Case Explained: A Sword without a Blacksmith? The Drug Policy Strategy of the European Commission – Legal Perspective

–Dr. Thomas Joyce, Assistant Professor of Criminology and Criminal Law, Tilburg University; (co)Editor-in-Chief, Tilburg Law Review

In December 2025, the European Commission (EC) published the EU Drugs Strategy (COM 2025 – 743) which sets out the intended drug policy direction of the Europe Union. This document, which serves as a key policy text for the consideration of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union in developing, and ultimately passing, European-level legislation, lays out the core strategy for tackling drugs throughout the EU. Across ten strategic priorities, percolating around the threat posed by drug use and the dangers of organized crime, the Commission emphasize the need for improved application of the current legal framework, through enforcement, the judiciary, and best practices. Yet at no point is the veracity of the EU’s existing policy of drug prohibition called into question. This commentary argues that even minor adjustments to the current legal framework should be considered as making a potential contribution to achieving the Commissions’ aims, and that criminal law experts should not be left out of policy discussions that directly concern the criminal law.

The Drug Strategy Framework

The European Commission lay out ten strategic priorities intended to act as the objectives and guiding principles for European drug policy in the coming years. In short, the Commission intends to: 1. Strengthen EU preparedness to address drug-related threats; 2. Implement evidence-based prevention and risk awareness; 3. Enhance treatment, recovery and reintegration; 4. Enhance law enforcement and judicial cooperation; 5. Disrupt drug trafficking routes; 6. Combat the production of synthetic drugs and precursors; 7. Reduce individual drug-related harm; 8. Mitigate social and environmental impacts; 9. Strengthen international cooperation, and 10. Enhance EU coordination and strategic partnerships.

These 10 pillars can be broadly grouped across three areas: increasing enforcement (1, 4, 5, 6), preventing harm (2, 3, 7, 8), and enhancing international cooperation (9, 10). Details vary from pillar to pillar: some take a broad approach, focusing on general aims (referencing the need to disrupt criminal networks) while others are far more specific (referencing the benefits of take-home naloxone programs). Numerous independent European institutions – such as the EUDA, CEPOL, and Europol – and several separate EU programs – such as the EU Early Warning System, the European Social Fund Plus, and the EU Health Policy Platform – and a number of specific legal frameworks – such as the European Investigation Order, the Framework Decision on Drug Trafficking, and the Environmental Crime Directive – are mentioned throughout as being part of the wider strategy. Experts in a variety of fields – law enforcement, policy makers, social workers, medical personnel, tech professionals, and scientists – should equally be called upon as relevant stakeholders and sources of knowledge and support.

Solutions proffered to the drug-related problems under the 10 pillars focus largely on law enforcement training (1, 2, 4, 6, 8), existing legal frameworks (4, 6, 8), health-related programs (2, 3, 7), data collection and analysis (1, 3), and new technologies (1, 4) amongst others.

Comment

The issue with the EU Drugs Strategy is not what is included; the Commission lays out important developments across all major policy areas, and makes specific reference to the various EU institutions and programs that have been set up to address same. Rather, the issue is with what is excluded. Throughout the document, though there are many references to legal instruments, at no point does the Commission mention making a review of drug policy itself. In fact, most of the emphasis is put on the maintenance of the current paradigm – ensuring its implementation across all MS.

According the EUDA, drug use remains a consistent problem across the EU, with rates of use and addiction remaining persistently high. This concern is highlighted by the reach of awareness campaigns referenced in the EU Drugs Strategy, which the Commission suggests should run across the socio-economic spectrum, and in settings as diverse as schools, sports clubs, night clubs, prisons, and the internet (2), with particular effort made to reach the target audiences of young people, mental health sufferers, migrants, prisoners, the LGBTIQ+ community, nightclub attendees, and festival goers (7).

Looking at the previous equivalent EU Drugs Strategy document, we can observe direct parallels between what is written here – a focus on drug research and statistics, leveraging new technologies for enforcement, and fostering cooperation between relevant institutions – and the content of its predecessor. In fact, the two are broadly similar. This marks a clear contradiction: we recognize that the problem persists – or is even getting worse – on the one hand, but insist on using the same only somewhat effective solutions to solve it on the other.

This is not to state that we should, necessarily, legalize drugs; it is simply to indicate that there are various alternative or amended policy approaches available – partial legalization, legalization for medical purposes, legalization within a regulatory framework, decriminalization, depenalization, etc. – that are worthy of consideration as potential, contributory solutions to the problem. While the Commission are right to include their well-reasoned law enforcement supports, data gathering initiatives, and awareness campaigns as part of a wider drugs strategy, it is odd to think that legal approaches, and indeed, legal considerations more widely, could be so readily distant from their plans.

The question is: why? Such alternative legal approaches have had significant success in other countries, and have even been employed in European MSs such as the Germany, Netherlands, Portugal. It is not that any one particular policy must be employed, or that we have to change the legal landscape of European drug policy overnight. Yet it almost seems, from the conspicuous absence of reference to any consideration of alternative legal approaches, that the Commission consider the legal status of drugs to be immutable – as certain as that of mala in se offences, such as theft and murder. Yet, it really isn’t. The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs was only implemented in 1961 – in criminal-law terms, a relatively short time ago. Since then worldwide drug use has increased rapidly, as has the profiteering of drug trafficking cartels around the globe. This apparent failure on the part of this historical legal response has lead to frequent calls from scholars to shift to a decriminalized model.

This points to an even wider problem still. It is not simply the criminal law that is left out of the European Drug Strategy, but criminal lawyers. In the document, experts are frequently referenced as being relied on to inform, enhance, support, or enforce this law. Policy makers, law enforcement, civil society actors, medical professionals, data developers, scientists, there are a number of stakeholders specifically referenced as being indispensable to drug policy. But what about experts in the field of criminal law? It appears that the commission are falling into the same trap as many governmental institutions before them: wielding criminal law without consulting criminal lawyers.

The criminal law is not just an agent of prohibition. It is a very specific conceptional framework. And short of being empty, it contains is own specific content: dynamics, philosophies, and effects that underpin it. The Commission seeks to continue to use the criminal law to tackle drugs, but it takes no time to consider the condition of the criminal law itself, nor does it seek to draw from the expertise of criminal law specialists to make related determinations – they want a sword, but not a blacksmith.

Ideology has no place in drug policy. The battle here is not between conservatism and liberalism; the status quo and hedonism. Our sole focus should be on drugs as a commodity: a commodity that are widely consumed, and which can, under certain conditions, cause individuals serious harm. Yet though questions pertaining how to best regulate this commodity are thus vital, for the EU, such considerations remain conspicuously absent from their drug strategy.

Suggested citation: Thomas Joyce, A Sword without a Blacksmith? The Drug Policy Strategy of the European Commission, Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, Apr. 4, 2026, at: