Report quotes
1968: Hallucinogens Sub-committee of the Advisory
Committee on Drug Dependence, The Wootton report: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/wootton/sec5.htm
61. Cannabis is often
described as an "intoxicant" and frequently compared with alcohol.
Both produce relaxation and euphoria; both, taken in excess, impair judgment,
speed of reaction, and co-ordination. Cannabis more readily distorts perception
of time and space. Unlike alcohol, cannabis is not known to enhance the effects
of certain other drugs, induce a limited degree of tolerance or, over the long
term, cause physical damage to body tissues directly or by dietary deficiency.
Cannabis may well, however, be at least as dangerous as alcohol as an influence
on driving or other responsible activity. This sharpness of similarity and
contrast is considerably blurred by the effects of very different social
settings. Alcohol in our culture is in general use and not illegal. Cannabis is
used by a minority, and mostly against the law. Drinking patterns vary widely
by country and by social class. Though many drinkers, particularly those who
can be regarded as alcoholics, drink to get drunk, alcohol-users normally take
a small amount, seeking only mild effects and a little social relaxation. The
patterns of cannabis-smoking are more obscure. Experienced cannabis-users often
smoke cannabis for a mild intoxication that they feel will improve their
performance in a particular social setting or activity, e.g. playing jazz. Many
smokers, however, take the drug in anticipation of a few hours of intense
mental elation without the aggressive impulses often associated with taking
large amounts of alcohol. All in all, it is impossible to make out a firm case
against cannabis as being potentially a greater personal or social danger than
alcohol. What can be said is that alcohol, with all its problems, is in some
sense the "devil we know"; cannabis, in Western society, is still an
unknown quantity.
62. Tobacco-smoking is, of
course, the most widespread "drug-addiction" in our society. The
immediate effects are well known and substantially harmless. Physical dependence
does not appear to occur, but habituation is intense, and people find great
difficulty in giving up smoking. The long-term dangers of smoking in inducing
cancer of the lung, in exacerbating chronic bronchitis and in contributing to
coronary thrombosis are great. Nevertheless the danger that smoking may produce
lung cancer was for a long while not apparent. It is not possible to say that
long continued consumption, medically or for pleasure, of cannabis, or indeed
of any other substance of which we have not yet had long experience, is free
from possible danger.
63. To make a comparative
evaluation between cannabis and other drugs is to venture on highly subjective
territory. The history of the assessments that have been given to different
drugs is a warning against any dogmatic judgment.
64. Tobacco was once the
object of extreme judgments. In the 17th century a number of
countries attempted to restrict or forbid its use, but without success. In 1606
Philip 111 of Spain issued a decree restricting its cultivation. In 1610 in
65. Even non-alcoholic
beverages that are now in common use have, in their time, been regarded as
gravely dangerous. As late as the beginning of this century the Regius Professor of Physic at
66. With such earlier
judgments in mind we do not wish to make any formal or absolute statement on a
comparison of cannabis and the other drugs in common social use. All we would
wish to say is that the gradations of danger between consuming tea and coffee
at one end of the scale and injecting heroin intravenously at the other, may
not be permanently those which we now ascribe to particular drugs.
1994 Judgement of the
http://www.drugtext.org/library/legal/verdicft.html
1999-2001 The
ACMD annual report
Subjects considered by Council: A review of the
criteria used to consider whether a drug should be controlled under the Misuse
of Drugs Act 1971 and the development of a new risk assessment protocol. This
work is still in progress but should be completed in 2001/2002.
2000 Police
Foundation, Drugs and the law - Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs
Act, p.39, para 1: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/runciman/pf3.htm
In
introducing the legislation in 1970, the Home Secretary, Mr. Callaghan, said1
The object here is to make, so far as possible, a more
sensible differentiation between drugs. It will divide them according to their
accepted dangers and harmfulness in the light of current knowledge and it will
provide for changes to be made in the classification in the light of new
scientific knowledge.
2002 Home Affairs Committee, The Government’s Drug Policy: is it
working? http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/318/31802.htm
9. Legal drugs, such as tobacco and alcohol, are responsible for far greater damage both to individual health and to the social fabric in general than illegal ones.
10. Substance misuse is a continuum perhaps artificially divided into legal and illegal activity.
20. While around four
million people use illicit drugs each year, most of those people do not appear
to experience harm from their drug use, nor do they cause harm to others as a
result of their habit.
69. Why are alcohol and
tobacco not integrated into the drugs strategy?
(Rosemary Jenkins) Tobacco has an
approach of its own. We have to recognise that the two substances are somewhat
different in that they have legal status rather than illegal status, which
means that the way in which you approach them has to be very different. …It is
much more complicated than drugs because of the general view that it is legal
and most people manage their alcohol in a perfectly legitimate and reasonable
way. So any strategy has to take account of that societal attitude.
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?"
Government reply: http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm55/5573/5573.pdf
Home Affairs Committee’s report Government’s Drug Policy: Is it working? concluded "We
recommend that the Government initiates a discussion within the Commission on
Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways – including the possibility of legalisation
and regulation – to tackle the global drugs dilemma".
