|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||
|
Note: This briefing was produced in 2004 shortly after the decision to reclassify cannabis from Class B to Class C was implemented in January of that year. The classification of cannabis has subsequently been revisited, having been referred back to the Advisory council for the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) by the Home Secretary in March 2005. Transform have produced a new briefing for these ACMD deliberations (September 2005) which is available here.
Transform welcomes the Government's interest in reducing penalties associated with cannabis use. Symbolically at least, it is a step in the right direction, and it is to be hoped that the new guidelines will lead to fewer pointless arrests. However, the way in which the reforms have been developed and implemented has been confused and ill thought out. Failing to fully decriminalise personal possession has made policing cannabis use more confusing. More significantly the reforms do nothing to address the issue of illegal supply and its associated criminality. If the Government is serious about getting rid of illegal dealers the only effective course of action is to have legally regulated and licensed outlets. This would remove the illegal profits, collapse the illegal market, and put the dealers out of business (as well as all the other oft-repeated benefits of legalisation). Transform would like to see the cannabis issue resolved as soon as possible so that the drug debate can move on to the more pressing issues around the damage created by the prohibition of heroin and cocaine.
There are clearly advantages and disadvantages to reforms (reclassification, decriminalisation, legalisation) from a police perspective. On the one hand there is a widely held view that cannabis policing is ineffective (with use rising and the price falling); that it is unenforceable and wastes valuable police resources; that it needlessly criminalises otherwise law abiding citizens who are not harming others; and that it is disproportionately punitive, alienating police from key sections of the community. This has been recognised by many police:
On the other hand there has been a reluctance to give up the power of arrest for cannabis possession. Finding someone in possession of cannabis allows the police to arrest and undertake further investigations, including house searches, which can uncover evidence of more serious crimes. Problematic users of heroin and crack, who are likely to be involved in crime to support their habits, do not routinely have heroin and crack in their possession (as it is bought on a day to day basis and used soon after purchase). They are much more likely to be in possession of cannabis (bought less regularly and consumed over a week or more). Individual accounts of serious crimes uncovered following arrest for cannabis possession do not mean that the benefits of reforms would be outweighed by costs. None the less it would appear that police lobbying for maintaining arrest powers contributed to making possession of Class C drugs an arrestable offence.
In essence reclassification will change very little. Reducing the maximum sentence from five years to two years will have no meaningful impact as sentences were rarely over two years anyway. As a Class B drug police were able to exercise discretion over how to deal with cannabis possession: whether to confiscate and give a verbal warning; to arrest and caution; or arrest and prosecute. Post reclassification the police have the same options and the ACPO guidelines are sufficiently vague that the decisions will remain with individual constabularies and officers. The situation at present is that you are far more likely to be arrested and prosecuted in certain postcodes than others, and there is nothing in the new legislation to change this situation, even if the overall number of arrests falls.
The debate around drug law reform remains intimately entwined with the wider populist law and order debate and the question of how cannabis should be policed has often become confused with emotive questions around the harm associated with cannabis use and the moral rights and wrongs of drug use generally. As far back as 1901 a Royal Commission concluded that cannabis should not be prohibited. It became illegal under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1928 none the less and the cannabis debate has been rumbling on ever since. As far back as 1967 a full page advert appeared in the Times signed by a collection of public figures (including David Dimbleby, William Rees Mogg, R D Laing and Graham Greene) calling for the legalisation of cannabis. One hundred years after the Royal Commission recommended not prohibiting cannabis the maximum penalty for cannabis possession has been reduced from five to two years in prison. The Government has made it clear it has no intention of legalising any currently prohibited drug. The home secretary's announcement that he intended to reclassify cannabis was made to the Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) during their investigation into the effectiveness of UK drug policy in 2001. The move was seen by many as a concession to drug policy reformers including the HASC (which called for the UK government to discuss legalisation of all drugs at UN level), The Police Foundation (the Runciman Report), and the public (opinion polls consistently show over 50% of adults support decriminalisation or legalisation of cannabis). Reclassification has assumed a greater political and media profile than such an insignificant legislative tweak probably deserves by merit of being the first softening of the UK's historically punitive drug laws. There are clearly political fears that there might be a backlash against the reforms from those seeking to attack the Government by accusing them of being soft on drugs (Sept 2005 update: this is exactly what has happened: see new briefing here). Whilst there has been recent frenzied media coverage of the medical dangers of cannabis and negative coverage of the Brixton experiment, it seems fears of a public backlash have been somewhat misplaced. The Daily Telegraph ran an editorial in 2000 calling for cannabis legalisation, the Economist magazine ran a special issue on the need to legalise all drugs in 2002 and even the Daily Mail as recently as December 30th 2003 ran an editorial stating that "Some argue…..the only solution is to legalise all drugs" and that the "argument is yet to be resolved" and "we are a long way from even having an informed debate on this most explosive of issues". The editorial shared the page with an opinion piece by Bruce Anderson titled "Time to legalise the damn lot."
A recent report from the Number 10 Strategy Unit on the future of UK drug policy concluded that attacks on drug supply are ineffective and often counterproductive The report has not been made public but is currently doing the rounds in Whitehall. This analysis calls into question the very nature of prohibition as an effective overarching drugs regime. (Sept 2005 update - this report has now been made public following a leak to the Guardian) Political fears have, however, informed the tough talking rhetoric around cannabis supply and cannabis dealers that has accompanied the softening of approaches towards users. This has led to the penalties for class C drug dealing being increased to Class B levels, and contributed to the confusion around what exactly the reforms are supposed to achieve.
Media coverage and parliamentary debate around reclassification has focused heavily on the dangers associated with cannabis, and the potential rise in use following any decrease in penalties. New research into dangers associated with cannabis use has highlighted the risks of heavy use amongst vulnerable individuals - in particular teenagers and individuals with pre-existing mental health problems. There is an ongoing debate about the extent of these risks, and research has often been selectively used to bolster the case for and against legalisation. From Transform's perspective the health debate is a distraction from policing and law reform issues:
Concerns over rising use are misplaced. The Home Office, Drugscope and the EU European Drug Monitoring Centre all maintain that changes to enforcement policy do not have a significant effect on use. Cannabis use has risen steadily under prohibition; evidence comparing different enforcement regimes internationally, and even different regimes within individual countries, shows that enforcement and legislation is not a key determinant of use. The criminal justice system is not tasked to send out public heath messages and when it has attempted to take on this role it has been singularly ineffective.
New September 2005 Cannabis relassification revisited - briefing (Sept 2005)
Frank - Government
drugs information site Cannabis
café discussion and information Law Enforcement
Against Prohibition: |
||
 |
||
|
||
|