Facts of Law disputed by UK Government

 

Questions:

1. Are alcohol and tobacco “dangerous or otherwise harmful drugs” (Preamble)? Do they therefore come within the scope of the Act? [our answer = yes]

2. Is it a legitimate aim of the Act to discriminate between those involved in equally harmful drugs? Do Government and/or the ACMD have the legal power to exclude the two drugs that cause most harm from their law implementation/advice? On grounds of: tradition, acceptability by majority, legal status? [no] On the grounds that Parliament intended their exclusion? [arguable]

3. It is a legitimate aim of the Act to discriminate between drug use whose “harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem” (Section 1) and drug use whose harmful effects are not sufficient to constitute a social problem? [yes]

4. Are UN drug Conventions incorporated into domestic law by the Act? In interpreting the Act, are UN drug Conventions requiring unequal treatment any more significant than other unincorporated international treaties requiring equal treatment? [no]

5. Does ACMD have a statutory duty to provide Government with independent advice and recommendations concerning alternative regulations to those specified in Sections 3, 4 and 5 if evidence indicates those alternative regulations are in the public interest? [“advice on measures (whether or not involving alteration of the law) which in the opinion of the Council ought to be taken … for restricting the availability of such drugs”, Section 1]. [yes]

6. Does SSHD have a statutory duty to provide Parliament with recommendations concerning alternative regulations to those specified in Sections 3, 4 and 5 if evidence indicates those alternative regulations are in the public interest? [yes]

7. Does ACMD & SSHD have a statutory duty to ensure that regulations evolve with new evidence of drug harmfulness to ensure continued proportionality of regulations to risk? [yes]

8. Do the current regulations under the MDA (Sects 3,4,5) prohibit all exercise of property rights for non-medical use, irrespective of risks to the public, Art 1-1? [yes]

9. Do the current regulations under the MDA (Sects 3,4,5) prohibit all exercise of informed choice for consenting adult consumers, irrespective of risks to the public, Art 8. [yes]

10. Is the Act implemented contrary to the rule of law (equality before the law) and the Human Rights Act (Art 14 ECHR conjunct Art 1-1, Art 8 and Art 5)? [yes]

11. Is there a legal basis for the Sentencing Guidelines Council to advise courts that public fear is a factor to be taken into account during sentencing for controlled drugs but not equally harmful drugs excluded from the Act, given that offenders cannot be culpable for public fear? [no]

12. Does the principle that producers and suppliers of controlled drugs are held culpable for the harm caused to consumers who are adults exercising informed choice contradict the case law on causation? [yes]