COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 23.05.1997 
COM(97) 249 final 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ON THE CONTROL OF NEW SYNTHETIC DRUGS 
(DESIGNER DRUGS) 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ON THE CONTROL OF NEW SYNTHETIC DRUGS 
(DESIGNER DRUGS) 
I. INTRODUCTION 
Every year, large amounts of new synthetic drugs are produced in Member States of 
the European Union. The consumption of these drugs is on the rise, particularly 
among very young people. This development poses a serious threat to their health 
and lives and it is a source of great distress to our citizens. They expect urgent action 
at all levels to reverse this trend. 
Firm action in this area is also needed to maintaining the credibility of the 
considerable efforts the European Union is undertaking in combatting the cultivation 
and production of narcotic drugs throughout the world. 
The sharp increase of illicit production, trafficking and use of these new synthetic 
drugs in Europe can be attributed to several factors which make them different from 
more traditional plant-based drugs. These include: 
• the ingredients needed for their production are all available within the EU, meaning that 
they can be produced locally, close to the areas of consumption. 
• they are relatively easy to prepare, with precursors freely available in the market and 
requiring only a rather unsophisticated infrastructure such as abandoned warehouses or 
even mobile homes; 
• they are cheaper than cocaine or other plant based drugs which are the other "more 
traditional" main stimulants in illicit markets and have a longer-lasting effect; 
• they are seen as fashionable and part of youth culture in some countries. There is no 
strong link with theft or violent crime; 
• the public health risk is frequently underestimated in public perception. It is not always 
easy to recognize the difference with similar, licit products which are often used 
functionnally, e.g. in certains professions to increase endurance. 
They do, however, also have features in common with plant-based drugs, notably the 
analogous threat they can pose to human health and the danger they represent, particularly 
to young people. 
The Community action programme on the prevention of drug dependence already 
contributes to improving public awareness and developing appropriate health and social 
responses to this threat. In particular, this programme currently gives support to 
transnational pilot projects aiming to build up a system to recognise trends in drugs 
consumption among the young, to assess prevalence of drug use in particular settings such 
as Techno-scenes and to develop transnational exchange of data. 
The European Commission, acting together with the Presidency of the Council of 
Ministers and the European Parliament, has on several occasions highlited this problem 
and called for priority action at the level of the European Union. The fight against 
drugs became a central theme during the Irish Presidency and the Dublin European 
Council clearly pointed out the need to supress domestic production and trafficking of 
synthetic drugs within our Member States. 
This Communication represents the Commission's contribution to following up that 
instruction. 
IL NATURE OF THE PROBLEM 
The world-wide nature of the problem is reflected in the increasing attention directed to it 
in the relevant international organisations within the United Nations family : World Health 
Organisation, International Narcotics Control Board, Commission on Narcotic Drugs. 
There exists a major international legal instrument for tackling the problem at world level, 
in the shape of the 1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances. 
Ratified and implemented by 146 nations, and subsequently enhanced by the relevant 
provisions of the 1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs 
and Psychotropic Substances, the 1971 Convention offers the essential international 
framework for the scheduling and interdiction of the main synthetic drugs identified at that 
time as posing a danger to health. It contains an updating mechanism, but recent 
experience has shown that this mechanism, requiring a world-wide international consensus, 
is slow to mobilise - and certainly not flexible or rapid enough to keep pace with the 
appearance on the market of new synthetic drugs often deliberately designed to circumvent 
the Convention's provisions. 
The European Union and its Member States are, however, equipped -especially since the 
entry into force of the TEU - with a range of instruments and possibilities to react quickly 
and effectively among themselves to address the moving target represented by new 
synthetic drugs. 
Synthetic drugs, like plant-based drugs, are dependent upon certain precursor chemicals. Of 
the 22 substances controlled through EC legislation in implementation of the 1988 United 
Nations Convention, 8 are directly relevant to synthetic drugs l and others need to be 
added. 
