The recent report from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction would do better to elaborate on what lays behind the high rates of cannabis users entering treatment in certain countries.

The press release for this year’s European Drug Report states the following:

“In 2012, cannabis was the drug most frequently reported as the main reason for entering drug treatment by first-time clients.”

This is an intriguing statistic because the potential level of harm attributable to cannabis is widely regarded as relatively low. Even accounting for the fact that cannabis is by far the most widely used illicit drug in Europe, it is surprising that 42 percent of those entering drug treatment for the first time apparently cited cannabis as the primary reason.

The implication of the report -- or at least, a not unreasonable inference -- is that this is treatment for which there is a patient led demand (the relevant statistical table is entitled "Treatment demand indicator," and those undergoing treatment are referred to as "clients"). The report informs policy makers and is accessible to the public as a respected source of information about the changing nature of the illicit drug landscape, so the manner in which the information contained within it is presented is especially important.

The first thing worth highlighting -- the vast differences between countries -- is noted in the report itself: “Considerable national variation can be seen ... ranging from 2% of all treatment entrants reporting primary cannabis use in Bulgaria to 66% in Hungary." The range of first-time treatment entrants reporting cannabis as the primary reason is from 3.3 percent in Lithuania to 81.9 percent in Cyprus. So what can be said about the countries at the higher end of this range?

Taking the four countries with the highest percentage of first time patients citing cannabis as their main reason for treatment (Cyprus 81.9 percent, Hungary 74.9 percent, Denmark 72.6 percent, and France 62.5 percent), we find that other than Denmark (which can only provide data from 2011), these countries have a clear and common theme; a large number of cannabis users are coerced into treatment as an alternative to other punishments. Although not in the report itself, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) website makes it clear that the unusually high percentage of first-time patients with cannabis as their primary drug in Cyprus, for example, is due to the fact that, “treatment can now be provided as a de facto alternative to imprisonment for first time young drug offenders." In Hungary the story appears to be similar; "Cannabis users accounted for around 80% of all clients who entered treatment as an alternative to criminal procedure”. And, in France, “cannabis… remains the main drug in court-ordered treatment cases."

The title given to the section where we find the original statistics on cannabis treatment is "Concern for cannabis users." This is a curious heading, since we can only reasonably be concerned about someone going into treatment when that treatment is appropriate, fair and likely to have a beneficial outcome. When someone who is found with a small amount of cannabis on them is then coerced into treatment as an alternative to more draconian punishments, it fulfills none of these criteria. Indeed, it is likely to be treating a non-existent problem, is manifestly unjust, and is wholly inappropriate.

Of course, people may think, "Well, cannabis is a potentially dangerous drug ... so it’s actually a good thing that people are going into treatment for using it. What’s the harm?" We need only imagine an analogous situation with a far more dangerous drug (see N:B, below) to understand the gravity of the prejudice at play here: a 17 year old boy is caught by the police having illegally bought a small crate of beer. The police detain him, and he is placed in a cell. He is then dragged through the justice system which is set at a default of assuming the boy is a problematic user of alcohol. He is then told that if he doesn’t accept his "problem" and the help which is being kindly offered to him, then he will go to prison. The boy "chooses" to go into treatment, at the needless expense of the taxpayer.

This scenario is patently absurd, and yet it makes no less sense than forcing treatment on those found with a small amount of cannabis on them. But this isn’t just an injustice to this particular young man, it is also a hindrance to the proper collection of statistics on problem users of alcohol, as he is then added to an ever growing list of people who have ostensibly sought treatment for an alcohol problem, despite the fact that possession of a small crate of beer is not a good proxy for problem use.

So should we be concerned about cannabis users in the European Union? Absolutely. But, the most relevant concern, in some countries at least, has little to do with cannabis itself, but rather the ineffectual, unjust and costly laws that surround it.

Following a pattern that is quickly becoming a tired cliché in drug policy, we once again find prohibition exacerbating the very problems it claims to help solve. More than this, though, by perpetuating a myth about cannabis harms which seems alien to so many users of cannabis, the EMCDDA fails to advance the debate about how best to minimize the risks of cannabis use, instead appearing disconnected from the real facts at hand.

Cannabis isn’t as concerning as forced treatment for non-problem users, and the authors of the European Drug Report would have done well to make that clear.

(N:B. Lest we need reminding… Deaths resulting from cannabis use worldwide in 2013: 0. Deaths resulting from alcohol use worldwide in 2013: ~2.5 million. "Lethal dose" to "effective dose’"ratio – [alcohol] 10:1, [cannabis] 1000:1. Interestingly, in the subsequent part of the report, entitled "Acute emergencies associated with cannabis and synthetic cannabinoid products," it is noted that cannabis related emergencies are “often associated with alcohol intoxication” ... who would have guessed?!)