Ecstasy (MDMA) Rustavi
Ecstasy (MDMA) Rustavi______________
Наши контакты (Telegram):
>>>НАПИСАТЬ ОПЕРАТОРУ В ТЕЛЕГРАМ (ЖМИ СЮДА)<<<
_______________
ВНИМАНИЕ !!! ВАЖНО !!!
В Телеграм переходить только по ССЫЛКЕ что ВЫШЕ, в поиске НАС НЕТ там только фейки !!!
Чтобы телеграм открылся он у вас должен быть установлен!
_______________
Rappers whose arrest sparked review of drug policy released on bail
Help us continue to fight human rights abuses. Please give now to support our work. Download the full report in English. In February , a year-old musician and DJ, Kote Japaridze and two of his friends acquired two grams of MDMA, a recreational synthetic drug that acts as a stimulant and hallucinogen, producing distortions in time and perception. Police arrested Japaridze, together with one of the two friends, the same afternoon, before they could consume the drug. Police jailed him and charged him with possession of a particularly large quantity of drugs, punishable by eight to 20 years in prison. After six months in prison, Japaridze was released under a presidential pardon. But to this day he continues to face the consequences of his criminal record. The fine was exorbitant for his family of three. They had to get a loan, which Japaridze is still paying off. I have not committed a dangerous or violent crime and I had no prior criminal record. The drugs I bought were for personal use, and yet I am paying dearly for it. Police arrested year-old Vano Machavariani in , a day before his wedding. In fact, Machavariani was on his way to his own bachelor party when police stopped him and seized two doses of the hallucinogenic drug LSD, 0. The seized amount was qualified as particularly large, and a court sentenced Machavariani to nine-and-a-half years in prison. His engagement fell apart and Machavariani spent five years in prison before he was released by presidential pardon in October Machavariani possessed a small quantity of drugs for personal use, but in Georgia, it is not unusual for people like Machavariani to be punished by grave criminal penalties. In efforts to fight the use and sale of illicit drugs, Georgian authorities aggressively pursue drug prosecutions, which often lead to long sentences and prohibitive fines against individuals who have committed no harm to anyone, but who simply acquired small amounts of drugs for personal recreational use. Although there is no official data, surveys in Georgia by experts show a growing number of injection drug users. Although the Georgian government has partially liberalized its drug policies since , they remain harsh. The criminal justice system continues to treat most drug consumption or possession for personal use as a criminal felony, with severe consequences. This report describes the human costs of these policies. The report is based on over 85 in-depth interviews with individuals who have been prosecuted for drug-related crimes, their lawyers and family members, as well as social workers, community organization leaders, government officials, and various advocacy groups and nongovernmental organizations from May to June In Georgia, first-time illegal drug consumption or possession of a small quantity of drugs for personal use is a misdemeanor offense. A repeated offense within a year of the first results in criminal liability. However, for approximately three-quarters of substances classified as illicit drugs, including substances commonly used in Georgia, such as amphetamine, methamphetamine, and desomorphine, Georgian law does not establish a threshold for small quantities, which means that possession of even particles of those substances, including the residue of such substances in paraphernalia, automatically qualifies as a large amount, triggering criminal liability and a mandatory minimum five-year prison sentence. In some circumstances, drug possession for personal consumption can carry a longer prison sentence than murder from seven to 15 years , or rape six to eight years. Every year, police randomly detain thousands of people for coerced drug testing. If the person refuses to undergo the test, police can detain them for up to 12 hours in a forensics lab. Georgian law does not provide people held for testing the same rights as detainees, such as the right to make a phone call, even though they are in police detention. This leaves them vulnerable to ill-treatment by police. People whose drug use is problematic and former drug offenders are especially vulnerable to serial, coerced drug testing. Georgian law imposes long, mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related offenses, and there is a nearly percent conviction rate for these offenses. As a result, a person charged with a drug-related offense often feels there is no other choice than to agree to a plea deal to avoid long prison terms. Plea bargaining in drug-related offenses often leads not only to prison sentences but also to prohibitive fines, which can financially devastate the accused and his or her family. Drug felony convictions also lead to deprivation of the right to operate motor vehicles and to work in certain professions for periods ranging to from three to 20 years after release from prison. Such restrictions deprive many of their livelihoods and contribute to further stigmatization and isolation of people who use drugs in Georgia. On the contrary, according to some estimates, the number of people dependent on drugs and at high risk of harm due to drug use grew from 40, in to 52, in Legislative amendments reduced criminal penalties for drug possession and consumption. The government adopted a National Strategy and Action Plan to fight drug addiction, which emphasized the importance of public health, prevention of drug use, harm reduction programs, and overcoming stigma and discrimination against drug users. However, while the strategy and its action plan envisage many significant steps, little of it has been implemented. Since , there have been further, significant changes in law enforcement policy and practices towards liberalization. Most were prompted by lawsuits filed with the constitutional court. In response to a constitutional court decision declaring imprisonment for marijuana possession unconstitutional, parliament amended legislation in July to remove imprisonment as a penalty for up to 70 grams of cannabis possession. The amended law retained criminal liability for possession of over five grams of cannabis. The decision prompted other constitutional complaints that challenged current criminal drug policies, particularly regarding recreational drug use. According to the court, unless this action creates any relevant risk or danger to another person, it should not be considered a crime. Building on this decision, in July , the constitutional court issued another ruling, abolishing all administrative sanctions for marijuana consumption, but it did not deliberate on the issues of purchase or possession of marijuana, which are regulated under the criminal code. In June , several members of parliament introduced a comprehensive draft law that would decriminalize personal drug use. The draft law is grounded in a health-oriented approach that explicitly states that people with problematic drug use need support, not incarceration and stigmatization. The draft stalled in parliament after just one committee hearing, and the government appears to have halted any plans for further substantial drug policy reform. Laws criminalizing drug use are inconsistent with respect for human autonomy and the right to privacy and contravene the human rights principle of proportionality in punishment. In practice, criminalizing drug use interferes with the right to health of those who use drugs. The harms experienced by people who use drugs, and by their families and broader communities, as a result of the enforcement of these laws may constitute additional, separate human rights violations. Criminalization has yielded few, if any, benefits. Criminalizing drugs is not an effective public safety policy. Human Rights Watch is aware of no empirical evidence that low-level drug possession defendants would otherwise go on to commit violent crimes. And states have other tools at their disposal to address any harmful behaviors that may accompany drug use. Criminalization is also a counterproductive public health strategy. In fact, rates of drug use have been increasing over the past decade, despite widespread criminalization. For people who struggle with drug dependence, criminalization often means cycling in and out of jail or prison, with little to no access to voluntary treatment. Criminalization undermines the right to health, as fear of law enforcement can drive people who use drugs underground, deterring them from accessing health services and emergency medicine and leading to illness and sometimes fatal overdose. It is time for Georgia to rethink the criminalization paradigm. Although the amount cannot be quantified, the enormous resources spent in order to identify, arrest, prosecute, sentence, incarcerate, and supervise people whose only offense has been possession of drugs is hardly money well spent, and it has caused more harm than good. Ending criminalization of simple drug possession does not mean turning a blind eye to the harm that drug dependence can cause in the lives of those who use, and of their families. On the contrary, it requires a more direct focus on effective measures to prevent problematic drug use, reduce the harms associated with it, and support those who struggle with dependence. Ultimately, the criminal law does not achieve these important ends, and causes additional harm and loss instead. It is time for Georgia to rethink its approach to drug use. As a matter of policy, Human Rights Watch opposes the criminalization of the personal use of drugs and the possession of drugs for personal use. To deter, prevent, and remedy the harmful use of drugs, Human Rights Watch calls on governments, including the Georgian government, to rely on nonpenal regulatory and public health approaches that do not violate human rights. Human Rights Watch calls on the Georgian authorities to end the criminalization of personal use of drugs and possession of drugs for personal use. Decriminalization of drug use and possession for personal use means removing all criminal sanctions for use and possession. This is not a call for legalization, as drug consumption and possession for personal use could remain an administrative offense that trigger administrative penalties, such as fines. Instead, greater focus should be placed on effective public health measures to prevent and address drug dependency and reduce the harms associated with it. The report is based on more than 87 in-depth interviews, review of relevant laws, bylaws, and ministerial regulations, strategy documents and their action plans, and information published on official state websites, as well as on data that government agencies provided to Human Rights Watch in response to our requests. All individuals interviewed for this report about their experiences provided informed consent, and no incentive or remuneration was offered to interviewees. The interviews were conducted individually and in private to the degree possible. Interviews with six men and women convicted on drug charges serving their sentences in prisons in Rustavi, Batumi, and Geguti prisons were conducted via telephone conversation. Most in-person interviews 38 were conducted in the capital, Tbilisi, from September to May Additional interviews were held in December and January We interviewed five to 10 individuals in each city. To protect the privacy and security of these interviewees, some of whom remain in custody, we decided to use pseudonyms in all cases, unless we were granted explicit consent to use their names or if the information was already public. In addition, we conducted in-person interviews with social workers who provide drug users with different types of harm reduction and medical services, lawyers with extensive experience of defending accused drug offenders, and various community organization leaders. When lawyers introduced us to their clients or provided information about the cases they litigated, we also tried to review indictments and verdicts. In addition, with regard to some cases, we reviewed case materials, including court rulings, investigations and detention reports. Human Rights Watch and EMC submitted a series of data and information requests to a number of public agencies, regarding arrests, prosecutions, and the prison population for drug offenses. We requested the following:. Most state agencies provided the requested information. However, some agencies replied that they do not gather the kinds of data we requested. For example, the Supreme Court of Georgia does not keep aggregate data on the fines imposed on people convicted for drug-related administrative and criminal offenses. Therefore, we individually wrote to 34 city and district courts in Georgia, requesting the same information. Those two courts responded that they do not gather such data. It is important to note that the Tbilisi City Court is by far the largest court in Georgia. We also reviewed decrees regulating forced drug testing procedures, and rules applicable to medical responses in cases of drug overdose and other matters. We reviewed laws and normative acts that were in force starting from through the present, through rounds of amendments. It also implies eradicating the subsequent legal outcomes, such as criminal records and civil rights restrictions. The Georgian government gathers only limited data on drug use. Throughout the past 10 years, various experts and nongovernmental organizations have carried out more in-depth surveys on drug use. Click to expand Image. However, the same survey showed that the use of drugs other than marijuana was higher in Georgia. In particular, the consumption of new psychoactive substances and inhalants among Georgian 15 and year-olds is higher than the European average; consumption of heroin and Ecstasy MDMA among this age group is about twice as high in Georgia than in Europe on average. Georgian government agencies do not gather data on substance overdose. In , the network documented 50 overdose deaths of a total of overdose cases, and in , 12 deaths of a total overdose cases. The proportion of prison inmates who are serving sentences for drug-related crimes in Georgia is believed to be high but has been decreasing in recent years. Georgia provided Council of Europe CoE data showing that in , more than 25 percent of all inmates in Georgia 2, of 10, were serving their sentences on drug-related crimes. The same letter said that there were convicts on suspended sentences for drug consumption and 3, for possession or purchase. The fight against illicit drugs intensified in , when then-President Mikheil Saakashvili declared fighting against organized crime one of his priorities. In , parliament adopted new anti-drug-related