Cross-party committee says prime minister should set up royal commission on Britain’s failing drug laws
Full PDF report available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmhaff/184/184.pdf
Showing posts tagged drugs
David Cameron urged to take 'now or never' step on drugs reform
What the Cabinet said about drugs policy (in 1970)
Over at The Poison Garden is a preliminary fisking of Peter Hitchens’s upcoming drugs policy book and its promotion. That led me to track down a fascinating document of Cabinet Conclusions. The date is 26th February 1970 and the topic is “the forthcoming Misuse of Drugs Bill”. The Home Secretary is James Callaghan, and this is a few months before Wilson loses the election to the Tories (who - very unusually - see that the previous government’s bill becomes law). In another document (the memorandum) Callaghan states that his own view is that the three-classifications idea should be ignored, and that possession of any controlled drug should have a maximum sentence of 7 years.
Here’s the drugs discussion in its entirety, with emphasis added by me (note how easily managing public opinion is put ahead of rationality and considered expert judgement):
“The Cabinet had before them a memorandum by the Home Secretary on the Misuse of Drugs Bill (C (70) 34).
The Home Secretary said that the Home Affairs Committee had recently considered the range of penalties to be provided in the forthcoming Misuse of Drugs Bill. Existing legislation on this subject distinguished in principle between the offences of simple possession of controlled drugs and trafficking in them. But, under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1965, which dealt with heroin, cocaine, morphine and cannabis, the two offences had been treated on the same basis and the same penalty of ten years’ imprisonment applied to each. Under the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1964, which dealt with amphetamines, LSD and other hallucinogens, possession was punishable by two years’ imprisonment; and there was no separate offence of trafficking. The Committee had agreed that the new Bill should continue to distinguish between the offences of possession and trafficking; but they had also approved a division of drugs into three categories, each of which would attract a separate and appropriate penalty. But if—as was clearly right—the penalties for trafficking should be increased (e.g. in the case of the most dangerous drugs, from the existing limit of ten years’ imprisonment to a new limit of 14 years), it followed that the penalties for simple possession of the less serious drugs should be reduced; and the Committee had recommended that on this basis the penalty for possession of cannabis might be curtailed from ten years to three years. Further reflection, however, had suggested that public opinion might well regard a change of this kind as indicating too lenient an attitude on the part of the Government towards the potentially dangerous practice of drug-taking; and the Cabinet would wish to consider whether the political damage which the Government might suffer if this impression gained ground was sufficiently serious to justify a modification of the terms of the Bill before it was introduced.
If so, one of two courses could be adopted. The first would preserve the three categories of controlled drugs but would increase the penalties for simple possession of drugs in the two most serious categories from three years’ imprisonment to five years in the case of cannabis and from five years to seven years in the case of heroin, cocaine, etc. The second approach, which on the whole he advised, would be to abandon the distinction between categories of drugs entirely and to provide single maximum penalties for possession and trafficking respectively. The former might be either ten years or seven years’ imprisonment; the latter would be 14 years in all cases.
In discussion, there was general agreement that it would be right to maintain the distinction between the offences of possession and trafficking and to establish a more flexible and discriminating classification of the various categories of drugs. But the proposed reduction of the penalty for simple possession of cannabis from ten years’ imprisonment to three years would be liable to be severely criticised by public opinion, especially by parents and teachers. The impact of this apparent concession to the permissive tendencies in society would not be offset by the increase in the penalty for possession in the case of other drugs (e.g. LSD); and the Government might be at considerable political risk as a result. It would be very unwise to underestimate the degree of public concern on this subject and the ease with which the Governments intentions might be misinterpreted.
On the other hand, the proposals as approved by the Home Affairs Committee were the result of very careful consideration and reflected the considered judgment of expert opinion. Of the two alternative courses which the Home Secretary had suggested the second would entail a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment for simple possession of cannabis; and a sentence of such severity was wholly unrealistic in relation to the offence as committed by, for example, a schoolchild. Moreover, the penalty actually imposed would lie at the discretion of the court; and, since it was most unlikely that the court would in fact deal so harshly with an offence of this kind, the law itself would be liable to fall into disuse and disrepute. The political risks of proceeding with the proposals as approved by the Home Affairs Committee could be exaggerated; and in any event it would be wrong, in a matter of this kind, to subordinate the requirements of humanity and equity to political considerations.
The Prime Minister, summing up the discussion, said that it appeared that the Cabinet were in favour, by a small majority, of proceeding with the proposals recommended by the Home Affairs Committee. But it might help to allay public disquiet if the proposed penalties for possession of controlled drugs were increased to some extent—e.g. to seven years (instead of five years) for the most serious drugs and to five years (instead of three years) for drugs in the second category, including cannabis. The Cabinet agreed that the Bill should go forward on this basis.