The Government’s reply was "The Government does not accept this
recommendation. We do not accept that legalisation and regulation is now, or
will be in the future, an acceptable response to the presence of drugs. The
Government regularly participates in debates with the Commission on Narcotic
Drugs that explore a wide range of strategies for dealing with the global drugs
dilemma. The positions the Government takes in these debates must be consistent
with our domestic legislation and international obligations".
2006, 31st
July, Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee, Drug classification:
making a hash of it? HC 1031: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/1031/1031.pdf
Concluding statement:
107. In this case study, which forms part of our broader
inquiry into how the Government handles scientific advice, risk and evidence,
we examined the role that scientific advice and evidence have played in the
classification of illegal drugs. The classification system purports to rank
drugs on the basis of harm associated with their misuse but we have found
glaring anomalies in the classification system as it stands and a wide
consensus that the current system is not fit for purpose.
Summary, p.3:
·
we have identified significant anomalies in the classification of
individual drugs and a regrettable lack of consistency in the rationale used to
make classification decisions.
·
we have concluded that the current classification system is not fit for
purpose and should be replaced with a more scientifically based scale of harm
Default classification from prior legislation & UN
reviewable by ACMD:
6. The United Nations’ Single Convention on Narcotic
Drugs 1961 and its attempts to establish a Convention on Psychotropic
Substances (eventually ratified in 1971) formed an important backdrop to the
7. The Misuse of Drugs Act did not specify why
particular drugs were placed in Class A, B or C but did create an Advisory
Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) to keep the classification of drugs under
review. … Various drugs which were not
originally regulated under the Act have also become classified—ketamine, gamma-hydroxy butyrate
(GHB) and steroids have all been placed in Class C.
Legitimate aim:
78 The stated purpose of the classification system is
to classify harmfulness so that the penalties for possession and trafficking
are proportionate to the harm associated with a particular drug.
Failure to achieve legitimate aim:
Summary, p.3: we have expressed concern at the Government’s proclivity
for using the classification system as a means of ‘sending out signals’ to potential
users and society at large—it is at odds with the stated objective of
classifying drugs on the basis of harm
96 a paper authored by experts including Professor Nutt, Chairman of the ACMD Technical Committee, which we have seen in draft form, found no statistically significant correlation between the Class of a drug and its harm score. … the paper asserted that “The current classification system has evolved in an unsystematic way from somewhat arbitrary foundations with seemingly little scientific basis”.195 The paper also found that the boundaries between the Classes were entirely arbitrary.
106. One of the most striking findings highlighted in
the paper drafted by Professor Nutt and his colleagues was the fact that, on
the basis of their assessment of harm, tobacco and alcohol would be ranked as
more harmful than LSD and ecstasy (both Class A drugs). The Runciman
report also stated that, on the basis of harm, “alcohol would be classed as B
bordering on A, while cigarettes would probably be in the borderline between B
and C”.
Sentencing & HRA implications:
80. The penalties associated with classification can
have serious consequences for users in terms of sentencing.
Magic
mushrooms:
54. Psilocin and psilocybin were designated Class A drugs
under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, apparently on account of their
hallucinogenic properties. Psilocin is also listed under Schedule I, the
highest level of prohibition, under the UN’s Convention on Psychotropic
Substances 1971.94 Sir Michael Rawlins, Chairman of the ACMD, told us: “I have
no idea what was going through the minds of the group who put it in Class A in
1970 and 1971 […]It is there because it is there”.95 The Home Office has
admitted that it has never conducted any research into psilocin use and that there
is “no clear evidence of a link between psilocin use and acquisitive or other
crime”.96
55. The Government’s use of a
clarification of the law to put fresh magic mushrooms in Class A contravened
the spirit of the Misuse of Drugs Act and meant that the ACMD was not given the
chance to consider the evidence properly before responding. We also note the admission by the Home Office
Minister Paul Goggins that “the Home Office received no
submissions in favour of the clarification of the law in respect of magic
mushrooms prior to the Drugs Act 2005 being granted Royal Assent on seven April
and four submissions against”.100
56. In fact, we encountered a widespread view that the Class A status of magic mushrooms does not reflect the harms associated with their misuse. The RAND report concluded that the Government’s decision “was not based on scientific evidence”, noting that “the positioning of them in Class A does not seem to reflect any scientific evidence that they are of equivalent harm to other Class A drugs”.101 The RAND report pointed out that “National Statistics show that for deaths in which drug poisoning (listed on the death certificate) was the underlying cause of death, between 1993 and 2000 there was one death from magic mushrooms and 5,737 from heroin” and that “The lethal dose for humans is about one’s own body weight in mushrooms”.102 Professor Blakemore was also of the view that “if one could look at all the evidence for harm available now, including social harms, one would say [the classification of magic mushrooms] is wrong”.103 The Government’s own ‘Talk to Frank’ drug information website states that “Magic Mushrooms are not addictive in any way”.104
57. We were, therefore, surprised and disappointed to
hear Sir Michael Rawlins, Chairman of the ACMD, tell us that “it was not a big
issue” whether magic mushrooms were in the right Class. In Sir Michael’s view:
“there are bigger, more important issues to worry about than whether fresh
mushrooms join the rest of the other things in Class A”.109 The Chairman of the ACMD’s
attitude towards the decision to place magic mushrooms in Class A indicates a
degree of complacency that can only serve to damage the reputation of the
Council.
