European Policy on Addiction – Where Are We Heading To?

Brussels, 8 September 2026 – How can addictive substances be regulated without pushing their users towards the black market? How can children be protected from digital addictions without simply banning social media? And could overly strict regulation of tobacco and nicotine create further space for illegal activity? These were among the questions discussed today in Brussels by experts at the European Policy on Addiction – Where Are We Heading To? conference, organised by the Institute for Rational Addiction Policies (IRAP) under the auspices of MEP Ondřej Krutílek.

Harm reduction in Europe is facing a funding shortage

The first part of the debate highlighted a problem that remains largely invisible to the public: organisations working directly with people who use drugs are struggling with a lack of funding across Europe.

Tony Duffin of Correlation – European Harm Reduction Network and Harm Reduction International pointed out that small community organisations in particular need more stable funding and greater opportunities to participate in shaping European policy. In his view, it is not enough merely to contact people working in the field – their experience must genuinely reach the decision-making table. This was echoed by Leo Jefferys, Executive Director of EuroNPUD, who supported involving people with practical experience while also emphasising human rights and the freedom to make one’s own choices.

Another theme was the need to combine empathy with evidence. According to the panellists, policy cannot be based solely on assumptions about how people ought to behave. It must also reflect how people actually behave and which measures reduce harm in practice.

Prohibit or regulate?

A very practical question arose in the debate on cannabis and other psychomodulatory substances: what happens to demand when the state bans a product?

Lawyer Daniel Pospíšil pointed out that prohibition alone may not eliminate demand. If people still want a product, the illegal market may begin to meet that demand. The debate therefore raised further questions about finding a model that causes the least harm, rather than automatically choosing between two extremes – complete prohibition and an entirely free market.

Chokwan “Kitty” Chopaka, one of the prominent figures in Thailand’s cannabis reform movement, also pointed out that regulation itself can be problematic and still fail to address real-world problems. Much therefore depends on the state’s ability to enforce the rules, public awareness and local conditions. Tessa Windelinckx of Belgium’s Free Clinic stressed the importance of listening to the people directly affected by regulation.

Former National Drug Coordinator Pavel Bém also highlighted the need to approach people struggling with addiction with empathy. A practical solution is decriminalisation and the search for a model that has historically produced the least harm.

Stricter rules can help the black market

The next panel focused on forthcoming European regulation of tobacco and nicotine products, taxation and the illegal market. The discussion highlighted a simple but often overlooked mechanism: if a legal product becomes too expensive or disappears from the market, demand may not disappear with it.

According to Krzysztof Łanda, former Polish Deputy Minister of Health, taxation and regulation must therefore take into account not only public-health objectives but also their impact on illegal trade. Excessively restrictive measures can create space for smuggling and unregulated products whose composition, sale and access by minors are beyond state control. In his view, the best solution is to tax products according to their level of harm: lower risk, lower taxation.

Jindřich Vobořil, a leading Czech drug-policy expert, warned that the black market is also expanding within the EU. In his view, the tobacco sector in particular presents a significant risk for the EU in terms of illegal sales.

Pavel Pachta, former Deputy Secretary of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), also raised the case of Palau and its initiative concerning the international control of nicotine. The discussion showed that the future regulation of nicotine is no longer solely a European issue, but is also reaching international institutions.

Children online: prohibition is not the only answer

The final panel turned to the very nature of addiction. Professor of Psychology Joël Billieux of the University of Lausanne and Aida Bikić of the University of Southern Denmark discussed how to protect children and young people in an environment whose business model is built on keeping their attention for as long as possible.

The discussion focused in particular on the design of digital platforms and the algorithms that influence what content users see and how long they remain on a platform. Rather than simply banning social media, the panellists called for greater algorithmic transparency, accountability from technology companies and better user education.

The panellists also warned against creating panic around time spent online. Not every young person who spends many hours on their phone is addicted. The more important questions are why they spend so much time online, how they use technology and whether that use is actually causing problems.

One policy for different addictions

A common theme connected the individual debates: prohibition alone does not solve the problem of addiction. Whether the issue is drugs, cannabis, nicotine or digital technologies, experts argued that regulation must be evidence-based, reflect how people actually behave and take unintended consequences into account.

The conference was closed by Ethan Nadelmann, founder and former Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

The Institute for Rational Addiction Policies (IRAP) is an independent organisation based in the Czech Republic that advocates evidence-based addiction policy, the integration of different addiction policies, and the minimisation of their health, social and security impacts.