Italian Referendum Deletes Criminal Sanctions For Drug Users

Abstract

A referendum about drug policy was held in Italy on 18 April 1993. In order to understand the terms of the drug policy, we will summarize the history of the Italian drug law (162/90) through the last five years.

Events in 1988-1990

The Socialist Party (PSI) played a crucial role in the promotion of the law (162/90). In the previous years, this party had traditionally displayed a liberal approach on the question of drug policy. At the end of October 1988, the secretary of PSI, Mr. Bettino Craxi, went to the United States and visited Mr. Rudolph Giuliani (then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and now Mayor of New York City). After his return to Italy, Mr. Craxi launched an "anti-drug" campaign.

At that time, Italian public opinion was scared by the continuous increase of heroin deaths. The PSI campaign was based on the argument that the increasing overdose rate was a consequence of the fact that drug users were not criminalized:

If it is not possible, here and now, to deter the "need" of drugs, we must at least avoid drug deaths, and therefore, outlaw drug use [emphasis added] (Avanti!, 2 June 1989).

Along with the typical approach of the "war on drugs," the sanitary issues were mixed with a strongly ideological attitude. Mr. Craxi stated:

It is not possible to distinguish between soft and hard drugs ... because . . . there is no hard drug user that didn't begin with soft drugs. Making drug use illegal is a principle [emphasis added] that doesn't allow compromise (Avanti! 2 June 1989).

Moreover, the "anti-drug" outlook was deeply entangled in a more general trend to condemn liberal values. Along with this scheme, the supposed permissive attitude toward drug use stemmed from "the culture, . . . according to which everybody could be free to do what he likes with himself" (G. Acquaviva, Gazzetta del Mezzogiorno, 3 November 1988).

Given that the new drug policy of the PSI took place in such a peculiar way, it is reasonable to infer that this sharp reversal stemmed from motivations of political strategy; launching an aggressive "anti-drug" campaign, Mr. Craxi apparently thought that he could gain popularity, and at the same time, please the powerful American ally. In addition, the campaign (in favor of a new, less "tolerant" drug law) was supported by most of the Italian media.

The Italian Drug Law

The new drug law (162/90) became effective 11 July 1990. Its main features were sanctions, an option between sanction and treatment, and "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 new law, drug use itself is defined as "illicit," but no specific penalties were imposed. Drug possession is always punishable, by either administrative or criminal sanctions.

Administrative sanctions are imposed for possession of up to the so-called average daily dose (ADD). They consist of suspension of driving license 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.

Criminal sanctions for trafficking, producing, selling, importing, and exporting of any amount and possessing amounts over the ADD of cannabis included two to six years imprisonment or six months to four years in cases of "slight offenses." Criminal sanctions for the same crimes for other drugs included eight to twenty years or one to six years in cases of "slight offenses."

Sanction/Treatment Option

As an alternative to administrative sanctions, it is possible to enter a treatment program set out by a public health service and managed by a private or public treatment agency. The law does not specify the kind of treatment.

Alternative treatment is also possible for those indicted for drug-related crimes (up to four years in jail). When the treatment is completed, the sanction is repealed. If the treatment is interrupted, the sanction is restored.

The "Average Daily Dose" (ADD)

The ADD discriminates between administrative and criminal sanctions. It is therefore the cornerstone of the law. Nevertheless, the ADD is not quantified by the law, but by the Health Ministry. The ADDs of the main illegal or controlled substances are as follows: cannabis 50 mg of THC morphine 200 mg, heroin 100 mg, codeine 200 mg, phentanyl 0.5 mg, methadone 50 mg, opium I g, cocaine 150 mg, cocaine base 20 mg, amphetamine 50 mg, methamphetamine 25 mg, and LSD 50 ug.

Events in the Years 1990-1992

After the law was enforced, the number of drug overdoses kept its upward trend until 1991. There was a decrease in 1992, but it was disputed by many scholars because it seemed to depend on a change in the criteria of classification. Moreover, the amount of drug users increased, the jails were full of drug addicts or users, and tribunals were jammed with drug possession trials. In fact, the low level of the ADD meant that most cases of possession for personal use had to be criminalized. This happened paradoxically mainly for cannabis users, given that possession of only one-half gram of hashish (about three joints) was equated to dealing.

The principle of ADD was harshly criticized by scientific, legal, and law enforcement institutions. Some police officers discretionarily increased the level of ADD in order to get rid of a multitude of irrelevant criminal cases. The law lost favor with most public opinion, as long as it was clear it did not bring any positive change. The law was also criticized by Mr. N. Amato, president of the Italian penitentiary system, by most judges, by V. Agnoletto, president of AIDS Italian League, and by most of the therapeutic community managers. At the end of 1992, Mr. Craxi and most of the Socialist political leaders were indicted for corruption and resigned.

Events in 1993

In January 1993, a survey done by "Demoskopea" tested Italian opinion about drug legalization. The survey proposed the following scenarios:

• Full drug legalization - all substances freely available.
• Cannabis available at tobacco shops; cocaine and heroin available under medical prescription.
• Cannabis available at tobacco shops; cocaine available under medical prescription; heroin available under strict medical control in public medical institutions.
• No drugs available.

The first scenario was approved by 5% of the respondents; the second scenario by 10%; the third by 36%. The figures were higher (about +5%) by younger and more cultured people. Altogether 51 % approved a radical change in the drug policy, including full cannabis legalization. These survey results displayed a sharp shift in Italian public opinion about drug policy.

Another meaningful event in 1993 was the case of Vincenzo Muccioli, manager of the San Patrignano Therapeutic Community. This community (now with as much as 2,000 inmates) is considered the largest in Europe; it is ruled with strict, repressive principles based on a typical "war on drugs" ideology. Mr. Muccioli never allowed his facility to be inspected by public health institutions and never revealed figures about its real function. Nevertheless, Mr. Muccioli has been supported by most politicians and mass media, and is considered a sort of myth by most of the public.

In 1984, Mr. Muccioli had been indicted for putting some addicts in chains; he was finally acquitted, under pressure from politicians and the public. In the late 1980s, Mr. Muccioli was continuously consulted by Italian politicians on the elaboration of the drug law. In fact, the whole philosophy of the law (162/90) was based on the assumption that a compulsory resort to a therapeutic community was the only answer to the problem of drug addiction. The apparent success of Mr. Muccioli was considered the unquestionable proof of this assumption.

In April 1989, the corpse of Mr. Roberto Maranzana, inmate at San Patrignano, was found in a garbage disposal near Naples (600 kin south of the community); he was apparently killed, with his death attributed to a drug market dispute. In March 1993, some former inmates of the community confessed that Mr. Maranzana had been killed in a "punishment" section of the community by another inmate, committed as a guard. The victim had been tortured and beaten to death for two days; his corpse was carried away with a community-owned car. Mr. Muccioli initially pretended ignorance of the fact, then later admitted he knew about the crime. He explained that he did not inform the police because he did not want to alarm the other inmates. It was hard to explain, though, how a car with a corpse could leave the community, which is tightly guarded night and day. Finally, Mr. Muccioli stated that the killers reported Mr. Maranzana had run away and he (Muccioli) gave them the car to go after Mr. Maranzana. Moreover, the medical examiner stated that Mr. Maranzana had been injecting heroin while he was in the community. The Muccioli scandal boomed one month before the referendum; it triggered a debate about the real function of therapeutic communities.

The Referendum

The referendum about Law 162/90 was proposed by the Coordinamento Radicale Antiproibizionista (CORA) and was supported by Partito Radicale, Rete, PDS (former Communist Party), Rifondazione Comunista, and the Green Party. On the opposite side, the main parties were Christian Democrats and extreme right MSI. The referendum campaign had low media coverage due to the fact that seven other referendums, some of which had higher political priority, took place on the same day.

The campaign was summed up in the slogan -"no more criminal sanction for drug addicts." (Even sympathetic observers usually ignore that not only addicts, but all drug users - in Italy more than two million - are the potential target of criminalization.) On the other side, the opponents claimed that if the referendum were approved, drugs would be available for everyone.

According to the Italian Constitution, the referendum can abolish some or parts of a single law. If the law is abolished, it should be remade by the parliament. If a law is partially deleted, it is enforced according to the new text.

Relating to Law 162/90, the referendum asked Italians to indicate "yes" or "no" to the following changes:

• To excise the concept of "illegal drug use" (general background of the law, although not related to specific sanctions).
• To excise any reference to "average daily dose."
• To excise any sanction and control over medical behaviors and the norms about methadone prescription.

The practical results of these changes would produce the following: Excising the concept of illegal drug use would no longer encourage policemen to treat drug users as criminals. Excising reference to the average daily dose would differentiate between drug possession and drug dealing by judicial evidence, not quantitative criteria; although still punishable by administrative sanction, possession of any amount of a drug for personal use would no longer be a criminal offense. Excising any sanction over medical behaviors would allow general practitioners to treat drug addicts without any compulsion to report them to the health authority. Moreover, methadone could be prescribed according to individual need, as well as for maintenance.

The referendum won 55.3 % to 44.7 %. The number of electors who approved the changes in the law was higher than the number of voters of the parties that officially supported it. This could be interpreted to mean that the "war on drugs" in Italy is no longer a winning political issue.

About the author:

Giancarlo Arnao, M.D., has been actively involved in drug policy research since 1973. Dr. Arnao is president of Coordinamento Radicale Antiproibizionista (CORA), co-founder of the International Prohibitionist League, and a member of the European Movement for the Normalization of Drug Policy. Send reprint requests to Giancarlo Arnao, M.D., Via G. Sacchi, 16, 1-00153 Rome, Italy.