Lib Dems consider drug law reform at conference

.
We're excited to see that a promising development in the UK debate is being widely reported today; the Lib Dems are to debate a motion at this years annual conference that takes a wide ranging look at drug law reform - specifically considering both decriminalisation of personal drug possession, and regulated cannabis markets. In many respects this isn't new territory for the Lib Dems - who have a long history of more rational thinking on the drugs issue than the other two main UK parties. They have had a call for legalisation and regulation of cannabis (albeit with some caveats) as official policy since 2002, and something resembling the decrim call (minus specifics) was actually in their 2010 election manifesto:

"Ensure that financial resources, and police and court time, are not wasted
on the unnecessary prosecution and imprisonment of drug users and addicts; the
focus instead should be on getting addicts the treatment they need. Police
should concentrate their efforts on organised drug pushers and gangs."

Party leader Nick Clegg, has also gone on the record in the past in favour of progressive drug law reform including legalisation and regulation (as indeed has David Cameron). The significant development then is not the emergence of the proposals themselves, but the fact that they have been accepted for debate at conference. The Lib Dem campaigners responsible for the motion (The Lib Dems for Drug Policy Reform group) have been pushing such motions for years without much luck. It could be that the Lib Dems are keen to put some distance between themselves ad the Tories with some progressive liberal ideas, but nonetheless, it's a clear sign of the changing climate that this motion is now on the table, and will be fascinating to see how the debate develops if it is adopted by one of the coalition government partners.

It's worth reading the conference motion (below) in full - which hasn't been included in any of the media coverage thus far (although the Independent has a supportive leader). Its almost alarmingly measured and reasonable. Event the Daily Mail reports it fairly straight, paying lip service to the usual antis, and not editorialising on it. It's almost as if they couldn't be bothered to get outraged about it...

The motion also highlights the important observation - thus far seemingly unnoticed by the media - that the ACMD, in effect backed the decrim concept (albeit calling it the more politically palatable 'diversion', rather than the more loaded term 'decriminalisation') in its submission to the drug strategy consultation last year.

We're delighted to see that the motion begins with a call for an Impact Assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act. A position that Transform has been advocating for many years.

Protecting individuals and communities from drug harms

Conference notes:

1) That drugs are powerful substances which can have serious consequences for the individual user and society in general; and that it is therefore right and proper that the state should intervene to regulate and control the use of such substances as it does the consumption of legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco and both prescription and over the counter medicines.

2) That the misuse of drugs can blight the lives of individuals and families and the purchase of illegal drugs can help to fuel organised crime.

3) The need for evidence-based policy making on drugs with a clear focus on prevention and harm-reduction.

4) There is increasing evidence that the UK’s drugs policy is not only ineffective and not cost effective but actually harmful, impacting particularly severely on the poor and marginalised.

Conference further notes:

A. The positive evidence from new approaches elsewhere including Portuguese reforms that have been successful in reducing problematic drug use through decriminalising possession for personal use of all drugs and investing in treatment programmes.

B. That those countries and states that have decriminalised possession of some or all drugs have not seen increased use of those drugs relative to their neighbours.

C. That heroin maintenance clinics in Switzerland and The Netherlands have delivered great health benefits for addicts while delivering considerable reductions in drug-related crime and prevalence of heroin use.

D. The contribution of the ACMD to the 2010 Drug Strategy consultation which states that “people found to be in possession of drugs (any) for personal use (and involved in no other criminal offences) should not be processed through the criminal justice system but instead be diverted into drug education/awareness courses or possibly other, more creative civil punishment”.

E. The report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy whose members include former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, former heads of state of Colombia, Mexico, Brazil and Switzerland, the current Prime Minister of Greece, a former US Secretary of State and many other eminent world figures, which encouraged governments to consider the legal regulation of drugs in order to, “undermine the power of organised crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens”.

F. That the United Kingdom remains bound by various international conventions and that any re-negotiation or new agreements will require international co-ordination.

Conference believes:

i) That individuals, especially young people, can be damaged both by the imposition of criminal records and by a drug habit, and that the priority for those addicted to all substances must be health care, education and rehabilitation not punishment.

ii) Governments should reject policies if they are demonstrated to be ineffective in achieving their stated goals and should seek to learn from policies which have been successful.

iii) At a time when Home Office and Ministry of Justice spending is facing considerable contraction, thereis a powerful case for examining whether an evidence-based policy would produce savings allowing the quality of service provided by these departments to be maintained or to improve.

iv) That one of the key barriers to developing better drugs policy has been the previous Labour government’s persistent refusal to take on board scientific advice, and the absence of an overall evaluative framework of the UK’s drugs strategy.

v) That the Department of Health should take on a greater responsibility for dealing with drugs.