legislation that set out higher financial penalties and longer prison sentences for drug offenses, reduced judicial discretion in drug sentencing, and established additional penalties for drug offenders. Criminal penalties became more severe. The move made the offense a particularly grave crime, which meant that the offender would retain a criminal record for eight years after serving the sentence, instead of six years for grave crimes. Other amendments adopted in and abolished conditional sentencing for grave and particularly grave crimes and stripped judges of their discretion, in all criminal cases, including drug offenses, to issue more lenient penalties than those prescribed by law. Also, in , parliament adopted an anti-drug law that deprived people convicted of drug offenses of the right to drive a vehicle, practice law or medicine, occupy public office, or work in an educational institution. A person convicted for drug consumption would lose these rights for three years, while a drug possession conviction would lead to deprivation of these rights for five years. Repeated drug offenses would strip these rights for 10 years. According to the law, judges have no discretion to adjust these additional penalties, based on their own assessment of the circumstances. In , the ministers of internal affairs and health issued a joint order defining procedures for forced drug testing. In March , narcological centers, where the mandatory drug tests were conducted, were transferred from the jurisdiction of the state forensic medical bureau to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. For example, in , a former Ministry of Justice official said during a television debate show that the policy increased the age of drug users, as fewer young people started using drugs as compared to previous years, and led to a reduction in overall availability of illicit drugs and a dramatic increase in their price, although it is unclear what scientific evidence the ministry gathered to back this claim. The policy did not, however, lead to a decrease in drug use. On the contrary, the number of problematic drug users grew. From to , according to one estimate, the number of injecting drug users grew from 40, to 49,, \\\\\\\\\[30\\\\\\\\\] and according to another estimate it surpassed 52, in By , injected Subutex became dramatically more prevalent, and polysubstance concurrent use of two or more substances use became widespread. The majority leader in the Georgian Parliament, Archil Talakvadze, told Human Rights Watch that he believes a drug policy based solely on a law enforcement approach is harmful to society:. The new drug laws \\\\\\\\\[36\\\\\\\\\] contributed to a dramatic rise in the number of men and women serving prison time for drug offenses, and an increase in the fines paid for drug-related offenses. People serving prison sentences on drug consumption or possession charges were released. See more on the National Strategy in section 3. After the strategy was approved, parliament adopted important legislative amendments that reduced the severity of penalties for drug offenses. Sale or distribution of drugs was separated from possession for personal use, with a penalty of deprivation of liberty from six to 11 years. The authorities also softened the sentence for possession in large quantities, making it five to eight years, as opposed to seven to 14 years. In August , as part of the National Strategy implementation process, the Ministry of Health amended a December decree that had required medical emergency workers to inform law enforcement officials when they treated people for drug overdose. Fear of imminent prosecution had driven drug users suffering from overdose from calling an ambulance, putting them at significant risk of death. In , parliament adopted a Law on New Psychoactive Substances, which made it a criminal felony to illegally manufacture, produce, purchase, possess, transport, or transfer psychoactive substances listed in the law. The penalty for this is a maximum five-year prison sentence. This report does not provide a comprehensive overview of drug treatment and rehabilitation programs, nor does it assess the quality of these programs. It is still important to note that the state offers, free of charge, opioid substitution with Methadone or Suboxone and short-term detoxification and rehabilitation. Since , the government has significantly increased financial allocations for these programs. Georgian authorities took further steps to make these two rehabilitation programs available for larger numbers of drug users. In , the authorities abolished the limit on the number of patients who could simultaneously benefit from the Methadone replacement program during a given period. Drug users told us that one of the barriers to seeking Methadone replacement therapy was the risk of their drug addiction becoming known to others. It is impossible to go there and avoid the entire city knowing that you are involved in the methadone program. We all know the consequences: a drug user cannot work in the public sector. As for the private sector, they do not want to have addicted employees either. The government has not yet developed a program to prevent the use of psychotropic substances, nor does it offer long-term psychosocial rehabilitation programs for people who are addicted to drugs. Prison is the only penalty for the possession, manufacture, production, purchase, transportation, transfer, or sale of drugs in more than small amounts. The Framework Law defines small, large, or particularly large amounts of more than narcotic and 67 psychotropic substances. Possession of illegal drugs in any amount exceeding small quantities, as defined in the Framework Law, is considered a serious offense, even if committed for the first time. In these cases, even the smallest particles of substances commonly used in Georgia, for example, amphetamine, methamphetamine, and desomorphine, are considered large amounts, and more than one gram is a particularly large amount. See more about undefined dosages leading to disproportionate penalties in section 2. As noted above, the Law on New Psychoactive Substances criminalizes their illegal manufacture, production, purchase, possession, transportation, or transfer. Each year, Georgian law enforcement officials detain thousands of people on the streets to conduct forced drug testing. A positive drug test result often serves as the sole basis for administrative or criminal charges for drug consumption. The procedures for the drug testing were initially set out in a joint order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Affairs. These broad grounds leave ample room for police to detain people arbitrarily, and data on negative test results, described below, support this notion. He argued that the practice amounted to deprivation of liberty on arbitrary grounds without the safeguards afforded to similar detainees in criminal investigations. According to the Ministry of Interior, from to , police tested , individuals for drug consumption. If each test was conducted on a different person, the total number would amount to more than 5 percent of the entire population of Georgia. In other words, over , individuals were forced to take a drug test even though they were not intoxicated. There are 17 forensic drug testing labs in Georgia. In , the ministry spent GEL To conduct a mandatory drug test, police stop people and compel them to go to a forensics lab, in some cases after bringing