Note:
By law all children in the UK are taught, in
accordance with the United Nations' definition, that
alcohol and tobacco are drugs.
Individual, industry and Government
responsibility for drug regulation: comparison
Does Government drugs policy exclude
alcohol & tobacco because of scientific evidence?
What principles underlie the
Government's drugs policy?
What evidence is there for the
effectiveness of Government policy?
Government believes drug prohibition
deters use of illegal drugs but would increase crime
for legal drugs
How has science in general been
misused in Government policy making?
Cannabis reclassification case study -
exposing the misuse of science in drugs policy making
Individual,
industry and Government responsibility for drug
regulation: comparison of Government quotes
| |
Alcohol |
Tobacco |
Illegal
drugs |
| Individuals |
Their own
choices about what they drink, where and how.
The consequences of those choices, both as
experienced by themselves and in their impact
on others. Individuals cease to be
responsible only where they are genuinely
unable to exercise that choice (for example
those who are mentally ill) or could not be
reasonably expected to exercise it (which is
why we protect the under-18s in legislation).
Intoxication does not relieve an individual
of responsibility for their actions. |
We
recognise that Government action in areas of
personal choice like smoking is a difficult
and a sensitive issue. We believe that people
should have a choice about whether or not to
smoke but they should also be properly
informed. Smoking is not against the law. We
do not intend to make smoking unlawful. We
are not banning smoking. Just as the
Government is determined not to infringe upon
people's rights to make free and informed
choices, it is also determined to ensure that
the responsibilities of smokers to people who
choose not to smoke are carried out. |
All
controlled drugs are dangerous and no one
should take them. To protect themselves and
to enable them to make the decision not to
take illegal drugs, young people need
accurate information about the dangers and
harmful effects of different drugs and why
they are illegal. |
| Industry |
Giving
accurate information about the products it
sells - and warning about the consequences.
Supplying its products in a way which
minimises harm. Work with national agencies
and local partners to tackle the harms which
the supply of its product creates. |
It is
ultimately for the producers of
age-restricted goods to introduce [proof of
age] cards as it is in their interests to
have a card that aids the legal sale of these
products. |
Reducing
the supply of illegal drugs and tackling the
trafficking of all drugs is key. Heavily
penalising those caught dealing or drug
trafficking with maximum sentences ranging
from 14 years (for Class B and C drugs) to
life imprisonment (for Class A). |
| Government |
Ensuring
that consumers receive clear information,
both through its own efforts and through
working with the industry. Supporting those
who suffer adverse consequences. Protecting
individuals from harm caused by the alcohol
misuse of others – for example, through
effective enforcement of the duties on
enforcement agencies. Protecting against
harms caused by the supply of alcohol where
appropriate, and for regulating to the
minimum necessary to achieve this. Ensuring a
fair balance between the interests of all
stakeholders. |
Tobacco
products need to be regulated more
effectively than at present. Legislation is
used only where required. The Government does
not believe that a system of negative
licensing to target retailers who partake in
underage sales is necessary. Where possible,
we have looked for partnerships: with
industry on a proof-of-age system, and with
the licensed trade on smoking in public
places. Allegations that British American
Tobacco plc has been involved in smuggling
[may lead to] the launching of a criminal
investigation. |
Drugs
misuse is a national problem requiring
fairness and consistency in our response.
Drug laws must accurately reflect the
relative harms of different drugs if they are
to persuade young people in particular of the
dangers of misusing drugs. All drugs are
harmful and enforcement against all illegal
substances will continue. |
Exclusion
of traditional drugs results in inconsistent and
disproportionate drug laws:
Flint (Home
Office): "Our drugs laws and our
educational messages to young people must reflect the
relative harms of drugs, in accordance with the
available scientific and medical advice, if they are
to be credible".
