ePolitix.com - 'To B or not to B?' is not the only cannabis question

The government has once again re-opened the totemic cannabis debate and its Advisory Council is now reviewing the C classification barely two years after their last review (when it stayed at Class C).

Cannabis is still, of course, a controlled drug. Those caught in possession or with supplying it face up to 2 and 14 years in prison respectively. Re-classifying it to Class B would make no real practical difference.

The core question is not whether cannabis is harmful - it is - but rather how harmful is it in comparison with other illegal drugs?

The classification system ranks illegal drugs according to their risk to the individuals who use them and the wider harms to society (eg from crime). Therefore determining the correct class for cannabis is 'simply' a case of comparing the harms it causes (to the individual and society) with those of other illegal drugs and assigning it to one of the three classes - A,B or C.

In reality the debate is not that simple. This is because the role of the classification system has become muddied (sometimes politically) and there are unrealistic or inappropriate expectations of what reclassification will achieve. Will it:

Deter more people from using cannabis?
Deter more suppliers from dealing it?
Reduce the damage to people experiencing associated health problems?
Or reduce the harm to wider society?

It might not always be intuitive, but scientific evidence suggests the answer to all of these questions is 'No'. (See the UK Drug Policy Commission submission to the Advisory Council for further discussion).

There is no doubt the (illegal) drug issue and especially the relatively minor issue of cannabis classification has become a political football. It is making an informed and rational national drug policy debate based on scientific evidence very difficult.

This begs the question whether the mechanism we have for making decisions about the classification of controlled drugs is appropriate.

The government has indicated it is going to review the drugs Advisory Council this year. This could provide an opportunity to look wider at the involvement of ministers in the classification process.

For instance, drawing on the examples of the Bank of England monetary policy committee and the Independent Safeguarding Authority, there ought to be no reason why an independent (and appointed) body or committee could not be charged with deciding (not simply advising ) on the classification of controlled drugs, based as now, on a scientific assessment of the evidence.

Naturally, accountability for decisions to Parliament could be ensured, for example through a select committee and annual or bi-annual reporting.

It is unfortunate that the many sensible things in the government's drug strategy are being overshadowed by this totemic cannabis classification issue. We need to look at new approaches which would enable ministers to be detached from some of the ill-informed media and political rhetoric which fuels this debate.

Roger Howard is chief executive of the UK Drug Policy Commission

The government should rightly be assessing all aspects of cannabis as such a huge part of society uses it. However, why on earth should it have the right to deny members of society a pleasure that does no one other than the partaker any harm? No such cries for alcohol and tobacco! I absolutely resent the fact that I, and millions like me, are forced to obtain this simple pleasure via organised crime. Not only does this support vast numbers of these odious creatures but it also removes any control over quality. One of the major problems in the last 5-10yrs is that the cannabis supplied is much stronger and therefore more psychologically harmful if abused. Wouldn't it be better to have licensed vendors who could be taxed in such a way as to encourage people to smoke the milder (and cheaper) "grass" varieties instead? Wouldn't it be good to control the quality of product and the substances used to "cut" the resin? Wouldn't it be good to collect tax on this product? And wouldn't it be great to sweep away many, many £millions from the underworld economy? All this must be accompanied by strong education policies on the dangers of drugs (including alcohol, tobacco and others) so that a clear message goes out to protect our children that drugs are not cool or clever.

One of the themes that came up repeatedly at the ACMD hearings last week was that whilst some people wanted to see the dangers of cannabis reflected by a move back to B, they generally caveated this by saying they did not want to see an increase in criminalisation of young people. This highlights the central problem with the classification system: that regardless of how scientific the harm rankings are the system primarily exists to determine a hierachy of criminal penaties, and when translated through the misuse of drugs act, the harm ranking have a series of peverse effects. The system conveys little useful public health information and does not deliver positive criminal justice outcomes either. If anything it alienates young people from public health information, makes drugs more dangerous (fuelling the market trajectory to more potent and profitable strains) , whilst criminalising some 6 million or so UK citizens.

the obvious solution would be to do what the Science and technology select committee suggested and decouple the harm rankings from criminal penalties in some way. I wold suggest that as well as an independent harm ranking decisions, penalties for drug offenses should be similarly independently reviewed and determined. When politicians enter the arena of drug policy the outcomes are invariably knee jerk populism. Two generations of the punitive approach demonstrate just how ineffective this is.

I would just like to thank the above commentators. I've been researching current arguments that have once again risen regarding cannabis. It makes a refreshing change to hear well thought out opinion, recognising the issues of prohibition, whilst still recognising the issues drugs can cause.

The fact this debate is raging in a country as subservient to alcohol as ours is an embarrassment. The fact we criminalise such a massive proportion of the population should be a starting point for a change of policy.

I have heard arguments from all over the debate. One that particularly stood out was Marjorie Wallace's insistence on reclassification, with what is probably a well-intentioned aim of "protecting" an extremely small proportion of people in whom in can cause very negative effects. Unfortunately, with her same argument, she is suggesting that incarcerating otherwise law abiding citizens for 5 (or even 14 years), ruining both their lives (for good) and the lives of those around them, is a worthwhile means of "sending the right message". Personally I'd prefer a lesson at school and a website.

Perhaps the question regarding the classification of any substances should be judged, not upon how harmful it is to the individual who chooses to use them, but soley on the harm to society as a whole. If this were the case then currently alcohol would be seen to doing far more social damage than say ecstacy [assuming the drugs legal regulation, manufacture and supply], surely the benefits from legalising all drugs, giving increased tax income,from which the general population should benefit, quality control should equal less deaths and no criminal activity in this (freeing up police resources for other areas), would far out-weigh any health problems from some users may suffer.

Submit Comment

» STAKEHOLDER LINKS

» RELATED LINKS