Common Sense for Drug Policy: United Kingdom Update -- Reform Moves Forward

More leaders are beginning to speak out about the failures and harms of the drug war. Former director of the UK Anti-Drug Coordination Unit in the Cabinet Office, with the job of coordinating government policy across departments and supporting the drugs Tsar, declares that legalisation would be less harmful than the current strategies. According to the Guardian August 13, 2008 article,("Ex-Drugs Policy Director Calls For Legalisation") "Julian Critchley, the former director of the Cabinet Office's anti-drugs unit, also said that his views were shared by the 'overwhelming majority' of professionals in the field, including police officers, health workers and members of the government. He also claimed that New Labour's policy on drugs was based on what was thought would play well with the Daily Mail readership, regardless of evidence of what worked. Downing Street policy advisers were said to have suggested stunts such as sending boats down the Thames to catch smugglers to coincide with policy announcements."

The article states, "In a contribution to the debate on the 'war on drugs' on a BBC website, Critchley spelled out his reasons for now supporting legalisation and claimed the government's position is hypocritical. Yesterday Critchley, who is now a teacher, confirmed that the blog posting accurately conveyed his views. 'I joined the unit more or less agnostic on drugs policy, being personally opposed to drug use, but open-minded about the best way to deal with the problem,' he wrote on the blog. 'I was certainly not inclined to decriminalise. However, during my time in the unit, as I saw more and more evidence of 'what works', to quote New Labour's mantra of the time, it became apparent to me that...enforcement and supply-side interventions were largely pointless. They have no significant, lasting impact on the availability, affordability or use of drugs."

The article adds, "He said that his views were widely held in the government but rarely expressed in public. 'I think what was truly depressing about my time in UKADCU was that the overwhelming majority of professionals I met, including those from the police, the health service, the government and voluntary sectors held the same view: the illegality of drugs causes far more problems for society and the individual than it solves. Yet publicly, all those intelligent, knowledgeable people were forced to repeat the nonsensical mantra that the government would be 'tough on drugs', even though they all knew the government's policy was actually causing harm."

Scotland's Futures Forum, a nonpartisan thinktank set up by Parliament, has published a report calling for radical changes in drug policies including heroin maintenance, sanitary consumption facilities, and cannabis regulation/taxation.

The BBC reported on June 9, 2008 "Forum sets out radical drugs plan") that " Recommendations include the setting up of "consumption rooms" where addicts would be able to take drugs safely, and for heroin to be prescribed to users. The report also suggested the taxation of cannabis to enable it to be more tightly regulated. The Scotland's Futures Forum was asked to look at ways of tackling addiction. The think tank was established by the parliament and was tasked with looking at the challenges facing Scotland, and seeking ways to meet those challenges. In this latest report it asked how the damage caused by alcohol and drugs in Scotland could be halved by 2025."

According to the BBC, " The forum believes cannabis should be taxed and highly regulated to help reduce availability and harm. A Scottish Government spokesman ruled out any imminent establishment of drug consumption rooms. 'There are complex legal and ethical issues around consumption rooms that cannot be easily resolved,' he said. Approaches to heroin prescribing are currently being piloted in England, the spokesman added. He said Scotland would 'wait and see' what lessons can be learned from those."

The BBC noted that "Lib Dem justice spokeswoman Margaret Smith said: 'Drugs misuse is a global problem and if other countries have developed new and radical solutions, then it is sensible to consider them for use in Scotland.' Former health minister Susan Deacon, who is now professor of social change at Queen Margaret University in Edinburgh, said it was important to be 'open-minded' about the possible solutions to the drugs problem. Canadian Senator Larry Campbell, who was behind the setting up of injection sites in Vancouver in 2003, said addiction should be treated as an illness. He said: 'We have 600 injections a day on average, we have had over 1,000 overdoses in the clinic, and we have never had one person die. 'If they had been injecting in an alley or in a room by themselves, we would have had a number of people dead. 'Secondly we have seen our HIV and hepatitis rates stabilise because they are not using dirty needles.'"

A copy of the report is available by clicking here.

The UK's Labour government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown is still pushing for recriminalization of marijuana in spite of the recommendation of his own drug advisory council. The government's move may on the other hand not be fully implemented by the nation's police as the UK's Association of Chief Police Officers has declared its support for the current "confiscate and warn" approach.

First, the Evening Standard on April 28, 2008 ("Brown Set to Regrade Cannabis As Class B Despite Experts' Advice") reported that "Gordon Brown has decided to throw out the recommendation by a high-powered group of government advisers who say it should stay a "soft" drug. The Prime Minister will instead take a hard line, sending a message that drugs are dangerous to young people's health and heavily linked to serious crime. His stance was confirmed on the day that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs was handing in an official report that is understood to recommend that cannabis should remain in the lowest category of illegal drugs, Class C. The advisory council is the most senior authority on drugs policy and was asked by Mr Brown to review the law amid concerns over stronger forms of cannabis such as skunk that are linked to mental illness in long-term abusers."

According to the Standard, "With 23 experts in drugs and their treatment, the advisory council has never before been ignored by the Government."

The Standard noted that "At present, most adults found carrying cannabis are unlikely even to be arrested. Young people are most likely to be arrested and reprimanded. That may now change, however. As a Class B rather than a Class C drug, the maximum penalty for possessing cannabis will rise from two to five years. In both cases the maximum penalty for supply is 14 years. Cannabis was downgraded from a Class B drug to Class C in January 2004, with the aim of freeing police time to tackle harder drugs. The move came after former home secretary David Blunkett became convinced that it was far less of a threat than heroin and crack cocaine."

The Guardian reported on May 1, 2008 ("Police Reject Tougher Action on Cannabis") that "Police will not adopt a tougher approach to cases of simple possession of cannabis when ministers upgrade the legal status of the drug to class B, the Guardian can disclose. The Association of Chief Police Officers ( Acpo ) confirmed last night that the current policy of "confiscate and warn" would continue, despite Gordon Brown's determination to reclassify the drug in an attempt to "send a tough message" to young people about its use. Chief constables are debating whether or not fixed penalty fines should be available alongside cannabis warnings. But the basic approach of saving police time by not making an arrest and taking the offender to the police station to be charged, introduced four years ago, will remain."

According to the Guardian, "Campaigners for drug law reform last night questioned the relevance of the drug classification system, which dates back to 1971, and its ability to send a message. Roger Howard, chief executive of the UK Drug Policy Commission, and a former government drugs adviser, said: 'There will be no new powers or resources for policing if cannabis is made class B, and cannabis warnings can still be issued instead of arrest.' He said this underlined the muddle at the heart of government over the purpose of a drug classification system which was unlikely ever to be able to 'send a message to young people'. Since cannabis had moved from class B to class C, the number of schoolchildren who think it is fine to try cannabis had halved, he said."

The Guardian noted that "It is expected that Acpo guidance to police officers will use different language from existing guidelines to stress the discretion that is available to constables to take more robust action in cases involving repeat offenders or aggravating factors such as disorder or evidence of organised crime. An Acpo spokesman last night: "The key will be the discretion for officers to strike the right balance. We do not want to criminalise young people who are experimenting." However, he stressed that cases involving "aggravating factors" were more likely to see an arrest and prosecution."

Young people would not likely be deterred from trying marijuana if the penalties for possession were increased, researchers in England say.

The Independent on Sunday reported on Jan. 6, 2008 ("Reclassifying Cannabis Would Make No Difference to Young") that "Reclassifying cannabis would be pointless and therefore unlikely to make any difference to young users of the drug, according to a new report by some of the country's top criminal policy experts. Cannabis has now become such an important part of youth culture that a new generation of users are supplying each other with the drug, buying and sharing it with friends and relatives. A team of researchers from the Institute for Criminal Policy Research ( ICPR ) led by Professor Mike Hough, a senior adviser to the Home Office, has concluded that the 'social supply' of cannabis has almost entirely cut out traditional drug dealers and therefore needs a new approach. Their findings reveal that 90 per cent of young users can get hold of cannabis in under a day - with the majority able to get it within an hour."

According to the Independent, "Researchers conclude that 'the findings from this and other studies show that cannabis use is significantly embedded in the social world of many young people. It is unlikely a marginal change in the drug's legal status will have an impact.'"

The report is available from the ICPR website at King's College London.

Plans by the Gordon Brown government to cut funding for drug treatment programs have been leaked to the press. The Sunday Telegraph reported on July 29, 2007 ("Gordon Brown Cuts UKP50m From Drugs Work") that "Plans to slash total funding by more than 12 per cent, outlined in an email leaked to The Sunday Telegraph, come less than a fortnight after Gordon Brown tried to show off his anti-drug credentials by signalling his desire to reclassify cannabis from Class C to the more serious Class B. Last night, the Conservatives accused the Prime Minister of hypocrisy. The proposed cuts, phased over the next three years, would hit the "Pooled Treatment Budget" ( PTB ), the Government's main funding stream for drug treatment, which for this year is UKP398 million."