Paul Flynn
MP: "Does the Home Secretary
agree that alcohol is the hardest of all hard
drugs?" Straw (HO): "Alcohol, when
abused, can be a very hard drug, but, taken in
moderation, people can enjoy it and it is part of
society's culture. I do not to believe that there
should be a competition for us to determine which
drug does the greatest damage. We should produce a
sensible and proportionate approach to all the drugs
that can cause harm in our society".
Clarke (HO):
"The Government's policy on all legal and
illegal drugs should be motivated by a desire to
reduce use, whether we are talking about tobacco,
alcohol or other drugs".
Clarke (HO):
"The Government keep drug misuse patterns in
this country under review. By statute, the
responsibility for providing the expert advice that
informs that process rests with the Advisory Council
on the Misuse of Drugs". Harris:
"We [Lib Dems] believe that drugs policy should
include tobacco and alcohol. The committee advising
the Government on these things should have a wider
remit. The current situation is nonsense".
Chairman
(Home Affairs Committee’s inquiry The
Government’s Drugs Policy:
Is it working?): "Why
are alcohol and tobacco not integrated into the drugs
strategy?" Jenkins (HO):
"…any strategy has to take account of
that societal attitude". Hogg (HO):
"...we are signed up to a number of UN
conventions … which actually states that supply
and production of defined drugs, which broadly
speaking are the ones defined in the 1971 Act and
subsequent regulations, should be a criminal
offence".
Chairman
(HAC Committee): "... shortly
after your appointment as Home Secretary you did
indicate a willingness to review the assumptions on
which our drugs policy was based. Have you come to
any conclusions?" Blunkett (HO):
"Yes, I have come to the conclusion that it is
necessary to clarify this for the purposes of ... the
mature debate that I indicated in the early summer
was necessary, actually to have a much clearer
picture of what government policy will be towards
some of the more controversial areas. I want to make
it absolutely clear that the message from Government
will be "Don't take drugs of any kind, they are
dangerous and they will damage you." It is also
absolutely clear and necessary to have credibility,
consistency and clarity in relation to those
policies, therefore I want to combine with colleagues
across Government programmes in relation to
education, geared to an aid to young people, that are
both credible to young people and are targeted and
focussed on the main risk that they face, namely the
use of Class A drugs".
Killen (HO):
"...the Home Secretary said that
decisions should be made based on the science and
that should be kept under review. The Home Secretary
made his views very clear to you last week that all
drugs are harmful. It is therefore right to keep them
within the criminal system. ...the Home Secretary
wants to represent better the
difference between the harm caused by class A drugs
and by cannabis. He has therefore asked the Advisory
Council on the Misuse of Drugs to look at that and
crucial to the advice they give him will be the
science and level of harm which cannabis causes.
Therefore the sanctions which will ultimately be put
in place against cannabis will be based on that level
of harm. ...it comes down to
the degree of harm that drug causes. That should be
the basis of our classification and that should be
the basis for how it is treated within the criminal
justice system".
Principles
of Government's drug policy:
Government’s
10 year strategy to tackle drugs:
"The Underlying
Principles of The Strategy:
Integration. Drug problems do not occur in
isolation. They are often tied in with other social
problems. The Government is tackling inequalities
through the largest-ever programme to get people off
benefit and into work and a series of reforms in the
welfare state, education, health, criminal justice
and the economy. And a new Social Exclusion Unit is
looking at many of the problems often associated with
drug taking such as school exclusions, truancy, rough
sleeping and poor housing. It is important to
remember these connections, and that key results in
other areas of activity, such as general take-up
rates for further and higher education and
employment, relate clearly to the development of this
strategy.
Evidence. Drug misuse can be a highly-charged
subject. Learning about an illicit activity can be
difficult but our strategy must be based on accurate,
independent research, approached in a level-headed,
analytical fashion.
Joint Action. Partnership is not an end in
itself, and can be an excuse for blurring
responsibilities and inactivity. But the evidence is
that joint action - if managed effectively - has a
far greater impact on the complex drugs problem than
disparate activities.
Consistency of Action. While activities must
relate to local circumstances and priorities, drugs
misuse is a national problem requiring fairness and
consistency in our response.