The ACMD should have spoken
out against the Government’s proposal to place magic mushrooms in Class A. Its
failure to do so has undermined its credibility and made it look as though it
fully endorsed the Home Office’s decision, despite the striking lack of
evidence to suggest that the Class A status of magic mushrooms was merited on
the basis of the harm associated with their misuse.
84. The ACMD told us that the evidence base available
for making decisions about classification was often inadequate. For example,
Sir Michael, ACMD Chairman, said of the decision to clarify the law resulting
in fresh magic mushrooms being placed in Class A:
“It may be better in B rather than A. The trouble is
that the evidence now is so old. It all dates back to the 1960s and there was
not very much evidence then”.166 On the matter of why psilocin, one of the
hallucinogenic compounds found in magic mushrooms, was in Class A, Sir Michael
told us: “it is there because it is there […] there have been very few
publications on psilocin. It has hardly been investigated at all”.167
Ecstasy:
60. The RAND report cited evidence suggesting that
“ecstasy may be several thousand times less dangerous than heroin, although
both are in Class A, as the percentage of deaths among users is very small and
there is little evidence that ecstasy users exhibit withdrawal symptoms, with
far more evidence suggesting there are no withdrawal symptoms”.115 It also
noted that “Recent figures show that there were about 13.5 times more ecstasy
users than heroin users in 2004, and deaths caused by ecstasy were around 3% of
the number caused by heroin”.116 In oral evidence to this inquiry, Professor
Colin Blakemore, MRC Chief Executive, told us that ecstasy was “at the bottom
of the scale of harm” and “on the basis of present evidence […] should not be a
Class A drug”.117
61. According to DrugScope,
the ACMD was not consulted prior to classification of ecstasy as a Class A drug
in 1977 and the Government has resisted more recent calls to refer the matter
to the ACMD.118 David Blunkett, then Home Secretary,
rejected the recommendation of both the Runciman
report in 2000 and the Home Affairs Committee in 2002 that ecstasy should be
reclassified from Class A to Class B, in the latter case on the grounds that
reclassification would be “irresponsible”.119 The Government’s response to the Runciman report stated: “In the absence of any clear
recommendation from the Advisory Council to the contrary, the Government
believes that ecstasy should remain a Class A drug”, but Mr Blunkett
subsequently refused to ask the ACMD to conduct a review of the
evidence.120,121 The Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker
told us categorically in evidence to this inquiry that the Government still had
“no plans” to refer the classification of ecstasy to the ACMD.122
62. What is perhaps more surprising is that the ACMD
has not “presented any recommendations on [ecstasy] to the Government of its own volition”.123 Sir Michael gave the following
explanation for this in evidence to us: “The difficulty is it is one of these
other areas where there is very little research done on it […] Frankly, I do
not think we would get anywhere by a review at the present time. This may
change. There may be better evidence that comes forward but it is vague and
imprecise and I do not think we would get very far”.124 We are not convinced by
this explanation and note that there is a substantial body of scientific
literature on ecstasy, much of which has been published in recent years. In view of the high-profile nature of the
drug and its apparent widespread usage amongst certain groups, it is surprising
and disappointing that the ACMD has never chosen to review the evidence for
ecstasy’s Class A status. This, in turn, highlights the lack of clarity
regarding the way the ACMD determines its work programme. We recommend that the
ACMD carries out an urgent review of the classification of ecstasy.
Summary MMs & ecstasy:
95. Although we have only examined a small number of
drugs in any detail, we have identified a multitude of anomalies in decisions
about their classification. Fresh magic mushrooms were placed in Class A
despite the lack of evidence that this reflected the harms associated with
their misuse. They were put there because the chemicals which they contain,
psilocin and psilocybin, were already there, but there was also a lack of
evidence to justify these chemicals being placed in Class A. By contrast, the
ACMD argued that it could not review the Class A status of ecstasy because
there was insufficient evidence.
Nutt paper:
96. Furthermore, a paper authored by experts including
Professor Nutt, Chairman of the ACMD Technical Committee, which we have seen in
draft form, found no statistically significant correlation between the Class of
a drug and its harm score as calculated by leading experts using the so-called
Delphi method.193,194 Astonishingly, despite the fact that Professor Nutt is
the lead author, the paper asserted that “The current classification system has
evolved in an unsystematic way from somewhat arbitrary foundations with
seemingly little scientific basis”.195 The paper also found that the boundaries
between the Classes were entirely arbitrary and the authors argued that the
rigid nature of the classification system made it difficult to move substances
between Classes as new evidence emerged.
