From: djweisberger@amherst.edu (David Weisberger)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.german
Subject: Drug Policy in the FRG (from Drogenpolitik in der BRD)
Date: 4 Apr 92 21:13:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: amherst.1992Apr4.171314.1
Organization: Amherst College, Amherst, MA.

In article <ktp1p3INNl4s@west.west.sun.com>, markk@sagredo.West.Sun.COM (Mark Kampe) writes:
> UKS005@DMSWWU1A.BITNET (Ulrich Hegge) writes:
>> Als (hoffentlic bald ;-) ) Jurist fuehle ich mich natuerlich berufen,
>> dazu Stellung zu nehmen... :-)
>>
>> ...
>> 
>> Ich hoffe, ich konnte einiges klarstellen (im ersten Teil),
>> schoene Gruesse in die weite Welt,
>>                                         Ulli
> 
> I had considerable trouble translating this posting, although I translated enough
> to realize that I was missing some subtle but important distinctions.  I suspect
> the exposition of the current situation and the legal basis for challenges is an
> interesting subject to many readers.  I know that people very seldom request
> translations of postings, but could someone offer a competent rendering of this
> posting into English.
> 
> thanks/sorry,
> 	mark
> 
> PS,
> 	the truth be known, I also have some difficulty with English legalese.

Here is my rendering of Ulli's posting.  DISCLAIMER: I am not versed in
German legalese or American legalese.  Some of the terms in the first
part of Ulli's post I translated as seemed to make sense.  For some, I
am unaware of an exact American equivalent process, and therefore I may
not have come up with the best possible wording.  Nevertheless, I hope
and believe that essentially nothing has been lost in the translation.
(Yeah right.)

BEGIN TRANSLATION
____________________________________________________________________________
>Some time ago, there was talk here about a Kiel verdict that decided that
>cannabis products should be legalized, because they are ostensibly less
>dangerous than alcohol, which is legal.
>
>What ever happened with that?  Does someone know? ...

As a (hopefully soon) lawyer-to-be I naturally feel called upon to comment
on that.

So: A decision cannot determine whether something is legalized or not - a
law is necessary for that.  The prevailing laws forbid the possession and
use of drugs within a broad scope, including cannabis.  That has not changed
at all.  In Germany, when a judge believes that the legal norm upon which
his decision is based is unconstitutional, he can bring that norm before
the Federal Consitutional Tribunal for examination (so-called concrete
standard-control proceeding).  That is what happened in this case.  That is,
the Tribunal will now examine whether the illegality of the use of cannabis
products is consistent with the Basic Law (the German consitution).  I hope
that the Tribunal will not let itself be politically influenced.

My opinion: Health-related or physical damage is (I believe uncontested)
relatively limited.  If one removed the consumption of hashish from its current
criminal context, the danger of beginning a drug habit would be considerably
less.  And that is the critical point: the unequal treatment of alcohol abuse
and cannabis use is only justified if marijuana etc. unquestionably increases
the risk of escalation to hard drug use.

And here I have to pass.  In my experience the social context is the deciding
component, and perhaps it would be "prudent" to regulate this through
legalization.  But that is surely not for me to say...
______________________________________________________________________________
END TRANSLATION


Hope this helped,
              David

==
David Weisberger				djweisberger@amherst.edu

  			"Macht wenig."