Effective Communication. We need to be clear
and consistent in the messages we send to young
people and to society in particular, the importance
of reinforcing at every opportunity that drug-taking
can be harmful.
Accountability. Through the Coordinator's
Annual Report and Plan of Action Against Drugs, we
can dispassionately and objectively track progress.
The structures, resources and performance mechanisms
set out in this report exist solely for that purpose,
so that we can be sure our achievements are
real".
Government’s
Updated Drug Strategy 2002:
"This updated
strategy sets out a range of policies and
interventions which concentrate on the most dangerous
drugs, the most damaged communities and the
individuals whose addiction and chaotic lifestyles
are most harmful, both to themselves and others. We
have no intention of legalising any illicit drug. All
controlled drugs are dangerous and nobody should take
them.
The most effective way of reducing the harm drugs
cause is to persuade all potential users, but
particularly the young, not to use drugs. Success
will only be achieved if we stop young people from
developing drug problems, reduce the prevalence of
drugs on our streets and reduce the numbers of those
with existing drug problems by getting them into
effective treatment".
Evidence
and Government drugs policy effectiveness
Killen (HO):
"Pre-1998 one of the problems there was that we
did not have a systematic research programme on drugs
and we have had to build that up".
Ainsworth
(HO): "…we should not forget that,
before 1998, there was no strategy at all. There was
no evidence base whatsoever".
When asked
"what evidence do the Government have to show
that confiscation and the prosecution of drugs
suppliers have made any difference to the amount of
drugs use in this country?" Bob
Ainsworth replied "As the law to date
has been so relatively ineffective, I doubt whether
it has made much difference at all".
Evidence to
Home Affairs Committee’s inquiry The
Government’s Drugs Policy:
Is it working? -
Prosser: "What studies have
the Home Office done to date on the possible
effects of decriminalising drugs of all
classes?" Hogg (HO):
"we, certainly in my time, have not been
asked to undertake any detailed study of the
impact of decriminalisation". Hellawell
(HO): "To address the question
straight on, I know of no comprehensive study to
look at the effects of decriminalisation of all
drugs". Chairman: "Have
you seen our terms of reference? Point two: what
would be the effect of decriminalisation on (a)
the availability of and demand for drugs (b)
drug-related deaths and (c) crime? Does your
evidence address that at all? Point three: is
decriminalisation desirable and, if not, what are
the practical alternatives? Do you think that is
addressed? We appear to be in denial here, do we
not? … You do not think you ought even to
address this debate going on in the outside
world, if only in order to rebut the assertions
being made?… if nobody will even address it
among the official witnesses, how are we going to
proceed?"
Cameron:
"Has the Home Office done, or do you
intend to do, any studies looking at the benefits
and disbenefits of legalising some or all
drugs?" Ainsworth (HO):
"There have been some attempts to scope the
issues but it would be very difficult to actually
pin down the whole costs of such a move of
policy. That is really a matter for ministers
rather than for officials".
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office
(Lord Filkin): "We have clearly to
inform our drug strategy by evaluation and evidence,
and understanding the effectiveness of the drug
policies, or different components of it at both
national and local level".
Government believes drug
prohibition deters use of illegal drugs but would
increase crime for legal drugs - splitting the costs
& benefits of prohibition
Ainsworth (HO):
"Smoking is the greatest single cause of
preventable illness and premature death in the UK,
and is responsible for around 120,000 deaths every
year. Since evidence shows that demand for cigarettes
is affected by price, it follows that high tax levels
can play an important role in reducing overall
tobacco consumption and dissuading people from taking
up the habit. However, because the habit has a four
hundred-year history of social acceptance in the
Western world, the Government cannot simply ban it
although it does encourage people to stop smoking.
The Government believes that adults are entitled to
make an informed choice and therefore ensures that
full information on the dangers of tobacco are freely
available"
Flint (HO):
"Owing to the wide use of these substances over
a long period of history in modern society and the
general social acceptance that has resulted, it is
not a realistic or practical option. To criminalise
the supply and use of alcohol, tobacco and caffeine
would inevitably result in widespread smuggling, law
breaking and other associated criminal
activity".