Conference calls for:

a) The Government to immediately establish an independent panel tasked with carrying out an Impact Assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, to properly evaluate, economically and scientifically, the present legal framework for dealing with drugs in the United Kingdom.

b) The Panel should also consider reform of the law, based on the Portuguese model, such that i) possession of any controlled drug for personal use would not be a criminal offence;

ii) possession would be prohibited but should cause police officers to issue citations for individuals to appear before panels tasked with determining appropriate education, health or social interventions.

c) The panel should also consider as an alternative, potential frameworks for a strictly controlled and regulated cannabis market and the potential impacts of such regulation on organised crime, and the health and safety of the public, especially children.

d) The reinvestment of any resources released into effective education, treatment and rehabilitation programmes.

e) The widespread provision of the highest quality evidence-based medical, psychological and social services for those affected by drugs problems. These services should include widespread availability of heroin maintenance clinics for the most problematic and vulnerable heroin users.

Drug warriors coming in from the cold? Calls for legal marijuana to be strictly regulated

With US support for the legalisation of cannabis/marijuana fast approaching the 50% threshold  (California's Prop 19 legalisation ballot measure recently polling the highest ever US support, at 46.1%), and a string of new referendums and Bills coming up in the next couple of years, the debate is moving from if marijuana is legally regulated, to how to regulate it properly. Arguably it was concerns about the legislation in practice rather than priciple that led to Prop 19 falling short. 

US views on marijuana laws - from Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight blog

An interesting sign of the changing debate is that even a year ago it would have been unthinkable for a historically prohibitionist US organisation like National Families in Action to launch “But What About the Children" campaign. In their own words this is:

“…a campaign to hold a legalized marijuana industry accountable for ensuring that children will not have access to the drug if any law is passed to legalize the drug. The campaign holds that any marijuana legalization law should incorporate provisions to avoid what medical science has learned about alcohol and tobacco use in order to prevent marijuana use and addiction among children.”

In other words, whilst NFIA remains adamantly opposed to marijuana legalisation, it recognises it is now on the cards, and if it happens, then production and supply should be properly regulated. It is particularly interesting to see the 'imperilled child' narrative - so long used to argue against drug law reform - now being used as the basis for a call for more effective market regulation (based in significant part on lessons learned from mistakes with alcohol and tobacco regulation). Quite right too.

Given research shows steadily increasing availability and falling price, and that 80-90% of US 12th graders have easy access to cannabis, (many finding alcohol harder to get), amongst the many benefits of legal regulation of the currently criminal trade, regulation presents an obvious opportunity to protect children and young people. Below are NFIA’s suggestions for how regulation should function, with some added commentary and quotes from the relevant sections of Transform's recent 'Blueprint for Regulation (pdf)', (see in particular the chapter on cannabis regulation, page 110).

10 Provisions to Protect Children if States or Local Communities Legalize Marijuana

 1. No Advertising - An advertising ban on legal marijuana.

 From Blueprint (p.48):

"Links between the advertising and promotion of alcohol and tobacco products, and increased levels of usage of those products, are well established. Such advertising and promotion could easily drive a similar expansion in psychoactive drug usage. 

Therefore, the default position of any licensing regime should be a complete ban on all advertising, promotion or marketing of all drugs, with any exceptions made only on a cautious case by case basis by the relevant authorities. This ban should include any alcohol and tobacco marketing activities. A default ban should also exist on political donations from any commercial opera­tors in the drugs market. 

The distinct nature of drug risks relative to most other commodities, and the particular need to protect vulnerable groups from exposure to these risks, justifies this stringent restriction of standard commercial freedoms. These controls should extend to point of sale advertising, and the external appearance and signage for outlets.

Such controls should be as strict as possible, within the context of local legal regimes. For example, in the US, a free speech argument can be made against such a ban. However, even though the Supreme Court has extended a degree of ‘free speech’ protection to commercial speech, such speech is still subject to various controls and limitations."

Interestingly the NFIA site specifically discusses the free speech point here.  In Blueprint there is some additional detailed discussion on how this ban might operate for cannabis specifically on page 114 (see also - point 4 below).   