Failure to call for review:
Summary,
p.3: In light of the serious failings of the ABC classification system that we
have identified, we urge the Home Secretary to honour
his predecessor’s commitment to review the current system, and to do so without
further delay.
p.5,
para 2: The classification of illegal drugs is also a
matter of significant public concern and recent decisions regarding changes in classification,
most notably the reclassification of cannabis from Class B to Class C, have
been the subject of intense media debate. Perhaps the strongest indicator of
discontent over the current ABC classification system came in January 2006,
when the then Home Secretary, Rt. Hon. Charles Clarke, announced that he would
be undertaking a root and branch review of the ABC system
p.24, para
47: The Home
Secretary accepted the ACMD’s recommendations in full
in January 2006, simultaneously launching a fundamental review of the
classification system itself.
p.28, para
59: We
recommend that a consistent policy be developed as part of the forthcoming
review of the classification system.
p.32, para
69: 69. Overall,
our examination of the processes used by the ACMD and Home Office to make,
respectively, recommendations and decisions regarding the classification of
drugs has revealed a disconcertingly ad hoc approach to determining when
reviews should be undertaken and a worrying lack of transparency in how
classification decisions are made.
p.35,
para 76: The Government’s current approach is opaque
and leaves itself open to the interpretation that reviews are being launched as
knee-jerk responses to media storms.
p.37, para
81: the then Home
Secretary cited as justification for the review of the classification system
announced in January 2006 the fact that “Decisions on classification often
address different or conflicting purposes, and too often send strong but
confusing signals to users and others about the harms and consequences of using
a particular drug”
p.44,
para 98. On
“The
more that I have considered these matters, the more concerned I have become
about the limitations of our current system. […] I will in the next few weeks
publish a consultation paper with suggestions for a review of the drug
classification system, on the basis of which I will make proposals in due
course.” The decision to review the classification system was supported by the
ACMD and others. Sir Michael Rawlins told us in oral evidence: “I think it
right that the Home Secretary is relooking at it”.
p.45,para
100: 100. We too welcomed the announcement by the then Home Secretary that he
would be reviewing the entire classification system. However, we became
concerned that the promised “few weeks” between the announcement and the
publication of the consultation turned into several months. Furthermore,
following the ministerial changes at the Home Office, Vernon Coaker told us: “with respect to the consultation document
which is in draft form in the department, the view is that we will need to wait
until such time as we decide how to proceed with respect to the review of the
classification system and also, similarly, wait for the report of this
Committee – which we want to take into account in determining the best way
forward”.202 We urge the new Home Secretary to honour
his predecessor’s promise to conduct the review—our findings suggest that it is
much needed. Although we are, of course, pleased that the Home Office is
placing such store by our recommendations, the long delay in publishing the
consultation paper on the review of the classification system has been
unfortunate and should be rectified immediately.
p.48,
para 108: 108. The problems we have identified
highlight the fact that the promised review of the classification system is
much needed and we urge the Government to proceed with the consultation with
further delay.
p.51,
Rec 23: We recommend that a consistent policy be
developed as part of the forthcoming review of the classification system.
(Paragraph 59)
p.52,
32. If the Government wishes to take into account public opinion in
making its decisions about classification it should adopt a more empirical
approach to assessing it. The Government’s current approach is opaque and
leaves itself open to the interpretation that reviews are being launched as knee-jerk
responses to media storms. (Paragraph 76)
p.54,
43. We urge the new Home Secretary to honour
his predecessor’s promise to conduct the review—our findings suggest that it is
much needed. Although we are, of course, pleased that the Home Office is placing
such store by our recommendations, the long delay in publishing the
consultation paper on the review of the classification system has been
unfortunate and should be rectified immediately. (Paragraph 100)
Ev 2, Q115: Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: I
very much welcome the approach that the Home Secretary is taking, that he is
reviewing it and is going to produce a consultation paper shortly.
Ev2,
Q123: Dr Iddon: Because the classification is
set out in the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act, could I suggest that you are perhaps
operating within a straitjacket and there is very little flexibility? Professor
Sir Michael Rawlins: There is some lack of flexibility and that is one
of the reasons why we welcome the Home Secretary’s decision to review the
classification system and come out with a consultation paper.
Q392-3:
Q392: Dr Iddon: Why is the home secretary calling for
a review of the system? Q393 Chairman: Can you hazard a guess, Colin? Professor
Blakemore: I think that the driver for the review was quite clearly the
time, effort, deliberation and conflicting advice that impinged on the decision
not to re-classify cannabis, and the realisation that
the arbitrary (and I would defend that word) boundary between B and C was not
easily defensible. If it took so much effort to consider one particular drug
and whether it should be placed on one side or other of a boundary, does it not
imply that the entire mechanism for classifying requires a new look? There are
other issues too and I suspect that the Advisory Council pointed these out—that
some drugs might simply have become lodged in categories on the basis of
historical allocation, which might have seemed very reasonable at the time but
the present position cannot easily be defended on the basis of present
evidence. I point particularly to the hallucinogens in category A and also
perhaps to ecstasy.
Q1205:
[HO quote about review draft document ready but waiting for this report]
ACMD review & failure to call for Government review:
97. Considering the fact that the Chair of the ACMD
Technical Committee had started drafting the paper proposing an alternative to
the ABC system of classification more than 18 months ago, we were very
surprised to hear from the Chairman of the ACMD that the Council had “never
formally discussed the case for reviewing the classification system”.196 We
were also taken aback by Sir Michael’s assertion that the Council did not
possess “the necessary expertise” to provide advice on alternative approaches
to the classification of drugs. In addition, confidential information we have
obtained makes us somewhat suspicious of the reasons behind the delay in
submission of the paper authored by Professor Nutt and his colleagues for
publication. We understand that the
ACMD operates within the framework set by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 but,
bearing in mind that the Council is the sole scientific advisory body on drugs
policy, we consider the Council’s failure to alert the Home Secretary to the
serious doubts about the basis and effectiveness of the classification system
at an earlier stage a dereliction of its duty.