According to the Telegraph, "Alison Keating, the acting regional manager for the Government's National Treatment Agency in the South East, disclosed the scale of the proposed cuts in an email sent to colleagues across the country. Admitting that there have been 'some understandable concerns' about future levels of funding, she adds: 'Initial indications have been that there will be a UKP50 million cut over the three years.' The period involved is 2008 to 2011, the years covered by the Comprehensive Spending Review of government funding to be announced in the autumn by Alistair Darling, the Chancellor. The PTB receives its funding from the Home Office and the Department of Health. Any cuts will awaken fears that overall expenditure on health and crime will suffer in what is already expected to be a tough public spending round."

The Telegraph noted that "Chris Grayling, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said last night: 'When he was chancellor, Gordon Brown always used to hide the bad news in the small print. Now he's Prime Minister, we're finding the same thing. He's been making high profile announcements, like his war on cannabis, but the reality is very different. This reeks of hypocrisy.' On its Tackling Drugs, Changing Lives website, the Home Office trumpets successive increases in PTB funding. It boasts: 'Drug treatment continues to be a major priority.' Martin Barnes, the chief executive of the charity DrugScope, said: 'It is extremely concerning that the expectation among officials is of cuts in funding. The Prime Minister has spoken of the need to improve drug treatment, but this is difficult to reconcile with behind-the-scenes discussion of cuts being on the table.'"

Update 7/21/07: According to the Times on July 21, 2007 ("Harmon Joins In The Cabinet Confessions: I Smoked Pot"), "Harriet Harman yesterday became the ninth Cabinet minister to admit to having smoked cannabis. On Thursday Ms Harman, the Labour deputy leader, had refused to comment, but after eight members of the Cabinet said that they had tried the drug when young, she owned up as well." The Times noted that "Ms Smith is in charge of a review of the decision in 2004 to downgrade cannabis from a Class B to a Class C drug." Further, the Times reported that "The tally of ministerial admissions reached ten later when Baroness Ashton of Upholland, the Leader of the Lords, said that she had taken cannabis while at university."

Youthful indiscretions are making trouble for Gordon Brown's new government. Following announcement of the newly-appointed Prime Minister's decision to consider recriminalizing marijuana, several members of his cabinet have come out of the closet as former marijuana users. The Guardian reported on July 20, 2007 ("Seven Cabinet Members Admit Smoking Cannabis In Youth") that "Seven cabinet members, including Jacqui Smith the home secretary, admitted yesterday they had broken the law by smoking cannabis. The admissions came before a government statement next week that will see ministers propose the drug's classification is raised from class C to the more serious status of class B. Possession of a class C drug is largely a non-arrestable offence. It also emerged that two members of Ms Smith's Home Office frontbench team, Vernon Coaker and Tony McNulty, smoked cannabis in their youth. The prime minister's spokesman insisted that Gordon Brown regarded it as a personal matter and said he did not send out questionnaires asking cabinet colleagues whether they had taken drugs. He did not ask Ms Smith about her past when he appointed her as home secretary although she will have been subject to positive vetting by the security services."

According to the Guardian, "Other cabinet ministers who admitted to smoking cannabis, mainly as students, were the chancellor, Alistair Darling, and the transport secretary, Ruth Kelly. Andy Burnham, chief secretary to the Treasury, also admitted he had smoked cannabis once or twice at university. John Hutton, the business enterprise and regulatory reform secretary said he had smoked cannabis many years ago. Yvette Cooper, the housing minister, and the communities secretary, Hazel Blears, have admitted taking the drug in the past. Mr McNulty told BBC News 24: 'At university I encountered it, I smoked it once or twice, and I don't think many people who were at university at the time didn't at least encounter it.' The Miliband brothers, David and Ed, said they had not taken drugs, possibly because they were too busy writing Fabian tracts. Alan Johnson, the health secretary admitted he did sex and rock and roll, but not drugs. James Purnell, the culture secretary, refused to answer. Other ministers yesterday insisting they have neither smoked or inhaled include Peter Hain, Ed Balls, Geoff Hoon, Douglas Alexander and Jack Straw. As home secretary Mr Straw took one of his children to a police station when he admitted he had offered to help obtain cannabis for a third party."

The Guardian noted that "David Cameron, the Conservative leader, who has repeatedly refused to say whether he took drugs before he became a public figure, again refused to follow the cabinet's example and admit he had taken cannabis. There have been persistent rumours that he took more serious drugs in his youth. The Conservatives refused to make any political capital out of the revelations, partly due to Mr Cameron's position and partly because many members of the shadow cabinet have admitted they used cannabis. Ms Smith started a day of personal admissions before 8am yesterday when she talked on breakfast television about smoking cannabis while at Oxford University in the 1980s. 'I did break the law ... I was wrong ... drugs are wrong,' she said. The question had been predicted within government, and Ms Smith thought it best to open as soon as it was asked in a round of TV interviews designed to trail the government's crime reduction strategy. One of her predecessors, Charles Clarke, has admitted smoking cannabis and John Reid, his successor, is a recovered alcoholic."

Newly-Appointed Prime Minister Gordon Brown is moving to change the UK's cannabis laws, increasing the penalties. The Independent reported on July 19, 2007 ("Brown Plans To Abandon Softer Laws On Cannabis") that " Laws on cannabis are to be toughened by Gordon Brown amid claims that stronger strains of the drug were causing an increase in mental illness. In a further break with the Blair years, the new Prime Minister paved the way to reversing the controversial decision to make possession of a cannabis a largely non-arrestable offence. The drug was downgraded from a class B to class C substance three years ago to enable police to focus their attention on more damaging class A drugs such as heroin and cocaine. Mr Brown told MPs that the legal status of cannabis would be re-examined by Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, and Whitehall sources later confirmed that the review was almost certain to result in its reclassification as a class B drug."

According to the Independent, "Ms Smith will also next week set out a new strategy for combating drugs use, including improving treatment and education. Cannabis was downgraded in January 2004 by David Blunkett, then the home secretary, who argued that the switch would make drug laws more credible. Someone caught with a class C substance can in theory be jailed, but in practice they are likely to be let off with a verbal warning. Possession of class B drugs, which include amphetamines and barbiturates, can result in a maximum prison sentence of five years. The legal situation was reviewed only last year by Charles Clarke, then the Home Secretary, who concluded that cannabis should remain in class C alongside anabolic steroids and some anti-depressants. But Martin Barnes, the chief executive of DrugScope, said the 'fairly hysterical coverage in some sections of the media' was a factor in yesterday's announcement. He said: 'Repeated movements on classification will only serve to further confuse young people, and increase the political point-scoring, at a time when cannabis use is falling among young people and adults alike.' A spokesman for Transform Drug Policy Foundation said: 'This announcement is all about political posturing and has nothing to do with science. It follows in the wake of a series of all-too-familiar cannabis health panics, which have been hyped up by certain newspapers, and more recently by the Tory party.'"

The Independent noted that "Mr Blunkett said he was 'quite relaxed' about another review of his decision to downgrade the drug. But he added: 'It is worth reflecting that cannabis use among young people has fallen.'

The Independent also noted that "The Prime Minister was thrown on the defensive over the controversial scheme to release prisoners 18 days early to ease the jail overcrowding crisis. David Cameron, the Tory leader, said some had been released early against the advice of prison and probation staff while others had gone on to commit violent offences. Mr Brown told MPs he regretted any offences committed by prisoners freed early and agreed to investigate the claim that advice had been overruled."

The UK Drug Policy Commission released its report An Analysis of UK Drug Policy: A Monograph Prepared for the UK Drug Policy Commission" in April 2007. According to The Observer on April 15, 2007 ("Britain's Fight Against Drugs 'A Total Failure'"), "The report will be launched on Wednesday by the new UK Drugs Policy Commission, whose members include distinguished figures from the worlds of health, policing, drugs research and academia. They include David Blakey, a former president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Annette Dale-Perera of the NHS-funded National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse and Professor Colin Blakemore, who leads the Medical Research Council. The study, 'An Analysis of UK Drugs Policy', has been written by two internationally respected experts, Professor Peter Reuter of Maryland University in the US and Alex Stevens, senior researcher at the European Institute of Social Services at Kent University. Their findings are a scathing indictment of decades of education, prevention and awareness-raising campaigns intended to warn youngsters about the perils of narcotics. The three main strategies into which successive governments have ploughed tens of millions of pounds - mass media campaigns such as 'heroin screws you up' in the 1980s, initiatives in schools aimed at pupils as young as seven and targeting of vulnerable groups - have made little or no difference, it says. 'Prevention is cited as the main policy area aiming to reduce drug initiation and continued use. The policy is predicated on the assumption that prevention efforts reduce drug use, but there is as yet no clear evidence showing that prevention has had this effect in the UK,' the authors conclude. The National Institute of Clinical Excellence recently drew similar conclusions about the usefulness of drugs prevention campaigns."