The Cabinet—
Invited the Home Secretary to arrange for the early introduction of the Misuse of Drugs Bill on the basis indicated by the Prime Minister in his summing up of their discussion.”
PS If anyone has or can find any of the relevant Home Affairs Committee documents, please do let me know!
New paper shows drugs classifications are wrong
Following on from the work of David Nutt and others - originally for the government’s own advisory panel - is another paper trying to compare the harms of different drugs. As with previous papers, and available at the British Medical Journal, this one’s not good news for our current classification system or the distinction between legal and illegal drugs.
One of the strengths of this study is the large number of experts involved. Two hundred and ninety-two addiction multidisciplinary experts across Scotland were involved making it the largest national panel to be involved in this type of study. [Addiction community psychiatric nurses were the largest group, making up 46% of the experts]
[…]
The main result is that heroin, crack cocaine, crystal meth, alcohol and cocaine were in the top five places for all [9] categories of harm, with LSD, ecstasy, methylphenidate, magic mushrooms and cannabis in the bottom five places for all categories of harm. The hierarchy of harm when judged by the experts did not correlate with the hierarchy used currently by the Misuse of Drugs Act.
[…]
This study demonstrates, similar to both of Nutt’s studies, that the legality of a substance does not reflect its potential for harm.
The burgeoning evidence of the harm caused by tobacco and alcohol would also suggest that from a scientific perspective these drugs are currently misclassified and that a new method for ranking drug harm, which could guide policies and public health strategies, is required, with many in the scientific and medical community feeling that this should be separated from the criminal justice system and associated penalties.
Any new system would also have to address the issue of personal choice and responsibility in using substances and examine the context in which they are being used. Increasing public awareness of the potential for harm of all the drugs examined whether legal or illegal and finding ways of reducing the demand for psychoactive substances should be the focus rather than imposing harsh penalties for their use.
These methods of comparing harms aren’t perfect. One issue with this paper is that there’s no distinction between harms intrinsic to the drug and additional harm caused by prohibition. Whatever you think of legalisation, a regulated market certainly wouldn’t see heroin contaminated with anthrax, for example.
But these methods are certainly better than the politics and misinformed hysteria that have created the UK’s classification system.
Hopefully this and further improvements will help lead to a more sensible system, but it’s clear that there are also individual reclassifications that could help. The ACMD might next year recommend that Ketamine should be moved up to Class B. Based on this paper, that might be reasonable. But it may also be an opportunity to change - or at least discuss - other classifications, especially those of ecstasy and cannabis (in both cases Labour ignored ACMD advice), as well as LSD and magic mushrooms.
This is not entirely academic. Assuming some people listen to advice from the Home Office, information not based in fact promotes poor decisions and is a danger to people’s health. Think of the children…
BBC: 100 years of the war on drugs
The first international drug treaty was signed a century ago this week. So what was the war on drugs like in 1912?
A tale of self-perpetuation, media hysteria and xenophobia.
UK Home Affairs Committee to review drugs policy
This is amazing news!
The Committee will undertake a comprehensive review of drugs policy in the new year. The Committee will examine the effectiveness of the Government’s 2010 drugs strategy and the UK Government’s contribution to global efforts to reduce the supply and demand of illicit drugs. Specifically, the Committee will consider:
- The extent to which the Government’s 2010 drug strategy is a ‘fiscally responsible policy with strategies grounded in science, health, security and human rights’ in line with the recent recommendation by the Global Commission on Drug Policy
- The criteria used by the Government to measure the efficacy of its drug policies
- The independence and quality of expert advice which is being given to the government
- Whether drug-related policing and expenditure is likely to decrease in line with police budgets and what impact this may have
- The cost effectiveness of different policies to reduce drug usage
- The extent to which public health considerations should play a leading role in developing drugs policy
- The relationship between drug and alcohol abuse
- The comparative harm and cost of legal and illegal drugs
- The impact of the transfer of functions of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse to Public Health England and how this will affect the provision of treatment
- The availability of ‘legal highs’ and the challenges associated with adapting the legal framework to deal with new substances
- The links between drugs, organised crime and terrorism
- Whether the UK is supporting its global partners effectively and what changes may occur with the introduction of the national crime agency
- Whether detailed consideration ought to be given to alternative ways of tackling the drugs dilemma, as recommended by the Select Committee in 2002 (The Government’s Drugs Policy: Is It Working?, HC 318, 2001–02) and the Justice Committee’s 2010 Report on justice reinvestment (Cutting crime: the case for justice reinvestment, HC 94, 2009–10).”
Organisations and individuals interested in making written submissions are invited to do so by Tuesday 10 January 2012.