Furthermore, with regard to end products (i.e. the synthetic drugs themselves, as opposed 
to their precursor chemicals) all EU Member States have introduced in their legislation the 
control of the psychotropic substances placed under control by the 1971 UN Convention 
(see ANNEX I). This Convention provides for the control of classified substances on the 
basis of their strict chemical definition. 
Since, however, the amphetamine-type stimulants are very similar in chemical structure, 
they lend themselves easily to minor structural modifications to lead to a different end-
product. These modifications can be motivated by various factors : 
(i) the deliberate effort to circumvent legislation on precursors or, 
(ii) the possible use and availability of non-listed precursors; 
(iii) the deliberate manufacturing of amphetamine-type stimulants not covered by 
national law or international convention, and sometimes referred to as "designer 
drugs". 
It is chemically possible to obtain a large number of structures altered in this way, in which 
however the basic composition of the amphetamine remains unchanged. Some such 
derivatives currently popular in Europe thus fall outside the scope of the 1971 UN 
Convention on Psychotropic Substances. Although in theory this problem could be tackled 
though regular modification of any of the lists of the 1971 UN Convention, such a process 
can be expected to take 2-3 years. Thus an important lacuna can exist between the moment 
when new synthetic drugs are introduced in the illicit market and when they are added to 
one of the lists of the UN Convention. During this intervening period, and unless other 
defences are mounted, there is a risk that the new synthetic drugs can circulate freely since 
the criminal law of several Member States does not allow control to be legally excercised 
on substances which are not (yet) put under a list of controlled substances. 
HI. SOME RESPONSES AT NATIONAL LEVEL 
In countries affected by the problem of synthetic drugs, three different categories of 
response appear to have been adopted, in addition to the control system based on the strict 
chemical definition of the substances (the control "by name" of the substance) which is 
foreseen in the 1971 UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances : 
1 phenyl-2-propanone (P2P), ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, safrole, isosafrole, piperonal, 
3,4 methylenedioxy-P2P and phenylacetic acid. 
(i) the "generic appoach" : 
some Member States (United* Kingdom, Ireland) have introduced in their misuse of 
drugs legislation the use of generic definitions for various families of drugs to catch 
those new synthetic drugs which do not appear on the Schedules of the UN 
Conventions. In Germany, a new bill which would introduce the generic approach is 
being discussed at the mterministerial level and with the Lander before being presented 
at Parliament. 
The use of generic definitions has the advantage of criminalising by anticipation a great 
number of groups of synthetic drugs that could eventually appear on the market. 
Although it can not cover aJl the potential drugs of abuse which may eventually be 
produced on the basis of a single molecular structure, it makes it more difficult for 
clandestine laboratories to produce synthetic drugs which remain outside of the scope 
of criminal law; 
(ii) the "emergency list" approach 
other Member States (Germany, The Netherlands) have introduced into their 
legislation an urgency procedure to control legally, on a provisional basis, new 
substances which appear on the market before the full introduction of these new drugs 
into the relevant schedule. This system allows for a quick reaction to the abuse of and 
trafficking in "new" synthetic drugs and can give rise to the use of criminal sanctions; 
(iii) the "analogue" approach : 
this is the system preferred by the US Drugs Enforcement Agency and is set out in the 
1986 amendment to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in the form of the 
Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act. 
This Act provides that criminal sanctions apply to the activity of manufacturing and 
distributing "controlled substance analogues" intended for human consumption. These 
substances are considered "analogues" if they produce substantially the same 
psychoactive effect as controlled substances and have chemical structures substantially 
similar to those of controlled substances. These substances are therefore prohibited 
unless it is concluded in a court of law that the assumptions were unfounded. It is 
important to note that there is no list of controlled substance analogues. Since the 
introduction of the 1986 amendment, the DEA have observed a decrease in the 
production and distribution of analogues and attribute this, in particular, to the 
analogue statute which has had the effect of making the trafficking of new synthetic 
drugs too risky and uncertain to be worth the effort for the profit involved. 
