EU on drugs: how do politics and institutions affect drug policies in the EU member states?

What is effective drug policy? Each state in the world has its own answer to this question. Illegal drugs' use is the problem that is not only personal, but also social, economic and political. Accordingly, different countries have different focus - some states try to reduce public harm from drugs to reduce personal harm, while others develop harm reduction programs for drug addicts in order to reduce social consequences. At the moment, there is no general consensus on the most effective drug policies, only certain recommendations based on the few examples of countries that have decided to go towards drug liberalization in the last 20 years.

In general, the issue of drug policy is a fairly young and developing field. Until the beginning of the 21st century, the question of the attitude towards illegal drugs was rather straightforward: drug addiction is a social disease that can be cured only by strict methods. Throughout the world, it was customary to see drugs as a threat, destroying nations. Mohammad M., Fulkerson G. The "War on Drugs": A Failed Paradigm (New Approaches to Drug Policies. UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 230-232 The first movements towards change were perceived with skepticism even in the UN, Portugal's radical drugs policy is working. Why hasn't the world copied it? // The Guardian URL: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it (accessed: 10.05). and at the state level, drug addicts were seen only as outcasts and criminals sponsoring the mafia. This is evidenced by the constantly changing struggle vectors, the essence of which remained the same - there is not much difference between users and sellers of drugs, and soft drugs necessarily lead to the use of heavy ones. All this led to the concept of the "War on drugs" Mohammad M., Fulkerson G. The "War on Drugs": A Failed Paradigm (New Approaches to Drug Policies. UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 230., first in the USA and then all over the world, implying zero tolerance regarding the use of any illegal psychoactive substances.

However, today the situation is changing rapidly. Liberalization measures, which at first seemed `suicidal', proved to be rather effective in the fight to reduce the harm from drugs. Decriminalization and substitution therapy have become the main elements of the discourse on drug policies in progressive countries. With the development of science and the advent of the Internet, awareness of the real state of affairs in the field of psychoactive substances has increased, and old views on the problem have turned out to be perceived by many as irrelevant and even harmful.

The reverse side of the development of science and the Internet in the field of illegal drugs was the emergence of new dangerous and unexplored "designer" drugs and the total change in the very system of their distribution. It became much more convenient for people to order drugs via the Internet than to contact gangsters who could cause real harm at any moment. This contributed to the development of Bitcoin and specialized forums in which drug users shared their experiences and knowledge. Aldridge J., Stevens A., Barratt M.J. Will growth in cryptomarket drug buying increase the harms of illicit drugs? (Addiction 113. 2017), 793. Thus, almost the entire field of illegal drugs was transferred to the Internet, a huge market was created for substances that were previously almost impossible to get, and the "classic" drugs became much more diverse. Consumers have begun to understand much better what they are buying, while drug dealers established a whole reputation institution under conditions of complete anonymity. The darknet sites became very popular, and their financial turnovers began to exceed any number from the times when gangsters controlled the drug market.

This situation completely changed the approach to drug policy in developed countries. While past methods of dealing with organized crime were quite understandable - gangs were widely heard, and their leaders repeatedly went to jail, the approach to a completely anonymous drug trafficking, which does not involve the transfer of substances from hand to hand is a much more complex thing. States face a dilemma: given that transactions take place between an anonymous seller and buyer through mail, any obvious intervention (different ways of de-anonymization through providers, wiretapping and in-depth verification of mail items) will most likely violate people's privacy rights. Together with the wider distribution of "classic" and "designer" drugs that represent an uncertain level of danger to the consumer, the problem becomes much more complicated than it used to be. The public demand for the ongoing drug policy has also changed due to greater awareness and the development of a culture of using illicit substances. In the aggregate, all this sets before the states much more complex tasks regarding the formation of the most effective drug policies.

Returning to the beginning, it is worth noting that the differing attitudes towards drug policies in different states are most often explained by cultural, social and economic reasons. In addition, most of the studies of this problem focus on a small number of cases, since it is usually a question of comparing several states that stand out due to some kind of formal legislative conditions and outcomes of drug policies. The problem is usually even more complicated, because in addition to the law enforcement towards drug supply and healthcare issues that lie in the sphere of public life, there is also an issue towards personal use and possession of drugs. Chatwin C., Potter G. Blurred Boundaries: The Artificial Distinction Between ``Use'' and ``Supply'' in the U.K. Cannabis Market (Contemporary Drug Problems. Vol. 41(4). 2014), 539-540. States face the obvious question: how to determine the boundary, after which the ordinary drug user becomes a criminal? This area is the most diverse, since each state has invented its own answer to this question.

How, then, to explore this area of study? First of all, we need to find states with similar drug laws and healthcare, after which we can pay attention to different attitudes towards personal use and possession of drugs, comparing them with outcomes (for example, the number of overdoses, drug addicts and people in prison for drugs). Within the framework of this logic, the most suitable case for consideration is the European Union, known for successful attempts to harmonize law enforcement among the member states after the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force in 2009. Chatwin C, Drug Policy Harmonization and the European Union. (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 8. In addition, over the past decade, a huge Internet market of substances has emerged in the European space, consisting of sites with multi-billion turnover. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction and Europol, EU Drug Markets Report 2019, (Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2019), 5-7. Both the online and offline European markets are united, because drugs can be easily ordered from any EU country to any other EU country due to the nature of the post mail, which does not imply opening packages during the security check. In many ways, law enforcement and partly healthcare are also common due to the policy of harmonization. At the same time, the issue of personal possession and use of drugs remained in the jurisdiction of each state. Dekalchuk A., Monar J. (2010), The EU Common Drug Policy: Question of Time or Pipe Dreams? Thesis for the Degree of Master of European Studies, College of Europe, Bruges, 9-11.

In particular, by drug policy, I understand the totality of the three above-mentioned areas of regulation - law enforcement (supply), healthcare, and personal possession and use. In this case, under the law enforcement towards supply I mean the fight against crimes related to trafficking of illegal substances. Healthcare is a set of measures proposed by the state in the framework of harm reduction: from issuing sterile syringes and conducting rehabilitation programs to the general attitude of the state to drug users. Grund J.P.C., Breeksema J.J. Drug Policy in The Netherlands (European drug policies?: the ways of reform., Chapter: 9, Publisher: Routledge, Editors: R. Colson, H. Bergeron), 129-130.

The "personal possession and use" section implies a set of legislative configurations that distinguish between what happens after crimes connected to personal possession and use of illicit drugs. Different states have their own methods for determining the limits of permissible substances and the reasons for their choice often do not even depend on the latest scientific research, but are based on the personal vision of lawmakers about the average dosages and harm of certain drugs. Duyne P.C., Levi M. Drugs and Money: Managing the drug trade and crime-money in Europe (London: Routledge, 2004), 134

The issue of drug possession and use has several dimensions to be understood by both law makers, and researchers. There is a problem with defining the sale of drugs without a profit-making purpose: for example, when people share the price of drugs with each other / when a person sells extra drugs to friends or acquaintances. Chatwin C., Potter G. Blurred Boundaries: The Artificial Distinction Between ``Use'' and ``Supply'' in the U.K. Cannabis Market (Contemporary Drug Problems. Vol. 41(4). 2014), 543. Often laws do not distinguish such actions by types. In addition, some drug users are forced to use them because they have developed long-term physical dependence. Ordinary drug withdrawal or sending them to prison will make this person much worse. There are also different types of drugs in terms of the severity of their harm both to the user and to society. Bancroft A. Responsible use to responsible harm: illicit drug use and peer harm reduction in a darknet cryptomarket // (Health, Risk & Society Vol. 19, Nos. 7-8, 2017), 338.

What are the kinds of drug policies? Most researchers divide drug policy into liberal and restrictive ones. The notion of liberal is characterized by greater involvement of the state in specific problems of drug users, moving the vector of drug policy from criminal to health care. Chatwin C, Drug Policy Harmonization and the European Union. (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 30. Such a policy implies a set of consistent measures to reduce or eliminate detentions for minor violations, as well as to increase public spending on drug health. Public health measures vary from state to state, but in most cases they involve the presence of substitution therapy for users of so-called heavy drugs (opiates and opioids: heroin, methadone, fentanyl, etc.), clean needle exchange and delivery programs, and means to save people from overdose (e.g., naloxone). The State of Harm Reduction in Western Europe 2018 (Harm Reduction International, 2019), 9. From an economic point of view, liberal drug policy is associated with reducing both supply (combating drug trafficking) and demand (a set of soft measures to reduce people's desire to use drugs).

Another type of drug policy highlighted in the literature is prohibitive. It is related to restricting the supply of drugs by banning their possession and use, as well as a set of measures to combat drug trafficking. The prohibitionist type of drug policy is characterized by considering drug use as a universal problem that concerns the whole society. Chatwin C, Drug Policy Harmonization and the European Union, 143. Measures taken within the framework of prohibitionist drug policy are aimed at increasing penalties for all types of drug-related crimes: both in terms of drug trafficking and in terms of personal use and possession.

It is important to note that the division between liberal and prohibitionist drug policy is relative, being created to assess the various characteristics of public policy. Each state has its own approach to defining its drug policy in view of various geographical, historical, cultural and social factors. However, what characteristics of states may also be relevant in determining an existing drug policy? In many states, drug policies, like other policies, are related to the level of public health spending, the rule of law, political stability and many other factors that constitute the political/institutional configuration of the state. For this reason, this study will focus on the influence of the internal political conditions of the states of the European Union on drug policies. Thus, the main objective of the study is to determine the political/institutional configurations of conditions that have led to certain drug policies in the member countries of the European Union. Putting all of the above together, I can formulate the main research question: "What configurations of political / institutional conditions account for the diversity in drug policies of the member states of the European Union?".

It is important to understand the limitations and peculiarities that are implied in this paper in order to further explore the objective. Above all, there are problems with drug-related statistics. Despite the existence of the EMCDDA, which collects statistics and monitors the drug situation in Europe, the vast majority of existing figures on problematic drug use, health outcomes, arrests, etc. cannot be compared. Each state has its own approach to collecting statistics and identifying variables. Hughes C.E., Stevens A. A resounding success or a disastrous failure: Re-examining the interpretation of evidence on the Portuguese decriminalisation of illicit drugs (Drug and Alcohol Review, 2012), 107. In addition, states collect statistics at different times, which makes information scattered not only in the sense of forming variables, but also by year. Comparisons of states require unified data. In contrast to data on drug seizures (and others of the same kind), data from the laws of EU states, as well as from different elements of health care, is unified because of its EU-basement nature.

Why is it possible to compare their legislation? On the one hand, the European Union states exist within a single legal framework and harmonize legislation on issues of law enforcement and preventing illicit drug supply, and have a single EU designated course to harm reduction. On the other hand, the interaction between the levels of government and the general framework of the European Union's functioning in relation to drug policy fits into the theoretical basis of Multi-level governance, created by political scientists Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks in the early 90's in response to changes in the interaction of actors introduced by the Maastricht Treaty. Daniell K., Kay A., (2017) Multi-level Governance: An Introduction ANU Press, 4-6. This framework implies the interaction of actors at both horizontal and vertical levels. Various policy discussions take place at the supranational level of the European Union, but actors do not necessarily have to reach consensus, which takes into account their internal characteristics and allows each state to function and allocate responsibilities as they see fit in their particular situation. At the level of the EU, the basic rules of the game are set and a field for discussion is provided. Such rules of the game in the field of drug policy are the common interest of all countries in the fight against cross-border drug crime (which is what Europol and part of the Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs of the European Commission, does). Chatwin C. Drug Policy Harmonization and the European Union, 37. In addition, the European Union, as a supranational body, has an interest in the collection and monitoring of statistics. As noted earlier, some of the issues and all issues of ownership and use are transferred to the level of states, which makes it possible not to seek compromise in drug policy on these issues. Thus, it turns out that the EU countries (1) exist in a single system of interaction, which implies a number of actors, but has common rules of the game, (2) are within a single legal framework, (3) have harmonized legislation on the issues of combating drug trafficking, (4) have only partially harmonized legislation on health care issues and (5) have not harmonized legislation on possession and use at all. I therefore believe that within such a framework, the variables to be compared are those that are different within the unified system with the given rules of the game, namely the parts of the legislation concerning possession and use, as well as the different elements of health care, which will be described in more detail in section 1.2, and in chapter two of this study. Thus, the drug policies of the EU Member States in this study are understood to mean measures that differ among them, namely, rules governing personal possession and use and healthcare in the context of harmonization of other measures across the EU.

Looking at the problem within the given framework, it is necessary to mention one more important detail - time limits of this research. Speaking about the time limits of drug policies, I use the word "current", referring to the state of legislation at the time of spring 2019 (the last collected database EMCDDA). Legislation related to personal possession and use in most countries has not changed dramatically in the last few years. Defining the time frame for drug policy by the word "current" is a necessary assumption for the possibility of comparing states within a single legal system. As for the political conditions that make up the configurations of different states, which will be described in more detail in Section 1.3. and in Chapter 3 of this study, the most relevant World Bank's political indicators by spring 2020 (for 2018) will be taken, since political/institutional factors in the vast majority of countries have not changed dramatically in recent years, and coding conditions for the QCA crisp-set level out possible problems, since even if there have been changes, the rates of states have not changed much.

Thus, having understood the framework and important assumptions of this research, it is possible to proceed to list of the main steps to be taken for the most complete consideration of this topic:

1) to review the existing contemporary EU drug policy at the supranational level;

2) to understand the drug policies of individual EU member states and create a basis for the most relevant comparison and grouping of states regarding their drug policies;

3) to form groups of countries in relation to their drug policy;

3) to identify possible conditions which lead to particular drug policies in EU member states;

4) to identify important conditions and configurations of conditions that lead to a particular type of drug policis in countries, based on existing theoretical knowledge.

Making those steps implies: (1) an in-depth study of the theoretical knowledge about drug policies of states, (2) a study of the legislation of EU member states regarding the use and possession of illicit drugs and the directions of their health policies, (3) an identification of the political/institutional conditions that may be relevant in this study, (4) data collection and use in dividing countries into drug policy groups, and (5) an analysis of the political/institutional conditions and their configurations that led to modern drug policies in EU member states.

This study involves a two-stage analysis: first, countries will be grouped into drug policy groups, after which the results of the grouping will be used as outcomes in the analysis of political/institutional conditions and their configurations. The main method of this study is qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). QCA allows comparison of up to 100 cases, determining which conditions and configurations of conditions have an impact on the outcome. Unlike a statistical study where the analysis is linked to the influence of independent variables on the dependent variable, QCA involves a weighted comparison of cases and operates with concepts of conditions and outcomes that are not variable-oriented and should be linked to existing phenomena relative to the level of presence of a certain phenomenon (e.g., the level of softness of drug policy). This study will use crisp-set QCA, which uses binary values of conditions and outcomes (where 1 is presence and 0 is absence of presence, asymmetric logic). When statistics cannot be compared, crisp-set QCA is best suited for the study because of the limitations described above and because the conditions will be taken as being higher than the EU average (=1). The third chapter of this study will focus on QCA. In order to get the most complete picture, two QCA models will be executed for different outcomes, where (1) the level of softness of drug policy is above average (outcome = 1) and (2) the level of softness of drug policy is not above average (0, negate). In both cases, the result will be configurations of political/institutional conditions leading to one or another drug policy result.

In order to determine the outcomes regarding drug policies, a cluster analysis will be conducted in chapter two of this study. As described earlier, the data will be taken from EU legislation. The EMCDDA provides a database of extracts from the legislations of EU member states regarding the regulation of possession, use and supply. Penalties for drug law offences in Europe at a glance // EMCDDA URL: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/topic-overviews/content/drug-law-penalties-at-a-glance_en (accessed: 04.04.2020) The database is compiled on the basis of six main questions, which are extracts from legislation related to the subject. The questions are compiled in such a way that each of them can be answered "yes" or "no" (for example: "Penalty varies by drugs?", "Penalty varies by quantity?"), respectively, the answers can be encoded binary, where "1" is "yes" and "0" is "no". In the case of the first question, "What is the punishment for the offence?", "0" will be used in the presence of the criminal punishment, and "1" - in the absence of it. This assumption is possible for two reasons: (1) the additional question about the existence of alternatives to criminal punishment, and (2) the consideration of the question solely in terms of possession and use, where it is possible to answer the question so posed (it is always illegal, only the levels of punishment differ). Since binary data will be clustered, the K-Modes algorithm created to foment groups of categorical data will be used for analysis. More details on variable encoding will be provided in the corresponding chapter.