The Observer reported that " Danny Kushlick, director of the pro-legalisation Transform Drugs Policy Foundation, said the new study backed his view that attempts to discourage drug use were pointless. 'We know from evidence that misuse of drugs is related significantly to social ill-being and social deprivation. You cannot deal with that stuff with education and prevention or through teaching younger and younger children. You deal with it by redistributing wealth and improving wellbeing.'"

The following is taken from the report's summary of policy implications:
"There is little evidence from the UK, or any other country, that drug policy influences either the number of drug users or the share of users who are dependent. There are numerous other cultural and social factors that appear to be more important. It is notable that two European countries that are often used as contrasting examples of tough or liberal drug policies, Sweden and the Netherlands, both have lower rates of overall and problematic drug use than the UK.
"Given the international evidence as to the limited ability of drug policy to influence national trends in drug use and drug dependence, it is unreasonable to judge the performance of a country�s drug policy by the levels of drug use in that country. Yet that is the indictor to which the media and public instinctively turn. However, this is not to say that drug policy is irrelevant.
"The arena where government drug policy needs to focus further effort and where it can make an impact is in reducing the levels of drug-related harms (crime, death and disease and other associated problems) through the expansion of and innovation in treatment and harm reduction services.
"We know very little about the effectiveness and impact of most enforcement efforts, whether they are directed at reducing the availability of drugs or at enforcing the law over possession and supply. Imprisoning drug offenders for relatively substantial periods does not appear to represent a cost effective response.
"Transparency in resource allocations is urgently needed if the overall and relative balance of supply and demand reduction interventions is to be considered.
"The UK invests remarkably little in independent evaluation of the impact of drug policies, especially enforcement. This needs redressing if policy makers are to be able to identify and introduce effective measures in the future."

The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee released a report blasting the UK's classification of drugs. The Independent reported on August 1, 2006 ("Drug 'Classes' Have Little Link To The Dangers") that "The Home Office has been warned by its own senior advisers that alcohol and tobacco are more harmful to the nation's health than the Class A drugs LSD and ecstasy. Research by medical experts, who analysed 20 substances for their addictive qualities, social harm and physical damage, produced strikingly different results from the Government's drug classification system. Heroin and cocaine, both Class A drugs, topped the league table of harm, but alcohol was ranked fifth, ahead of prescription tranquillisers and amphetamines. Tobacco was placed ninth, ahead of cannabis, which has recently been downgraded from a Class B to Class C drug, at 11th. Alcohol and tobacco, and solvents, which can also be bought legally, were judged more damaging than LSD ( 14th ) and ecstasy ( 18th )."

According to the Independent, "The research will put more pressure on the Home Office to a rethink the 35-year-old system for classifying illegal drugs as Class A, B or C substances. It reflects the penalties for possessing them or dealing in them, but that means heroin is categorised alongside drugs such as ecstasy. The analysis was carried out by David Nutt, a senior member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and Colin Blakemore, the chief executive of the Medical Research Council. Copies of the report have been submitted to the Home Office, which has failed to act on the conclusions. Professor Blakemore told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: 'Alcohol, on our classification, is the fifth most harmful drug - more harmful than LSD and by a long way than ecstasy and cannabis and a whole range of illegal drugs. That's not to say there's any argument that alcohol should be made illegal, but it does give one a feel for the relative harm potential from any drug.'"

The Independent noted that "Strongly influenced by the research, MPs on the Commons science and technology select committee demanded an overhaul of the system to give the public a 'better sense of the relative harms involved'. They called for a new scale to be introduced, rating substances on the basis of health and social risks and not linked to legality or potential punishments. They questioned whether ecstasy and magic mushrooms should remain in Class A and called on the Government's drug adviser, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs ( ACMD ), to look at the issue. Phil Willis, who chairs the committee, said the current classifications were 'riddled with anomalies' and were 'clearly not fit for purpose'. 'This research shows why we need a radical overhaul of the current law and a radical review of the classification system,' he said. 'It's clearly not fit for purpose in the 21st century, neither for informing drug-users or providing public information.' One committee member, the Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris, said that putting drugs in the wrong category 'undermined the whole system'. 'Lots of young people know that there's a difference between ecstasy and heroin,' he said."

A copy of the Science and Technology Committee's report is available from the CSDP archive as well as from the Science and Technology Committee website.

In England in May 2006, an independent panel funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation issued a report endorsing use of safe consumption rooms. The Guardian reported on May 23, 2006 ("Heroin Addicts Could Inject Themselves At Supervised Centres In Police-Backed Plans") that "Police chiefs have backed proposals which could see heroin addicts injecting themselves in officially sanctioned centres. An independent working group, tasked by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, will today recommend the introduction of supervised drug consumption rooms to the UK, so that users could take illegal drugs in safe, hygienic surroundings. Members of the group included Andy Hayman, a Scotland Yard assistant commissioner who also chairs the Association of Chief Police Officers' drugs portfolio, and his Acpo colleague, Met police detective superintendent Kevin Green."

According to the Guardian, "There are 65 drug consumption rooms ( DCRs ) in eight countries worldwide, including Switzerland, Germany, Spain, Australia and Canada, and the working group, which visited some of these during its 20-month research period, believe they reduce the risk of harm to the individual as well as the costs to society. Unlike so-called 'shooting galleries', which are largely unsupervised and where drugs are often purchased, or premises where prescribed heroin is available, users would bring their own drugs to DCRs, and although supervisors would not be able to intervene, they could advise and give immediate assistance if a user collapsed. The initial pilot proposal is for injection facilities, but European countries are increasingly adding smoking rooms, where heroin and crack cocaine can be smoked."

The Guardian noted that "Four years ago, the Home Office rejected similar recommendations from the home affairs select committee. But Dame Ruth Runciman, the chairwoman of the independent working group, hoped the government would now reconsider. 'The Home Office rightly said in 2002 that there was not enough evaluated evidence from drug consumption rooms abroad,' said Dame Ruth. 'There has been a lot more evidence since. There have been millions of injections in drug rooms abroad and only one death, which was not due to an overdose.' She suggested the consumption rooms could be run by local authorities, the NHS and voluntary bodies, but added: 'Most importantly and without question, they must involve the police.' She said the two police officers on the working group supported the group's findings as individuals, but she was aware there would be a range of reactions among the police."

Unfortunately the UK's Home Office may not be as willing to examine the evidence as Dame Ruth hoped. The opposition Tories may on the other hand be more flexible. The Daily Telegraph reported on May 24, 2006 ( "Tories Back Injection Centres For Drug Addicts") that "The Tories tentatively supported calls yesterday for the Government to set up special centres where heroin addicts could legally inject themselves. In a surprise move, Edward Garnier, the shadow home affairs minister, said: 'We do not rule out [these] recommendations. If this is to take place in a controlled environment and is to be used as a stepping stone to actually getting people off drugs, we will look at this carefully.'"

The ruling Labour Party on the other hand was less receptive. According to the Telegraph, "Vernon Coaker, the Home Office minister, said the Government's position was unchanged. 'The reasons for rejecting it in 2002 are as valid today - the risk of an increase in localised dealing, anti-social behaviour and acquisitive crime,' he said. But the DrugScope charity, which campaigns to shape drugs policy, welcomed the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report and said it hoped for a rational debate. 'A policy which can save lives deserves serious consideration, however controversial it may seem at first,' said Martin Barnes, the charity's chief executive."

A copy of "The Report of the Independent Working Group on Drug Consumption Rooms" is available from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation website as well as through the CSDP research archive.

The British Home Office Ministry announced in mid-January that cannabis will remain classified as a Class C drug. According to a Jan. 19, 2006 news release from the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke ( "Statement on the classification of cannabis and harm reduction measures"), "I have decided to accept the Advisory Council's [Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs] recommendation, which is supported by the police and by most drugs and mental health charities to keep the current classification of cannabis."

In the release, the Home Secretary noted that "On cannabis, I have considered very carefully the advice which I have received from many sources. I am influenced by data on levels of use of the drug and evidence that cannabis use has fallen among 16-24 year olds from 28% in 1998 to less than 24% last year. The preliminary assessment is that, contrary to my personal expectation, reclassification has not led to an increase in use. Moreover I accept the view of the Advisory Council that further research on the mental health implications is needed before any decision to reclassify is made."