IV. ELEMENTS FOR A RESPONSE AT THE LEVEL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 
THE DUBLIN EUROPEAN COUNCIL 
Heads of State and Government, meeting in Dublin in December 1996, identified the issue 
of synthetic drugs as needing priority attention both within the European Union and 
between the Union and third countries, particularly the Central and Eastern European 
countries. In doing so, they specifically endorsed the report on drugs they had received 
from the Council, and the Joint Action of 17 December 1996 concerning the approximation 
of the laws and practices of the Member States in the field of drugs. 
The report in question stated clearly that synthetic drugs was an area "where insufficiencies 
exist" and "needed to be tackled at three levels: (a) legislation; (b) practical cooperation 
against production and trafficking, including improved cooperation between national 
authorities and the chemical industry; and (c) international cooperation". 
As for the Joint Action, it states in its Article 5 that there is a need for more convergence in 
Member States legislation in the area of synthetic drugs and provides that the Member 
States "shall endeavour to draft convergent legislation to the extent necessary to make up 
legal ground or fill legal vacuums as regards synthetic drugs. In particular they shall 
promote the establishment of a rapid information system to enable such drugs to be 
identified as substances liable to be prohibited as soon as they appear anywhere in a 
Member State". 
Thus the European Council has given clear guidance on how it wishes to see the problem 
addressed. The Commission considers that this invitation to ensure an appropriate and swift 
control on new synthetic drugs and their chemical precursors should be followed up by 
means of a number of initiatives, which could be taken on a step by step basis. 
As a first and early step, the Commission favours action on three fronts: 
- chemical precursors (starting material): Proposals for amending the existing 
Directive and Regulation will be presented by the Commission by October 1997. 
- new synthetic drugs (end-products): the creation of an early warning system for 
synthetic drugs, including a mechanism for risk assessment. 
- a commitment by Member States to criminalise production and trafficking of new 
synthetic drugs declared dangerous. 
There is also a case for an examination at EU level of whether at a later stage additional 
instruments might enhance the effectiveness of the fight against the illicit trafficking in and 
use of synthetic drugs, based perhaps on a discussion of the relative merits of the 
"emergency list" approach, the "generic approach" or the " analogue approach" mentioned 
under chapter III above. 
ACTION FORESEEN ON PRECURSOR OF NEW SYNTHETIC DRUGS 
An effective way of approaching the problem of new synthetic drugs consists in 
ensuring a better monitoring of the trade in the chemical substances which are the basic 
ingredients used in manufacturing new synthetic drugs. 
It is not possible to monitor this trade under the classical methods of control such as 
those provided for under the present Community legislation on precursors. The nature 
of the chemicals involved and the particular conditions under which new synthetic 
drugs can be manufactured impede the use of these strict control mechanisms. 
This is the reason why a broad consensus exists at the international level to look for 
other monitoring mechanisms such as a "special surveillance list", that would be more 
flexible for both trade and public authorities and thus would be really efficient, given 
this specific context. This is in particular the approach the US. DE A follows, more 
stringent mechanisms being unrealistic in this case. 
Technical work is currently in progress in the competent Community fora. They will 
result in formal proposals by the Commission, to be presented to the Council next 
October, after further discussions with the Member states and the relevant trade and 
chemical industries organisations. 
These proposals will address the following aspects: 
- list of new products to be monitored, 
- new methods for the monitoring of the products concerned, 
- ways and means of adapting rapidly in the future the list of these products. 
They will concern amendment of the existing directive concerning manufacture and 
placing on the market of the chemical substances concerned within the EU and 
amendment of the regulation concerning the international trade. 
Moreover, when a common position has been adopted within the Council on this 
question, the Commission intends to ask for a negotiation mandate vis-à-vis the 
Central and Eastern European Countries on the territory of which new synthetic drugs 
are produced. In parallel, the Phare programme resources will be used to continue to 
help these countries to prepare and to adapt their own legislation on precursors, 
namely in view of their accession to the EU. 
Finally, some efforts will have to be made in short term, in order to allow the EU to 
speak with one voice within the international meetings that should take place from next 
July, in view of the preparation of the 1998 UN General Assembly Special Session 
which wili be devoted to drugs and in which precursors will occupy a large place. 
