the issue at the request ofthe President of France Giscard d’Estaing.

The Pelletier report⁽⁾ stated that thedifficulties encountered in the implementation of the Law of 1970 were theresult of inequalities in handling drug users due in part to the fact that thelaw did not include an intermediate category between a drug user and atrafficker. The report also attributed the implementation problems to thedifficulties encountered in getting legal and health authorities to worktogether.⁽⁾ Doctors were particularly sceptical about the principleof court-ordered treatment and of forcing an individual into treatment. ThePelletier commission noted as well that legal consequences were used more oftenthan treatment alternatives. Members of the Pelletier Commission believed thatthe Law of 1970 deserved a second chance. They suggested that it could benefitfrom the institution of clear implementation guidelines (circular letters) andthe establishment of structural and financial resources to ensure the successfulimplementation of therapeutic alternatives, both at the judicial and medicallevel. The report proposed, among other suggestions, that drug users should bedifferentiated according to the type of illicit substance they use.⁽⁾Officially today, the law still does not distinguish between illicit substancesbut in practice many circular letters over the past 20 years have invitedprosecutors and judges to differentiate between cannabis use and use of otherdrugs such as heroin and cocaine. For example, a circular letter (7 May 1978)suggested that cannabis users should not be considered "true" drugaddicts, that detoxification treatment may not be the appropriate measure forthis type of user, and that they should receive a simple warning. It alsoinvited judges to encourage drug users to contact a drug addiction centre and toonly use court-ordered treatment for repeat offenders. This circular letter hasbeen perceived by many as a decriminalization of cannabis use. However, it mustbe noted that circular letters express the intentions of the Ministry of Justicebut can be enforced diversely by prosecutors.⁽⁾

The 1978 circular letter was a point of reference until 12May 1987 at which time a Justice-Health circular repealed preceding letters andintroduced a new distinction for drug use based on the frequency of use.

For all cases involving drug use, a report had to be sent to the prosecution and dealt with by a specialized judge. "Occasional" users, who were well integrated into society were to be given a simple warning. The letter recommended court-ordered treatment or prosecution for "habitual" users. Illegal foreign users were to be immediately tried and banned from the French territory. Lastly, user-dealers or delinquent users were to be prosecuted as a head dealer or for harming others of goods. This letter also marked a will to revive court-ordered treatment and clarified how it should be enforced.

This circular letter was a turning point towards morerepressive measures for habitual users and users-dealers⁽⁾ and thebasis of the orientation of legal policy between 1990 and 1995, which focused onreviving court-ordered treatment and distinguishing between occasional users,habitual users, and users-dealers.

2. The Trautmann Report

The second report was commissioned in 1989 from CatherineTrautmann who, at the time, was the president of the Interministerial Missionfor the Fight against Drugs and Drug Addiction. The Trautmann report, submittedin 1990, included a review of available data on drug use and drug addiction, themain difficulties in the fight against drugs, and the drug policy in France from1978 to 1988.

The report did not recommend any changes to the Law of 1970.Rather, it highlighted the need for more effective actions against drugtrafficking, with a particular focus on developing better cooperation betweenthe three main national services involved in the fight against drug trafficking:the police, the gendarmerie, and customs – each of which have a differentjurisdiction (urban areas for the police, rural areas for the gendarmerie,borders for customs). It suggested that the policing of French outer bordersshould be reinforced. The report further proposed that more should be done todeal with the demand side of the drug issue by developing strategies aimed atpreventing drug use and drug addiction, particularly among young people.Suggestions related to the care of drug addicts and their integration andreintegration into the community revolved around three main axes: improvinghealth and social services; taking into consideration problems associated withAIDS; and establishing a solid financial management system to supportspecialized units providing services to drug addicts.

Finally, with respect to the issue of decriminalization orlegalization of drugs, in particular cannabis, the Trautmann report was clearlyagainst such propositions. The report stated that the issue is one of preventingdrug use and caring for drug addicts, and that decriminalization of cannabiswould trivialize drug use and promote earlier and more frequent use of harddrugs.

3. The Henrion Report

The Henrion Commission produced in 1995 a third report on thedrug situation in France.⁽⁾ It is interesting to note that theCommission comes to similar conclusions as the two previous reports with respectto the lack of coordination and cooperation between judicial and healthauthorities and the difficulties in implementing a policy based on bothrepressive and public health measures. The Commission made note of the limiteduse of court-ordered treatment and the increasing number of arrests for simpledrug use. It recommended first and foremost the development of an evaluationpolicy to assess the drug situation in France and suggested that French drugpolicy should give priority to preventing drug use. As well, the reportcriticized the lack of consistency in law enforcement and inequalities inhandling drug users throughout France and recommended that the existing agenciesand structures involved in the repression of drug trafficking be given thenecessary financial and human resources to successfully achieve their mandate.