Appendix 14, A
rational scale for assessing the risks of drugs of potential misuse,
submitted by the ACMD, appears to be the “paper authored by experts including
Professor Nutt, Chairman of the ACMD Technical Committee”.
·
The current
classification system has evolved in an unsystematic way from somewhat
arbitrary foundations with seemingly little scientific basis.
·
The correlation between
MDAct classification and harm rating was not statistically
significant.
·
Alcohol [and] tobacco …
were ranked as more harmful than LSD.
·
Our findings raise
questions about the validity of the current MDAct
classification, despite the fact that this is nominally based on an assessment of
risk to users and society. This is especially true in relation to psychedelic
type drugs. They also emphasise that the exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from
the MDAct is, from a scientific perspective,
arbitrary.
·
Our findings reveal no
clear distinction between socially accepted and illicit substances.
ACMD Chairman’s oral evidence to Science &
Technology Committee, 15 February 2006, HC 900-i:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/1031/6030103.htm
Q127 Chairman: Bearing in mind that alcohol probably
kills directly or indirectly about 32,000 people a year, tobacco 130,000 people
a year, and those deaths are far in excess of all the deaths caused by the use
of all illicit drugs, why is your committee not enabled to look at tobacco and
alcohol as well as all the other substances?
Professor
Sir Michael Rawlins: I think the idea
that we would control tobacco and alcohol in the form of the Misuse of Drugs
Act (which would thereby render them illegal in terms of possession or supply)
- the Americans tried this in Prohibition days in the 1930s, and it was a
disaster and just encouraged crime, and quite clearly it is not a practicable
proposition.
Q128 Chairman: But, Professor Rawlins, that is
exactly what has happened in terms of the drugs classification system. It is
exactly what happened with the prohibition of alcohol in the States.
Professor
Sir Michael Rawlins: I would not disagree
with that.
Q166 ACMD Chairman: What we
have to do though is realise that over the last 30 years the use of drugs has
dramatically increased in this country, and that the criminal justice system
has not prevented that in any way.
ACMD Chairman’s oral evidence before Science & Technology Committee,
22 November 2006, HC 65 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmsctech/uc65-i/uc6502.htm
Q68 Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: It seems to be a
principle of British justice that the penalty fits the crime. The more severe
the crime and the more nasty stuff you are purveying then you go to prison for
longer periods of time. That seems to be a perfectly reasonable approach to
justice and I had always believed it to be the approach underpinning the
classification system; the nastier the drug the longer you go to jail if you
start trading in it.
Q69 Chairman: Nastier means the degree of harm to the
individual and to society?
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: Exactly.
Q70 Chairman: Which is why we sell alcohol in every
supermarket!
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: It
would be a very brave Home Secretary who declared alcohol a controlled
substance.
Q73
Adam Afriyie: With the harm caused by alcohol and arguably tobacco,
in my view looking at the scales, they should be rated far higher than LSD and
ecstasy. Where do you think it would be positioned on the table?
Mr Coaker:
First of all, there is a distinction between illegal and legal drugs,
as I know you are aware, and what we have got is a classification system that
ranks illegal drugs. What we also have alongside that is issues with respect to
substances which are legal, as alcohol and tobacco are, and that we know cause
harm, particularly with the misuse of alcohol. The misuse of alcohol is a
serious problem. I have seen what people have said as to where it should be
placed. I think somebody was recommending somewhere on the border of A and B. I
do not know whether that is the appropriate place for it but I stress again,
Adam, it is the misuse of alcohol and we do have significant policies in
government to try to tackle a problem which we know is a very real one.
Q74 Adam Afriyie: Okay, but do you think it
might be helpful in the Government's aim to tackle the misuse of alcohol and
perhaps even the use of tobacco, to educate people by including it in that
table of harm so they can see very clearly where they fit as mind-altering drugs?
Mr Coaker:
If you have retained the classification of illegal drugs, as we have
done, I do not think you could put it in that categorisation.
What we are doing ---
Q75 Adam Afriyie: --- But that is based on the
harm to individuals and society and surely you can place alcohol within that
table?
Mr Coaker:
The judgment that we have made is a distinction between legal and
illegal drugs, but what we have also recognised,
however, is that you have got a classification system dealing with illegal
drugs, then we have got legal substances - and again there is no division
between us on this - and we know where alcohol is abused there is a real issue.
We know that we need to tackle that. We have an alcohol harm reduction strategy
which we are looking at, and we are working with the industry, working with
education, working with health, working with all other government departments
to try to tackle that.
Q76 Adam Afriyie: The only short point I would
make and ask for a comment on is why does the Government feel the need to
withhold that information, if you like, as to the harm to individuals and to
society of legal drugs like alcohol? Why is that not in the table? Would that
not help to educate people to see the impact that these substances have on
society?
Mr Coaker:
We are not trying to withhold information about the harm that the
misuse of alcohol does. We know the misuse of alcohol is extremely harmful.
There has been a lot of publicity about it, the information is out there, there
have been a lot of debates in Parliament and so on about all of that. What I am
saying is that we would not put it in a classification system at the current
time where we rank illegal drugs.