Given the above, the structure of this study will be as follows: the first chapter will describe the main contextual basis. It will describe in detail the history of drug policy regulation in the European Union, its current state, as well as the drug policies of the member states according to the theoretical framework described above. In the second chapter of this study I will conduct a cluster analysis and get the division of countries into groups according to different types of drug policies. In Chapter Three, I will conduct a QCA and obtain configurations of conditions important for the formation of the outcomes regarding drug policies, which will be formed in Chapter Two. The conclusion will describe the results of the research and provide avenues for further study of this topic.

1. Drug policy in the EU

Speaking about the history of drug policy in the context of supranational EU institutions, it is worth starting with the fundamental reasons of how it is formed today. First of all, the question of choosing the direction of drug policy in Europe is largely based on two things: (1) the principle of freedom of movement between the borders of the member countries and (2) the recognized danger of drug trafficking by organized criminal groups at the international level. Chatwin C. Drug Policy Harmonization and the European Union, 27. Questions of the relationship between the level of freedom and security are among the main issues raised in the debates that take place at different levels of the European Union. The fight against organized crime goes beyond the borders of states and is a common task involving the creation of common systems responsible for fighting crimes within the framework of the entire European Union. Cannabis legislation in Europe (EMCDDA. June 2018), 9.

At the same time, from the point of view of the general institutional structure, the main goal of the EU is to unite the member states, creating a common foundation at different levels. For a general reduction in the likelihood of any conflicts between EU states, at the interstate level, there is the concept of harmonization, which constitutes itself in establishing a common base, which should ensure equal rights and obligations between Member States. Ibid., 13 However, such an approach does not eliminate all the diversity of the EU member states, which is why absolutely uniform orders in the entire EU would certainly lead to drawbacks from the member states. Therefore, in addition to creating a common foundation, it was important to leave the states a certain share of sovereignty. Here comes the second important principle of the existence of the EU - subsidiarity: the distribution of responsibility in the management of tasks between different levels. One approach to studying how the EU works, multi-level governance, describes subsidiarity as the `best level' principle. Cary A. Subsidiarity Essence or Antidote to European Union? In: Subsidiarity Within the European Community. A. Duff (ed), L., 1993. P. 45. Issues should be resolved at the level that can best regulate them and monitor their execution.

In the field of drug policy, the principle of subsidiarity, as noted by scholars, had a sobering effect on harmonization. Chatwin C. Drug Policy Harmonization and the European Union, 27. All EU member states sought to reduce the spread of drugs at the global level, but each of them had its own approach to drug policies. This is where the main feature of the drug control policy manifested itself - this topic is so complex and extensive that its regulation cannot be based on some general principles, especially among modern states that have completely different cultural, political and social contexts. Chatwin C. Multi-level governance: The way forward for European illicit drug policy? (Int J Drug Policy. 2007 Dec18), 494-495. EU institutions were faced with the question of what their role is in shaping proper drug policies in Europe. In other words, how much should the European Union interfere in the affairs of states and should it even do so? The answer to this question implies knowledge of the history of the debate on the implementation of drug policy in the EU, through which we can understand its basics.

The first EU institution to raise the issue of harmonization of drug policy was the European Parliament. Chatwin C. Drug Policy Harmonization and the European Union, 31. In the 1980s, two commissions were created, the purpose of which was to determine the path that had to be taken. The very first discussions showed that the issue of drug policy clearly divides the approaches of the states into two opposite sides - liberal and restrictive. Ibid. At the same time, most states advocated the second option, citing past failures of short-term liberalization in Spain and Sweden and criticizing the Netherlands for their excessively liberal policies. Chatwin C. Drug Policy Harmonization and the European Union, 31. Accordingly, Sweden and the Netherlands became the two main opposing forces against regulating drug policies, representing both opposing approaches. Interestingly, the issue of drug policy lay not only between states, but also within them. So, the situation burst out when the Stockholm resolution that declared war on drugs was signed by one of the cities in the Netherlands. Ibid., 33.

With the establishment of Schengen area, the issue of drug control has become even more relevant. In late 1989, several responsible commissions were created and an annual anti-drug plan was assigned. Ibid., 35. The question of the coordination of their actions most clearly highlighted the complexity of this problem: it became obvious that drug policy is also a question that always involves the interaction of responsible institutions. The decision involved all three pillars of the European Union. The Maastricht Treaty implied this problem from the point of view of public health, because drug addiction was highlighted as a threat to public health. The second pillar, Common Foreign and Security Policy, implied cooperation and the development of external relations to combat drug trafficking. The third pillar, Justice and Home Affairs (or the Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters), was to consider the direct fight against organized crime and drug trafficking. Chatwin C. Drug Policy Harmonization and the European Union, 37. In particular, the fight against drug trafficking within the whole EU were supposed to be promoted by a new joint police cooperative body - Europol.