However, the Henrion Commission distinguished itself inproposing a reform of the Law of 1970. Members of the Commission debated theissue of decriminalizing cannabis, expressing diverging opinions on the issue. Aminority of members (8 out of 17) opposed the idea of decriminalizing the use ofcannabis mainly because they thought it would be difficult to maintain a moralinterdiction without a legal prohibition. However, a small majority of members(9 out of 17) were in favour of decriminalizing the use of cannabis andpossession of small quantities of such substance. They suggested proceedinggradually without effecting any changes to the existing measures sanctioning thesupply of cannabis in the hope of better controlling and assessing theconsequences of decriminalizing drug use. They also recommended thatdecriminalization should be accompanied by the enactment of regulations limitinguse of cannabis to certain locations and forbidding its use by young peopleunder the age of 16. Regulations would also repress being intoxicated in publicplaces, create an offence of driving under the influence of cannabis, and wouldprohibit the use of cannabis by certain professionals for safety reasons (i.e.,air traffic controllers; pilots, drivers of public transit, etc.). All thesemeasures had to be accompanied by a prevention campaign focusing on thepotential negative consequences of using cannabis, an ongoing evaluation notonly of cannabis use but of opiates, cocaine and crack as well, and ongoingneurobiological research on the effects of cannabis use. Finally, the offence ofincitement to drug use was to be maintained and applied.

The Commission suggested that if such a reform was appliedand there was no deterioration of the situation within two years, the governmentshould then consider a regulation of the commerce of cannabis under the strictcontrol of the state. It should be noted, however, that some members of theCommission thought that such a regulation should be implemented concurrentlywith the decriminalization of cannabis and that there should not be any trialperiod.⁽⁾ These recommendations have yet to be implemented.

The Henrion Commission also recommended the adoption of aharm reduction policy that would not limit itself to minimizing the health risksrelated to drug use, but would be grounded in a public health perspective thatwould rigorously crack down on specific problem behaviours such as discardingneedles in a public place.⁽⁾ The French government had alreadyrecognized the importance of harm reduction in a 1993 plan related to: improvingtreatment of drug addiction in specialized structures and the general healthsector; developing harm-reduction measures; and offering treatments ofsubstitution to drug addicts.⁽⁾ The Henrion Commission particularlyreinforced the urgency of implementing the last two aspects of that plan. Today,the emphasis of the French drug policy remains on prevention, harm reduction andtreatment for addicted persons in a context of diversion of drug users away fromthe criminal justice system.

D. Administration

The Interministerial Mission for the Fight against Drugs andDrug Addiction (Mission interministérielle de lutte contre la drogue et latoxicomanie – MILDT) was instituted in 1982 and has operated under variousnames since its creation. This body coordinates government action in the fieldsof prevention, health and social care, law enforcement, training, communication,research, and international cooperation. The MILDT prepares the government’splans for the fight against drugs and monitors their application. Since 16 June1999, its mandate includes not only illicit substances, but also abuse ofalcohol, tobacco and psychotropic medicines. This change is particularlyimportant in understanding the direction of French public policy, as addressingalcohol abuse has become the main priority of the French government in recentyears. The MILDT also oversees the activities of 17 ministries involved in thefight against drugs and the prevention of dependencies, and supports the work ofother state and private partners. Its budget comes from a number of ministriesand it is responsible for funding public interest groups such as the"French Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction" (OFDT –Observatoire Français des Drogues et des Toxicomanies), an organizationresponsible for collating available data on drugs and dependencies.⁽⁾

With respect to local structures, Departmental Committees forthe Fight against Drug Addiction were created in 1985 but this new structure wasunable to find its place in many departments. An assessment of these committeesconcluded that only 30% of the departments had such a committee in place in1994. It also noted that departmental councils on the prevention of delinquencywere used as a forum for discussing drug-related problems. A circular letterwritten by the Prime Minister on 9 July 1996 confirmed this development andprovided a new framework for fighting drugs and drug addiction consisting ofthree levels:

• management

The French public policy for the fight against drugs and drugaddiction also relies on the work of state agencies charged with lawenforcement. The national police force under the supervision of the Ministry ofthe Interior and the national gendarmerie under the supervision of the Ministryfor Defence are two key players in law enforcement. With respect to drugtrafficking, the Ministry of the Interior is also home to the Central Office forIllegal Drug Trafficking (L’office central pour la répression du traficillicite des stupéfiants – OCRTIS), the agency responsible for centralizingrelevant information from the police, the criminal investigation department, andsocial and medical services. The Central Office has 12 out-stations locatedthroughout the world and its work leads to the arrests of more than 200 dealersannually and the seizure of almost 10 tons of illicit drugs (cannabis, cocaine,heroin, Ecstasy, etc.).

