House committee discusses distinction between drug trafficking and sharing

The parliamentary Social Affairs Committee yesterday started debating plans for the law to differentiate between drug traffickers and those who share a small amount of drugs.

At present, drug abusers who share their drugs are considered traffickers and, on conviction, face a minimum of six months in jail.

Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg said that organisations involved in the fight against drugs had been meeting in an informal way under the chairmanship of former President Guido de Marco to discuss the situation.

Several discussion papers were drawn up. They threw light on the problem but a common position on what should be done had not been reached.

Had the time come to differentiate between drug trafficking and sharing? Should having a small amount to share with others continue to be considered as drug trafficking? This was the case under the current legal definition.

The minister said that what was interesting was that the only organisation in favour of a distinct difference in the definition of trafficking and sharing was Caritas.

The only proposal on which there was general agreement was that persons who were only found guilty of possession, were first time offenders and were under age should not be taken to court but should be given a warning and referred to an agency such as sedqa. This proposal had been made by the police and all participating organisations had agreed with it, including Probation Services and Caritas.

Opposition spokesman Gavin Gulia said he had requested the meeting following an interview given by the minister during which he had pointed out that a clear distinction should be made between traffickers and victims.

An attempt, he said, should be made for an agreement to be reached on sensitive legislation such as this.

The House had to be careful to help drug victims but not drug traffickers. Victims should not be confused with traffickers and made to suffer the same penalties. Trafficking currently included sharing and there were circumstances where users suffered a fine for trafficking which was more appropriate for manufacturers, producers and traffickers.

When it came to drawing up legislation, one should be careful not to leave loopholes for traffickers to exploit.

Would passing on a whole joint to a partner or friend, rather than actually sharing it there and then, be considered sharing? Would inciting one to take drugs be considered sharing? There could be circumstances where a prison term or a suspended prison term would be deserved.

Dr Gulia said he was worried about the proposal for a warning system. Through this proposal, a person breaking the law would, instead of going to court, be taken before a board which would decide whether he should go to court or not. This could lead to certain preferences.

He said one should also take into consideration whether the situation should be the same for all kinds of drugs.

Nationalist MP Michael Asciak pointed out the need for more coordination between the different organisations involved in the drugs scene.

He said that drug addicts were finding it difficult to re-join the employment sector and this encouraged them to return to drugs.

Labour MP Marie Louise Coleiro said the drugs sector was evolving so the House should continue updating legislation.

Apart from non-governmental and government agencies, the committee should also consider making a public call for persons interested in describing their experiences.

There were people, for example, who after successfully undergoing a rehabilitation programme still had to serve a prison term for a previous case.

She said that the debate should also focus on the experience of other countries including a comparative study of legislation. The committee, she said, might need to set up a consultative technical committee to assist it.

Nationalist MP Michael Gonzi said that in its updated drug strategy for 2002, the UK had proposed arrest referral schemes for first users instead of these people having to go through the legal system. It had also proposed extending drug testing even to local police stations.

The committee should also consider health information and education. The sectors involved in prevention and cure should also be involved.

Dr Borg said the main question the committee should ask was whether there were unjust situations in the law and what they were.

If this was not done, the committee would enter into a labyrinth. There were people who were going to prison only because the law said so and not because they deserved to.

Labour MP Michael Farrugia said that one should look at the issue in a more holistic manner. At Mount Carmel Hospital, he said, people with drug problems were being placed in the same wards as those with mental illnesses.

He pointed out that certain diseases should also be taken into consideration. Sharing a joint, for example, was not the same as sharing a syringe. One also had to remember that traffickers changed their tactics. They did not carry a large amount of drugs with them and they did not receive their money at the same time as they handed out the drugs but before. One should be careful that the law would not encourage them to use youngsters as their pawn to traffic drugs.

Nationalist MP Franco Galea said the law should specify if sharing was between two or more people. The committee should consider if the amendment being proposed would make drugs more accessible, if it would be making it easier for traffickers to traffic drugs. It should consider if those caught sharing drugs should be ordered to do community work. The location and circumstance of where the sharing would have taken place should also be taken into consideration.

Labour MP Karl Chircop said the committee should focus on the definition of sharing, it should set targets and see how they could be achieved in an efficient manner.

Nationalist MP Joe Falzon said the problem was that at present, legislation put everyone in the same boat. There could be youths who found access to drugs through adventure and could start trafficking to finance their vice.

The state was not supporting families whose members ended up victims of the problem.

Committee chairman Clyde Puli said that it was important that the committee focused on the issue in question.