An important issue for many US citizens, particularly those who live in the inner city and in major urban areas, is the level of administration concern regarding the impact of drugs on US society and the relative priority the administration assigns to drugs as a policy issue.

In mid-October 1993, the Clinton administration released an interim policy statement setting forth its proposed strategy for national drug control. Consisting of both domestic and international components, this strategy seeks to downplay the drug issue as a priority driving the new administration's policy agenda. Within the United States, the drug policy is linked to other important domestic goals and is envisioned as just one of the elements in efforts to spur economic growth, reform health care, curb violence among the nation's youth, and “empower communities.”

In September 1989, President Bush outlined a comprehensive, multi-faceted drug control strategy with both national and international dimensions. The strategy focused on reducing both the demand and supply of illicit drugs. Treatment, prevention/education, research, law enforcement, and international efforts are major components of the strategy. An important goal of the strategy was to reduce the amount of illicit drugs illegally entering the United States by 15% within 2 years and by 60% within 10 years. The president refined the strategy and forwarded it to Congress on 25 January 1990 (US-ONDCP, 1990: 49-52, 120-121). The following year, in February 1991, policymakers modified goals to a 20% reduction by 1993 and a 65% reduction by the year 2001 (US-ONDCP, 1991: 15).

In a Nationally televised speech on 5 September 1989, President Bush outlined a comprehensive anti-drug program with both domestic and international dimensions. The objectives of this strategy, which was refined and submitted to the Congress on 25 January 1990, are to reduce the amount of cocaine, marijuana, heroin, and other dangerous drugs estimated to be entering the United States (a) by 15% within 2 years and (b) by 60% within 10 years.

The strategy includes a number of international components which differ greatly from policies of previous years. New to the strategy are provisions which: (1) provide — for the first time — support for limited economic assistance to major cocaineproducing countries; (2) concentrate more on disrupting the activities of the trafficking organizations [i.e. on seizing processing labs, chemicals and assets] and less on disrupting the activities of farmers [i.e., crop eradication]; (3) encourage increased levels of Andean nation military involvement in counter-narcotics operations; and (4) provide for enhanced US military support to host nation counter-narcotics forces.

The Congress of The United States exerts greater influence over foreign policy than do its counterparts in other nations. This influence extends to formulation of US policy regarding control of the international narcotics trade, a subject on which the Congress has chosen to assume a leading role. The formal policymaking role of the Congress in this area is embodied in legislation on international narcotics (including appropriation of funds) and in oversight. The Congress also exercises its influence in an informal way through consultation, unofficial advice, public education, and legislative prodding in the drafting and conduct of that policy.

The congressional role in narcotics policymaking is notably affected by its committee structure, in which numerous committees may exercise some degree of jurisdiction over narcotics-related issues. As a result, not only has there been widespread involvement of the Congress in formulating narcotics policy, but there has also been considerable fragmentation of that policy as congressional initiatives have been compartmentalized within the jurisdictional domains of various committees.

The European Convention on Information on Foreign Law came into being as a result of formal recognition by the Council of Europe that increasing movement of persons and goods across European frontiers has resulted in an interpenetration of laws and the attendant need to take foreign law into consideration. Thus, in its explanatory report on the Convention, the Council of Europe noted that it “often happens that, under a rule of conduct or laws, a court is called upon to apply a principle of foreign law, particularly in questions of contract and of family law or of the status and capacity of persons.”