Following are excerpts from the ACMD report, "Further Consideration of the Classification of Cannabis Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971":
"4.10.3 In the Council�s judgement, the evidence for the existence of a dose� response relationship (an association between frequency of cannabis use and the development of psychosis) is, on the presently available evidence, weak. This is because of the difficulty in distinguishing, among very frequent users, between those with persistent psychotic symptoms due to continuing acute intoxication and those with an emerging chronic psychotic condition. There could also be an effect that is related to potency but there are no clear data available on this." (p. 12)
"4.10.4 The Council was not convinced by suggestions that the prevalence of psychotic symptoms at age 26 years was greater in those first using cannabis before the age of 15 years compared with those using cannabis before the age of 18 years. The Council considers that the number of individuals that have been the subject of relevant studies is too small for reliable conclusions to be drawn about extra risks in those aged 15 years old or less at their first use. Nevertheless, the use of cannabis in adolescents of all ages must be strongly discouraged." (p. 12)
"4.11.1 In some studies, little or no attempt has been made to distinguish the use of cannabis from that of other controlled substances. Many have failed to distinguish between 'ever' users and those who used cannabis frequently. Some investigations have been limited to estimating the incidence of depression among individuals with cannabis dependence. Furthermore, a wide variety of approaches has been used in the assessment of depression (and other related mental health problems), which makes it difficult to combine studies for analytical purposes."
(p. 12) "4.12 The most recent data (12, 20, 23�25) are not, overall, persuasive of a causal association between cannabis use and the development of depression, bipolar disorder or anxiety. Although some investigators have observed statistically significant associations, there is a lack of consistency between the results of studies and even those with positive findings show only small effects." (p. 12)
"6.6 The Council has considered very carefully, and in considerable detail, whether these recent and additional data on the relationship between cannabis use and the development of psychotic symptoms merit a change in its advice on the appropriate classification � within the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 � of cannabis-containing products. For the following reasons, the Council considers that cannabis products should remain Class C." (p. 15)
"6.6.1 At worst, the risk to an individual of developing schizophrenia as a result of using cannabis is very small and, overall, the harmfulness of cannabis remains substantially less than the harmfulness of substances (such as amphetamine, barbiturates or codeine) that are currently controlled as Class B under the Act." (p. 15)
"6.6.5 Acute intoxication with cannabis does not cause death. It produces significantly fewer adverse cardiovascular effects than amphetamines, and, unlike either barbiturates or codeine, it does not cause respiratory depression. Cannabis use rarely provokes acts of aggression and is less associated with acquisitive crime (1). Its dependence-producing potential is substantially less than that of amphetamine, barbiturates or codeine." (p. 16)
6.6.6 Reclassification to Class C has not, to date, been associated with any increase in reported cannabis consumption among adolescents and young adults. The slow downward trend in use in the past month that has been observed over the last 5 years appears to have been maintained." (p. 16)

A policy report on the drug war prepared by the Blair government in June 2003 but withheld from the public was leaked to the press in early July 2005.

The Guardian reported on July 5, 2005 ( "Revealed: How Drugs War Failed") that "The profit margins for major traffickers of heroin into Britain are so high they outstrip luxury goods companies such as Louis Vuitton and Gucci, according to a study that Downing Street is refusing to publish under freedom of information legislation. Only the first half of the strategy unit study led by the former director general of the BBC, Lord Birt, was released last Friday. The other half was withheld but has been leaked to the Guardian."

According to the Guardian, "It says that the traffickers enjoy such high profits that seizure rates of 60-80% are needed to have any serious impact on the flow of drugs into Britain but nothing greater than 20% has been achieved. The study concludes that the estimated UK annual supply of heroin and cocaine could be transported into the country in five standard-sized shipping containers but has a value which at a conservative estimate tops [4 billion UK pounds]."

The Guardian noted that "The report was presented in its full form to Tony Blair in June 2003. Only 52 of its 105 pages were published on Friday night on the eve of the Live 8 concert, with a note saying the rest was being withheld under the Freedom of Information Act. The government yesterday defended its decision not to publish the half of the report that delivers a scathing verdict on efforts to disrupt the drugs supply chain. The first 50 pages deal with drug consumption patterns and drug-related crime. A Downing Street spokeswoman said the second half contained information supplied by law enforcement agencies dealing with security matters, it concerned the formulation of government policy and its publication would be prejudicial to the conduct of public affairs. But critics last night said much of the unpublished material was already in the public domain. Among the data suppressed because it was supplied by an agency involved in security is a table on page 12 from the National Criminal Intelligence Service showing average street prices for various drugs. It estimates the average cost for a heavy user at UKP89 a week for cannabis and UKP525 for crack cocaine - information that is presumably at the fingertips of every hardcore drug abuser and dealer in the country."

According to the report itself:
"The drugs supply market is highly sophisticated, and attempts to intervene have not resulted in sustainable disruption to the market at any level. As a result:
"- the supply of drugs has increased
"- prices are low enough not to deter initiation
"- but prices are high enough to cause heavy users to commit high levels of crime to fund their habits" (p. 104)

And also:
"Over the past 10-15 years, despite interventions at every point in the supply chain, cocaine and heroin consumption has been rising, prices falling and drugs have continued to reach users
"� government interventions against the drug business are a cost of business, rather than a substantive threat to the industry�s viability
"� however, by increasing risk, government interventions are likely to have slowed the decline in prices" (p. 94)

Objections are mounting to a proposal by the UK's Labour government to examine the possibility of upgrading the penalties for cannabis. According to London's The Mirror on May 23, 2005 ( "Don't Upgrade Cannabis Says Top Policeman"), "The law on cannabis should not be reversed to crack down on dope smokers, Scotland Yard chief Sir Ian Blair declared yesterday. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner said: 'In my view, we should stay where we are.'"

According to the Mirror, "If there was a turnaround on the downgrading of the drug the Met would push 'very hard' for fixed penalty notices rather than court appearances for those possessing a small amount. Current UKP 80 fixed penalty offences include being drunk and disorderly and shoplifting. Being drunk in a public place and dropping litter are among UKP 50 fines. The downgrading of cannabis to Class C, introduced by Mr Clarke's predecessor David Blunkett, came into effect last year and means possession of small amounts of the drug is no longer normally an arrestable offence. Police are instructed to deal with cannabis users with a formal warning and confiscation of the drug, except in certain aggravated circumstances such as smoking it outside a school."

The Labour move was reportedly prompted by the Blair government's discovery of high-potency marijuana, referred to as 'skunk'. The Mirror noted that " Just before the General Election, Prime Minister Tony Blair said the decision to downgrade cannabis to Class C - the same as steroids and some prescription anti-depressants - was being looked at again amid evidence cannabis 'isn't quite as harmless as people make out'. Home Secretary Charles Clarke has asked for advice on varieties of cannabis containing high levels of THC, its active ingredient. One option would be to split the drug classification into stronger and weaker varieties. But Sir Ian opposes this, saying: 'We would be arguing strongly not for a double classification in terms of strengths. That's impractical.'"

David Blunkett, previously Minister of the Home Office under Blair, is also arguing against the move. The Yorkshire Evening Post reported on June 16, 2005 ( "War Over U-Turn On Cannabis") that "Former Home Secretary David Blunkett is on a collision course with Charles Clarke over the decriminalistion of cannabis. Mr Blunkett today told the YEP that he was right to downgrade cannabis despite the fact that the Government looks poised to perform a U-turn. In 2002 Mr Blunkett, now Work and Pensions Secretary changed the classification from B to C effectively decriminalising it."

According to the YEP, "new Home Secretary Clarke looks set to restore the B grade after concerns about the effects of a strong form of cannabis known as skunk. A report in the Netherlands linked it with psychosis and the advisory council on the misuse of drugs is due to report back to him late this year. A Home Office spokeswoman said that the report was not due for some months and would not speculate. However Tony Blair has already indicated that reclassification is on the cards if experts recommend it."

The YEP reported that "[W]hen asked whether he was wrong to downgrade the drug Mr Blunkett told the YEP: 'No, I don't believe I was. I took the advice of the advisory council on misuse of drugs and their recommendation was very clear, but since reclassification there has been an issue about skunk . The advisory council was asked to examine whether that made a difference to their original recommendation and as far I know the Home Secretary is still waiting for them to come back to him. We took their advice on scientific grounds, saying that a differentiation was made between different types of drugs such as crack and heroin which can kill and less dangerous ones. What we were able to do was free up the police to be able to concentrate resources on those killer drugs. Whatever the solution, I know the Home Secretary will want to bear in mind that the police are dealing with this on a day to day basis,' he said adding that if the drug is reclassified 'the public will have to know that will be at a price'."

The UK's Labour Government is moving to re-examine its classification of cannabis as a Class C drug. Cannabis had been officially downgraded in January 2004. As noted by The Guardian on March 22, 2004 ( "No Retreat On Cannabis"), " Charles Clarke, the home secretary, asked the advisory council to say whether it would change their mind as a result of 'emerging evidence' of a link between cannabis consumption and deteriorating mental health. It is unlikely that they will. The advisory council - along with the Royal College of Psychiatrists' working party and a Police Foundation's independent committee of inquiry - were all aware of the risks that cannabis posed to people vulnerable to mental illness when they made their recommendations to reclassify."