them first to a police station. Refusal to comply with the order to go to the forensics lab can result in administrative liability and a maximum day jail sentence. Human Rights Watch interviewed over 50 individuals who had been transferred to forensics labs for drug testing. Almost all described how, when in police custody at the forensics lab, police did not afford them basic rights to which detainees should be entitled. The police did not explain to them any of their due process rights, such as the right to a lawyer or to notify a family member of their detention. In some cases Human Rights Watch documented, police would not allow people detained for drug testing to use the restroom when they refused to give urine samples; in a few cases police resorted to slaps and other measures to coerce the person to provide a sample, and in others they were not allowed to make a phone call, or exercise other fundamental rights afforded to a detainee in other circumstances. In a number of cases, police used the testing process to pressure detainees to become informants. The forensics labs that carry out mandatory drug tests are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Interior and are not equipped for detaining people. Nika Pantsulaia is a year-old resident of the western Georgian city of Zugdidi. He also acknowledges that he is a drug user. Pantsulaia recalled several instances in when police stopped him on the street and detained him for drug testing. In one instance, after Pantsulaia refused to provide a urine sample, police held him for 12 hours, did not allow him to use the restroom, released him, and five minutes later took him back to the lab and held him for another 12 hours. Pantsulaia tested positive for drug consumption, and police launched criminal charges against him, as this was the second time he tested positive within a year. Forty-two-year-old Giorgi Kapanadze, who lives in the western Georgian town of Ozurgeti, has been substance dependent for 20 years. The first incident happened in March , when police stopped him on his way to visit his brother, who was hospitalized in the city of Mtskheta, about 15 kilometers west of Tbilisi. Kapanadze refused to provide a urine sample and managed to call his lawyer, who helped secure his release. Local police took Kapanadze to the Batumi drug testing facility, where police held him for 18 hours and allegedly subjected him to pressure and ill-treatment:. My friend and I were detained and first brought to the Batumi police station. My friend got scared and gave a sample right away. It took them much longer to break me. They kept me in the police station for 18 hours. I could not call anyone, nor was I allowed to contact my lawyer or use the bathroom. I was subjected to threats this entire period. Finally, I was coming to the point that I was banging my head against the wall and thinking of suicide. I have never in my life seen policemen being so happy and proud as when I agreed to \\\\\\\\\[give a sample\\\\\\\\\]. Kapanadze tested positive. In one case documented by Human Rights Watch, a man died shortly after being released from forced detention drug testing, during which police allegedly gave him diuretic pills to force a urine sample. On June 17, , police detained Levan Abzianidze, 59, a taxi driver from Kutaisi, a western Georgian city, and took him to a local forensics lab. His wife told Human Rights Watch that undercover police introduced themselves as regular customers who needed a lift to the drug testing facility. They held him for three hours, during which Abzianidze provided a sample and tested negative. Police wanted a second sample, for which they gave Abzianidze the diuretic pills. His wife, Madona Jikia said:. Several hours prior to his death Levan spoke to our son and told him about the incident in detail. We spoke with Madona Jikia in April , almost two years after the incident. Several people told Human Rights Watch that after testing positive for the first time, or after a prior drug conviction, police would closely monitor them and pick them up repeatedly for drug testing. He alleged that police pressured him to become an informant on other drug users. In November , year-old Nika Gvaramadze was stopped for drug testing while on his way to university, where he was a student. Gvaramadze tested positive for marijuana and was released with a GEL fine for the administrative offense. He explained:. One of the detentions turned into an overnight ordeal. In summer , police asked Gvaramadze for his ID when he was out with friends. He did not have it with him but gave his name. After checking a database, police asked him to follow them to the police station to establish his identity. The court acquitted him. Under human rights law, when police in Georgia hold a person for the purposes of requiring them to provide a urine sample and undergo a drug test, they are unquestionably depriving that person of their liberty. The fact that a person might not, for example, be handcuffed or put in a cell does not mean that they are not deprived of their liberty. The manner in which a person may be deprived of their liberty in Georgia to undergo a forced drug test is also arbitrary for the purposes of human rights law. While the power to detain someone for up to 12 hours to coerce them to provide a test may have a basis in Georgian law, it does not meet the criteria to render it valid under human rights law. First, the only legitimate grounds for which the power to coerce a drug test could be exercised is that the person is suspected of having committed a criminal offense. If that is the case, there must first be reasonable suspicion that they have committed the offense, and the purpose should be brought before a competent authority. In Georgia, the purpose of detaining a person for 12 hours is to secure a drug test, and the scope of the power to detain a person, as evidenced by the numbers detained, and the percentages that show negative drug tests go beyond only those for whom there is a reasonable suspicion. In addition, while detained for the purpose of a forced drug test, the detainees are not afforded basic due process rights, such as access to a lawyer or other protections against potential abuse. This does not mean that drug tests cannot lawfully be conducted, for example, to assess whether someone has consumed drugs when stopped on reasonable suspicion of operating a vehicle under the influence or in connection with another similar specific offense. In such cases, when the person is in detention on suspicion of having committed such an offense, any tests authorized by law should be conducted with full respect for the due process rights of the suspect. It should also be noted \\\\\\\\\[88\\\\\\\\\] that detainees in administrative proceedings in Georgia do not enjoy equal due process rights to those detained for criminal offenses. Setting milder punishments for possession of a small quantity of illegal drugs for personal use was a positive step towards liberalizing drug laws. However, as noted above, the Framework Law does not define minimum quantities for three-quarters of all illegal substances. Possession of any particles of those substances, including in paraphernalia, would automatically qualify as a large quantity and would lead to a term of five to eight years in prison. Possession of more than one gram of the same substances is considered a particularly large amount and could result in life imprisonment. The lack of a legal standard