The Commission will do the necessary work in order to ensure that the necessary 
coordination is done within the Council and that it results in a concrete Community 
position on this topic, thus allowing the EU to maintain a leading and constructive role 
in these international fora. 
Details of this action are described in Annex II. The input of Member States experts in 
this process will be very important for achieving the objectives for action described in 
this Annex. 
CREATION OF AN EARLY WARNING SYSTEM 
An effective early warning system for new synthetic drugs appearing in the Member States 
should build on existing information gathering bodies and avoid duplication. In addition to 
national sources, the two most appropriate such bodies at EU level are the Europol Drugs 
unit (EDU) for information coming from the law enforcement agencies, and the European 
Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), by means of the national 
focal points of REITOX, for information coming from the health and social services. 
To this can be added data concerning chemical precursors diverted into the illicit 
manufacture of synthetic drugs which will continue to be examined by the Drugs Precursors 
Committee set up under Regulation 3677/90 and Directive 92/109 to which the early 
warning system will provide an added value. 
All this relevant information will need to be assessed by experts in order to evaluate the 
risks posed by these new substances. 
The Commission believes that this assessment would best be carried out in the framework 
of a Technical Committee to be set up, which would involve representatives from not only 
Member States but also from the existing relevant agencies (EMCDDA; the Agency for the 
Evaluation of Medicinal Products; and the Europol Drugs Unit) . The Commission would 
seem to be the right institution to chair such a committee, as well as contributing to its 
work on the basis of information on synthetic drugs coming from the existing Community 
instruments related to (i) the international control and intra-Community surveillance of 
chemical precursors, (ii) the Community action programme on the prevention of drug 
dependence, (iii) the Community framework research and development programme. 
The Committee, having conducted its risk assessment on the basis of the information from 
different sources (law enforcement, health and social services) should make its 
recommendation for action at the level of the Council, including, where appropriate and 
agreed, action to ban and criminalise the production and trafficking of the dangerous 
substances identified. 
CO-OPERATION WITH CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES 
Co-operation between EU Member States and the Central and Eastern European countries 
in fighting against illicit drugs trafficking, in particular synthetic drugs, received special 
attention at the seminar and meeting of the Council's Drugs and Organised Crime Working 
Group with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic States which took 
place on 23-24 October, 1996. This gave rise to a number of useful recommendations 
which should be followed up: 
Development of a network of law enforcement focal points for synthetic drugs and drug 
precursors between Member States of th European Union, the countries of Central and 
Eastern Europe and the Baltic States, making use of the existing list of contact points 
maintained in connection with the European Community legislation on the control of 
precursors; 
Combatting misuse of synthetic drugs and precursors by: 
the building of a network of expertise from the European Union and associated 
countries to facilitate the enhancement of the knowledge necessary to tackle the 
problem, as well as the rapid exchange of information (profiling, production 
methods, etc.) and the adoption of the necessary legal provisions; 
the surveillance of non-listed precursors used in illicit production, involving co­
operation by law enforcement and other appropriate authorities. To this extent the 
importance of voluntary agreement and concluding Memoranda of Understanding 
with the trade were underlined. 
In the field of precursors, adaptation of the relevant PHARE project to ensure that the pre-
accession procedures presently underway (adaptation of legislation to EU standards, ie 
Regulation 3677/90 and Directive 92/109) reflect any possible amendment of the EU 
legislation to cover chemicals diverted for the illicit manufacture of new synthetic drugs. 
CO-OPERATION WITH OTHER KEY EU PARTNERS 
Given the global and growing nature of this synthetic drugs problem, as reflected in the 
Resolution adopted at the 1995 UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) and in a 
number of expert meetings which have taken place within the UN bodies concerned, 
particularly UNDCP and WHO, it would be appropriate also to share the EU's thinking 
with its main partners, notably the USA, Canada and Japan. 
This could in turn lead to possible joint initiatives with them in international fora, for 
example at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) in view of the forthcoming UN 
General Assembly (UNGA) special session on drugs (1998). 
ANNEX f 
-Û Tnhlc lb: Scheduling of individual substances under Ihe 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances 
(Nole: Only llic year ofllic lli-l inclusion of a substance into any of the Schedule"; ofllic 1'sycliotmpic Convention has hern considered) 
Sdi. i 
I 
1 
In 
lit 1221 
w:\ 
)MIIP 
)Mr 
i.sn 
incscntinc 
pHrnliexyl 
psilocinc 
psilocybiuc 
SIP/DOM 
Ictrnhydrocanna-
biiioles' 2?<J 
rticycliilinc 
olicyclidinc 
tcnocyclidine _2ftl 
RinfctBininc medoqunlone i 
dexmnfclftmiric 
1 mctainfctnminc 
melliylphenlilnte 
pltettcyclidinc 
phctmielrfulnc 
oinobnrbitnl 
cyclobnrbitnl &M 
peitdtfocinc vm. 
\K)l\ 
MIM 1X86 
('athinonc 
DMA 
DOJVI 
MDMA 
MMIM 
I'MA 
1 MA 
• 
fcnclylline 
fc^anifclamlnc 
Icvomctha/n-
phclnminc 
cnlliinc J 28 7 
butnlbital vm 1252 
mclnnifclaml 
nc racenialc _ 
biiprciiorpliinc 1 122<J 
Ml)!; -
N-OII-MDA 
•1-mcthyl-
aminorex 1221 
dronabinol 
-
I 1221 
etryptamine 
nellicntrimone 
. ...... 
1 
zipeprol 
. 1 
I I 
dronabinol (ilel(a-9-lctrahydrocaiinabino!) wa.s trans lei red from Schedule I to Schedule II in 1991. 
Tabic lb: Scheduling of individual substances under tlie 1971 Convention on Psycliotropic Substances 
(Note: Only the year of the first inclusion of a substance into nny of the Schedules ofllic Psychotropic, Convention has been considered) 1 
SfilL 
III 
IV 1211 
glutcthimide 
pentobarbital 
secobarbital' 
amfcpramone 
barbital 
ettichlorvynnl 
ethinamnte 
Icfclamine 
meprohamale 
metliaqualone' 
mclhylpheno-
barbital 
melhyprylon 
phénobarbital 
piprndrol J080 12K.L 
benzfetaminc 
ina/indol 
phem!imelra?.inc 
phenlenninc 12M 
alprazolam 
brotnazepam 
camazepam 
chlnrdiazcpoxi 
dc 
cloba/am 
clonazepam 
clorazcpafc 
clonazepam 
clnxa/nlant 
dclora/c[)ani 
diazepam 
eslaznlam 
ethyl 
lollii/cpalt: l')K5 VM 
clihimfctmninc 
fcncainfnmin 
fenproporcx 
inefcnorcx 
propylhexedrine4 
pyrovalcronc 1257 
allobaibital 
butobarl)ital 
sccbutabarbital 
vinylbital 10KR iyx'2 
pemoline MJ'JO 
inida/nlam 1921 JOOS 1 
**-• 
auiinorcx 
broti/olam 
mesoeaib 
3Sccobarbital wa.s transferred from Schedule III lo Schedule II in I9XX. 
^Propylhexedrine was deleted from Sch. IV in 1991. 
'Methaqualonc wa.s transferred from Schedule IV lo Schedule II in 1978. 
Table lb: Scheduling of individual substances under the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1 
(Note: Only the year of the first inclusion of a substance into any of the Schedules of the I'sychotropic Convention has been cnnsidercil) 
Sçlh 
IV 1211 12KQ 12M 12M 
(ludia/cpain 
lluuilra/epam* 
nitrazepam 
hala/epam 
lialoxazotaiu 
kcta7olam 
loprazolam 
lorazepani 
lormetazepam 
medazepam 
nimetazepam 
nitrazepam 
nordazepam 
oxazepam 
oxazolam 
pina/cpam 
pra/epatn 
lemii/epam 
lelra/cpam 
triazolam I'M 5 1256 12» 2 l^RR 1W) J22i> 1221 ITJ1 
sFlunilrazcpam wa.s transferred from Schedule IV to Schedule III in 1995. 
ANNEX II 
ACTION AGAINST PRECURSORS OF NEW SYNTHETIC DRUGS -
1. The issue 
Compared with other types of drugs and psychotropic substances, the emergence and 
development of new synthetic drugs (NSDs) poses a special problem because their 
chemical structure changes frequently and because many types of precursors (themselves 
very variable) can be used for making them. 
Since almost all of these chemical substances are used for legal purposes, action is needed 
to prevent them from being diverted to the illicit manufacture of synthetic drugs. This 
could be done by drawing up suitable monitoring measures that would reconcile the 
legitimate interests of business with the imperatives of action to combat synthetic drugs. 
In view of the very changeable nature of this phenomenon and the wide range of basic 
chemical substances that can be used, a targeted response is required. And as NSDs can 
be very simple to produce, with "recipes" available on the Internet or in specialist 
publications, there is also the question of whether it is wise to make public the list of 
precursors to be monitored. 
The NSDs affecting the European Union are mostly produced in certain Member States 
and in a number of Central and Eastern European countries. The response in terms of 
controls on precursors therefore has to cover both the commercial use of these products 
inside the Community and trade with non-member countries. 
A uniform response across the entire Union is essential, since supplies to traffickers would 
otherwise quickly be diverted to Member States where there was no monitoring 
mechanism. 
The threat of NSDs is not confined solely to Europe. Meetings of experts are therefore 
under way at international level. In particular, mention should be made of the two 
meetings already held under the auspices of the United Nations from 12 to 16 February 
1996 in Vienna and from 25 to 29 November 1996 in Shanghai. In addition the 
Commission, together with the US Drug Enforcement Administration, organized an 
international conference on precursors from 11 to 14 February 1997 in Prague, at which 
the substances used to produce NSDs received considerable attention. 
The extraordinary UN General Assembly to be held in 1998 on the fight against drugs will 
boost the effort to tackle the problem. Several preparatory meetings are already 
scheduled, starting in July, and it is vital for the Community to define a common position 
on the issue fairly quickly in order to be able to make a positive contribution to the debate 
so that real progress can be made in the fight against new synthetic drugs. 
2.- Current legislation on precursors 
Community legislation on precursors involves a two-pronged approach to cover the 
internal and the external aspects. 
On the internal side, the basic legislation is Council Directive 92/109/EEC, amended by 
Commission Directive 93/46/EEC and supplemented by Commission Regulation 1485/96. 
The scope of the Directive covers the production and marketing of the 22 internationally 
scheduled substances (1988 Vienna Convention). In outline, the mechanisms that apply on 
the internal front are: 
- transactions leading to the marketing of classified substances (both substances 
produced in the Community and those put into free circulation are covered) must be 
documented; this includes a declaration by the customer on their use; 
- documents must be kept available for inspection by the authorities and classified 
substances must be labelled; 
operators producing or marketing category I substances must be licensed and 
authorization is required to be supplied with, possess or handle them; 
- cooperation between the public authorities and operators is required. 
The external arrangements are based on Council Regulation (EEC) No 3677/90, as 
amended by Regulation (EEC) No 900/92. Implementing rules have been adopted by the 
Commission. The aim is to regulate exports of the 22 scheduled substances, imposing 
obligations as regards: 
- commercial documents, commercial records and the labelling of substances; 
- the licensing and registering of operators; 
- cooperation between public authorities and economic operators; and 
- the issuing of export authorizations. 
These arrangements are backed up by specific agreements concluded by the Community 
with certain non-member countries. At present there are agreements with the Andean 
countries, Mexico and the United States. Negotiations are under way with Canada, the 
Mercosur countries, Chile and the ASEAN countries. A special clause on combating the 
diversion of precursors has also been included in most association or economic 
cooperation agreements concluded with non-member countries. 