The Guardian reported that "Much fuss has been aired in the red-top papers about these two studies, but with few quotes from the researchers. Yet the professor who led the New Zealand project told the New Zealand Herald: 'These are not huge increases in risk and nor should they be, because cannabis is by no means the only thing that will determine if you suffer these symptoms.' Professor Jim van Os, one of the authors of the Dutch study, was even more robust. He told the Guardian that the fact that cannabis could trigger psychosis in a small minority of people was a good reason to legalise it, not ban it. This would allow governments to promote advice and information and control more dangerous forms like skunk. Packets could carry how much THC, the most dangerous compound, the drug contained, along with how much CBD, the compound believed to provide beneficial effects."

The Guardian commented that "If ever a government had an early warning of one front it needs to defend in this election campaign, it is Labour's downgrading of cannabis. On the eve of ministers reclassifying cannabis from category B to the less harmful category C about 14 months ago, the ever-opportunistic Michael Howard declared a Conservative government would reverse it. He condemned the government's drugs strategy as 'absurd', which serious policy-makers thought 'shameless'. Now, 14 months on, ministers are behaving 'absurdly', not by referring new evidence about the drug to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, but with their failure to set out the robust reasons behind their decision last year."

According to the Guardian, "What was missing from the minister's response was a public reminder of why the drug was reclassified. It followed expert advice from professionals - medics, pharmacologists, police officers - not red-top papers. It freed a wide swathe of police officers to pursue serious drug barons, rather than trivial offenders. No wonder polls show 60% believe the drug should be decriminalised. If ministers needed to add a political message, they could have asked Mr Howard why he wanted to wage war on 50% of young people, ensure tens of thousands of them be given criminal records and some prison sentences, for an activity that more than 2 million of them engage in quite safely during the year."

Some have derided the Government's move as election-year politics. The columnist Simon Jenkins wrote in The Times of London on March 21, 2005 ("Now Drugs Are An Election Issue"), "Pre-election nerves are getting out of hand. Consider the weekend madness from the Home Office on drugs. The new Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, once confessed to The Times that he was eager not to appear a liberal. He has duly ordered a review of the classification of cannabis on the Government's list of banned drugs. This follows 'news' that marijuana, particularly the strong strain of mostly home-grown skunk, might be more harmful than previously thought. The drug was reduced from class B to class C by Mr Clarke's predecessor, David Blunkett, just a year ago. The effect was ostensibly to save police time because possession of class C drugs was not an arrestable offence. However, Mr Blunkett immediately negated the impact of the change by making class C possession arrestable. The change was almost entirely cosmetic, but had the effect of making the drug seem more safe - or seem so to those who had never tried it and might take any notice of Home Office classifications."

As Mr. Jenkins writes, "The criminalisation of drugs has been the biggest social catastrophe of the past quarter century, wrecking tens of thousands of lives, families, communities and businesses. A new framework of control, taxation and licensed distribution must be established. Mr Clarke has no intention of doing this. He has an election on his hands. So he suddenly discovers skunk, suddenly reads medical literature, suddenly forgets he was in the Government which reclassified cannabis a year ago and suddenly orders his Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to "review" its classification. Election time is here again."

Mr. Jenkins notes, "I served for over a year on a publicly-funded research committee on the future of the 1971 Act. It left me with a number of emphatic conclusions. One was that all drugs alter minds, which is why ( mostly ) weak people take them. For some they are beneficial. For many they are harmless. For a few they can be dangerous. I would strongly discourage young people from touching drugs, as I would discourage them from many ill-advised activities. I would certainly like public policy to limit their prevalence. The 1971 Act does the opposite. It makes drugs cheap, plentiful and easy to sell to young people. It is not an act but a social crime. Making drug use illegal, and thus plunging young people into a world of high-pressure criminal salesmanship, is madness. The 1971 Act is lethal and should be abolished. Cannabis should go where nicotine, alcohol, retail drugs, off-course betting, gambling and prostitution have gone before, into the realm of regulation and control. If criminalisation could rid society of this evil, it would have done so long ago. Clearly the reverse has happened."

A report by researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, has stirred a debate in the United Kingdom over the question of controlled heroin use. BBC News reported on Feb. 3, 2005 ( "Heated Debate Over Heroin Report") that "The Glasgow Caledonian University study of 126 users of the class A drug found many were holding down normal jobs and relationships and passing exams. The report said heroin could be taken in a controlled way for a period."

Critics panned the report as promoting heroin use. Calmer voices explained that this was not the case. According to BBC, "However, Lord Victor Adebowale, the chief executive of specialist alcohol and drug organisation Turning Point, said the report was not saying that heroin was safe. He explained: 'It says that if you have a job, if you have a house, an income, are well educated and have a health system to support you, it's possible to survive an addiction to a pretty serious substance. Most people don't have this and have mental health challenges as well as a heroin problem.'"

Indeed, even the study's author stressed that the report should not be taken as minimizing the danger of heroin. As the BBC noted, "The report's author, Dr David Shewan, agreed that heroin was not a safe drug. He said the concept of controlled drug use was a 'largely unexplored' area of research and warned that the results should be treated with caution. The doctor added: 'However, this study shows that the chemical properties of specific substances, including heroin, should not be assumed to inevitably lead to addictive and destructive patterns of drug use. Drug research should incorporate this previously hidden population to more fully inform theory and practice. Psychological and social factors have to be taken into account when looking at how to deal with any form of addiction, including heroin addiction.'"

According to the BBC:
"The work by Dr Shewan and his colleague Phil Dargarno was funded by the Chief Scientist Office.
"The 126 people studied in Glasgow had been taking heroin for an average of seven years and were not receiving treatment for their drug use.
"Most of those involved in the study were in a relationship and a third had children. In contrast to those receiving treatment for heroin use, three quarters of the sample group were employed and a third were placed at the top end of the job sector.
"Some 64% of those surveyed had continued in education after secondary school, and 11% were in full-time higher education at the time of the research.
"Unemployed people accounted for 15% of the group, and only 5% had no educational qualifications.
"The study found that some heroin users could maintain occupations and achieve educational qualifications which were comparable with the general UK population - and were considerably higher than normally found in heroin research.
"In the first phase of the study 30% of those involved reported drug-related health problems, although most did not require medical treatment.
"Only a handful of those surveyed said they regularly injected heroin.
"The group seemed reasonably satisfied with their level of physical health, with almost 48% describing their health as good and just 7% describing it as bad or fairly bad.
"Just 15% of the participants reported that their heroin use had been associated with family problems, only one blamed the drug for the break-up of a long-term relationship and nobody's child had been taken into care.
"While 60% reported a negative effect on their employment or education, only two people said drug misuse had cost them their jobs.
"By the end of the study six participants had begun specialist drug treatment."

The study is to be published in the British Journal of Health Psychology.

The politics.co.uk website features an excellent discussion of this report as an "Issue of the Day: Evidence For Controlled Heroin Use?".

The government of Prime Minister Tony Blair is facing strong criticism over a planned expansion of alcohol availability. The BBC reported Jan. 3, 2005 ( "NHS Fear Over 24-Hour Drink Plans") that " Plans to allow 24-hour drinking can only increase the £1.7bn alcohol-fuelled harm costs the NHS every year, a top medical group has warned. The Royal College of Physicians said there was already an "epidemic" of binge drinking and the plan 'flies in the face of common sense'. But Licensing Minister Richard Caborn said the government was tackling the causes and the symptoms of the problem."

A BBC News poll conducted in Jan. 2005 found that overwhelming numbers of Britons are opposed to the change ( "Britons 'Fear Longer Pub Opening'"). According to BBC News, " Almost two-thirds of Britons believe extended pub opening hours will make the country a worse place to live, according to a poll for the BBC. Some 67% thought anti-social behaviour would increase with 24-hour opening, due later in 2005, in the ICM poll of over 1,000 adults for BBC Breakfast. The government has said disorderly pubs will get 'yellow card' warnings before being forced to fund extra policing."

A broad range of opponents are voicing their opposition. As the BBC reported, " Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said his party favoured a delay on introducing the new licensing laws. He said: 'It would clearly be prudent to allow the police and local authorities more time to prepare for flexible drinking hours. The government's plans for a levy on the drinking industry also need to be worked through in detail before any new licenses are granted.' Mr Oaten's remarks follow calls from the Tories and Britain's most senior police officer, Met chief Sir John Stevens, to put the new law on hold."

BBC presented an intriguing set of pro and con arguments on Jan. 14, 2005 ( "Head-to-Head: 24-Hour Drinking"). In it, Mark Jones, CEO of a company which owns 153 pubs and is "vehemently opposed" argues against the law changes, while Mark Hastings, a representative of the British Beer and Pub Association argues that "drinkers should be treated like adults and allowed to carry on after 11pm." While on the one hand, 11pm is clearly quite early, Jones, the pub owner notes that " The latest we open is two in the morning. We have spent hundreds of thousands opening late, we provide food until one. There is already saturation on the number of late licences."

A public outcry is forcing the Blair government to back down from its recently-announced plan to begin random drug testing of students. The Daily Telegraph reported on Feb. 24, 2004 ( "Government Backs Down On Random Drug Tests In Schools") that "Random drug tests on school pupils will not be compulsory, Tony Blair said yesterday. Downing Street was forced on the defensive after teachers' leaders and anti-drug campaigners claimed the plan was unworkable. The Prime Minister used a weekend newspaper interview to say that head teachers could be given the power to impose tests where they thought drug use was a problem in their schools."

According to the Daily Telegraph, "Teaching unions have advised their members to use the proposed powers only as a last resort because of concerns that parents of pupils subjected to such tests could sue schools for human rights abuses. Ivan Lewis, the junior education minister, confirmed that consent would have to be sought for any drug testing. For under-16s, heads would have to get the consent of the parents. Post-16, the advice was that they should consult the pupil."

A broad base of opposition to the drug testing proposal has arisen. The Guardian newspaper noted editorials in several major UK newspapers denouncing the idea ( "'It Is Too Nanny-State To Stomach'", Feb. 24, 2004).

Teachers and teaching unions have expressed their opposition. The Times of London noted on Feb. 23, 2004 ( "Teachers Rebuff Random Tests For Drugs In Schools") that "But John Dunford, general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association, said: 'I am concerned at the implication that the drugs problem is rooted in schools and that schools should solve it. Yet another burden is being placed on schools, which have a contribution to make to solving the drugs problem but policies must look much more widely. I do not think that head teachers will want to carry out random drugs testing in schools. It is something that would change the atmosphere in schools, would change the relationship between the school and the pupil.' Jean Gemmell, general secretary of the Professional Association of Teachers, said: 'My first reaction was to be fairly horrified, mostly because I cannot quite see how on earth it is going to work. As a former head and someone who represents teachers, it is adding to their burden of social responsibility to the point that it becomes untenable.' Eamonn O'Kane, general secretary of the teaching union NASUWT, added: 'This would be a very big step for any head teacher to take. It is effectively giving them police powers and I think a head teacher would want to think very, very carefully before exercising them.'"

Concerns have also arisen that such a proposal may violate human rights and lead to legal challenges. The BBC News reported on Feb. 23, 2004 ( "Teachers Demand Urgent Drug Talks") that "The prospect of legal challenges over drug testing has also been raised by Carolyn Hamilton, director of the Children's Legal Centre at the University of Essex, which examines policy and law affecting children. Insisting that pupils take drug tests could be in breach of the rights to privacy in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms Hamilton told BBC News Online. 'We're very much against random drug testing,' she said, both on the grounds of principle and the expense and complexity of how it would be put into practice. And she says that it is not clear what is the intended outcome of such a policy. If large numbers of teenagers are using drugs, she asks what would be the consequence of the testing. Would it mean that large numbers of pupils would be excluded from school?"

Even the head of a UK drugs charity has raised concerns. The BBC noted in its report that "And the former chief constable of Gwent Police, Francis Wilkinson, who is patron of the drugs charity Transform, also had considerable doubts. He said the scheme would effectively be a test for cannabis, because more harmful drugs are flushed out of users' systems much more quickly. Mr Wilkinson told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'It is a non-starter. You can't do it without consent, and a child can't give informed consent, so you would get consent from parents. Some won't agree and, of course, even if they do, a child can certainly refuse. Do you say it is a condition of entry to a school that consent is given by parents? The state has the responsibility of educating everyone, so how do you deal with the fact that not all parents and certainly not all children are going to consent?' He added: 'It is difficult to see how this could possibly work.'"

The UK Parliament has endorsed the Labour Government's move to officially downgrade cannabis from a Class B to a Class C drug. The Guardian of London reported on Oct. 29, 2003 ( "MPs Vote To Downgrade Cannabis") that "The reclassification of cannabis from class B to class C was backed by 316 votes to 160, a majority of 156, despite Conservative warnings that it would lead more young people into hard drugs. The downgrading of cannabis is now scheduled to go ahead on January 29. Junior home office minister Caroline Flint said the change was part of an 'honest and credible' strategy to tackle the scourge of drugs, denying it was tantamount to legalising the drug or would increase cannabis use. Under the switch, cannabis will be ranked alongside bodybuilding steroids and some anti-depressants. Possession of cannabis will no longer be an arrestable offence in most cases, although police will retain the power to arrest users in certain aggravated situations - such as when the drug is smoked outside schools. The home secretary, David Blunkett, has said the change in the law is necessary to enable police to spend more time tackling class A drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine which cause the most harm and trigger far more crime. Ms Flint told MPs: 'This Labour government is absolutely right to focus on the most dangerous drugs, to intervene most vigorously in the most damaged communities and to seek to break the link between addiction and the crime that feeds it.'"

A streaming version of (most of )the debate over this measure can be heard by clicking here.

Heroin traffickers connected with Irish Protestant paramilitaries are reported to be active in Scotland. The London Observer reported on July 28, 2002 ( "Ulster Drug Gangs Occupy Centre Stage In Edinburgh") that "At least two senior members of the Protestant Ulster Volunteer Force ( UVF ) have visited Edinburgh in recent weeks to give a heroin-dealing operation their blessing and a special unit has been set up by Lothian and Borders Police to deal with a 50-strong gang of violent criminals who have taken hold of the city's drug trade. Fears of Belfast rivalries spilling on to the streets of Scotland escalated after it was revealed that (Mad Dog) Johnny Adair, head of the Ulster Freedom Fighters ( UFF ), had arrived in Ayrshire on Friday night for a fundraising event. A truce between the factions was only drawn up recently after a bloody turf war in Ulster."

According to the Observer, "Brian Fallon, Edinburgh councillor for the area, said: 'People have come into the community from Northern Ireland and there have been allegations of drug dealing and other criminal activity. The police, the housing department and the social work department are all working closely to try to resolve this situation.' The profits of the Edinburgh trade are laundered through pubs in the west of Scotland run by sympathisers and the cash returns to Northern Ireland, where it underpins expanding criminal empires. In a recent report to the House of Commons, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee said republican and loyalist paramilitaries could be netting more than UKP18m a year from criminal activities. In the past two months existing drugs gangs have fled the streets of Edinburgh's schemes and a stand-off between locals and the loyalist gang saw police deploy a riot squad in an attempt to keep the peace."

British Home Secretary David Blunkett announced on July 10, 2002, that the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair agrees with many of the recommendations made earlier in the year by the Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) (see "Commons Home Affairs Select Committee Report On Drugs Issued," below for details on the report). According to the Home Secretary's office ( "'All Controlled Drugs Harmful, All Will Remain Illegal' - Home Secretary"), Mr. Blunkett said "We must concentrate our efforts on the drugs that cause the most harm, while sending a credible message to young people. I will therefore ask Parliament to reclassify cannabis from Class B to Class C. I have considered the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee, and the advice given me by the ACMD medical experts that the current classification of cannabis is disproportionate in relation to the harm that it causes."

Mr. Blunkett did however reject some of the HASC's recommendations: "I cannot accept the proposal from the Committee to reclassify ecstasy from Class A to Class B. We still have much to learn about the long-term harm that it causes, but what we do know is that ecstasy can kill unpredictably and that there is no such thing as a safe dose. I believe all killer drugs such as ecstasy should remain in Class A. I also want to express caution on the recommendation by the Committee to pilot the use of safe injecting rooms for heroin users."

The full response from the UK government to the Parliamentary committee's report is available by clicking here, or can be downloaded as PDF from here. In addition, the Home Office has prepared a Factsheet on the upcoming cannabis reclassification, which is available from here.

A program established in Scotland to help former addicts stay in control when released from prison has come under attack. The Herald reported on July 1, 2002 ( "Prison Policy 'Surrender To Drugs Crisis') that "The Scottish Executive has said that a handful of 'totally chaotic' prisoners are offered a heroin substitute to prevent them from overdosing or reoffending when released. Richard Simpson, deputy health minister, yesterday defended the scheme, which he said was aimed at preventing people from dying. However, Bill Aitken, the Tory justice spokesman, attacked the scheme as being 'total and abject surrender' to the drugs crisis. Three out of every four prisoners enter jail with some kind of drug problem, and 15 drug addicts died within two weeks of being released from jail in 1999."

According to the Herald, "The Scottish Prison Service introduced the controversial scheme, called the Retox Programme, earlier this year to prevent the growing number of released prisoners overdosing on heroin while on parole. Inmates are assessed by psychologists and drug counsellors, and are offered a place on the programme if it is thought there is a strong possibility they will return to drugs when released." The Herald reports that "Vic Walker, of the Open Door Trust, a charity that works with people affected by unemployment, drugs, alcohol and crime, said yesterday: 'I think there is a place ( for re-toxification ) within an overall strategy, but . . . should always be seen as a stepping stone to get people to the ultimate destination of being able to be free to reach their potential.'"

