A change without real improvements

A new proposal to amend the Narcotics Act NarcA is on the table. Much may still change in the course of parliamentary deliberations. We compare the current law with the specific new proposal now under discussion.

This partial revision was started because the revision of NarcA was scuttled by the National Council in summer 2004. The National Council's Commission for Social Security and Health drafted the bill discussed here after its sister commission from the Council of States had given its approval. Heroin distribution is to be anchored. This is particularly important to the politicians, because the temporary heroin distribution will expire at the end of 2009 and all heroin users would be back on the street - untenable conditions would be inevitable. It was always emphasized that the cannabis issue was to be left aside - this was the only reason for the failure of the overall revision. But if you take a closer look at the present text, it becomes clear that it is also about cannabis. However, it is not about decriminalization, not even of consumption. On the contrary, the goal of abstinence is to be anchored for the first time in NarcA and in the very first article. Bad with this partial revision is that the term “hemp herb for narcotic production” is omitted and new hemp plants are generally considered illegal narcotics. This closes the last loophole in the law. On the positive side, THC products will be allowed as medicinal products, but only in a very restrictive way with special permits. An overview of the most interesting points can be found in the graphic on the next page.

The committee of the National Council has completed its preliminary work and consultations. On December 14, the bill will go to the National Council. The first question there is whether or not the National Council wants to accept this partial revision at all (the last revision failed precisely because the National Council no longer wanted to know anything about the project). If it does agree, it will have to fight its way through all the paragraphs and also deal with various minority motions. These mostly call for a further tightening of the law or the deletion of the four-pillar policy or the heroin levy. We can look forward to these discussions with great anticipation, since they could not even take place in 2004. The bill then goes to the committee of the Council of States. This is followed by the Council of States - here, too, a decision must be made to accept the bill and amendments can be made to the current text. If the National Council and the Council of States agree (possibly after several rounds of amendments) and the final vote is passed, the definitive text of the law is available. Now the referendum period begins - if someone takes the referendum and collects 50,000 signatures within 100 days, there will be a referendum. If the text is approved by the voters, it will be put into force and the administration can draft the clarifying regulations and put them into force. The procedure will therefore take a few more years.

Of course, this law is not satisfactory. Satisfactory, on the other hand, would be the popular initiative “Pro Jugendschutz gegen Drogenkriminalität” - if its provisions were adopted, a reasonable legal handling of THC products could take place. However, it will not come to an adoption under the given political circumstances. The fears of the population are too great and the clout of the hemp movement is simply too small.

But perhaps a counter-proposal to the initiative can be drafted. The Federal Council has refused to take such a step, but the commissions could draft such a text when they discuss the popular initiative (which will probably take place in 2007). But what, if anything, could be suitable for a majority? Such a bill would have to take seriously the fears and aversions of the population: The fear of a stoned youth, the fear of THC tourism from abroad, the disapproval of consumption in public, the contempt towards people who earn their living with THC trade. Despite all these big reservations, it seems to me that there is a majority that just really considers the private consumption of THC products to be a personal, legal matter.

Hope for a counter-proposal with a mini-solution?

A proposal with majority support could look as follows: In principle, the handling of THC products remains prohibited, unless it happens…

- in private (consumption and possession at home)

- by persons of legal age who are resident in Switzerland

- without the presence of minors

- with self-produced weed and hash (no support of the black market)

- on a small scale (e.g. less than 100 grams per year)

- by well-integrated consumers who are not dependent on social welfare and do not cause problems

- without distribution to other persons, except for joint consumption free of charge (with adult persons residing in Switzerland without special problems, etc.).

Of course, this is only a very small “solution”. But such a proposal would be the maximum that I consider to be possible for a majority in view of the prevailing conditions. Now to the concrete overview of the now presented law revision, which does not even contain such a mini-solution!

All in all, this partial revision comprises well over 100 pages of text. Almost the entire law is changed: Total revision would be more precise here. But this word probably arouses too much fear. We limit ourselves in the overview below to the articles on THC products and the penal provisions (which apply to all narcotics). The topics we are interested in are highlighted in blue, the current regulations are highlighted in yellow, and the proposed changes are highlighted in red. The deliberations in the parliament can change a lot. With a fast internet connection you can follow the ongoing discussions live on www.parlament.ch. And in the next Legalize it! we will summarize the current developments again. Members are welcome to call or email our secretary with questions about the political process. All documents can be viewed in the office.