3. The weaknesses of current legislation with regard to the problem of NSDs 
The mechanisms established by the instruments cited above are inadequate to deal with 
the problem of NSDs. The main shortcomings are: 
ii 
(a) Monitoring mechanisms involved 
The current system relates to a limited number of products (22), with strict controls laid 
down by the Directive and the Regulation. The nature of the controls reflects the 
diversion methods likely to affect the products in question, depending in particular on 
their nature, their availability on the market and the type of drug or psychotropic 
substance they can be used to make. 
To control exports, an export authorization (individual or comprehensive) is required, 
depending on the volume of substances traded or the country of destination. In some 
cases authorization is granted only if an import authorization is first issued in the 
destination country. Although simplifications have been introduced wherever possible, 
using criteria such as the integrity and competence of the applicant, the system 
nevertheless imposes considerable constraints on the economic operators concerned. 
These constraints cannot be extended too far, since any restrictive system will only 
function well if it is targeted and involves no more than a reasonable number of 
substances and obligations. It must also be borne in mind that besides these mechanisms, 
close and fruitful cooperation has been established between the national authorities and 
operators under the Community legislation. Broadening the constraints rashly would 
inevitably undermine such cooperation and hence the effectiveness of the entire 
arrangements to combat the diversion of precursors. 
(b) Type and number of substances subject to monitoring 
The Community legislation currently covers 22 substances, only 8 of which relate to 
synthetic drugs (including methaqualone and LSD). The international efforts referred to 
earlier and the work done in the Community committee on precursors have identified 
many other substances used to manufacture NSDs. 
At present there is no agreement or scientifically backed view on which precursors should 
be subject to monitoring at Community level. The main options range between 6 and 
62 new substances. There is, however, a general consensus (among economic operators 
and monitoring authorities) that it would be inappropriate and impossible in practice to 
apply to these substances the mechanisms provided for by the current Community 
legislation. 
The Union's main partners, and notably the USA, all take the same view and are working 
to draw up a "special monitoring list" involving new monitoring methods. 
4. The problems that have to be tackled 
These issues can be grouped under four headings: 
- What products should be included to meet current requirements? Is there a lawful 
use for all the products concerned? Which ones can be lawfully used so widely that 
monitoring them would be impossible or undesirable? 
H 
What monitoring mechanisms (covering substances themselves and suspect 
transactions or orders) should be set up so that the system as a whole is manageable 
and effective and allows uniform arrangements across the entire territory of the 
Union? 
What mechanisms should be established for adapting the rules in order to respond 
quickly to the very marked changeability of the precursors used to manufacture 
NSDs, in particular in response to information obtained through the cooperation of 
economic operators? 
Would it be wise to make the list of precursors concerned public, especially if, 
through cooperation with operators, the goal is also to pinpoint new developments 
as early as possible and detect suspect orders? 
5. The Commission's approach 
Commission departments are working with national experts in an attempt to define a 
suitable coherent system to tackle the the problems of NSDs. There are no obvious 
answers to the questions listed above and some technical work needs to be pursued in 
greater depth. Contacts with the economic operators concerned also need to be pursued 
in this direction, both at national and Community level. 
It is therefore felt that the Community reaction on the issue of the precursors used for 
making NSDs should focus on the following points: 
(a) Presentation of a proposal to amend the Regulation on the external aspects (legal 
basis: Article 113 of the Treaty). The monitoring mechanisms for the new substances that 
will be defined should not include such measures as the issuing of licences and should rest 
primarily on cooperation with the economic operators concerned, bearing in mind the 
positive experience of some Member States so far and the legitimate concerns of industry. 
Explicit provision could be made for monitoring other substances used as precursors, 
provided that the information so gathered is regularly shared in the Community committee 
on precursors in order to keep pace with developments on the ground. 
(b) Presentation of a proposal to amend the Directive on the internal aspects (legal 
basis: Article 100a of the Treaty). Both the mechanism applied and the substances 
covered would have to be the same as in the proposed amendment to the Regulation. A 
separate instrument is needed to cover the manufacture and placing on the Community 
market of these substances, in addition to their export. 
