8/3/2019 Dezincriminarea Art 4 Din 143 2000 Traian Dima

1/3

Traian Dim a_231_LESIJ NR. XVI, VOL. 1/2009

TOWARDS A DES-INCRIMINATION OF DRUG POSSESSION

FOR OWN USE IN ROMANIA

Traian DIMA_AbstractIn 2000, Law no. 143 for prevention and fight against drug use and illegal drug trafficking entered into forcein Romania. This law represented an operative instrument to fight against the drug mafia and generallyagainst organized crime in the field of the Romanian judicial organisations.Pursuant to the provisions of Law 143(4)/2000, the deed of illicit drug possession for own use has firstly been

incriminated, as a reaction of the Romanian society against illicit use of drugs dramatically increasing since1990. According to the statistic data released by the National Anti-Drug Agency, illicit drug use has beenincreasing after 2000 although such incrimination was already introduced in the criminal law.Almost eight years after the prohibition of drug possession for own use that has not produced any effects inreducing the number of drug users, the question of changing the criminal philosophy of the Romanianlegislator, who leads an extremely harsh repressive politics in the field, may be raised. One proposes in thisrespect, to remove the drug possession for own use from the illicit criminal sphere and to solve such cases byimposing certain administrative sanctions altogether with some medical procedures/medical care services,the sole able to solve complex drug addiction related problems.Taking into account the reduced social danger of drug possession for own use, as well as for giving higherefficiency to medical standards in the field, with a more substantial preventing effect, the Romanian legislatorneeds to review its criminal politics of illicit drug use, by re-evaluating the gravity and dangerous effects ofdrugs possess for own use by its des-incrimination.Key words:drugs, consumption, possession, trafficking, des-incriminationIntroduction

Theexisting law in Romania priorto theentranceinto force ofthecurrent legislationconsideredtheillicitdrugself-administrationto be a minor offence.Thanksto theuse andillicit

drugtrafficking boom / increasein ourcountry since 1990, pursuantto thesocio-economic andpolitical changesinthe Romaniansociety structure andthe birth ofthe rule of law, theunlawfuldrug possession for ownuse was raisedto the rank ofcriminal offence1 throughthe provisions ofLaw no. 143/2000 for prevention and fight againstdruguse andillicitdrugtrafficking2.Therefore, thesociety has respondedthroughoutthecriminal law againstthedanger ofunlawful drug possession for ownuse, a very dangerousgrowing phenomenon for boththe younggeneration andtheentiresociety. In orderto fightillicitdruguse, thecriminal legislator adoptedonthedate Law no. 143/2000 wasdrawnup, the repressivethesisnot paying attentionenoughto

theharmonization ofthecriminal legislation withthe medical standards, thesoleinchargeto solvethedrug addiction related problems, consideringthat prohibition ofdruguse by incriminatingthe____________________________________________________________ Professor Ph.D., Law Faculty, NicolaeTitulescu University, Bucharest (e-mail:traian.dima@univnt.ro).1 Therefore, art. 4 of Law no. 143/2000 provides as follows: (1) Theunlawful cultivation, production, manufacture,experimentation, extraction, preparation, transformation, purchase or possession ofdangerousdrugs for ownuseispunished withimprisonment of 6 monthsto 2 years or fine; (2) Ifthedeeds providedin paragraph (1) concernhigh-riskdrugsthe punishmentisimprisonment of 2 yearsto five years.2 Law no. 143/2000 forthe prevention and fight againstdruguse andillegal drugtrafficking amended by Law no.522/2004 has been publishedinthe Official Gazette of Romania, Part I no. 362 of 03/08/2000;232 Lex ET Scientia. Juridical Series_LESIJ NR. XVI, VOL. 1/2009

illegal drug possession for ownuseundercriminal sanctions, couldstop theincreasingdrug abusein Romania.Itseemsthat, the Romanian legislator found more accessibletheuse ofcriminal law meansin preventingillicitdrugusethanthe medical strategiesinthe field, consideringthat oursanitary

system afterthe 1990s, was lackinginthenecessary financial funds and qualified medical stuffableto solvetheincreasing problems relatedto the widespreaddrug addictionin Romania.

Itis lesstruethatthecriminal law isusedto persuadethedrugusersto leavetheircommonworld.3 in othercountries doctrine as well.Evenifthe Romanian legislatorused andstill usesthecriminal law instruments forfightingillicitdruguse, lifehasshownusthat after Law no 143/2000 enteredinto forcethisphenomenon failedto diminish, buthasincreased accordingto thestatistics released by theNational Anti-Drug Agency.Although almosteight years passedsincetheenteringinto force of Law no. 143/2000,several times amended, the Romanian legislatorstill makesuse ofthesamecriminal sentencephilosophy oftheconsumersunlawfully possessingdrugs for ownuse.The Romanian legislatorslack of responseinthe matter, allowsusto concludethatitstill preservesthesameharsh politicsinpreventing and fightingthe abusivedrugconsumptionsimilarto thoseusedin 2000 that, accordingto usno longer actsinthe benefit of boththeindividual andthesociety.Thisisexactly the problem we wantto debateupon, to observe and bring arguments onthe

8/3/2019 Dezincriminarea Art 4 Din 143 2000 Traian Dima

2/3

legislators faultincarrying outsanctions forillicitdrug possession for ownuse.Asstatedinthe Europeanspecialized literature, thedruguse as attitude of a natural personagainsttheuse of a certainsubstanceundernational control liesinthe ethical, medical andcriminalsphere.4 Morally, Romaniancitizensdisagree withthedruguse, consideringitto beharmful for bothindividual andsociety. Eventthechurchdisagrees withdruguseconsideringit aCardinal Sin5.Medically speaking, the abusivedruguseis beyond question a mental healthissuethatcanbringinto discussionthe responsibility andguiltiness ofsuchsubstancesconsumer, whenhecommitsdeeds punishable by thecriminal law.Since alcohol andtobacco consumptionisno lessdangerous forindividual andsociety than

drugconsumption, one wonders which aretheunits of measurementsused by thecriminallegislator whendecidingthatthesimpledrug possession for ownuseshould beheld forcriminaloffence?Throughthisincrimination, the legislatortransformedtheindividual from a simpleoccasional drugconsumerinto an offender, expelledthedrug addicted from society and madehimfacethe publicdisdain.Therefore, we may ask ourselves whetheritis legal forthe Stateto intervene by force andactually conduct a publiccontrol overtheindividuals private life forits owngood, onthegroundsthatthesociety refusesits membersself-destruction by drugconsumption.Itsno wonderthattheincrimination oftheunlawful drug possessionin Law no. 143/2000madein Romania as well asin othercountries, the object ofunconstitutionality exception. Inarguingtheunconstitutionality exception, the accusedconsumersustained, throughitssolicitor,thatthe provisions of art. 4 of Law no. 143/2000, punishing by imprisonmentthe purchase ordrug___________________________________________________________3 Yves Cartuyveles, Loi pnale, usagededrogueset politique, articleinthe paper "Lusage pnal desdrogues",editionDe Boeck & Larcier, Bruxelles, 2003, pp. 41-56.4 Idem, op. cit;5 Pope Benedict XVI considersdrugs and pedophilia unforgivablesins, irrespective of a personstolerance.The

Catholic Church amendedthe already known list oftheseven mortal sins, by adding anothersevensins.The list ofthe mortal sins was publishedinthe Vaticans official newspaper Lobservatore Romano, on March 2007.Accordingto such list, thedruguseis labeled as a mortal sin (source: Libertatea no. 5690 of 11 March 2008);Traian Dim a_233_LESIJ NR. XVI, VOL. 1/2009

possession of ownuse breach an aspect of private life, i.e.that ofdisposing ofhimself, thereforeitinfringesthe provisions of art. 26 (paragraph 2) ofthe Constitution, concerningtheintimate,family and private life.6Judgingthisunconstitutionality exception, the Romanian Constitutional Courtdecidedthatthe provisions of art 4 of Law no. 143/2000 arecompletely in accordance withthe provisions ofarticle 8, paragraph 2 ofthe Convention forthe Protection of Human Rights and FundamentalLiberties, sincetheincrimination ofdrug possession for ownuseis provided by law, representinga necessary measurein a democraticsociety for morality andhealth protection, thus being amechanism of preventingcriminal offencescapableto endangerthe publicsecurity.7In our opinion, consideringthedrug possession for ownuse a criminal offence, theRomanian legislator ofthe 2000s adoptedthethesis of penal repression ofdrugusersthatdoesnotspeakinthe European ornational medical standards favourthatgovernthedrug addictionrelated problems, leavingthus behind fairsolving ofthis matter.By hisgoodwill, thecriminal legislator ofthe 2000s also offeredthecriminal investigatingdepartmentsthechanceto duly investigatethe offenderdruguser, providingin art. 16 of Law no.143/ 2000 a clause ofincrimination reduction. Such a provisioniscompletely (null and) void.8 Asunderlinedinthe Europeannon-fiction books thechange ofthedrugusers behaviour areprehensible oneto anintelligent oneintheservice of law isthe result of a technique applied bythe legislator.9

Thistechniqueused by the legislatorhas beencriticisedinthe Romaniandoctrine as well,becausecreatingthisclause of punishment reductionhe leaves behindthe objective reality.10

Which would bethe bestsocial and legal answersinsolvingthe problems raised by theincrimination ofdrug possession for ownuse and which would bethesocietys best answer overthedrug abuse?The answerto this questionhas been largely debatedupon by thesupporters ofdifferentsystemsin forceintheentire world. Fourstrategies ofdrug abusecontrol areknown, asit follows:the prohibitionsystem, the risks reducingsystem, thedes-incriminatingsystem andthecontrolleddrugsystem.11 Accordingto ourcriminal law, onecan observethatthe Romanian legislatoradoptedthe prohibitory system, forbiddingundercriminal sanctionsthedrug possession for ownuse. Suchsystem adopted by the Romanian legislatorenjoysthe advantage ofethics, butit also hasa series ofnegativeeffects asunderlinedinthedoctrine, that followsthesystem. 12One may thinkthatthe Romanian legislatordidnotkeep in mindthecategories ofdrugusersexistinginsociety whenincriminatingunlawful drug possession for ownuse. Medically,___________________________________________________________

8/3/2019 Dezincriminarea Art 4 Din 143 2000 Traian Dima

3/3

6 Article 26 ofthe Romanian Constitution providesthe following: (1) The public authoritiesshall respect and protecttheintimate, family and private life. (2) Any natural personhasthe rightto freely dispose ofhimselfunless by thisheinfringes onthe rights and freedoms of others, on public order or morals.7 Decision ofthe Constitutional Courtno. 334 of 28/06/2005 publishedinthe Official Gazette of Romania, Part Ino. 651 of 22/07/2005.8 Article 16 of Law no. 143/2000 provides:The person who hascommitted one ofthecriminal offences providedby articles 2-10, anddenounces and facilitates other persons identification andcriminal forinvolvementindrugsoffences may be reducedto halfits punishment as provided by law.9 Marie SophieDevresse Construire lusager:un passage oblig de la destion pnaledesdrogues, articleinthepaper "Lusage pnal desdrogues", editionDe Boeck & Larcier, Bruxelles, 2003, pages 141-148

10 For moredetails referto T.Dima, A. Paun, the article Un alt modde abordare a cauzeide reducere a pedepseimprevazutede art. 16 din Legea nr. 143/2000 privind prevenirea sicombaterea traficuluisiconsumuluiilicitdedroguriin "Dreptul" no. 2/2008, pp. 188-191.11 For moredetails feel freeto readthe analyses ofthesesystems broadly done by professor Francis Caballero andYann Bisiouinthe paper Droitde la drogue, 2ndedition, published by Dalloz, Paris, 2000, pp. 95-164.12 Idem, op. cit.234 Lex ET Scientia. Juridical Series_LESIJ NR. XVI, VOL. 1/2009thereis a cleardistinction betweenthe occasional druguser, thecommondruguser, thedrugaddicted, thesickuser andthe problem user, in other wordsthe abusivedruguser. 13 Legally wealso distinguishtwo mainkind ofdrugusers, who conducttwo different activities.Therefore, the firstcategory includestheconsumers who unlawfully possessdrugs fortheirownuse whereasthesecondcategory includestheconsumers who unlawfully possessdrugs fortheir ownuse butconductillegal trafficking activities withsuchsubstancesin orderto gain moneyto further purchasedrugs fortheir ownconsumption.Romanian legislationshows a gap with respectto thesetwo categories ofdrugusersinthatthereisno elucidating provisionto explaintheexact limits a certain quantity ofdrug must be

included within, in orderedto beclassified asunlawfully possesseddrug for ownuse orunlawfullypossesseddrug for both ownuse andillicittrafficking.De lege ferenda, such provisionisneeded.If we referto thesetwo categories ofusers, one may observethatthe occasional orcommonuserdeed of possessingillicitdrugs for ownuse, represents a lessdangeroussocial threat forsociety incomparisonto thoseusers who possessdrugs for both ownuse andtrafficking withsuchsubstances.Thedeed oftheconsumer who possessesdrugs forits ownuse butconductstraffickingactivities withthe possesseddrugs as well, appearsto be a serious anddangerousthreatto society,becausehe maintainstheillicituse anddrugtraffickinginsociety by selling parts ofthe possesseddrugto otherdrugconsumers, what representsthe authoritiestargetin preventing and fightingsuchincidences. Itis obviousthatthe legislatorshouldhavetakeninto accountthesocial threatinaccordance withthedeedsdeployed by thetwo ofconsumers, andshouldhave made a distinctionab initio in whatconcernsthesanctions applicableto thetwo categories ofconsumers buthe failsto do so.Therefore, in our opinion, thedeed ofdrug possession for ownuseshould bedesincriminatedin Romania as well, carrying out administrativesanctionsinstead ofthecriminalones, associated by case with medical careservicesincase ofdrug addiction, because, a drugaddictedshall be viewed as a sick person andnot betransformedinto an offender, followingthelaws and regulations applicablein other memberstates ofthe European Union.Conclusions

Asunderlinedin literature, thecriminal sanction ofthedruguserstransformsthem intovictims ofthecriminal law, althoughintheircase, thesanitary ideal should win.Therefore, the legislatorshould review its politics relatedto drug possession for ownuse,andshoulddes-incriminateit, in Romania as well.

____________________________________________________________

13 See Marie SophieDevresse, citat. Supra 9.