From: Mike Rosing <mrosing@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Date: 28 Jun 93 09:07 PDT
Subject: Italy legalizes, note from Italy
Message-ID: <1484000250@igc.apc.org>


I just recieved a letter from the International Antiprohibitionist League
(Federated to the Radical Party) which I thought I'd summarize and post.
Feel free to forward post where people might be interested.  The letter
explains why the Italians voted last April to legalize drugs.
========================================================================

REF-ENGL ARTICLOLO IN INGLESE SU REFERENDUM 1993

ITALY:  REFERENDUM DELETES CRIMINAL SACTIONS FOR DRUG USERS

BY GIANCARLO ARNAO

A referendum about drug policy was held in Italy on April 18, 1993.  In
order to understand the terms of the question, we will summarize the
story of the Italian drug law (no 162/90) through the last five years.

EVENTS IN 1988-90

[He explains how the Secretary of the PSI party (Craxi) pushes a strong
antidrug campaign with direct quotes about making drug use illegal.]


THE ITALIAN DRUG LAW

The new drug law (162/90) became effective on Jul. 11th 1990.  The main
features of the law are: 1) sanctions, 2) option between sanction and
treatment, 3) "average daily doses".

SANCTIONS
 According to the former drug law (in force since 1975), drug
 possession was not punishable in cases of "moderate amounts for
 personal use".  According to the 162/90, drug use itself is defined as
 "illicit", but no specific penalties are imposed.  Drug possesion is
 alwyas punishable, by either administrative or criminal sancions.

Administrative sanctions are imposed for possesion of up to the so
called "average daily dose" (ADD).  They consist of suspension of
driving licence or passport, daily appearance at a police station and
possible seizure of the vehicle, according to the circumstances.  These
sanctions can be appealed, but are not suspended pending appeal.

[lists explicit prison terms for cannabis for amounts over ADD as 2-6
years, but only .5 to 4 years for "slight offenses."  Other drugs get 8
to 20 years or 1-6 for "slight offenses."]

OPTION SANCTION/TREATMENT

As an alternative to the administrative sanctions, it is possible to
enter a treatment program, set out by a public health service, and
managed by either a private or a public treatment agnecy.  The law
doesn't specify the kind of treatment.

Alternative treatment is also possible for people indicted for
drug-related crimes (up to 4 years jail); when the treatment is
completed, the sanction is repealed; if the treatment is interupted,
the sanction is restored.

THE "AVERAGE DAILY DOSE" (ADD)

The ADD discriminates between the administrative and the criminal
sanctions: it is therefore a conerstone of the law.  Nevertheless, the
ADD is not quantified by thelaw, but by the Health Ministry.

The ADDs of the main illegal or controlled substances are as follows:
cannabis 50 mg fo THC, morphine 200 mg, heroin 100 mg, codeine 200 mg,
phenatntyl 0.5 mg, methadone 50 mg, opium 1 gm, cocaine 150 mg, cocaine
base 20 mg, amphetamine 50 mg, metamphetamine 25 mg, LSD 50
micrograms.

EVENTS IN THE YEARS 1990-92

After the law was enforced, the number of drug overdoses kept its
upwards trend until 1991; there was a decrease in 1992, but it was
disputed by many scholars, since it seemed it depended by a change in
the criteria of classification.  Moreover the amount of drug users, was
on increase, the jails were full of drug addicts or drug users, and
tribunals were jammed with drug possession trials.  In fact, the low
level of the ADD meand that most of cases of possession for personal
use had to be criminalized - this happened paradocically mainly for
cannabis users, given that possession of only half gram hashish (about
three jounts) was equated to dealing.  In the last two years, there
were at least theree cases of young cannabis users that commited
suicide after being arrested.

The principle of ADD was harshly critixized by scientific, legal and
police institutions.  Some police officers discretionally increased the
level of ADD, in order to get rid of a multitude of irrelevant criminal
cases.

The law lost its favor wihtin most of public opinion, as far as it was
clear that it didn't bring along any positive change.  Meaningfully,
the law was critisized by Mr. N. Amato, President of the Italian
Penitentiary System, by most judges, by V. Angnoletto, President of
AIDS Italian League and by most of Therapeutic communities managers.

At the end of 1992, Mr. Craxi and most of Socialist political leaders
were indicted for corruption, and resigned.

EVENTS IN 1993

[explains survey done where 5% want full drug legalization, 10% would
allow cannabis in tobacco shops/ cocaine and heroin via doctors, 36%
would allow cannabis in tobacco shops/ cocaine available under medical
prescription, heroin available under strict medical control in public
medical institutions.]

Another meaningful event in 1993 was the case of V. Muccioli.

Mr. Vincenzo Muccioli is the manager of the San Patriganano Therapeutic
Community.  This community (now counting as much as 2000 inmates) is
considered the biggest in Europe; it is ruled with strictly repressive
principles, and base on a typical "war on drugs" ideology:  drugs are
evil, and people are defenseless.  Mr. Muccioli never allowed his TC to
be inspected by public health institutions, and it never let know
figures about its real functionality.  Nevertheless, Mr. Muccioli has
been supported by most politicans and mass media, and considered like a
sort of myth by most of public opinion.

In 1984 Mr. Muccioli had been indiceted for putting some addicts in
chains; he was finally acquitted, under the pressure of the politicians
and of the public opinion.

In the late 80s, Mr Muccioli has been continuously consulted by Italian
polticians in the elaboration of the drgulaw.  In fact, the whole
philosophy of the 162/90 law was based on the assumption that a
com;ulsory resort to therapeutic community is the only answer to the
problem of drug addiction, and the apparent success of mr Muccioli was
considered as the unquestionabel proof of this assumption.

In April 1989, the corpse of Mr Roberto Maranzana, inmate in the San
Patriganano TC, was found in a garbage disposal near Neaples (600 km
south from the community);  he was apparently killed, and his death was
attributed to a drug market dispute.

In March 1993, some former inmates of the community confessed that Mr
Maranzana had been killed in a sort of punishment section of the
community by another inmate, committed as a guard; the victim had been
tortured and beaten to death for two days, and his corpse was carried
away with a community-owned car.  Mr Muccioli initially pretended to
ignore the fact, then he admitted that he knew about the crime some
months later, but he didn't inform the police because he didn't want to
scare the inmates of the community;  it was hard to explain, ghough,
how a car with a corpse could leave a community wihich is severely
guarded night and day; finally, Mr Muccioli stated that the killers
told that Mr Maranzana runned away and he himself gave them the car in
order to run after him.  Moreover, the mdical examiner stated that Mr
Maranzana had been injected heroin while he was in the community.

The Muccioli scandal boomed one month before the referendum, and it
triggered a debate about the real functionality of the TCs.

THE REFERENDUM

The referendum about the law 162/90 was proposed by the CORA
(Coordinamento Radicale Antiproibizionista), and was supported by
Prtito Radicale, Rete, PDS (former Communist Party), Rifondazione
Comunista, Green Party.  On the opposite side, the main parties were
Christian democrats and extreme right MSI.

The referendum campaign had a low media coverage, due to the fact that
on the same date took place seven more referendums, some of whom had
higher political priority.

[explains how Italian law works, details of changes will have to be made
by parlament.  Essentially boils down to cancelling ADD, drug use would
not be criminal act, drug treatment would be done in private by general
practitioners instead of TCs.]

The referendum was won by 55.3 vs 44.7 percent.  Altogether, the sum of
the electors that approved the changes of the law was higher than the
sum of the voters of the parties that officially supported it.  This
could simply mean that the "war on drugs" in Italy is not any more a
winning political issue.

=========================================================================
Patience, persistence, truth,		work: dvader@hemp-imi.hep.anl.gov
Dr. mike				home: mrosing@igc.org