Mr Newmark: That
is only for historical reasons. The fact is that both alcohol and tobacco alter
people's mental functioning. If we are trying to educate the public as to the
harm of drugs that are illegal, then I do think there is some sort of
relativism in order to be honest with the public with respect to alcohol and
tobacco. That is not something we are saying you should do but it is something
that should be considered. Again, for historic reasons we have said that
marijuana is illegal and yet we know of many young people who take marijuana
and who say it is no more harmful to them in terms of altering their mental
functioning than two glasses of alcohol of some form. I think it is important
if we are going to be honest with the public that we do tabulate it. We could
have one column that says "illegal" and one that says "legal".
The fact is just because for historic reasons we have decided marijuana is
illegal and alcohol and tobacco are legal does not alter the fact that both
actually alter people's mental functioning, and I think that is the important
message we need to get across to people.
Q77 Chairman: Do you agree with that?
Mr Coaker:
First of all, marijuana - and I know you are not saying this, Brooks,
but just to be clear about this - will stay a[n] [il]legal
drug. I know that you were not suggesting that it should not be. Just to repeat
the point, I think the important message is about the harm that the misuse of
alcohol does. That is the message that we need to get out there. That is the
message that we are trying to do. I am not sure to put that in a list with
illegal drugs is the most appropriate way to do that. There is an issue about
ensuring that everyone is aware of the harm that misuse of alcohol causes.
Q78 Dr Turner: I think the point, Vernon, is not so much that anyone is
suggesting that tobacco or alcohol should be made illegal but that it should be
pointed out that were they illegal drugs this is where we would put them on a
scale of harm.
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: Can I come in here. In another
life I live every day with the problem of alcohol and tobacco, which cause more
misery and suffering than the whole of the misuse of drugs together.
Collectively it causes about 150,000 premature deaths every year. Our response
to that has to be very different to the response to the substance misuse issue.
It is a massive problem, it causes, as I said, untold misery, and our reaction
to it has to be predominantly a public health one. There are limits to what the
law can do. Everybody knows that too much alcohol is bad for you, everybody
knows that. Kids are also taught at school about the harm caused by tobacco.
What is very disturbing is the fact that the early use of tobacco and alcohol
by kids is probably the main gateway to substance misuse later on, and I think
we really do need as a society to recognise the
importance of tobacco and alcohol in relationship to kids and do more in
schools. However,, frankly, putting it into the classification system I just do
not think is going to get us anywhere. We have got to focus our effort on what
will really, really work.
Q79 Mr Newmark: This
goes back to my point, therefore if you are trying educate children - and I
agree as someone who is a non-smoker and non-drinker myself - as to why drugs
are bad (and I agree with Vernon's statement that that does not mean that we
should make anything legal that is illegal) we must show young children in
particular, if we are saying marijuana or LSD or anything else kids take is
bad, in the exact same table that alcohol and tobacco are just as bad or
relatively as bad as the other drugs on the table. That is part of the
education process. If you are saying one is a public health issue because for
historic reasons we have said alcohol and tobacco are perfectly okay but for
other reasons we have said dropping LSD and smoking marijuana is not, I think
it is very misleading to the public, and in particular to young people, and I
think it shows that we are being hypocritical.
Mr Coaker:
The only point I would make, just to repeat, is we have got a
classification system for illegal drugs; we have got legal substances, alcohol
and tobacco, which we try and regulate through other means such as through
public health messages.
Q80 Mr Newmark: In
terms of its impact on society ---
Mr Coaker:
And we try to address that in different ways through public health
messages that we put out and through education.
Q81 Dr Turner: I think the point is that you cannot necessarily put them
into totally distinct categories because if you talk to anyone who drinks a bit
and certainly anyone that smokes, nine times out of ten they will say, "I
do not do drugs", but of course they do.
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins: Coffee, tea, the whole lot; we all
do drugs.
Dr Turner: Tobacco is a lethal drug. All I am suggesting is that you
draw the parallels and you use this as part of your public education to the
effect that alcohol and tobacco are examples of potentially very harmful or
even lethal drugs.
Mr Newmark:
And addictive.
Dr Turner: Which are as harmful if not more harmful than many Class A
illegal drugs. I think that sends out a very powerful message if you link the
two.
Chairman: To be fair, one of the most disappointing aspects of the
response from the ACMD and the Government was the total rejection of a new
scale of harm decoupled from criminal penalties to put alcohol and tobacco and
other substances within that scale of harm. I will not ask you for a comment,
Professor Nutt, because I know you totally agree with my comments!
Mr Newmark: I
would put at the far end of the chart that you would put there how many deaths
are created by each of these drugs and alcohol and tobacco, so people can see
the harm of alcohol and tobacco.
Q82 Chairman: I think we have made our point very forcibly to you and I
know that you will take it away,
Mr Coaker:
Always, of course.
2006, 14th Sept, Advisory Council
on the Misuse of Drugs, Pathways to Problems - Hazardous use of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs
by young people in the
Overview, p.8:
1. In the
7. Young people in the
Recommendation 1, p.10:
As
their actions are similar and their harmfulness to individuals and society is
no less than that of other psychoactive drugs, tobacco and alcohol should be explicitly
included within the terms of reference of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of
Drugs.