for small amounts in practice means that people are sent to prison for several years for possessing substances in amounts too small to cause any intoxication. See the text box for the thresholds and penalties for some of the commonly controlled substances in Georgia. Many substances also do not have a defined minimum threshold amount for criminal liability. Therefore, a person in possession of any amount of these substances would face prosecution for large or particularly large amounts, and penalties ranging from five years to life in prison. But thresholds for personal use depend on a wide range of factors, depending on the drug and the user. Different countries have adopted different thresholds. If a government chooses to adopt a threshold system, the amounts defined in law should be meaningful, not arbitrary. Threshold amounts should serve as a guidance, rather than a strict divide between criminal or administrative liability. The failure to define small quantities has ruined lives. This report opened with the story of Vano Machavariani, who was arrested in , on the way to his own bachelor party with two doses of LSD. Because of the lack of a defined small dosage, the seized amount was considered a particularly large quantity, and a court sentenced him to nine-and-a-half years in prison. Machavariani is one of nine plaintiffs who filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court of Georgia in , requesting it determine the constitutionality of prison terms that result from the lack of a legal standard for small amounts of drugs in cases of possession for personal use. For example, in , the Tbilisi City Court found G. Kvirikadze guilty of possessing a large quantity, 0. Gasparian guilty, also of possessing a large quantity, 0. Broladze to four years in prison for possessing a large quantity, 0. As noted above, homemade synthetic drugs became widespread in Georgia in the early s. Therefore, people have been sent to prison for years for possessing syringes with some particles of the drug in them. For example, year-old Nika Lazikashvili was arrested in September for possession of 0. For this, a court sent him to prison for eight years for possessing a large amount of desomorphine. In July , after serving almost three years of his term, Lazikashvili was released, shortly after the constitutional court decision issued a ruling on a case in which it found imprisonment for possession of 0. Human Rights Watch is not aware of other drug offenders benefitting from this court decision. A year-old resident of Zugdidi, Lekso Akhaladze, twice missed the opportunity to study and pursue career development due to drug prosecutions. The first was in , when he was arrested for unauthorized buprenorphine possession shortly before a planned internship in the United States. The second was in Akhaladze was accepted into a PhD program in Poznan University, when he was arrested for possession of one Subotex pill that had not been prescribed to him. However, in August I was arrested. I am tutoring students in history. There is nothing inherently wrong with plea bargaining. Plea bargaining can be an important and critical element for fast and effective justice in Georgia. Coercion arises when prosecutors leverage the threat of an egregiously long sentence to induce defendants to plead guilty to a lesser one. As a result, many defendants feel they have no other choice but to enter into a plea deal with the prosecution. As described in the section on drug-related laws in Georgia, prison terms for drug offenses are disproportionately long. As noted above, the penalty for illegal drug possession, manufacturing, production, purchase, and transportation can lead to deprivation of liberty from six months to life, depending on the quantity of drugs and other circumstances. This means that possession of drugs for personal use is punishable more severely than certain violent crimes or crimes against property or the state. See figure 8. Figure 6: Sanctions for Drug Offenses Vs. Other Violent Crimes \\\\\\\\\[\\\\\\\\\]. Possessing, without appropriate authorization, Buprenorphine a. Subutex above 0. The only way to mitigate the harsh punishment would be to enter into a plea deal with the prosecution, which does have the power to set a prison term lower than what is set out in the criminal code. The conviction rate for drug-related offenses is high. In , of the 4, drug-related prosecutions heard by all courts in Georgia, only 18 cases 0. As in other countries, prosecutors set the terms for a plea bargain with the alleged offender. Judges merely confirm the plea deal pro forma, asking the defendant whether he or she was coerced into accepting the deal. Otherwise they play a limited role in executing the plea bargain. The prosecutor has no obligation to explain the reasoning behind the plea bargain terms. There are no published guidelines on the severity of penalties the prosecutor should be offering for each offense and the criteria on which the plea bargain terms would be determined in specific cases. For example, Davit Abramashvili was arrested in with a single dose of methamphetamine, which as noted above, qualifies as possession of a large amount of drugs. The offer of a plea bargain can dissuade people from filing a complaint about police abuse. Lasha Bakhutashvili was arrested in for possession of 0. Bakhutashvili alleged that police planted the used syringe on him, filed a complaint with the authorities, and went public about it. Eventually, at the end of , Bakhutashvili accepted the plea bargain. In a departure from usual practice, the plea deal was set at four years suspended sentence, without a fine. Human Rights Watch documented two other cases when former defendants had to agree to a plea bargain, even when they claimed they had been victims of police abuse and alleged drug-planting. Supporters of laws that criminalize drug consumption point to the need to fight drug trafficking and related organized crime. Some officials use similar reasoning to justify tough criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of drugs: it will always be hard for the police to establish whether seized controlled substances are for personal consumption or for petty dealing. In a media interview, a parliamentarian and former minister of interior explained:. However, other factors seem to provide clear incentives for the authorities to maintain existing drug policies: they boost the crime-solving rate on paper, they generate revenue, and they produce a network of informants for other crimes. According to the Ministry of Interior, in , drug-related offenses ranked second by number of registered crimes, making up 14 percent of overall crime data in When police register a possession incident as a crime, all the important factual circumstances have already been established and solving the crime is no longer a challenge. For example, if there is police intelligence about a drug possession case, police already have information about the alleged perpetrators and their whereabouts. The same logic applies to illegal drug consumption: the criminal investigation into illegal drug consumption begins only after the drug test confirms the fact of intoxication, and that the person has already had one administrative penalty for the same offense in the past year. Therefore, the investigation formally begins at the stage when the offense has already been established, the perpetrator is known, and solving the crime is a matter of criminal prosecution