From: NORML California <[canor m l] at [igc.apc.org]>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: French Commission Backs Decrim
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 1995 22:26:24 -0800 (PST)


Drugs:  the Henrion Report is Released in France
No agreement on decriminalization of marijuana.  
(translated from Le Figaro, 4-5 Feb. 1995, p.1)

      Eleven months after being set up by Simone Veil, the comission 
on drugs and addiction headed by professor Roger Henrion announced 
its conclusions yesterday.
      After several weeks of internal arguments, notably on the 
decriminalization of the use of cannabis, the summary statement 
presented two opposing points of view.
      A slight majority of the 17 members pronounced themselves in 
favor of a regulated decriminalization of the usage of cannabis.
      As for the other drugs, the commission recommended keeping the 
1970 law, subject to "a profound modification."
      The commissioners were agreed on seven points, among them the 
dissolution of the "Delegation generale" for the war on drugs, in 
preference for an independent agency.
      Among other propositions:  Improved policies for prevention, 
especially directed at 10-14 year-olds, the improvement of 
hospitals specialising in emergency treatment of drug abusers, 
strengthening AIDS prevention by the development of programs for 
the free sale of needles.

The Henrion commission releases its report on drugs:
Simone Veil refuses to liberate pot
(Liberation, 5 Feb. 1995, p. 1)
      Headed by Prof. Henrion, the commission appointed in March 1994 
by Simone Veil delivered a split decision on the decriminalization of 
soft drugs.  A bare majority (9 of 17) having pronounced themselves 
in favor of eliminating the crime of cannabis use, the Minister of 
Social Affairs opined that "lacking sufficient scientific and 
objective grounds," it was not possible to assume this risk as a 
decision of state.  Thursday evening, on TF1 [French TV], Prime 
Minister Edouard Balladur had already declared himself against any 
opening in this direction, explaining that he too felt 
decriminalization was "a risk he did not wish to run."
      
      
      
Decriminalization of drugs divides the Henrion commission
(Le Monde, 4 Feb. 95, p. 9)
      After months of reading, listening, and reflecting, the members 
of the Henrion commission, appointed in March 1994 by Simone Veil, 
minster of social affairs, health, and cities, to examine the subject 
of the law of 31 December 1970 concerning drugs, were unable to 