Criminal justice is rendered according to the nature of theoffence by the police court (contraventions), the "Tribunal Correctionnel"(délits) or the "Cour d’assises" (crimes)."Contraventions" are considered less serious offences and include onlyinfractions punishable by a fine of up to 10,000 F (20,000 F in cases ofrecidivism) and other penalties such as the suspension of a driver’s license."Délits" are offences that can lead to a maximum of 10 years’imprisonment, fines and other sanctions such as deprivation of civic rights,confiscation of assets, and prohibition from entering national territory forforeigners. Crimes are considered the most serious offences and are sanctionedby longer terms of imprisonment and fines.

The "Tribunal Correctionnel" handles offences (délits)and may render decisions involving prison sentences, fines, and alternativesentences to imprisonment. This tribunal is made up of a Presiding Judge and twojudges, the public prosecutor or one of the assistant prosecutors and a courtclerk. A single judge may judge certain offences. The "Cour d’assises"judges the most serious offences under law including all drug offences that maybe sanctioned by 10 years or more in prison. This court is made up of aPresiding Judge assisted by two associate judges, a popular jury of nine peopledrawn from the French population, and a court clerk. The prosecution isrepresented by a judge of the Prosecutor’s Office referred to as "Avocatgeneral" (Solicitor General). Decisions of the "Cour d’assises"can strictly be appealed on points of law. The only further action possible isbefore the "Cour de cassation" which has the mandate to verify thatdecisions of judges are in compliance with the law. This court does notre-examine facts of the case, but fixes the interpretation according to whichthe legal rules must apply. When a decision involves a violation of the law, thedecision is quashed and the case is referred back to a court of second instanceto be retried.

E. Statistics onUse and Offences

1. Use

The following is from a 1999 document entitled Drugs andDrug Addictions: Indicators and Trends prepared by the French MonitoringCentre for Drugs and Drug Addictions, which synthesized available data andanalyzed drugs and drug addiction in France.

The current trends observed in this report are as follow:

• a strong decrease in overdose-related deaths (554 in 1994, 143 in 1998) and AIDS deaths associated with injection drug use (1,037 in 1994, 267 in 1997);
• an important drop in heroin use since 1996 possibly attributable to an increase in use of substitution treatments;
• normalization of the use of cannabis as its use is becoming more and more commonplace particularly amongst young people;
• cultivating cannabis is a developing phenomenon;
• synthetic drugs have become much more widely available although these drugs still represent a very small percentage of drug consumption;
• cocaine use is increasing; and
• multiple drug use including licit substances such as alcohol, is an emerging phenomenon especially among youth – 54% of young people in care in rehabilitation units are users of at least two products.

Surveys conducted in 1995 amongst a representativecross-section of French adults revealed that almost 25% of 18- to 44-year-oldsdeclared having experimented with cannabis and 7.7% stated that they used it onan occasional or regular basis. Surveys conducted amongst conscripts in armyselection centres in 1996 also showed that a large percentage (40%) of young men18-23 years old had experimented with cannabis and 14.5% had used it during thepast month.⁽⁾ Whereas adolescents are concerned, it is estimated thatin the second half of the 1990s more than one-third of all 15- to 19-year-oldshad experimented with drugs, mostly cannabis. Surveys also showed an importantincrease in the frequency of use of cannabis as "the share of young peoplewho had used cannabis at least ten times during the year increased by overone-half from 1993 to 1997."⁽⁾ It was further found that boysare more likely than girls to use illicit substances and at much higher risk ofrepeated use. A 1998 survey indicated that 33% of the boys declared that theyhad experimented with cannabis, compared to 23% of the girls.⁽⁾

During the second half of the 1990s, the number of"problem" opiate users (drug use that may result in treatment in thehealth and social system and/or contact with law enforcement agencies) wasestimated between 142,000 and 176,000.⁽⁾

2. Offences

The report from the French Monitoring Centre indicates thatthe number of arrests for drug-related offences has increased from 45,206 to85,507 over the period 1993-1998. The most important increase was in the numberof individuals arrested for cannabis use (30,344 in 1993 compared to 72,281 in1998) whereas the number of arrests for heroin use has actually decreased(14,959 in 1993, 7,469 in 1998, following a peak at 17,356 in 1995). Cannabis,in fact, accounted for 85% of drug-related arrests in France in 1998 compared to63% in 1993. However, it must be noted that a little less than half of theindividuals arrested for using drugs (45%) were retained for questioning and thevast majority of persons (97.2%) held for questioning were freed in 1997.