In fact prohibition
of any activity always reduces that activity and
always increases crime: those who comply with the law
stop the activity; those who do not are classed as
criminals. These are merely the benefits and costs of
prohibition. Government identifies benefits only with
illegal drugs and costs only with legal drugs,
failing to assess the costs and benefits for each.
Parliamentary
Office of Science & Technology Notes 196 &
220:
POST Note 196 says
scientists have accused Government of "using
science selectively or to:
• justify
predetermined decisions or positions
•
erroneously frame issues as predominantly
scientific (e.g. in substituting for moral or
value judgements)
• act as a
scapegoat when things go wrong
• offer
undue certainty and reassurance while critical
uncertainties are downplayed
• delay
making contentious or complex decisions".
POST Note 220 says
of the use of the Precautionary Principle that it
should ensure:
"•
ongoing risk research and monitoring
•
transparent consideration of multiple options,
including the risks of action and inaction
• genuine
engagement with minority and lay concerns
• a shift
in the burden of proof for safety to proponents
of new technologies, while acknowledging the
impossibility of proving zero risk".
Cannabis reclassification and the role
of scientific evidence and non-scientific factors:
Scientific
evidence:
Government:
Concerns
about evidence confusion:
Other:
Scientific advice:
The
Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs’ The
Classification of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs
Act 1971 says "In October 2001 the Home
Secretary asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of
Drugs (the ‘Council’) to review the
classification of cannabis preparations in the light
of current scientific evidence". The report
concludes that although "the high use of
cannabis is not associated with major health problems
for the individual or society", "cannabis
is not a harmless substance" but "is less
harmful than other substances … within Class
B" of the MDA and "the Council therefore
recommends the reclassification of all cannabis
preparations to Class C under the Misuse of Drugs Act
1971".
There is nothing scientific about this policy
recommendation suggesting continued prohibition is a
proportionate response to the risks of cannabis use.
It is not scientifically possible for a substance to
be harmless. There is no assessment of the option to
remove cannabis from the MDA which would result in
greater proportionality with alcohol and tobacco
regulations. This suggests that non-scientific
factors underlie their recommendation to continue
criminalising 4 million citizens for consuming a drug
whose risks, according to the ACMD’s scientific
evidence, are less than those of the legally
available drugs, alcohol and tobacco.
Select
Committee on Science and Technology’s Cannabis:
The Scientific and Medical Evidence
distinguishes scientific from other forms of evidence
outside the Committee’s remit but suggests
scientific evidence alone justifies prohibition.
"1.5 We have also considered whether the
continued prohibition of recreational use is
justified on the basis of the scientific evidence of
adverse effects. Recreational use raises other issues
besides the adverse effects of the drug; these are
outside our remit "to consider science and
technology", belonging instead to the realms of
law, sociology and even philosophy, and we have not
considered them".
"8.18 It is believed in some quarters that the
current absolute prohibition on the recreational use
of cannabis and its derivatives is not justified by
the adverse consequences for the user and the public.
On the evidence before us, we disagree. On the
contrary, we endorse the Government's statement in Tackling
Drugs: "The more evidence becomes available
about the risks of...cannabis,...the more discredited
the notion that [it is] harmless" (paragraph
6.16)".
Such endorsement is not scientific. As with the ACMD
the evidence that cannabis is not harmless is taken
to be evidence that prohibition is the most effective
intervention – a disproportionate and
inconsistent precautionary principle that is not
supported by evidence, scientific or otherwise.
In
contrast the Royal Society and the Academy of Medical
Sciences’s joint submission to the House of
Lords Science and Technology Select Committee’s Cannabis:
the scientific and medical evidence says:
"6. How strong is the scientific evidence in
favour of maintaining prohibition of recreational
use?