Recommendation 11, p.10:
A
fully integrated approach should be taken to the development of policies
designed to prevent the hazardous use of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs
Introduction,
p.14, para 2:
In
its first 30 years, the ACMD has focused most of its attention on drugs that
are subject to the controls and restrictions of the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971).
Although its terms of reference do not prevent it from doing so, the ACMD has
not considered alcohol and tobacco other than tangentially. The scientific
evidence is now clear that nicotine and alcohol have pharmacological actions
similar to other psychoactive drugs. Both cause serious health and social problems
and there is growing evidence of very strong links between the use of tobacco,
alcohol and other drugs. For the ACMD to neglect two of the most harmful
psychoactive drugs simply because they have a different legal status no longer
seems appropriate.
1.1 The worldwide appeal of psychoactive drugs lies
largely in the expectation that they will produce desirable effects: generating
or enhancing feelings of pleasure or relaxation; diminishing pain, depression,
sadness or fatigue; increasing energy or concentration; and facilitating
socialisation.
1.13 We believe that policy-makers
and the public need to be better informed of the essential similarity in the
way in which psychoactive drugs work: acting on specific parts of the brain to
produce pleasurable and sought-after effects but with the potential to
establish long-lasting changes in the brain, manifested as dependence and other
damaging physical and behavioural side-effects. At present, the legal framework
for the regulation and control of drugs clearly distinguishes between drugs
such as tobacco and alcohol and various other drugs which can be bought and
sold legally (subject to various regulations), drugs which are covered by the
Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) (Figure 1.3) and drugs which are classed as medicines,
some of which are also covered by the Act. The insights summarised in this
chapter indicate that these distinctions are based on historical and cultural
factors and lack a consistent and objective basis.
Figure 1.3 Classification of
drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) Drugs are grouped into one of three
classes, on the basis of their harmfulness to individuals and society (as
agreed by Parliament):
….The
system of classification of drugs, under the Act, is related to determining the
penalties for their possession and supply
Analysis:
·
Harmful use is ‘the cause of public concern’, not any use:
“the potential to cause harm to users, their families
and friends, and the community at large ... is the cause of public concern”.
·
ACMD now recommend what was always the intention of the MDA:
“We therefore recommend that a fully integrated approach should be taken to the
development of policies designed to prevent the hazardous use of tobacco,
alcohol and other drugs”.
·
Consumed for same purpose: “a large proportion of young people use
tobacco, alcohol and other drugs in the pursuit of pleasure, solace, acceptance
or escape”.
·
Act on the brain the same: “Such drugs all act on the same areas of the
brain, altering its normal function and hence the user’s experience”.
·
Same potential to cause
harm: alcohol and tobacco’s “harmfulness to individuals and society is no less
than that of other psychoactive drugs”. “Ecstasy and LSD appear to have
little addictive potential”.
·
Viewed as the same: “While tobacco, alcohol and other drugs all have
differing legal status, many young people do not appear to recognise these
distinctions”.
Evidence of a difference in treatment:
·
“While prosecutions for the sale and
possession of illegal drugs are common, prosecutions of vendors of cigarettes
or alcohol to underage customers are very rare”.
·
There are “heavy
penalties for the sale and possession of illegal drugs”. “Controls on the availability,
pricing and marketing … of illegal drugs [are] already highly restrictive”
while…
·
“Given what is now
known about tobacco … it seems entirely unjustified that such a dangerous drug,
clearly labelled as lethal, should still be sold to minors”. “Alcohol companies
have considerable freedom to market their products to young people using the
full panoply of product development, advertising and other techniques”.
No objective rational justification for discrimination:
·
“At present, the legal framework for the regulation and control of drugs
clearly distinguishes between drugs such as tobacco and alcohol…, drugs which
are covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act (1971) and drugs which are classed as
medicines…. these distinctions are based on historical and cultural factors and
lack a consistent and objective basis”.
·
ACMD discrimination no
longer appropriate – it never was:
“for the ACMD to neglect two of the most harmful psychoactive drugs simply
because they have a different legal status no longer seems appropriate”.
2006, 13th Oct, Government reply to Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee’s Drug
classification: making a hash of it? Cm 6941:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/drug-classsification-response?view=Binary
3. The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 established the system
by which drugs are classified. Its fundamental purpose was then and remains
today to provide a framework within which criminal penalties are set with
reference to the harm caused by a drug and the type of illegal activity
undertaken in regard to that drug.
Reply to rec 1:
It has always been the position of the UK Government
that the United Nations Conventions, to which the
Reply to rec 31:
Decisions made by Government
on classification matters rightly attract considerable interest and, in many
cases, polarise views. The Government has made significant efforts to make very
clear the reasons why it has classified or reclassified a drug, whether to
Parliament or the public.
The drug classification
system is not a simple measure of medical or social harms caused by drugs.
Whilst these measures are at its very core and cannot be overstated, it represents
a more complex assessment from a wide range of sources to ensure that any
decision to classify or reclassify a drug is as unbiased and objective as
possible.
In response to the
Committee’s findings, the Government is pleased to set out the criteria it
adopts when making classification decisions.
Decisions are based on 2
broad criteria – (1) scientific knowledge (medical, social scientific,
economic, risk assessment) and (2) political and public knowledge (social
values, political vision, historical precedent, cultural preference). Decisions
must take account of scientific knowledge of medical harms, and social and
economic evidence, as well as the insight provided by public consultation, and
the knowledge and understanding provided by public bodies and Government
departments.