that overwhelmingly results in guilty verdicts. The nearly percent crime-solving rate for drug offenses boosts the overall crime-solving rate. Although the Ministry of Interior currently does not publish detailed data for registered and solved cases in each crime categories, data from and clearly shows the high proportion of registered drug offenses and solved drug-related criminal cases. The data demonstrates that the solving rate for drug offenses is much higher than that of average registered crime. If we exclude drug offenses, the rate of clearance for all crimes would drop from 67 percent to 60 percent. Drug users can be an important source of information for police considering that often drugs are rarely consumed alone, and in many cases homemade drugs are rarely prepared alone. Especially today, when homemade drugs are so common, and cooking them could involve several people and, obviously, the drug is then consumed by several people together. Almost all interviewees said that during their arrest or detention for forced drug testing, police tried to pressure them to divulge information about different people directly or indirectly. One drug user and beneficiary of the Georgian Harm Reduction Network, an umbrella organization uniting groups working on drug use, eventually learned his rights and how to protect himself from police blackmail. He described what it is like to live under constant police pressure:. Police are very well aware that you probably either have an amount of drugs that you are about to use, or you are under the influence of drugs. That means, they have a big advantage and they are using it to blackmail you into cooperating with them. I am not an exception, and police had tried to coerce me into cooperating with them many times. Threatening and blackmailing has been used many times against me and I endured it all, I could never give out information against my friends to anyone. Gela Bichinashvili, another drug user who has had trouble with the police, also noted that in Tbilisi people can more easily protect themselves from police threats and blackmail because there are many human rights organizations who can provide support, and there is greater public awareness and scrutiny, which means that police are more careful. In the regions, however, people are less informed about their rights, and few organizations are available to protect their rights. He was released under an amnesty in Four days after his release, police detained him for mandatory drug testing, he tested positive, and, since it was a first-time offense that year, he was handed an administrative fine. Known drug users are vulnerable to extortion. Forty-two-year-old Giorgi Kapanadze has been using drugs for almost 20 years, and said that he has paid around GEL 50, in fines and plea bargains since his first drug arrest. He also said that his known drug record made his family vulnerable to police blackmail:. In August , year-old Demur Sturua, a resident of Samtredia, in western Georgia, committed suicide, leaving behind a note stating that a local policeman was coercing him to inform on local cannabis growers and users. Sturua had a prior property crime conviction, although Human Rights Watch is not aware of whether police invoked this to pressure him. It is unclear to Human Rights Watch whether high fines fuel increased drug arrests, however, disproportionately high fines contribute significant sums to the state budget and have crippling effects on drug users and their families. Experts interviewed by Human Rights Watch for this report said that the total amount of financial sanctions in criminal drug cases decreased significantly since In order to estimate the total amount of fines paid in criminal cases, Human Rights Watch requested data from all first-instance regional courts in Georgia regarding the financial penalties imposed for drug possession, consumption, and purchasing from to in drug offenses of consumption. We requested data from plea bargain deals, as well as the outcomes of cases that went to trial. Thirty-two lower courts provided the requested data, except for the Tbilisi City Court and the Bolnisi District Court. See figure 9. The lack of data from the Tbilisi City Court is a serious obstacle to a comprehensive analysis, since it hears by far the largest number of criminal cases in Georgia; from to , it heard almost as many cases as all other first instance courts combined. Fines for drug offenses can have a crippling effect on defendants and their families. For example, year-old Ketevan K. She explained:. He had no choice but to go to trial. He was sentenced to nine years, and at time of writing remains in custody. The story of one drug offender suggested that in at least some cases police use their knowledge of family assets of the accused to pressure them. Eliso Kiladze, mother of detained Davit Kharshiladze, recalls that while detaining her son in , police said that if they entered into a plea bargain, it would not be a problem for Kharshiladze to pay the fine since his mother had GEL 2 million in savings. A court later acquitted him. Georgian law strips people convicted of drug offenses of the right to operate motor vehicles and to work in certain professions for periods of between three and 20 years. If the offender is sentenced to prison, the additional deprivation period starts only after he or she is released. This policy in many cases deprives people of their livelihood and further stigmatizes and isolates them. The driving ban applies to just about all motor vehicles for the maximum period of five years, including automobiles and tractors, which are both essential to employment for many people in Georgia. Convicted drug offenders may not work in any public office, the medical or legal professions, or in education establishments. A repeated drug offense would strip these rights for 10 years. These penalties are applied to all drug offenders, regardless of whether, for example, they were found to have operated a car under the influence of drugs, or to have practiced medicine while intoxicated. Police arrested Davit Abramashvili with a single dose of methamphetamine, for consumption, as he was walking home in May Police told him that this was possession of a large amount of drugs, and that he faced at least eight years in prison. Abramashvili felt compelled to seek a plea deal. Otherwise I would have started working as a taxi driver at least so I could have a source of minimum income. Thirty-seven-year-old Nika Kverenchkhiladze is a dentist. In , police caught him with half a pill of Subutex Buprenorphine. He was not under the influence at the time of apprehension and was facing up to eight years for possession. I do not understand what benefit the state finds in having people like me unemployed. In , year-old Temur Gobronidze, a farmer from the western Georgian region of Guria, was handed a four-year suspended sentence for marijuana possession. On October 24, , the Constitutional Court of Georgia issued a groundbreaking judgement concerning marijuana possession in the case of Beka Tsikarishvili v. Parliament of Georgia. The court ruled that imprisonment for possession of up to 70 grams of dried marijuana for personal consumption, absent of any evidence of intent to sell, is disproportionate and degrading. In its judgment, the court stated that possessing marijuana for personal consumption is not enough of a public threat to justify even a single day of imprisonment. Instead, the court stated, the penalty should first and foremost be proportionate to the offense committed, make the defendant feel a sense of justice, and encourage his or her re-socialization. One challenges the constitutionality of imprisonment as a punishment for consumption of any type of drugs. Nongovernmental organizations have also filed two further complaints that are pending with the constitutional court. One concerns the mandatory and long-term deprivation of the rights to drive and to work in certain professions for people convicted of drug offenses. Nonvoting council members include members of civil society, international organizations, and representatives of expert communities. Through consultation with local and international experts, at the end of , the council developed the draft National Strategy of Drug Policy, which focused on public healthcare, preventing drug use, harm reduction, overcoming discrimination and stigma towards drug users and introduced a system of relevant surveys to obtain data about drug use. While the strategy and its action plan envisaged many significant steps, the government did not allocate funds for any of its key elements, such as developing institutional mechanisms for drug-use prevention. The Interagency Council prepared its own assessment, based on information shared by the state authorities, concluding that most of the recommendations set out in the action plan were fully or partially implemented, however the assessment does not explain why some recommendations were not implemented or only partially implemented. Meanwhile, in December , the Interagency Council approved another action plan for A Ministry of Justice official told Human Rights Watch that the ministry is prepared to take further steps towards liberalization of drug policies short of decriminalization of consumption or possession in small quantities; the steps that they were contemplating included reduced penalties and defining small and criminal-minimum quantities for more substances. They were planning to make the monitoring center operational by the end of Currently, the platform consists of more than 40 member organizations or activist groups, and its mission is to facilitate the involvement of civil society, community groups, and experts in the development of drug- related policy. In early , the platform developed a comprehensive draft law on drug offenses, downgrading the consumption and possession of small quantities of all illicit drugs from criminal to administrative offenses. The draft law sets out more specific grounds for mandatory drug testing, such as evidence that someone was driving a vehicle or engaged in high-risk professional activities under the influence or consumed illicit drugs in a public space or in the presence of children. It proposes to reform forced drug testing process. The draft envisages moving the drug testing centers from the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Interior to the Ministry of Health. Finally, the draft reintroduces judicial discretion on the issue of imposing bans on driving and occupying certain professions after a drug conviction. Along with the aforementioned legal changes, the platform fully embraces the need for additional resources to set up effective drug prevention, provide treatment, broaden the coverage of harm reduction services, including creating a legal framework for this, establish special psychosocial rehabilitation services for the reintegration of drug users into society, and enhance the enforcement of laws prohibiting drug trafficking and distribution. Five members of parliament initiated the draft law in the parliament in June At the end of , the Healthcare Committee held a hearing on the draft. During the hearing, the committee supported the main principles of the draft law. Part of the ruling Georgian Dream party, as well as the majority of opposition parties, also support the draft. Those against the draft and further liberalization of drug policies fear the reform would lead to an increase in drug users, and fear that law enforcement would not have enough tools to fight drug crime. Some critics also note that the healthcare system in Georgia is not ready to deal with the challenges that decriminalization could produce. If we decriminalize, consumption may increase, and so will overdose cases, and we need to be ready for that. Drug users will start using and selling small amounts. Police are very afraid of it. A study carried out in that compared drug use in 13 countries that had decriminalized drug consumption and personal possession found that there was no clear causal link between fear of legal sanctions and illegal drug use. Human Rights Watch opposes the criminalization of personal use of drugs and possession of drugs for personal use. We recognize that governments have a legitimate interest in preventing societal harms caused by drugs and in criminalizing harmful or dangerous behavior, including where that behavior is linked to drug use. However, governments have other means beyond the criminal law to achieve those ends and need not pursue a criminalization approach, which violates basic human rights and, as this report documents, harms individuals and families. The decision to use drugs, like the decision to consume alcohol or nicotine, is a matter of personal choice and an exercise of an aspect of the right to privacy under international law, a cornerstone of respect for personal autonomy. Limitations on autonomy and the right to privacy may be imposed but are justified only if they meet the criteria of legitimate purpose, proportionality, necessity, and nondiscrimination. The criteria of proportionality and necessity require governments to consider what means are available to achieve the same purpose that would be least restrictive or pose minimal interference with respect for and the exercise of human rights. Human Rights Watch believes that arguments for criminalization of personal drug use or possession of drugs for personal use rarely, if ever, meet these criteria. Arrest, incarceration, and a criminal record with possibly life-long consequences are inherently disproportionate government responses to someone who has done nothing more than partake in recreational drugs. Different purposes have been advanced to justify the criminalization of drug use. One of those purposes is that of morality; drug use is seen by many as morally dubious or reprehensible, regardless of whether or not someone is harmed by it. But criminalization of drug use to protect someone from harming his or her own health does not meet the criteria of necessity or proportionality. Governments have many nonpenal measures to reduce harms to someone who uses drugs, including offering substance abuse treatment and social support. While the state has an important role in protecting health, it should not do so by punishing the person whose health it seeks to protect. As to proportionality, arrest, incarceration, and a criminal record with possibly life-long consequences are inherently disproportionate government responses to someone who has done nothing more than partake in recreational drugs. Criminalization can also disrupt the ability of individuals to secure their right to livelihood and housing, and it can separate families and parents from their children. The state can encourage people to make good choices around drugs without punishing them. Criminal sanctions for drug possession and personal use have counterproductive health consequences. Imprisoning people who use drugs does little to protect their health, and fear of criminal sanctions can deter individuals who use drugs from accessing health services and treatment, and subject them to stigma and discrimination. Drug use in some situations causes or threatens to cause serious harm to others, and states have a legitimate interest in protecting third parties from harm resulting from drug use. In such circumstances, states may impose proportionate penal sanctions on harmful behavior that takes place in conjunction with drug use. Thus, a state might choose to criminalize driving a car or flying a plane while under the influence of drugs. It might choose to arrest a person who seriously neglects or abuses a child, where drug dependence is a factor in the neglect or abuse. It might make drug use an aggravating factor in an assault. However, in such cases the conduct or offense being punished with criminal sanctions is not simply using drugs, but directly causing or risking harm to others while using drugs. Human Rights Watch is not alone in calling for decriminalization of drug use and possession of drugs for personal use. A number of human rights and public health bodies have urged states to decriminalize. Decriminalization is not untested. A number of countries around the world either do not have laws criminalizing drug use or possession for personal use, or do not enforce criminal laws in practice. For example, personal drug use and possession are not criminalized by law in Portugal, Spain, the Czech Republic, and Costa Rica. In , Portugal decriminalized the acquisition, consumption, and possession of illicit drugs in quantities up to a day supply. Drug trafficking and sales still remain criminal offenses and are prosecuted. Portugal retained drug possession as an administrative offense. Importantly, the government also invested substantial resources in treatment and harm reduction services. When police find people in possession of drugs, they hand out an administrative violation ticket. If the person is drug dependent, the commission makes a referral to a treatment program where attendance is voluntary. If the person is not drug dependent, he or she is fined. Criminal sanctions are never imposed for personal use or small-quantity possession. The number of people receiving drug treatment jumped by more than 60 percent after decriminalization. Deaths caused by drug overdoses decreased from 80 deaths in to 16 deaths in Aisling Reidy, senior legal advisor, and Tom Porteous, deputy program director, provided legal and program reviews, respectively. Aisling Reidy also contributed to the section on legal standards on deprivation of liberty. Keti Mskhiladze translated the report into Georgian. Human Rights Watch wishes to thank the many individuals who shared their experiences and perspectives with us. Human Rights Watch also thanks the numerous individuals and organizations across Georgia who provided invaluable guidance, support, and expertise, and without whom this research would have not been possible. We are deeply grateful. Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people in 90 countries worldwide, spotlighting abuses and bringing perpetrators to justice. Human Rights Watch. Donate Now. Summary In February , a year-old musician and DJ, Kote Japaridze and two of his friends acquired two grams of MDMA, a recreational synthetic drug that acts as a stimulant and hallucinogen, producing distortions in time and perception. A Call for Decriminalization Laws criminalizing drug use are inconsistent with respect for human autonomy and the right to privacy and contravene the human rights principle of proportionality in punishment. Recommendations As a matter of policy, Human Rights Watch opposes the criminalization of the personal use of drugs and the possession of drugs for personal use. To the Government and Parliament of Georgia Initiate and support legislative amendments decriminalizing personal drug use and purchase and possession of small quantities of drugs for personal use; repetition of similar conduct should not lead to criminal liability or other deprivation of liberty, unless other aggravated circumstances are present. Also, before decriminalization, establish a strong presumption of noncustodial sentences for drug possession for personal use; end the mandatory minimum sentencing requirement for drug consumption and possession in quantities that are not large or particularly large, and allow judges to pass proportionate sentences in all drug possession cases. Revise thresholds for criminal drug possession in such a way that the thresholds are meaningful and serve as a guidance, rather than a strict dividing line between what is not criminal and what leads to criminal liability. Ensure prompt, thorough, and effective investigations into all allegations of abuse of coercive drug testing by law enforcement. End the existing practice of forced drug testing. In cases where a person is arrested on suspicion of an offense such as driving under the influence of drugs, a person may be required to undergo a drug test while availing of the full due process rights of a criminal suspect. Any such penalties, if imposed, should be directly related and proportionate to an offense committed, such as driving under the influence of drugs. Support a public health approach to drug use to minimize the adverse consequences of drug use, reduce drug dependence, and to support harm reduction around drug use and increased access to emergency care. Appropriate sufficient funds to support evidence-based voluntary treatment and harm reduction services in the community, as well as in correctional facilities. Initiate public awareness information campaigns, emphasizing public health approaches to drug use, informing the public of the risks and consequences of drug use. Gather and aggregate the following data that would inform drug policy decisions, including data related to arrests for drug offenses disintegrated by type of offense, type and amount of drugs, and gender of the offenders , convictions by type of offense, penalties, and length of sentences, and the prison population of those sentenced for drug offenses by type of offense and average sentences. Gather and aggregate data through the population-based, public health-oriented survey of substance use, including measuring type of use, duration of use, initiation of use, and treatment. A Note on Data Requests Human Rights Watch and EMC submitted a series of data and information requests to a number of public agencies, regarding arrests, prosecutions, and the prison population for drug offenses. Decriminalization does not necessarily imply legalization of certain drug-related actions. Related Content August 13, News Release. August 13, News Release. Protecting Rights, Saving Lives Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people in 90 countries worldwide, spotlighting abuses and bringing perpetrators to justice. Starting Amount for Criminal Liability Criminal-minimum. From 8 to 20 years, or life imprisonment. Possessing Heroin above 1 gram - 8 to 20 years or life sentence. Possessing Desomorphine above 1 gram - 8 to 20 years or life sentence. Intentionally severe health injury - 3 to 6 years in prison. Possessing Methadone above 1 gram - 8 to 20 years or life sentence. Possessing Cannabis Resin above 0. Taking hostage, also torturing - 7 to 10 years in prison. Membership of a terrorist organization - 10 to 12 years in prison.
Buy cones, bosko, hashish Euboea