Debates on the direction of the drug policy continued, and the new Treaty of Amsterdam (1999) has already specified the issue not only from the point of view of public health, but also regarding harm reduction measures aimed at reducing the potential health risks of drugs. Title XIII, Article 152, Treaty of Amsterdam // European Union URL: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/treaty/pdf/amst-en.pdf (accessed: 26.05). For the correct distribution of responsibilities between the three pillars of the European Union, the member states created the Horizontal Drugs Group, Horizontal Working Party on Drugs (HDG) // Council of the European Union URL: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/preparatory-bodies/horizontal-working-party-drugs/ (accessed: 28.05). accountable to Committee of Permanent Representative.

One of the turning points in determining the direction of the drug policy in the European Union was the "Catania Report", Chatwin C. Drug Policy Harmonization and the European Union, 41. which marked the failure of the war on drugs at the level of the European Parliament. The document noted that the existing prohibitive approaches to drug policy showed low effectiveness due to the increasing stigmatization of drug users and the lack of a coordinated approach to harm reduction. The author proposed a radical change in the dogma of drug policy towards a more balanced scientific approach, based on real evidences. Ibid. Subsequently, these recommendations were included in official documents, creating a new approach to solving the drug problem, which are prevention, tolerance and harm reduction.

An important point of the discussion was that the main documents regulating the direction of the EU drug policy have ceased to contain a direct negative attitude towards drugs. EU Action Plan to Combat Drugs has changed to annual Drug Strategies, implying a new era in the drug policy. Ibid., 44.

The Lisbon Treaty (2009) included important amendments to the previous versions of the treaties. In addition to clarifying issues of public health and harm reduction, Article 168, TREATY OF LISBON // Official Journal of the European Union URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12007L%2FTXT (accessed: 30.05). it introduced general definitions and rules, as well as minimum penalties for the large distribution of drugs within the European Union. Chatwin C. Drug Policy Harmonization and the European Union, 45.

In general, the long debates on the harmonization of drug policies in the European Union have concluded that the EU will not have any specific direction. The main role of the EU in terms of drug policy is to collect data from all member countries and to issue guidelines for countries based on statistical analysis. To do this, EU established European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction. About the EMCDDA // EMCDDA URL: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/about (accessed: 28.05). The EMCDDA is a body with a large number of national focal points that collect statistics for each country through official statistics and specially compiled questionnaires. As a result of the analysis, reports are issued in which the agency highlights the main trends of the current drug situation, as well as the dynamics of its change relative to previous years. Cannabis legislation in Europe, 9. It's important to note that the EMCDDA data have a rather large problem - each state interprets different aspects of drug policy differently. In addition, the composition of the questions compiled by EMCDDA differs. Chatwin C. Drug Policy Harmonization and the European Union. (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 48. In general, the EMCDDA statistics gives an understanding of the general situation and context, and the quality of the collected statistics increases every year. The EMCDDA also sponsors drug research in the countries studied. For example, in the 2000s, a wastewater inspection program was launched. This program tested wastewater for various metabolites of drugs, determining in which regions the distribution of drugs is greater. Pal R., Megharaj M., Kirkbride K.P., Naidu R. Illicit drugs and the environment - A review (Science of the Total Environment, 2013), 1080. The data these studies show almost always confirm the general data collected using questionnaires, but wastewater analysis seems more objective and easier to provide. Ibid., 1081.

Thus, consideration of the problem of illegal drugs has shifted from the criminal field to harm reduction. The European Union initially approached the consideration of the drug problem from the point of view of consensus, because of which the harmonization process affected only the fight against drug trafficking and outlined areas of public health, leaving questions not related to global drug trafficking (including personal possession and use) to the Member States. Such a preference for a policy based on observation and analytics has allowed the EU to be quite flexible, while at the same time remaining interested in reducing the harm from drugs.

1.2 EU drug policy at the national level