agree on one thing:  whether or not to eliminate penal sanctions for 
personal consumption of illicit substances. 
      To the question posed by Mme. Veil on whether the distinction 
between hard and soft drugs should be upheld, the comission judged 
that "one can only state that drugs are more or less dangerous," 
cannabis and its derivatives (marijuana, hash, hash oil) being 
classified among the least dangerous.  By a close vote (9 out of 17), 
a majority favorable to the decriminalization of the use and 
possession of small amounts of quantities emerged.  "It is difficult 
to accept the confusion made, at least in the text of the laws, 
between the adolescent who occasionally smokes hash and the heroin 
addict who injects several times a day," the commission noted.
      Occasional users of cannabis and its derivatives are estimated 
to number between 1 and 3 million in France, according to the French 
Committee of Education for Health, and between 4 and 5 million 
according to Sofres.  According to the report, this usage has been 
"recognized as commonplace and de facto decriminalized, beginning 
with the 1978 Peyrefitte memorandum, and continuing with the 
Badinter memorandum of September 1984," two texts which 
encouraged prosecutors not to prosecute personal consumption of 
cannabis.  "To keep a criminal penalty which is no longer applied in 
practice becomes ridiculous and depreciates justice in the eyes of 
adolescents," concluded the nine members favoring 
decriminalization.
      The nine therefore propose substituting for the existing 
penalties a regime that would provide for prohibiting smoking before 
the age of 16 "on account of the amotivation and desocialization that 
it can provoke," as well as the prohibition of consumption in public 
places.   The regulatory mechanism would be completed by measures 
for  "suppression of cannabis intoxication on the highways," by "the 
creation of a misdemeanor for conduct under the influence of  
cannabis," and by "the prohibition of its use in professions judged 
safety-sensitive, such as flight controllers, pilots, high-speed train 
engineers, and others."  "If the there is no deterioration in the 
situation over the next two years," say those favoring 
decriminalization, "One could then envisage true, regulated 
commerce under strict control of the State."
      On the other side, the eight defenders of full criminalization are 
worried about the potential health risks linked to cannabis abuse.  
They observe "an alteration in vigilance which can last 24 hours, and 
an alteration in memory which is temporary for occasional users but 
which can persist sometimes for weeks in heavy smokers."  The 
theory of a gateway  effect [escalade] to harder drugs is likewise 
invoked, "most heavy addicts having begun with cannabis."  This 
gateway, which is qualified as "marginal," applies to some 5% -10% 
of smokers.  Heavy cannabis abuse is likewise blamed for 
precipitating schizophrenia, even if it is not "in itself a sufficient 
cause."  Also denounced is the cultivation of cannabis in 
greenhouses, in which the potency of the active principle (delta-9 
THC) is particularly elevated:  the Dutch "nederwelt" variety thus 
contains 20% to 40% THC, as against 1%-5% in marijuana and 6% - 
10% in hashish.  Finally, those favoring criminalization mention the 
anti-tobacco campaign, and ask about sending the right message ["la 
coherence des reflexions"]. 
      Nonetheless, they do not oppose an "evolution in the law which 
would take account of the specificity of cannabis without shirking 
interdiction."  They accordingly propose a modification in the 1970 
law permitting the "exercise of constraint in the interest of users."  
The use of "alternative punishment (work days, loss of rights, 
community service)" and "possibilities for individualizing the 
punishment" are envisaged. 
      As for the "dangerous" drugs, heroin, cocaine and crack, the 
majority of the commission, again by a close vote (9 to 8), leans in 
this case in favor of maintaining criminalization.  "Whatever 
solutions are eventually adopted," cautions the report, "The members 
of the commission insist  that they should not intervene before 
procedures for evaluation and sufficient health and judicial 
mechanisms are in place."  
      Taking the example of the methods used to evaluate populations 
infected with AIDS, they proposed creating "precise indicators, 
based on anonymous biochemical urine samples, for studying drugs in 
large strata of the population whose composition doesn't vary a 
priori from year to year."  Pregnant women, those called to national 
service during their "three days," and highway accident victims are 
recommended for constituting the first cohorts.
      The second point of consensus was upon the necessity of 
"promoting research" in three areas:  neurobiology, clinics and 
therapy, and social sciences.....
      The two final areas on which there was unanimous agreement 
were those of prevention and care.  The commission members judge 
that "it is important to present illict drugs without isolating them 
from other psychoactive substances that are capable of producing 
dependence."  The creation of a "foundation composed of advertising 
and media professionals" is proposed.
      The improvement of hospital admissions for addicts is likewise 
part of the program.  The commission asks that "every addict 
arriving in the emergency room be examined by a qualified physician" 
and proposes creating in the hospitals "a unified and established 
reception procedure for addicts"... In addition, the commission  
wishes that so-called  harm reduction policies (for overdose, 
hepatitis, AIDS, marginalization, delinquency) based on distribution 
of clean needles, condoms, substitute products, and networks of 
general practitioners, be accelerated.  It would like to see "greatly 
increased" the number of "boutiques," or drop-in centers for the 
most destitute drug users, as well as mobile "prevention buses."  
      For drug users incarcerated on account of other misdemeanors 
(approximately 10,000 out of the 54,000 in custody), the report 
insists on the necessity of "pursuing the effort undertaken to 
organize a true therapeutic follow-up," taking for its example the 
problems associated with the follow-up of methadone treatment.  
Judging as "marginal" the number of methadone places actually open 
in French territory, but insisting that we cease to "constantly 
oppose weaning and substitution," the commission defends a full 
complement of treatment slots. Therapeutic communities, very 
little used in France, ought to be encouraged and developed, 
according to the report,  by "groups other than the Patriarche," an 
organization using highly controversial methods founded by Lucien 
Enjelmajer.