6.1 Under this heading our concern is only to show
how science can illuminate discussion of the
questions rather than ourselves push any particular
view. We believe that science can indeed throw light
on how this question can be rationally approached and
would like to see current public debate much better
informed than is at present the case. However, we
would at the end of the day expect any such decision
to be determined by social and political
considerations and that is not territory which we
wish to enter.
6.6 Within the perspective of what the health
sciences have to tell, removal of prohibition on
cannabis would have to be described as a voyage into
the unknown. Some added harm and some added costs
would undoubtedly result. Whether the impact on the
nation's health and safety would be relatively small
or whether the consequences would be a damaging
endemic of multiple and costly harms or something
between these two extremes, is in our view a question
which cannot be resolved by reference to existing
scientific evidence. It is up to society and
government to decide whether there are imperatives
that make that risk worth taking, but risky it would
be".
The
Lancet agrees with the Royal Society’s view that
scientific evidence alone cannot be used to justify
regulatory policy saying "On the medical
evidence available, moderate indulgence in cannabis
has little ill effect on health, and decisions to ban
or to legalise cannabis should therefore be based on
other considerations".
Government
explanation for reclassification:
Based
on scientific evidence -
The Prime
Minister’s Official Spokesperson said the
"Government's decision was the result of advice
from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, a
group of scientific and medical experts".
David Blunkett:
"…the message to young people and families
must be open, honest and believable. That is why I
asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to
review the classification of cannabis. It has
recommended that the current classification is
disproportionate in relation to the harmfulness and
nature of other controlled drugs. The council made it
clear that greater differentiation between drugs that
kill and drugs that cause harm would be both
scientifically justified and educationally
sensible".
Bob Ainsworth (HO):
"The medical evidence is that cannabis should be
in the "C" classification and not the
"B" classification. So we fully intend to
follow through and bring that into legislation".
Bob Ainsworth said
in the Parliamentary Debate on Cannabis
Reclassification on 9 Nov 2001"if
reclassification is warranted by an honest scientific
assessment of the relative harms, it would enhance
the credibility of our drugs laws as a whole, and it
would help us to deliver our message on drugs to
young people and better to align public policy and
criminal justice practice".
Caroline Flint (HO):
"We are not seeking to legalise cannabis by
reclassifying it; we are trying to have an important
debate based on scientific evidence that looks at the
relative harm caused by different types of controlled
drugs".
Flint:
"…we have taken into account the work of
the statutory advisory committee, which provides the
scientific evidence on which to base our decisions.
Winnick: "Is not it also a fact that the last
survey undertaken showed that more than 120,000
deaths in a single year were caused by smoking, in
addition to the deaths caused through alcohol
abuse?" Flint: "We are trying to debate the
different levels of harm produced by controlled
drugs. …the whole point of having three
categories of classification is to assess
scientifically the relative harms of different sorts
of drugs. We must be honest and credible and rely on
science, not prejudice. Our drugs laws and
educational messages to young people must reflect the
scientific assessment of the advisory council if they
are to be credible, convincing and, ultimately,
effective". (more on ‘Dangerous Drugs’
debate below)
Rosie Winterton
(DoH): "...the Advisory Council on the Misuse of
Drugs keeps the evidence of harm from all controlled
drugs under constant review. …the evidence is
examined by the advisory council, which is
independent. Reclassification took place only as a
result of the advice received from that
council".
"The Government
accepted the Council's recommendation for the
following reasons:
- Our drugs laws
should accurately reflect the relative harms of
drugs in accordance with the available scientific
and medical advice. The Government recognises
that cannabis is not as harmful to health as
other Class B drugs like the amphetamines.
- The Government
believes that all controlled drugs, including
cannabis, are harmful and that no one should take
them. It also believes that having the law
reflect the relative harmfulness of drugs
accurately is vital to this message being open,
honest and balanced".