(c) Rapid decision on the Community position on the issue with an eye to the 
forthcoming discussions in the United Nations. The only way for the Union and the 
Member States to exert real influence on the course of the discussions is to put forward a 
single, united position vis à vis our partners. This is essential to obtain an effective 
outcome in terms of combating NSDs but also to prevent international agreement on 
mechanisms that do not suit our needs and are out of line with the approach we want to 
follow. 
là 
(d) In view of the large volume of NSDs being made in the countries of Central and 
Eastern Europe (most of which are seeking membership of the Union), it is essential, once 
the Community has decided how it wishes to alter its own system, to launch action under 
the Phare programme to supplement the measures already taken in respect of these 
countries in terms of preparing their legislation on precursors. In addition, specific 
agreements should be concluded with them, along the lines of those concluded with other 
non-member countries on precursors, in order to reinforce the overall effectiveness of our 
respective arrangements, since it will be some years before those countries actually 
become members. 
6. Timetable for action 
To reconcile the need for a swift reaction to the current challenges and the need to finalize 
effective measures, proposals for measures on points (a) and (b) ought to be ready by 
early autumn. The timing ties in with action on point (c), where the Union will have to be 
ready to put forward the Community position in the appropriate international forums by 
October. 
As far as action on point (d) is concerned, this cannot reasonably begin (request to the 
Council for a negotiating brief) until the Council has adopted the new legislation. This 
could be early in 1998 if the Regulation (based on Article 113) is adopted quickly. 
tu 
FINANCIAL STATEMENT 
1 TITLE OF OPERATION 
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European 
Parliament on the control of new synthetic drugs. 
2 BUDGET HEADING INVOLVED 
A-2511 Expenditure on meetings of Committees whose consultation is not 
compulsory in the procedure for drafting Community legislation. 
3 LEGAL BASIS 
In discussion in the Council. 
4 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATION 
4.1 General obj ective 
To clarify the Commission's views concerning the surveillance of precursors 
on synthetic drugs, the creation of an early warning and risk assessment system 
for synthetic drugs in view of a possible interdiction by the Council. In this 
framework, the Commission envisages the creation of a Technical Committee 
for assessing the risk posed by new synthetic drugs. The Committee would be 
chaired by the Commission. 
4.2 Period covered and arrangements for renewal 
undefinite 
5 CLASSIFICATION OF EXPENDITURE OR REVENUE 
5.1 Non-compulsory expenditure 
5.2 Non-differentiated appropriations 
TYPE OF EXPENDITURE OR REVENUE 
Not relevant 
1> 
7 FINANCIAL IMPACT (Part B of the Budget) 
Not relevant 
8 FRAUD PREVENTION MEASURES 
Not relevant 
9 ELEMENTS OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS 
If the Committee chaired by the Commission and which is mentioned in the Presidency 
proposal for a joint action on an early warning system for synthetic drugs would be 
created, its mission would be to assess the possible risks, including the health and social 
risks, caused by the traffic in and use of synthetic drugs. 
10 ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE (SECTION m, PART A OF THE BUDGET) 
Actual mobilisation of the necessary administrative resources will depend on the 
Commission annual decision on the allocation of resources, taking into account the 
number of staff and additional amounts authorised by the budgetary authority. 
10.1 Effect on the number of posts 
Type of post 
Officials or 
temporary 
staff A 
B 
C 
Other resources 
TVx+al Staff to beassigned to 
managing the operation 
Permanent 
posts 
1 
0,5 
1,5 Temporary 
posts Source 
Existing 
resources in 
theDGor 
department 
concerned 
1 
0,5 
1,5 Additional 
resources Duration 
• 
1ST 
10.2 Overall financial impact of additional human resources 
ECU 
Amounts Method of calculation 
Officials 
Temporary staff 
Other reSOUrCeS (indicate budget heading) 
Total 1 1 
10.3 Increase in other administrative expenditure as a result of the operation 
ECU 
Budget heading Amounts Method of calculation 
A-2511 20,000 2 Committee meetings/year 
15 experts per Committee 
(695 Ecu/expert) 
Total 1 20,000 | 
19 


ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(97) 249 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 15 05 06 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-97-235-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-20109-X 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg