1. Suggestions chapter 2: “ Responses” Basically a good chapter!

2. Discussion: What to do in case of very “ rough” data? E.g. expenditures for drug law enforcement. Text (page 32) is very cautious, which is good. However – should we report at all?

3. Discussion: Does EMCDDA has a task in promoting standardization of definitions, research questions and methodologies (besides the key indicators)? Is this possible/feasible? If yes, how?

4. Interpretation of data: could we go a little further or better not? E.g. drug law offences increased by 29% (page 33). Are there possible explanations? Is it striking, “worrisome” or not?

5. Information included in the chapter Explain (also small) gaps in our knowledge? Try to fill (small) knowledge gaps, if not possible try to explain them? E.g.: no data about Sweden on treatment modalities. (figure 1) Explain “strange” results? E.g. relatively high percentage “ other types of offenses” for the UK and Latvia. (figure 2)

6. Emphasis on “new” information. Seems logical, but drawbacks too? Overview is lacking sometimes? New information, e.g. on indicative prevention projects, is reported, but what/how much is known already? Is a short overview about existing data or a short historical overview (as in the case of outpatient treatment) helpful? If possible refer to Best Practice Portal and/or other data bases?