Studies in France have emphasized that the statistics onarrests of drug users should be used with caution as it is difficult toascertain how much of noted changes reflect variations in the population of drugusers and how much of these changes are linked to modifications of police andgendarmerie services. For example, data on arrests for use between 1993 and 1998indicated a significant growth of 30% in use-related arrests in 1997 and9% in 1998.⁽⁾ Many factors may explain such an increase includingchanges in the behaviour of police and gendarmerie services, the reorganizationof police departments, and the normalization of cannabis use. One explanationsuggests that a circular letter on court-ordered treatment issued in 1995 by theMinistry of Justice has led public prosecutors to instruct the police andgendarmerie to "systematically report users."⁽⁾ It may beassumed that such instructions may have led to the notable increase in druguse-related arrests recorded in 1997.

With respect to trafficking, the number of arrests decreasedbetween 1996 and 1998 from 8,412 to 5,541. Slightly more than half of dealers(52%) arrested in 1998 were trafficking cannabis, 24% were involved in dealingheroin, and 17% trafficked cocaine and crack. The main development was observedin the number of arrests of heroin traffickers which decreased from 3,395 in1993 to 1,356 in 1998. Arrests for trafficking cocaine increased from 383 to 972during the same period whereas arrest related to cannabis trafficking increasedslightly from 2,456 to 2,920.

The total number of convictions for drug use as the mainoffence went from 7,434in 1992 to 6,530 in 1997, with a low of 4,670convictions in 1995. In 1997, 3,368convictions were for use only. Ofthese, 14% were sentenced to imprisonment with an average length of 2.4months,35% received a deferred sentence (often associated with probation andcourt-ordered treatment), 33% were fined, 7% were given an alternative sentence,and 6% were sentenced to an educational measure. The number of convictions foruse and transporting increased from 761 in 1991 (6.6% of convictions) to 3,478in 1997 (22.2%). Convictions for use and trafficking also increased from 475 in1991 to 1,501 in 1997 (4.1% compared to 9.6% of convictions related to drugoffences). In 21% of the convictions for use and other drug-related offences, aprison sentence was given out. In 37% of cases involving drug use andtrafficking and 21% of drug use and transporting, individuals received apartially deferred sentence (prison time and deferred sentence). The averagelength of imprisonment was 16.8 months in 1997.⁽⁾ For a breakdown ofconvictions for use, out of all convictions related to drug offences in 1991,1996 and 1997, see Appendix A.

In 1998, the number of cannabis seizures was 40,115, up from27,320 seizures in 1996. However, the quantities seized were smaller in 1998than in 1996 (55,698 kg compared to 66,861 kg). For a breakdown of seizures bydrugs between 1996 and 1998, see Appendix B.

F. Costs

In 1995, the public budget devoted to implementing the Frenchdrug policy was 4.7 billion francs. Out of the total expenses (specific budgetand interdepartmental credits), approximately 1536.56 million francs were spenton Justice, 1260.54 million F on police services, 469.55 million F on thegendarmerie, and 450.25 million F on customs expenses. The amount spent onenforcement was considerably higher than that spent on health (656.3 million F)and social affairs (28.58 million F). For a breakdown of these expenses, seeAppendix C.

More recent figures on interministerial credits indicatedthat for 1998, the expenditures of health and social affairs were set at 47.9million francs, those of Justice at 18.9million F, the Ministry of theInterior (police) at 18.5 million F and Defence (gendarmerie) at 10.7millionF. For a breakdown of all interministerial credits for that year, see AppendixD.

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Convictions for use, out of all convictions related to drugoffences

1. Temporary data

Appendix B

Seizures of narcotic substances

Quantities are given in:

– kg for cannabis, heroin, cocaine, crack and amphetamines
– doses for LSD and Ecstasy

Appendix C

Cost of the French Drug Policy (in millions of French francs)

Appendix D

Breakdown of interministerial credits for 1998 expenditures(in millions of francs)