 This year you will publish a report on the Czech experience, can you give us an overview of the report? We are especially keen to give details about cases of good decision making on progressive drug policy and the Czech Republic is a very good example of that, especially given that they came out of many years of Soviet occupation and found a way to go in a direction that was respectful of the rights of drug users, especially their right to health services. What happened in Czech Republic was what happened everywhere. After the fall of the iron cart and the drugs arrived, I mean other drugs, new drugs arrived, specifically heroin. We had an open drug scene for a short time here in Prague in the very center of the city, which was not very usual, which attracted a lot of media attention. There's one thing which makes Czech Republic definitely distinctive and that's methamphetamine. We are the only country in Europe where methamphetamine is the major problem drug, major injected drug, where the majority of people who are addicted to illegal drugs are addicted to methamphetamine, which is locally called peritone. After 1990, after the fall of communism, it was probably a part of the general liberalization of the society when there was the abolishment of the death penalty, when there was the abolishment of homosexual intercourse under 21, I think, and a couple of others. And that's probably as part of this quite huge social move. Also the possession of drugs for own use was completely decriminalized. The Slovak Republic seemed to go back to a more Soviet kind of policy in some ways that's changed a little bit over the years. Whereas the Czechs held fast to a policy that really was concerned about distinguishing minor from less minor drug crimes and keeping people in contact with health and social services. We started hammer-reduction, almost before the revolution, but in small quantities. After the revolution, this topic was opened up and we first started to change the three-way line, the system in the Czech Republic was created, the system P-CHE, the system hammer-reduction, the system poradensky, the system substituent, the whole spectrum that made it clear that more than 70% of drug users are in contact with some medical or poradensky institution. In other criteria, the current situation is that after some age, the age category, or those drug users who want to be old, that means that young people who don't have access to it, are very few HIV-positive, which is a very important number. The Czech officials also stayed very true to the idea that scientific evidence can help in policymaking, so they actually invested in a very important study about whether criminalization would actually do what its proponents said it would do and reduce the number of drug users, which it didn't do. Every single study I'm aware of, or I did myself, says there's no impact of drug policies to the levels of drug use in the society. What you directly influence with the drug policy are harms. I mean, it's not like if you make it more strict, the use goes down, if you make it more legal, the use goes up. That's one thing, the other thing is it's always quite interesting which type, which patterns of drug use you speak about. Do you speak about experimentation? Do you speak about injection drug use? What we do have is one of the highest prevalence in lifetime use in the school kids, several times higher than Netherlands, almost as high as the United States, which is also interesting because they have anything but not deep criminalization or decriminalization. If you look at it from the point of view of public health or public security, it was extremely successful. I mean, we have one of the lowest HIV rates. More countries do have it around. We have one of the lowest rates in viral hepatitis C. This is not the case in the countries around. We have almost the lowest rate of overdoses, deadly overdoses, the poisoning with drugs. We have very little drug crime in terms of the secondary drug crime. Civil society in the Czech Republic played a key role from the beginning in all of this and that's something I want to underscore. The police have also been very active in these discussions and they don't spend their time chasing down the smallest crimes, which I think again speaks to some good sense about how they use their resources. The press jumped on the change in the law in 2010 as though I think the headline said Prague would be the new Amsterdam and things like this. In fact, the change in the law at that point was relatively minor. What really happened is that we have very specifically defined the amounts which if you possess them are still misdemeanor and if you are over them they are a crime and that's it. The prisons are not overflowing with people who are convicted of minor crimes. People have a chance not to have their lives ruined by criminalization for minor crimes and I think that's maybe the most important indicator. I don't understand why an activity which might endanger you and only you should be subject of criminal law. That doesn't make sense. As a doctor, in terms of addictive use, so far we do believe addiction is illness. How we could even think about to punish people because they are ill.