 2. A Penalty Fee - on the marijuana industry for every underage user.

Retailers selling to those underage should face a hierachy of penalties including fines and loss of licenses, potentially even criminal sanctions, as should producers found to be colluding in this practice. However it would be unfair to fine legitimate producers and retailers meeting their legal duties. There is no obvious equivalent to this suggestion in alcohol and tobacco policy, although taxes (sometimes described as 'sin taxes') could be seen as a parallel despite generally being argued as a form of dissuasion and/or income generation.  Blueprint does, however, call for vendors to have 'Shared responsibility re: nuisance in the immediate environment, litter, local enforcemetn costs'

3. Automatic Repeal of marijuana legalization if underage marijuana use exceeds certain levels.

Presumably the NFIA does not think prohibition should be repealed if use hits a certain level! Drug policy should be based on evidence of what works best for society, not arbitrary levels of use. Levels of use and misuse are influenced primarily by a complex interplay of social economic and cultural variable (for which the industry is not responsible)  not drug policy or legislation. However, Blueprint does, none the less, urge caution (p.68):

"This [cautious phased introduction] approach should be, by default, based on a precautionary prin­ciple, particularly where evidence from existing policy is thin, or specific high-risks are identified. New models will thus initially err towards stricter, more intrusive regulation, with lower restriction levels only subsequently coming into play. A precautionary and incremental approach allows for key concerns, such as availability to youth, increase in high risk behaviours or other specific public health concerns, to be closely monitored. If problems do arise, policy can take a step back, be refined and adjusted, and alternative or additional regulatory tools can be deployed."

4. No Product Placements, sponsorships, point-of-purchase marketing, or depictions in entertainment venues.

Broadly speaking we support this. The discussion of cannabis regulation in Blueprint (p 114) suggests that:

"Cannabis use is embedded in much popular culture. Cannabis products and product  iconography are generally non-branded and generic, so a blanket prohibition of anything that might constitute promotion or advertising of cannabis would therefore be impractical. Reasonable controls on exposure to children and young people may be easier to put in place, but would remain difficult to globally define and enforce. However, best practice and evidence from existing controls already widely applied to references to drugs—legal and illegal—in youth media and advertising can be more widely applied.

 Clear lessons can be learnt from experiences with restrictions on promotions and marketing of alcohol and tobacco. Areas where cannabis advertising promotion controls are more realistic include:

Advertising for venues for commercial sales could be limited both in content and scope—for example, to specialist publications, or adult only venues. A complete ban on advertising for promotion of venues is not realistic. Dutch coffee shops are not allowed to advertise but do to some extent—the prohibition in practice acts as a moderating influence, rather than a total ban

Restrictions could be placed on appearance and signage of venues/outlets. In the Netherlands, coffee shops are not allowed to make external references to cannabis, or use related imagery. Rastafari imagery, a palm leaf image, and the words ‘coffee shop’ have become the default signage.

Restrictions could be placed on advertising for certain types of paraphernalia that contain drug references."

5. An Industry-Financed Fund from marijuana profits to pay for the damage legal marijuana will do, so that taxpayers won’t have to pick up the tab.

There is a mistaken presumption here that legal marijuana will do more damage, and incur more cost, than illegal marijuana - the tab for which taxpayers already pay - as well as the huge enforcement tab. The industry should be taxed at an appropriate level to balance the potentially conflicting interests of maximising returns, influencing use levels and minimising the illegal markets (see price controls discussion in Blueprint on page 41) .Any tax income (and it is assumed this would be significant given the scale of the market) could support proven public health interventions including treatment, education and prevention, as well as helping to address some of the underlying social drivers of problematic use. 

6. A State Agency to Tax and Regulate the marijuana industry, including marijuana purity and potency.

We agree. It is vital that a state agency, or agencies should regaulate all relavant aspects of production and availability. On purity and potency specifically, from Blueprint (page 113):

"Controls could manage the strength/potency of herbal or resin form cannabis, based on relative proportions of active ingredients (that is, ratio of THC [tetrahydrocannabinol] to CBD [cannabidiol]). Maximum and minimum % content could be specified." 

7. Licensed Growers, Distributors, and Retail Sellers Marijuana sold only in licensed retail stores where no other products are sold.

We agree on strict licensing including of retail outlets, though we also envisage Dutch-style licensed "coffee-shops", that could sell food and non-alcoholic drinks too. From Blueprint:

"The basic models would involve various forms of licensed sales, for consumption on premises or for take-out—these would be conditional on controls outlined below, and would not preclude a potential pharmacy sales model.

A regulated market model (see: page 27) might be an appropriate incremental step as legal supply infrastructure and outlets were established. A key task of any regulatory body would be to manage supply so as to prevent the emergence of branded products and limit all forms of profit driven marketing and promotions."

Blueprint also considers how the inevitable small scale growing for personal use could be catered for in a new legal system (p. 214).

8. No Drugged Driving - A ban on driving with marijuana in the systems of drivers or passengers.

We agree that no one should drive with levels of any drug in their system sufficient to impair their performance - and, to be fair, no one arguing for reform has ever said different. Just as with alcohol, the detail of what level that is needs setting in law - there is ongoing debate whether it should be zero (it varies between jurisdictions). Technical issues exist with cannabis as, unlike alcohol, it is detectable in the system long after any impairment is evident. Until these issues are resolved it may be that impairment testing (possibly in support of more conventional drug testing) is the most effective  response. This is a developing field and should be guided by evidence of what is effective at reducing drug impaired driving and its negative consequences.

We disagree with a ban on passengers with drugs in their system, and even the NFIA gives no justification for including them. It might prove impossible to enforce - would the resposibility for drug free passengers be with the driver? What about buses, trains, planes?

9. No Drugged Employees or Students - A ban on people coming to work or school with marijuana in their systems.

No one should be going to work or school intoxicated so that it impairs their performance, particularly for safety critical responsibilities, but this should be dealt with consistently for all substances (including alcohol) through existing practices, contracts and agreements. We would caution against over-intrusive testing regimes that do not focus on impairment – which have generally shown to be unjustified and ineffective.

10. Smoke-Free Laws Apply - No marijuana use where tobacco smoking is banned.

We agree (see page 61) - although there should usefully be a caveat, detailing different rules for non-smoked cannabis.

2 More Provisions to protect children if Congress legalizes marijuana.

11. Marijuana Controlled by FDA. Marijuana placed under the control of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, like tobacco is now.

We agree. This seems sensible - unless a separate agency is established as suggested in point 6 above.

12. A Surgeon General’s Report on the impact of legal marijuana.

We agree, but as part of a much broader ongoing evidence-based evaluative process of all aspects of the approach taken to drugs at the national and international levels.


So...


Essentially we agree in whole or part with the majority of the regulatory measures the NFIA is suggesting, many of which could have been taken from Transform's “Blueprint for Regulation”. Whether they have been reading it or not doesn't matter, indeed if they are reaching the same conclusions without reading it that is probably a good sign that when people think sensibly about regulating drugs they will tend to come to similar conclusions. And there are plenty of sensible people advising this campaign initiative.

We look forward to genuinely trying to find a common platform that all groups and individuals interested in regulating drugs properly can support in any post-prohibition world.

67 US law professors back California's prop 19 tax and regulate cannabis measure

The following statement and list of signatories is copied from the Yeson19.com website :

To the Voters of California:

As law professors at many law schools who focus on various areas of legal scholarship, we write this open letter to encourage a wholesale rethinking of marijuana policy in this country, and to endorse the Tax and Control Cannabis 2010 initiative—Proposition 19—that will be voted on in November in California.

For decades, our country has pursued a wasteful and ineffective policy of marijuana prohibition. As with alcohol prohibition, this approach has failed to control marijuana, and left its trade in the hands of an unregulated and increasingly violent black market. At the same time, marijuana prohibition has clogged California’s courts alone with tens of thousands of non-violent marijuana offenders each year. Yet marijuana remains as available as ever, with teens reporting that it is easier for them to buy than alcohol across the country.

Proposition 19 would remove criminal penalties for private use and cultivation of small amounts of marijuana by adults and allow California localities to adopt—if they choose—measures to regulate commerce in marijuana. Passage of Proposition 19 would be an important next step toward adopting an approach more grounded in reason, for California and beyond.

Our communities would be better served if the criminal justice resources we currently spend to investigate, arrest, and prosecute people for marijuana offenses each year were redirected toward addressing unsolved violent crimes. In short, the present policy is causing more harm than good, and is eroding respect for the law.

Moreover, we are deeply troubled by the consistent and dramatic reports of disproportionate enforcement of marijuana laws against young people of color. Marijuana laws were forged in racism, and have been demonstrated to be inconsistently and unfairly applied since their inception. These are independent reasons for their repeal.

Especially in the current economic climate, we must evaluate the efficacy of expensive government programs and make responsible decisions about the use of state resources. We find the present policies toward marijuana to be bankrupt, and urge their rethinking.

This country has an example of a path from prohibition. Alcohol is subject to a regulatory framework that is far safer in every respect than the days of Al Capone. Just like the State of New York did when it rolled back Prohibition 10 years before the nation as a whole, California should show leadership and restore respect for the law by enacting the Tax and Control Cannabis 2010 initiative this November.

Click here to sign and endorse!

Sincerely,

Jonathan H. Adler
Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Cleveland, Ohio

Ty Alper
University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, Berkeley, CA

Hadar Aviram
University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA

W. David Ball
Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Randy Barnett
Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC

Tom W. Bell
Chapman Law School, Orange, CA

Steve Berenson
Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, CA

Eric Berger
University of Nebraska, College of Law, Lincoln, NE

Douglas A. Berman
Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

David E. Bernstein
George Mason University School of Law, Arlington, VA

Ash Bhagwat
University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA

Richard Boldt
University of Maryland School of Law, Baltimore, MD

Sande Buhai
Loyola University School of Law, Los Angeles, CA

Paul Butler
George Washington University Law School, Washington, DC

Erwin Chemerinsky
University of California, Irvine, CA

Gabriel J. Chin
University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, Tucson, AZ

Marjorie Cohn
Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, CA

Mary Culbert
Loyola University School of Law, Los Angeles, CA

Angela J. Davis
Washington College of Law, American University, Washington, DC

Alan M. Dershowitz
Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA

Steven Duke
Yale Law School, New Haven, CT

Elizabeth Price Foley
Florida International University College of Law, Miami, FL

David Friedman
Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Mary Ellen Gale
Whittier Law School, Costa Mesa, CA

Pratheepan Gulasekaram
Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Bill Ong Hing
University of San Francisco School of Law, San Francisco, CA

Paige Kaneb
Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Madeline June Kass
Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, CA

Alice Kaswan
University of San Francisco School of Law, San Francisco, CA

Alex Kreit
Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, CA

Ellen Kreitzberg
Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

David Levine
University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA

Jerry Lopez
UCLA School of Law, Los Angeles, CA

Elizabeth Loftus
University of California, Irvine, CA

Erik Luna
Washington and Lee University School of Law, Lexington, VA

Michael Madow
Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn, NY

Leigh Maddox
University of Maryland, School of Law, Baltimore, MD

Charles Marvin
Georgia State University College of Law, Atlanta, GA

Lawrence C. Marshall
Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA

David N. Mayer
Capital University Law School, Columbus, OH

Tracy L. McGaugh
Touro Law Center, Central Islip, NY

Andrew P. Morriss
University of Alabama, School of Law, Tuscaloosa, AL

Michelle Oberman
Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Tamara R. Piety
University of Tulsa College of Law, Tulsa, OK

Ascanio Piomelli
University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA

David G. Post
Beasley School of Law, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA

Jenny Roberts
Washington College of Law, American University, Washington, DC

Cesare Romano
Loyola University School of Law, Los Angeles, CA

Margaret Russell
Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Barry C. Scheck
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, New York, NY

Steven Semeraro
Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, CA

Steven Shatz
University of San Francisco School of Law, San Francisco, CA

Jonathan Simon
University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, Berkeley, CA

Eric S. Sirulnik
George Washington University Law School, Washington, DC

David Sloss
Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Abbe Smith
Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC

Ilya Somin
George Mason University School of Law, Arlington, VA

Clyde Spillenger
UCLA School of Law, Los Angeles, CA

Edward Steinman
Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Mark Strasser
Capital University Law School, Columbus, OH

Robert N. Strassfeld
Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Cleveland, Ohio

Nadine Strossen
New York Law School, New York, NY

Gerald F. Uelmen
Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Alexander Volokh
Emory Law School, Atlanta, GA

Keith Wingate
University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA

Eric Wright
Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA

Richard W. Wright
Illinois Institute of Technology
Kent College of Law, Chicago, IL

*All affiliations are listed for identification purposes only.

Leading International Scientific Body Supports Call for Legalisation and Regulation to Reduce Cannabis-Related Harms

 
October 7, 2010 [Vancouver, Canada] – The International Centre for Science in Drug Policy (ICSDP) today released a new research report that demonstrates the clear failure of U.S. marijuana prohibition and supports calls for evidence-based models to legalize and regulate the use of cannabis. The British Medical Journal, one of the world’s most influential medical journals, published a supportive commentary to coincide with the report’s release today.

The new report, entitled "Tools for debate: U.S. federal government data on cannabis prohibition", uses 20 years of data collected by surveillance systems funded by the U.S. government to highlight the failure of cannabis prohibition in America. The report has deep relevance for California as the state prepares to vote on the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis proposition and, potentially, legalize cannabis.

“Data, collected and paid for by the U.S. government, clearly shows that prohibition has not reduced cannabis consumption or supply. Since prohibition is not working, we need new approaches to better address the harms of cannabis use,” says Dr. Evan Wood, founder of the ICSDP. “Scientific evidence clearly shows that regulatory tools have the potential to effectively reduce rates of cannabis-related harm.”

Despite dramatically increased law enforcement funding, the U.S. government’s data demonstrates that cannabis prohibition has not resulted in a decrease in cannabis availability or accessibility. According to the US Office of National Drug Control Policy, federal anti-drug expenditures in the U.S. increased 600% from $1.5 billion in 1981 to over $18 billion in 2002. However, during this period, the potency of cannabis increased by 145% and the price of cannabis decreased by a dramatic 58%.

According to U.S. government funded reports, in the face of increasing enforcement expenditures over the last 30 years, cannabis has remained almost “universally available” to young Americans. Cannabis use among U.S. grade 12 students increased from 27% in 1990 to 32% in 2008 and approximately 80-90% of grade 12 students say the drug is “very easy” or “fairly easy” to obtain.

“From a public health and scientific perspective, the evidence demonstrates that cannabis prohibition has not achieved its intended objectives,” states Dr. Carl Hart, a co-author on the report and Associate Professor of Psychology at Columbia University. “The fact that cannabis prohibition has also enriched organized crime groups and fueled violence in the community creates an urgency to implement evidence-based alternatives that may be more effective at controlling cannabis supply and access.”

In addition to describing the failure of cannabis prohibition, the report notes that legalization combined with the implementation of strict regulatory tools could be more effective at controlling cannabis use and reducing cannabis-related harms. Research demonstrates that similar regulatory tools have been successful in controlling the harms of tobacco and alcohol when strictly enforced.

The report also discusses the regulatory tools available to governments, including conditional licensing systems; age restrictions; product taxation; retailer operating and location limitations; marketing prohibitions; and packaging guidelines.

While the report urges an evidence-based approach to cannabis regulation and notes the comparative successes several European countries have had in decriminalizing cannabis use, it also notes the limitations of models in place in Netherlands and Portugal. People who use marijuana in these two European countries do not face prosecution, but the production and distribution of cannabis remains illegal and largely controlled by organized crime.

“Legalization and strict regulation are more likely to be effective at eliminating the role of organized crime in marijuana production and distribution, because the profit motive is effectively removed,” said Dr. Wood.

In his commentary published in today’s British Medical Journal (bmj.com), Dr. Robin Room notes that regulatory tools developed at the end of alcohol prohibition in the 1930s can also be used today to successfully control cannabis.

“The evidence from Tools for Debate is not only that the prohibition system is not achieving its aims, but that more efforts in the same direction only worsen the results,” says Dr. Room, Professor of Social Research at the University of Melbourne. “The challenge for researchers and policy analysts is to now flesh out the details of effective regulatory regimes.”  

Dr. Wood is one of the six international illicit drug policy experts who authored the report, which has been endorsed by over 65MDs and PhDs in 30 countries who are members of the ICSDP Scientific Network.

The full report is available online at www.icsdp.org.

A related ICSDP report released in April 2010 demonstrates that the illegality of cannabis clearly enriches organized crime and drives violence, as street gangs and cartels compete for drug market profits. In Mexico, an estimated 28,000 people have died since the start of the drug war in 2006. U.S. government reports have previously estimated that approximately 60% of Mexican drug cartel revenue comes from the cannabis trade.

The full 26-page report, “Effect of Drug Law Enforcement on Drug-Related Violence: Evidence from a Scientific Review,” is available online here.

-----

International Centre for Science in Drug Policy

ICSDP is an international network of scientists, academics, and health practitioners who have come together in an effort to ensure illicit drug policies are informed with the best available scientific evidence.  The ICSDP aims to be a primary source for rigorous scientific evidence on illicit drug policy in order to benefit policymakers, law enforcement, and affected communities. To this end, the ICSDP conducts original scientific research in the form of systematic reviews, evidence-based drug policy guidelines, and research collaborations with leading scientists and institutions across diverse continents and disciplines.

Note: Transform's 'After the War on Drugs, Blueprint for Regulation' is cited in the report and Transform provided peer feedback on a draft of the text.

US: National Black Police Association Endorses Marijuana Legalization/Regulation initiative

Below is a press release issued yesterday by the US based Law Enforcement Against Prohibition detailing the newly announced support of the National Black Police Association for California Prop 19 ballot initiative that would legalise and regulate non-medical cannabis production and sale for over 21s in the state (details here). This follows the support of California's National Association for the Advancement of Black People backing the initiative last month.

The latest announcement has already been covered in the New York Times , LA Times and others

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 19, 2010
CONTACT: Tom Angell - (202) 557-4979 or media//at//leap//dot//cc

National Black Police Association Endorses Marijuana Legalization

African American Cops Say California's Prop. 19 Will Protect Civil Rights & Public Safety

SACRAMENTO, CA -- A national organization of African American law enforcement officers has announced its endorsement of Proposition 19, California's initiative to legalize marijuana.

The National Black Police Association (NBPA), which was founded in 1972 and is currently holding its 38th national conference in Sacramento, is urging a yes vote on legalization this November 2.

"When I was a cop in Baltimore, and even before that when I was growing up there, I saw with my own eyes the devastating impact these misguided marijuana laws have on our communities and neighborhoods. But it's not just in Baltimore, or in Los Angeles; prohibition takes a toll on people of color across the country," said Neill Franklin, a 33-year veteran police officer and executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), an international group of pro-legalization cops, judges, prosecutors and corrections officials who have been organizing to support Prop. 19. "This November, with the National Black Police Association's help, Californians finally have an opportunity to do something about it by approving the initiative to control and tax marijuana."

On Thursday, Franklin spoke alongside California NAACP president Alice Huffman at the NBPA conference on a panel about criminal justice issues like marijuana legalization.

Many cops and civil rights leaders are now speaking out against marijuana prohibition because it is not only ineffective at reducing marijuana use and results in the arrest and incarceration of people of color at a highly disproportionate rate, but also because making marijuana illegal has created a lucrative black market controlled by violent gangs and cartels. LEAP has organized a group of more than 30 California police officers, judges, prosecutors and other criminal justice professionals who support Prop. 19.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) and its 30,000 supporters represent police, prosecutors, judges, FBI/DEA agents and others who want to legalize and regulate drugs after fighting on the front lines of the "war on drugs" and learning firsthand that prohibition only serves to worsen addiction and violence.

According to NBPA, there are 80,000 black law enforcement officials in the U.S.

For more information, visit http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com or http://www.BlackPolice.org

New poll shows 70% support for legal regulation of cannabis

 
The following press release was issued today by the campaigning group Liberal Democrats for Drug Policy Reform. The blog will explore its fascinating findings in more detail at a later stage. For more information on drug policy and public opinion see Transform's (soon to updated) 2004 briefing Attitudes to Drug Policy and Drug Laws: A review of the international evidence. 
Note: Transform has provided a quote, but has not been involved in the poll, and has no affiliation with the LDDPR 

New poll shows 70% support for legal regulation of cannabis

Three other drugs: Magic Mushrooms, Amphetamines, and Mephedrone show a majority in favour of legalisation and regulation, whilst 3 in 10 people would prefer the state regulate rather than prohibit heroin supply. These poll results demonstrate that the public is ready for a mature, open discussion of alternative approaches to drug policy and that there is no need for politicians to fear a backlash should they express doubts about the wisdom of our current approach.