Reply to rec
50:
The Government fully agrees that the drug classification
system under the Misuse of Drugs Act is not a suitable mechanism for regulating
legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco. The distinction between legal and
illegal substances is not unequivocally based on pharmacology, economic or risk
benefit analysis. It is also based in large part on historical and cultural
precedents. A classification system that applies to legal as well as illegal
substances would be unacceptable to the vast majority of people who use, for
example alcohol, responsibly and would conflict with deeply embedded historical
tradition and tolerance of consumption of a number of substances that alter
mental functioning (ranging from caffeine to alcohol and tobacco). Legal
substances are therefore regulated through other means. However the Government
acknowledges that alcohol and tobacco account for more health problems and
deaths than illicit drugs and this is why the Government intervenes in many
ways to prevent, minimise and deal with the consequences of the harms caused by
these substances through its dedicated Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy and its
smoking/tobacco programme. At the core of this work, which is given
considerable resources, is a series of education and communication measures
aimed at achieving long term change in attitudes. It is through this that the
public continues to be informed in an effective and credible manner.
2006 DCA
Review of Human Rights Act: para. 50
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200506/jtselect/jtrights/278/27806.htm
Guidance to departments has consistently made it clear
that human rights proofing is not simply an exercise to be carried out after
legislation has been drafted. Questions of proportionality, and the
identification of policy options that produce the least interference with
Convention rights, should be embedded in the policy development process.
Sentencing Guidelines Council:
http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/Seriousness_guideline.pdf
The issue: The object of public concern
& sentencing should be objectively harmful drug use only NOT
subjective public fear of any use.
The Sentencing Guidelines Council’s report Overarching Principles: Seriousness
states:
“Some conduct is criminalised purely by
reference to public feeling or social mores. In addition, public concern about
the damage caused by some behaviour, both to individuals and to society as a
whole, can influence public perception of the harm caused, for example, by the
supply of prohibited drugs” (para 1.14).
The Criminal Justice Act 2003, Section 143(1) lists the factors
relevant to sentencing as culpability and harm, specifying the types of harm
as: harm actually caused, harm intended, and harm risked.
Point 1: there is
no mention of public fear of harm in CJA2003 so what is the legal basis for
considering public fear as a factor in sentencing? Misuse of Drugs Act &
Gov drugs policy provides no such basis, both indicating that objective
evidence of harmfulness is the only relevant factor.
Point 2:
culpability should be considered first, then harm, according to SGC
in OP:S. Offenders cannot be culpable for public fear of harm so public
fear should be irrelevant to sentencing.
Point 3: if
public fear is in excess of the objective evidence of harmfulness, are the
guidelines suggesting higher sentences to reflect that fear or are they
suggesting lower sentences to compensate for it - e.g. jury bias? The
Guidelines appear ambiguous - some judges may take the guidance one way, some
the other. If the former interpretation, sentencing proportionate to fear, then
does this mean that if the public feared old ladies with black cats and
broomsticks enough, then burning at the stake would be a proportionate
sentence?
Another version of the above is in the Sentencing
Advisory Panel’s advice on ‘New Sentences – Criminal Justice Act 2003’ http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/New_sentences_guideline1.pdf
“24. Some conduct is criminalised purely by reference
to public feeling or social mores, for example sexual offences such as 'sex
with an adult relative', 'intercourse with an animal' and 'sexual activity in a
public lavatory'. This may also be true of possessing dangerous drugs, since
people are free to harm themselves in other ways (for example through alcohol
abuse) without committing a criminal offence. However, public concern about the
damage caused both to individuals and to society as a whole by drug addiction
has influenced the public perception of the harm caused by this offence”.
But of course 'drug addiction' is not an offence. Not
even addiction to controlled drugs is an offence. Only the exercise of property
rights - possession, supply, production - are offences, even if no harm is
caused. The public fear, caused by inaccurate & misleading
Government information, is that any use of illegal drugs is
harmful but this is not based on evidence but prejudice.
Government claims drugs
policy is based on scientific evidence and proportionality, not opinion:
The Government's reply to the Report of the
Independent Police Foundation Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/cmhaff/226/22604.htm
"11. The Government agrees with the Police
Foundation's conclusion that the main classification criteria should continue
to be that of dangerousness..." "... assessments of the sort that
ACMD are required to make when considering the harmfulness of drugs ... should
clearly state methodology."
Home Office letter to UN’s International Narcotics
Control Board defending cannabis reclassification based on scientific evidence:
http://www.drugscope.org.uk/news_item.asp?a=1&intID=981
"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".
Government's Updated Drug Strategy 2002, p.22: http://www.drugs.gov.uk/publication-search/drug-strategy/updated-drug-strategy-2002.pdf?view=Binary
"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".
HM Government’s drug education website ‘Talk to Frank’ states:
·
Alcohol can play a major part in many people’s social
lives. That’s why it is easy to forget that it’s actually a very powerful drug
…
·
Tobacco comes from the leaves of the tobacco plant. It
contains a drug called nicotine which is highly addictive
The Department for Education and Skills – Drugs: Guidance for Schools:
"Terminology: The definition of a drug given by the United Nations Of