The Herald notes that "Dr Simpson stressed that the re-tox programme applied to 'a group of totally chaotic people who repeatedly, in going out of prison, have risked their lives by taking quantities of hard drugs. If we can stop them from dying, this is a measure we are prepared to take.' He said the alternative was for people to come out of jail and commit crimes for drug money. 'There are 7500 prisoners entering treatment systems and only a handful in re-toxification. This must be kept in total perspective,' he said."

The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee report on drugs policy in the UK was released on May 22, 2002. The entire report can be viewed from the Parliament website. The report's Conclusion is below.

"CONCLUSIONS
"268. There are no easy answers to the problems posed by drug abuse, but it seems to us that certain trends are unmistakable. If there is any single lesson from the experience of the last 30 years, it is that policies based wholly or mainly on enforcement are destined to fail. It remains an unhappy fact that the best efforts of police and Customs have had little, if any impact on the availability of illegal drugs and this is reflected in the prices on the street which are as low as they have ever been. The best that can be said, and the evidence for this is shaky, is that we have succeeded in containing the problem.
"269. What we do know is that the ready availability of illegal drugs is sustaining a vast criminal industry and that the need of addicts to fund their habit is responsible for an enormous amount of acquisitive crime. We also know that the harm caused by illegal drugs varies immensely from one drug to another and�since most users and potential users know this�there is no point in pretending otherwise.
"270. It, therefore, seems to us that certain conclusions follow inexorably: First, that harm reduction rather than retribution should be the primary focus of policy towards users of illegal drugs. We are glad to note that the Government is making the first tentative steps in that direction. We believe it should go further and have offered some suggestions.
"271. Second, that law enforcement should focus primarily on the criminal network responsible for manufacturing and importing the most harmful drugs�notably heroin and cocaine. We are glad to note that increasingly this is happening.
"272. Three, that we should invest in a programme of education�addressing all forms of drug abuse, including cigarettes and alcohol�to make young people aware of the damage they can inflict upon themselves and others. To be effective, however, such programmes must be realistic, honest, targeted and preferably delivered by someone with 'street credibility'�recovered addicts, for example.
"273. Four, we have to recognise that, however much advice they are offered, many young people will continue to use drugs. In most cases this is a passing phase which they will grow out of and, while such use should never be condoned, it rarely results in any long term harm. It therefore makes sense to give priority to educating such young people in harm minimisation rather than prosecuting them. The Government's recent advice to users of so-called 'recreational drugs', Safer Clubbing, is a welcome step in this direction.
"274. Five, overwhelmingly we should focus on treating or reducing the harm caused by the 250,000 or so problematic users whose habit is damaging not only their own lives, but those of their families and the communities in which they live. Although there are recent signs of improvement, treatment facilities remain woefully inadequate.
"275. Finally, many sensible and thoughtful people have argued that we should go a step further and embrace legalisation and regulation of all or most presently illegal drugs. We acknowledge there are some attractive arguments. However, those who urge this course upon us are inviting us to take a step into the unknown. To tread where no other society has yet trod. They are asking us to gamble the undoubted potential gains against the inevitability of a significant increase in the number of users, especially amongst the very young. They are overlooking the fact that the overwhelming majority of young people do not use drugs and that many are deterred by the prospect of breaking the law. We, therefore, decline to support legalisation and regulation.
"276. It may well be that in years to come a future generation will take a different view. Drugs policy should not be set in stone. It will evolve like any other. For the foreseeable future, however, we believe the path is clear."

New rumors are flying about the contents of a report from a select committee of the House of Commons due out Wednesday. According to the Times of London on May 19, 2002 ( "MPs Back Softer Line On Cannabis"), "A report from the cross-party home affairs select committee, due on Wednesday, is widely expected to say cannabis should be downgraded from a class B to a class C drug. This would mean it remained illegal but possession of it would attract a caution or a fine rather than arrest. The committee is also likely to suggest that ministers consider setting up 'shooting galleries' where addicts can inject drugs under medical supervision in a safe, clean room."

The Times reports that "The MPs will strongly endorse the Lambeth experiment where possession of small amounts of cannabis is no longer an arrestable offence. David Blunkett, the home secretary, has already proposed the reclassification of cannabis and with the MPs' backing a change in the law is likely. However, the MPs have rejected calls for Dutch-style coffee shops where cannabis can be smoked freely. The committee is also expected to recommend convicted addicts be offered treatment programmes rather than go to prison and that there be a new legal definition of 'social supply', so young people who buy a few ecstasy tablets to share are not prosecuted as drug dealers."

The London Observer reported on May 19, 2002 ( "MPs To Back 'Heroin On NHS'") "MPs are set to back Home Secretary David Blunkett's call for more addicts to be prescribed heroin, the Observer reports. Mr Blunkett believes more people dependent on drugs should get access to them on prescription provided they agree to seek treatment. The Observer reports that his view will be endorsed by the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee when it issues a report next week into Britain's drug problems. The MPs will also reportedly propose the use of controversial 'safe injecting areas', such as those seen in some continental countries, the paper says. A Home Office spokeswoman told the newspaper that there was nothing new in proposals to make greater use of diamorphine - so-called medical heroin. She said: 'The home secretary's position has not changed since October when he said that doctors should prescribe more drugs if that is a way to bring addicts in for treatment.'"

A story in London's Independent on May 18, 2002 ( "Hard Drug Users Should Not Go To Jail, Say MPs") reports that "MPs on the committee will recommend that prisons are not the best way to ensure drug addicts overcome their problems and will recommend better access to treatment programmes. Addicts who steal and commit fraud to fund drug-taking should be offered places on treatment programmes instead of jail. The long-awaited report by MPs, which follows 10 months of evidence from experts, drugs organisations and the police, will say that police and court time should not be wasted on punishing people who use small amounts for recreational purposes. Cannabis users should not face arrest, the report is expected to say, endorsing the trial scheme being operated in Lambeth where police have not pursued casual users. The report, which will be published on Wednesday, will say that police energy should focus on catching the criminal gangs who supply hard drugs rather than on recreational users of marijuana, including those who grow small quantities for their own use or that of friends."

In stinging reproach to the growing number of diverse groups and individuals in the UK calling for cannabis legalization (for example, "Mowlam: Legalise All Drugs," London Independent, April 28, 2002) in addition to other drug policy reforms, "An enquiry into Britain's drugs laws by the Home Affairs Select Committee will conclude that decriminalisation of the drug would send out the wrong message and lead to an increase in supply," according to the London Independent on May 12, 2002 ( "Cannabis Must Stay Illegal, MPs Say"). The Committee will however support Home Secretary David Blunkett's proposal to reclassify cannabis as a Class C drug. According to the Independent, "Full legalisation of cannabis - a step further - will also be explicitly rejected by the committee in its report, which will recommend reclassifying the drug from Class B to Class C. However, it will endorse the use of cannabis-based medicines for patients with spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis and nerve path damage."

The Independent continues: "Plans for more liberal changes to Britain's drug laws are understood to have been blocked by some members of the committee. 'Some members did support legalisation of cannabis and others were completely opposed to the idea,' said a Westminster source. The committee's report is also understood to be opposed to any softening of laws on heroin and ecstasy."

Home Secretary David Blunkett is expected later this month to downgrade cannabis to a Class C drug, as recommended by a government advisory panel earlier in 2002 ( see "UK Government Medical Advisory Council Report Recommends Reclassifying Cannabis, Says Less Of A Risk Than Alcohol") The Independent notes that this move "is in response to pressure for reform of drug laws from drugs charities and politicians, as well as senior police officers who want to concentrate their resources on fighting hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine."

This same committee report will call for cuts to some agencies providing harm reduction information. According to a separate story in the Independent on May 12, 2002 ( "MPs Demand Cut In Funds For Agencies Accused Of Promoting Drug Use"), "The final report of the House of Commons home affairs select committee inquiry into drugs will say that some agencies are overstepping the line between giving health advice and are now actually promoting drug use." The Independent reports that "In their report, the MPs conclude that the Government should review funding of drugs agencies and withdraw public money from those that overstep the mark.
"The draft of the report, due out a week on Tuesday, says: 'Members were very concerned about some of the graphic literature produced by agencies which goes much further than simply health advice and preventing drug use. A full review should be held of whether this is a good use of public funds.'
"One senior MP said: 'I was truly appalled at some of the leaflets we saw. They are practically guides to becoming a drug addict and make little or no effort to persuade people not to take drugs.
"'Obviously, these agencies are dealing with young people and need to communicate with them in their language, but there's a difference between sensible advice, such as telling people to drink water if they are determined to use Ecstasy, and actually telling people cannabis is not that harmful or guiding them on how to take hard drugs. I wouldn't allow my children to look at something like this. We shouldn't fund any organisation which produces them.'"