ACMD repeats call for decriminalisation of drug possession
For those that don’t know, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is the UK’s official body for advising ministers - usually the Home Office - on drug policy. This is the second time it has included a call for the decriminalisation of personal possession of all drugs in a consultation. Hopefully it will consider doing a proper report on this subject - to which the Home Secretary would be obliged to [properly?] respond - but their timetable is packed, and largely determined by… the Home Secretary.
Transform nails all the key points.
Will no one rid the Minister of these troublesome experts?
Greece to decriminalise drug possession?
The reporting so far is a little confusing and sometimes contradictory, but it seems that:
Proposals have been made by the Greek Justice Minister Miltiadis Papaioannou to the Greek Committee on Social Affairs which notably include decriminalisation of personal drug use, as long as the drug use only impacts the behavior and condition of the individual drug user.
Under the reforms possession of drugs for personal consumption will be classed as only misconduct so long as it is used for only private use, and the cultivation of cannabis will be tolerated if only for personal use. The bill also proposes to guarantee the right for drugs treatment to all who request it, including drug users incarcerated. The reforms will not legalise the supply or trafficking of drugs, these actions will still be considered offences under Greek law.
The Minister explained that these actions would be now regarded as misdemeanors, as long as it effects only the user and no others. Minister Papaioannou noted that the law had to be changed because of the minor danger of specific actions. In this way, police will have the ability to deal more quickly and easily with more severe issues. The Minister stressed that the law has a therapeutic approach to the issue and every drug user will be treated as an addicted person who needs help rather than punishment.
Austerity does have its benefits! I suspect Portugal’s high-profile (and somewhat-different) decriminalisation, and the EU’s quietly favourable attitude will deserve some credit too if this comes to pass. Watch this space.
Largest Hard Drug Bust in British History | NYT
LONDON — British authorities said on Wednesday that they had seized the largest shipment of illicit hard drugs — known as Class A drugs — in the country’s history, and that the seizure has led to the arrest of six members of a presumed international narcotics ring.
The UK Border Agency said that it had seized 1.2 tons of almost pure cocaine, with an estimated street value of up to £300 million, or more than $490 million. The haul was found inside a £1 million luxury yacht at the Southampton docks on the southern English coast in June.
Since then, the British authorities have worked with Dutch police to track the members of the gang presumed to be responsible, six members were arrested on Tuesday in the Netherlands. +
But the question is, will this lead to a reduction in drug harms? Will there now be a shortage of cocaine in the Netherlands, leading to a reduction in availability, or prices that deter new users and lead others to quit (or increase acquisitive crime?)? Will any decrease in purity mean an increase or a decrease in harm?
Most probably, these busts have little to no impact beyond the headlines. “It is very difficult for enforcement agencies to demonstrate that even the largest drugs hauls have had any significant impact on street-level availability, let alone levels of use. Evidence suggests that both the drug market and the drug user adapt to changing circumstances.” (source - pdf)
thinkingdrugs.org - A really educational and fair survey on drugs policy. Spare some time to answer all four pages and it will let you know where you lie on the spectrum.
Lumping all drugs and all patterns of use together under terms like “drug use” isn’t ideal but it does make the debate more manageable. Nonetheless, give it a go!
UK prison drugs trade worth £100m?
Government complacent about level of UK corruption, claims campaign group … Transparency International highlights prisons, parliament, political parties and sport as areas of most concern
…
The drugs trade within prisons is worth approximately £100m a year but corruption has been “routinely ignored by policy-makers and the prison service has reduced its capacity to monitor and investigative corruption”, says the group.
Really? £100m? That’s around £1200 per prisoner each year. I don’t know much about prisons or the money prisoners are given but I think it’s less than minimum wage for any work they do.
I was intrigued enough to download the report itself which says
Concerns surrounding prison corruption are inextricably linked with the smuggling in of contraband, particularly drugs and mobile phones. The National Offender management Service estimates that the drug trade within prisons is worth approximately £100 million, with the price of drugs inside prison inflated to around 1,000 per cent of their street value.
I’ll have to take this £100m figure as true. There’s so much that could be said about this, from discussing the policy of giving money to inmates; to observing how prohibition can’t even keep drugs out of actual prisons, let alone police states; and how high prices don’t seem to deter use, at least when living conditions are poor and opportunities few and far between. But I’ll leave any poorly-informed commentary for now.
Incidentally, I’ve read on the blog of a prisoner that one of the main reasons why mobile phones are in high demand is because using the payphones is inexplicably expensive. But then the prisoners do seem to have money to spare…
I also note that if the US is anywhere near comparable to the UK on this, the prison drugs trade there must be worth several billion dollars.