Home Office letter
to UN’s International Narcotics Control Board
defending cannabis reclassification based on
scientific evidence:
"I am writing
on behalf of the United Kingdom Government to record
its dismay at comments made in the International
Narcotics Control Board annual report about the
Government's decision to reclassify cannabis. In
particular the alarmist language used, the absence of
any reference to the scientific evidence on which
that decision was based, and the misleading way in
which the decision was presented by the INCB to the
media. The decision to reclassify cannabis was based
on scientific advice from the Advisory Council on the
Misuse of Drugs, following their detailed scrutiny of
all the available scientific and research material.
…the Advisory Council concluded that cannabis is
unquestionably harmful, but that its current
classification is disproportionate both in relation
to its inherent toxicity, and to that of other
substances... It therefore recommended that it be
reclassified to Class C under the Act. I would find
it extraordinary if the Board thought that the UK
Government should have ignored the science and based
our decision on what people in some quarters might
think".
Based on social and political factors
-
David Blunkett
announcing to the Home Affairs Committee his decision
to ask ACMD about cannabis reclassification from B to
C said "I shall therefore be putting to the
Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs a proposal
that we should re-categorise cannabis to 'C' rather
than 'B', thereby allowing police to concentrate
their resources on class 'A' drugs"
Tony Blair said
"The purpose of what we have done recently
[cannabis reclassification], however, is to ensure
that the police, where they need to do so, can target
their main resources and activity on dealing with
hard drugs".
The Government's
Updated Drug Strategy 2002 explains cannabis
reclassification by saying "it is vital that the
Government's message to young people is open, honest
and credible. Drug laws must accurately reflect the
relative harms of different drugs if they are to
persuade young people in particular of the dangers of
misusing drugs".
"Why has the
Government reclassified cannabis? The Advisory
Council on the Misuse of Drugs advised that cannabis
is harmful, but not as harmful as other Class B
drugs, such as the amphetamines. Reclassification
brings the law into line with this assessment, and
will enable the Government to give a more credible
message to young people about the relative dangers of
drugs".
Ainsworth: "The
main motive behind the reclassification decision is
to create a credible message that young people are
prepared to listen to. They will not listen to us if
we pretend that cannabis, harmful as it is, is as
dangerous as heroin or crack cocaine".
Flint: "Our
drugs laws and our educational messages to young
people must reflect the relative harms of drugs, in
accordance with the available scientific and medical
advice, if they are to be credible".
New Scientist summary: ‘not
scientific opinion’ but other factors
Reclassification is
not based upon new scientific evidence but political
and social factors. New Scientist provided an
objective and balanced account of the ACMD’s
recommendation to reclassify cannabis saying
"While making it clear that cannabis is far from
benign, the report sensibly rates the substance as
"substantially less harmful" than
amphetamines, and less likely than alcohol and
tobacco to lead to health problems. The government is
certain now to downgrade cannabis from its class B
list, which includes amphetamines, to class C, which
includes steroids. In practice, possession of small
amounts of cannabis will cease to be an arrestable
offence in Britain, a move unthinkable even a few
years ago. What's changed? Not scientific opinion. As
long ago as 1968, Britain's then Advisory Committee
on Drug Dependence concluded that cannabis was safer
than amphetamines and alcohol, and imprisoning people
for possessing it was disproportionate to the harm it
does. The new flexibility is born of pragmatism and
demographics. Police chiefs and politicians are less
likely to demonise a substance they or their friends
smoked in their youth. And with nearly one in five
Britons aged 20 to 24 now using cannabis regularly,
it's clear that the current law is useless as a
deterrent and serves only to criminalise otherwise
law-abiding people while eating up vast amounts of
police time".
Concerns about the confusion of
scientific evidence with other forms of evidence:
Parliament, 22 June
2004 – Trust, separating scientific from other
advice & ACMD independence:
"Bill Tynan
MP: We need to separate the necessarily
inexact and best guess areas of classification and
law from the more certain areas of what science is
saying about the harm caused by cannabis, especially
to the mental health of our youth. The Advisory
Council on Alcohol and Drugs cannot continue to do
both. I understand its role and its advice to
reclassify. However, the advice and judgments of any
body often depend on the question asked and the
response received.…….
The breadth of the advisory council's role has become
unsustainable. Trust in its scientific assessments
has been damaged by its attempt to comment on the
science and health consequences of cannabis misuse
and then to urge contentious decisions to be taken on
reclassification. The chronology is important. In
October 2001, the Home Secretary asked it "to
review the classification of cannabis preparations in
the light of current scientific evidence.
……..
I accept that some of those who are concerned about
the growing health problems are ambivalent about
reclassification. After the confusion and problems
over the reclassification of cannabis and the
discussions that have surrounded it, we need to
reconsider the role of the advisory council. Perhaps
it needs to be restructured so as to separate the
science, enforcement and treatment aspects of its
work from the wider direction of drugs policy. As a
first step the statistics, information and research
committee of the advisory council should consider
meeting more regularly and publishing public reports.
We should then consider whether to replace it with an
independent scientific review body. ……..
We need to set up an independent body to assess the
health implications of drugs misuse—both by
commissioning research and by bringing together other
research—separately from considering the policy
aspects of combating that misuse.
I therefore urge the Minister to consider setting up
a commission, separate from the advisory council, to
take on that body's responsibilities for the research
and science side of drugs misuse, and to accept the
wider remit of informing the debate independently. By
recommending cannabis reclassification as part of its
current role, the advisory council has become a party
to the debate. It was established in 1971, more than
30 years ago. We need to re-examine its role in a
modern setting".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the
Home Department (Caroline Flint) : "My hon.
Friend said a lot about the Advisory Council on the
Misuse of Drugs, and we should remind ourselves that
it is a fully independent, non-departmental public
body, whose membership is drawn from a wide range of
disciplines and is highly respected worldwide for the
quality of its reports. The ACMD's March 2002
cannabis report clearly set out the scientific
evidence for the risk of harm from cannabis. Setting
cannabis in the context of other controlled drugs,
the council concluded that class C was the most
appropriate level of classification. As I said, the
advisory council is an independent and impartial
body, and it provides evidence-based advice to the
Government".
[Note Ms
Flint’s statement "Setting cannabis in the
context of other controlled drugs" – why
not in the context of all drugs? Cannabis appears to
be a significantly safer alternative intoxicant drug
to alcohol.]
ACMD governance: MDA classification
and harmless drugs
The Guardian
reported that " Sir Michael Rawlins, chairman of
the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
…said "Quite clearly these things can't be
locked into aspic for all time. If you are going down
the route of having classification of drugs you do
need to have an arrangement whereby they are reviewed
from time to time." The council, established by
the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, divided drugs into the
three categories. "The basis on which it did it
nobody knows. The records do not explain why... The
basis on which any of the things were classified is
obscure from reading the minutes. They won't tell
you." Any new system would try to bring
"more objectivity into the whole process,"
Sir Michael said."
Sir Michael Rawlins
said in The Times "The classification system for
drugs does not mean that any of these substances are
harmless. If they were, they would not be included in
the Misuse of Drugs Act".
Government unable to review policy in
line with changing scientific evidence:
Prime
Minister’s Official Spokesman: "the PMOS
said that the Government's position on cannabis had
not changed. We believed that cannabis was dangerous.
Asked what might cause the Government to change its
position, the PMOS said that the Government was
acting on scientific evidence. Cannabis was a
dangerous drug. Asked if it was more dangerous than
alcohol, the PMOS said it was not a question of
comparisons. If we knew that a particular substance
was dangerous, we actively sought to discourage it.
Put to him that we didn't discourage alcohol, the
PMOS pointed out that there were strategies for
tackling alcohol abuse which we actively pursued.
Questioned as to whether the Royal Commission on
drugs would be re-examined, the PMOS said that the
Government's position had not changed and would not
change".
Ainsworth:
"there are health problems taking cannabis both
in the short-term as well as potential long-term
health problems. There is not enough research done on
that as of yet. That is the reason for us continuing
to believe that cannabis should remain an illegal
substance". Gillan: "To
ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department
what plans there are to repeat the longitudinal
studies of cannabis smoking completed in the 1960s
and 1970s to take account of the increased potency of
today's cannabis". Flint:
"We have no plans to replicate such studies. We
rely upon the advice of the Advisory Council on the
Misuse of Drugs, which is based upon a wide-ranging
review of the available research. It is the council's
view that there is no clear evidence that variants of
cannabis with higher levels of its main psychoactive
ingredient tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) cause more
health problems"
Parliamentary Debate –
Dangerous Drugs (cannabis reclassification):
Flint:
"this Labour Government are absolutely right to
focus on the most dangerous drugs. I can assure my
hon. Friend that the Government are considering and
have considered all the relevant evidence. More
importantly, we have taken into account the work of
the statutory advisory committee, which provides the
scientific evidence on which to base our decisions. Winnick:
"Is not it also a fact that the last survey
undertaken showed that more than 120,000 deaths in a
single year were caused by smoking, in addition to
the deaths caused through alcohol abuse?" Flint:
"We are trying to debate the different levels of
harm produced by controlled drugs. I can tell my hon.
Friend that the whole point of having three
categories of classification is to assess
scientifically the relative harms of different sorts
of drugs. We must be honest and credible and rely on
science, not prejudice. … there are many reasons
why people start to take drugs, or get involved with
them. Many start by smoking tobacco, or misusing
alcohol. The treatment of all drugs as equally
harmful and dangerous has lacked credibility with
young people and devalued the educational message
about its harmful effects, as hon. Members have
noted. That has led to inconsistency and a lack of
proper political accountability. Our drugs laws and
educational messages to young people must reflect the
scientific assessment of the advisory council if they
are to be credible, convincing and, ultimately,
effective. My point is that young people form their
views about our drug laws according to the messages
that they receive from people in positions of
responsibility. We have not had a strategy that has
worked, and in particular we have had no strategy to
which young people are prepared to listen".
Mann: "We should have three classifications
of drugs. … The final classification of drugs
should be tobacco and, in particular, alcohol.
Tobacco kills millions, and alcohol—which, in
terms of drug misuse, causes greater policing
problems and probably greater criminal activity than
any other single drug—is, of course, misused
more by Members and by the general public than any
other drug. An improved classification of drugs that
identifies alcohol as a major problem along with
other drugs is fundamental. We need to have a system
that is credible to young people, but an expanded
litany of classifications will confuse them. We try
to suggest to young people that these drugs are all
the same and that they should say no to drugs. Say no
to which drugs? We do not mean alcohol, because that
is legal at 18".
Hughes:
"Public opinion is clearly ahead of Parliament
on the cannabis issue, and the credibility of
politics is losing out because we are less and less
in tune. ... smoking causes 120,000 deaths a year and
alcohol-related diseases account for 30,000 deaths a
year. We must give people the facts and counter the
prejudice. We must also ensure that we have a system
that keeps people up to date. We must establish an
authoritative body that works in the open to keep up
to date with events. Since 1994, my party has called
for such a body. We originally proposed a royal
commission, but that is a one-off exercise. We
subsequently argued for a standing commission. I hold
to the view that we need an authoritative,
independent body. We should treat recreational drug
users as normal people who use such drugs in the same
way as alcohol or tobacco, which are also used, for
better or worse, as recreational drugs. There is
evidence that cannabis is harmful, but less harmful
than alcohol and tobacco. It is therefore not logical
to treat the personal use of cannabis as a crime when
we allow people to use tobacco and alcohol. Many
people now say precisely that and act accordingly,
and that brings the law into disrepute. Policies must
be credible as well as intelligent".
Hoey:
"We keep hearing about the Advisory Council on
the Misuse of Drugs, and the implication is that it
is made up of most eminent and respectable
people—I do not disagree—and the font of
all wisdom. It is important to point out, however,
that it is part of the Home Office, it is not a
scientific advisory panel".