The agencies respond that their literature may be hard for some to deal with, but they are realistic and accurate. According to the Independent, "Mike Linnell, Lifeline's communications director, admitted that his publicity material was open to criticism but added: 'Telling people not to take drugs as they can be dangerous doesn't work, so we aim to provide information on how to keep alive if they do use the drugs.
"'If you overdramatise and say, 'One bit of cannabis will kill you,' people will know that isn't true. If you say, 'Cannabis won't kill you, but heroin might,' then people will listen.'"
"He added: 'We produce leaflets for a whole variety of markets. Leaflets about safe ways of injecting heroin are aimed at people who already use it and are intended to stop them making some mistake that will kill them.'
"Lifeline is a private charity with 200 staff and is funded through donations, health-service contracts and grants from local and central government. Its publications branch, with a turnover of UKP300,000, is self-financing and sells publications to other drugs agencies, many of which are publicly funded."

Support for reform of drug policies in the United Kingdom continues to grow. The BBC reported on May 2, 2002 ( "Police Back Softer Line On Drug Users") that "Police chiefs say they would have a better chance of winning the war on drugs if addicts were given treatment instead of punishment. The Association of Chief Police Officers ( ACPO ) also believes it would be better to adopt a more relaxed stance towards people caught with small amounts of cannabis. ACPO unveiled its proposals in a report, carried out by its influential drugs committee, saying in some circumstances, treatment should be considered instead of prosecution."

Though a radical change, there is some evidence that such policies will work. As noted by the Independent newspaper on May 2, 2002 ( "Police Chiefs Plan Softer Approach To Hard Drugs"), "A similar policy has been pioneered under the direction of Brian Paddick, the controversial commander whose tactics have led to an increase in arrests for hard drugs in his south London borough. Figures out in March showed that drug arrests rose by more than 65 per cent in a year in Lambeth after Commander Paddick decided not to arrest cannabis users and instead pursue heroin and crack cocaine dealers. The Metropolitan Police's statistics showed that there were 159 class A drug arrests in Lambeth in February compared with 96 for both cannabis and class A drugs in the same month last year. Levels of street crime were cut by 35 per cent and burglaries were down as was the number of hours that police were using for paperwork following cannabis arrests. In Lambeth, cannabis users have had their drugs confiscated but given only a verbal warning."

Two studies were released in March 2002 on the success of a pilot program in Lambeth, England, in which cannabis offenders are given a warning only. The Times of London reported on March 22, 2002 ( "Softer Line Against Cannabis Saves 1,300 Police Hours"), that "A pilot scheme in which people caught in possession of cannabis are let off with a warning saved more than 1,300 hours of police time in its first six months, according to a report published yesterday. The scheme also won the support of residents in Lambeth, South London, but the Metropolitan Police say that similar action might not work in other boroughs. The force gave a cautious welcome to an internal study of the project, which had been launched in Lambeth by Commander Brian Paddick, but said that further work was needed to consider the impact for the rest of London."

According to the Times, "During the pilot scheme there was a 35 per cent increase in recorded offences of possession and an 11 per cent rise in drug trafficking offences recorded by police. In adjoining boroughs recorded cannabis possession offences fell by 4 per cent and trafficking by 34 per cent. But the study said that Lambeth increased its activity in focusing on the use, possession and trafficking of Class A drugs." A summary of the study by the Metropolitan Police, "Evaluation of Lambeth's Pilot of Warnings For Possession Of Cannabis," is available as a PDF, or as a Word document, from this URL: http://www.met.police.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2002_0010.

The Times also reported that "A separate study by MORI, the polling organisation for the Police Foundation, found that 83 per cent of Lambeth residents supported the scheme. It said that 36 per cent supported the project outright, and that 47 per cent gave it conditional support. Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, said: 'A larger percentage of white residents than black or Asian residents supported the scheme.' The figures show that it was backed by 41 per cent of white residents, 28 per cent of black residents and 25 per cent of Asians." The level of support is quite high given the relative lack of awareness of the particulars of the program. According to the Times, "The survey, conducted in November and December among 2,055 residents, found that 56 per cent said that they knew at least a little about the scheme, while 41 per cent knew nothing at all. Of the 56 per cent who knew something, only 38 per cent knew correctly that police would give warnings instead of formal cautions, 14 per cent knew that cannabis would be confiscated and 6 per cent incorrectly said that it had been legalised. A national survey about the scheme earlier this year found 76 per cent of 1,952 adults questioned approved of it." The Police Foundation survey of Lambeth residents can be downloaded from the Police Foundation at http://www.police-foundation.org.uk/site/Reports.asp or from http://www.csdp.org/research/reportonpolicingthepossessionofcannabis.pdf.

The UK Government's Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) issued its report, "The classification of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971," on March 14, 2002. According to the government's news release ( "Government Medical Experts Recommend Reclassification of Cannabis"), "In its report to the Home Secretary the ACMD advises that the current classification of cannabis is disproportionate in relation both to its inherent harmfulness, and to the harmfulness of other substances, such as amphetamines, that are currently in Class B." The report concludes that:

"The high use of cannabis is not associated with major health problems for the individual or society."
"The occasional use of cannabis is only rarely associated with significant problems in otherwise healthy individuals. The harmful effects of cannabis are very substantially less than those associated with similar use of other drugs which like cannabis are currently classified as Class B."
"Even the occasional use of cannabis, however, poses significant dangers for people with disorders of the heart and circulation and for those with mental health problems such as schizophrenia. Again, however, both groups are at much more significant risk from amphetamines."
"Regular heavy use of cannabis can result in dependence, but its dependence potential is substantially less than that of Class B drugs such as amphetamine or, indeed, that of tobacco or alcohol."
"It is not possible to state, with certainty, whether or not cannabis use predisposes users to dependence on Class A drugs such as heroin or crack cocaine. Nevertheless the risks (if any) are small and less than those associated with the use of tobacco or alcohol."

United Kingdom Drug Policy Reform

Former UK Senior Civil Servant Believes Legalisation Would Be Less Harmful

Scotland: Parliamentary Thinktank Recommends Safe Injection Site, Heroin Maintenance, Cannabis Regulation

Against Advice, Brown Government Still Pushing For Marijuana Recrim

London Mayor Boris Johnson Supports Medical Marijuana

Increasing Penalties for Pot Would Not Keep Young People From Using

A Feint To The Right Followed By A Sucker Punch – Brown Government Plan To Cut Drug Treatment Funding Revealed

UPDATED – Recrim Push Backfiring? TEN Cabinet Members So Far Admit Past Pot Use

Newly-Appointed UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown Moves To Increase Penalties For Marijuana

UK Drug Policy Commission Analyzes Drug War

House Of Commons Committee Releases Scientific Evaluation Of Drug Dangers

Tories Tentatively Support Independent Panel Recommendation Endorsing Safe Consumption Rooms

Blair Government Takes Expert Advice: Cannabis To Remain In Class C

Secret UK Government Report Blasts Drug War

Police Commander Objects To Proposal To Examine Cannabis Upgrade

Labour Government Moves To Re-Examine Cannabis Classification

Evidence For Controlled Heroin Use? Report Stirs Controversy In UK

Blair Steps In It: Labour Government Faces Strong Backlash Against Plans To Allow 24-Hour Drinking In Pubs

Public 'Just Says No' To Drug Testing: Labour Urged To Abandon Plan To Randomly Drug Test Students

Parliament Votes To Officially Downgrade Cannabis -- Simple Possession No Longer An Arrestable Offense In Most Cases -- 'Not About Legalisation, It's About Having To Have A Mature Discussion About Drugs'

Irish Drug Gangs Hitting Scotland? Reports Indicate Protestant Ulster Paramilitaries Involved In Edinburgh Heroin Trafficking

UK Moves One Step Closer To Reform: Home Secretary Suggests Policy Changes To Parliament

Scottish Prison System Re-Entry Program Stirs Controversy: Some 'Totally Chaotic' Inmates Put On Methadone Upon Release

Commons Home Affairs Select Committee Report On Drugs Issued, Endorses Heroin Injection Rooms, Heroin Prescription, And Reducing Penalties For Cannabis

To Everything Spin, Spin, Spin: New Predictions About Forthcoming House Of Commons Committee Report

After Several Steps Forward, A Great Leap Back: House Of Commons Committee Prepares To Release Report Endorsing Current Criminalized Approach To Drugs

Police Chiefs Call For Changes In Drug Enforcement: Lighten Up On Cannabis Laws, Use Treatment Instead Of Prison To Deal With Narcotics Users

Police Study Shows: De-Emphasizing Cannabis Enforcement Saves Time, Improves Efficiency; Public Opinion Survey Shows Residents Approve Of New Policy

UK Government Medical Advisory Council Report Recommends Reclassifying Cannabis, Says Less Of A Risk Than Alcohol