Rather than just ask whether each drug should be “legalised”, the poll gave brief descriptions of three regulatory options and asked the public to pick which they thought most tolerable for each of a series of drugs. The options were:

• Light regulation (drugs sold like tobacco and alcohol are now)
• Strict government control and regulation (an example of how government could heavily regulate a legal market in an attempt to minimise harm)
• and Prohibition (the current status of illegal drugs).

support for legalisation/regulation combines support for the first two options

Headline results include:

• 70% support for cannabis legalisation/regulation, with 1 in 3 of those polled feeling that it should be sold in a similar way to alcohol and tobacco.
• More people supporting legalisation/regulation than prohibition for 3 other drugs: Magic Mushrooms (52% to 34%), Amphetamines (49% to 40%), and the recently banned “legal high” Mephedrone (41% to 39%).
• 39% support for the legal regulation of ecstasy sales, 36% support for regulation of cocaine, and 30% of respondents supported the legal regulation of heroin.
• For alcohol and tobacco over 1 in 4 respondents supported strict government control and regulation and 8% expressed a desire for tobacco to be prohibited.

Poll result summary graph 

Ewan Hoyle, founder of campaigning group Liberal Democrats for Drug Policy Reform says:

“The “Do you think x drug should be legalised?” question asked in polls up until now has failed to elicit any useful information. It may be interpreted by many poll participants as a question on their moral tolerance of drug use, or may conjure up thoughts of an unregulated free-market that they rightly judge to be dangerous. This poll shows that, when asked to choose between some of the actual regulatory options available, the public regards the strict controls and regulations that are being proposed by the reform movement as a sensible solution to our drugs problem.”

“The percentage favouring the legal regulation of Class A drugs is far higher than in previous polls and I would expect this percentage to rise still further as the debate progresses and the causes of the astronomical social and financial costs of problem drug use under the current system are explained. Prohibition of cocaine and heroin is causing, not preventing, massive harms to communities in the UK, and to all the countries in the world that this illegal trade touches.”

Steve Rolles of the Transform Drug Policy Foundation said:

"It is important that people understand that ‘legalisation’ is a process not a policy endpoint – and is one that can lead to strict government regulation of markets. It does not imply an unregulated commercial free for all that many may imagine if no other options are outlined. If anything an unregulated free for all is what we have under prohibition.

The important lesson for politicians is that they don’t need to be afraid of public opinion on this issue if it is presented in the more practical terms of market regulation"

Notes for editors:

• How the poll looked to participants
  
• From July 7 to July 9, 2010, Vision Critical conducted an online survey among 2,000 randomly selected British adults who are Springboard UK panelists. The results have been statistically weighted according to the most current age, gender, social class, region and newspaper readership data to ensure samples representative of the entire adult population of Great Britain.
  
• Complete data breakdown in google doc spreadsheet format: here, here and here

Contacts for comment:

Ewan Hoyle - Founder of Liberal Democrats for Drug Policy Reform

Mark Thompson
Prominent Lib Dem blogger and leading member of LDDPR

Steve Rolles
Transform Drug Policy Foundation 01179415810

The Economist steps up public debate on drug legalisation

As part of its latest promotional campaign The Economist magazine has launched a series of  'where do you stand?' debates built around a billboard poster campaign outlining opposing views on a series of contentious issues. One of the issues they have chosen is whether drugs should be legalised and regulated, perhaps unsuprising given their prominent interest in this debate, and indeed support for the reform position (see below) over the past few years.

Economist drug debate billboards: click to see full size*

The campaign is supported by  series of twitter debates - the drug legalisation debate taking place tonight at 6pm (see @TheEconomist for details or follw the #WhereDoYouStand hashtag) and a facebook page where you can even comment with more than 140 characters, if not a fan of new media concision.


Related blogs:

• Transform FOI vs Home Office suppression of research - Part V (in The Economist )
  
• The Economist revisits long standing commitment to ending prohibition

2009

2001

1993

*Thanks to Emily Crick for the photo

UNODC censored cannabis decriminalisation page returns with drastic revisions

Back in February This blog reported on an interesting page stumbled across on the UN Office of Drugs and Crime's website Youthnet pages. Coming from one of the bastions of prohibition this was an almost alarmingly sensible page about cannabis use, risks and laws. The section on laws was particularly striking as it was an unambiguous critique of the failed enforcement approach to managing cannabis risks, and made a rational and eloquent argument for the decriminalisation of the possession and use of cannabis.

Disappointingly, just two days after we blogged about it, the entire section on cannabis law reform disappeared from the page, despite having sat unbothered (and, one assumes, unread) since 2007 (the deletion blogged here). This seemed a little churlish in light of the fact that numerous member states have already adopted the approaches suggested in the text, for the very reasons it outlined so clearly - indeed Canada is given as a case study. Somewhere within the UNODC machinary a different - more hard-line old-school prohibtionist view clearly held sway, one that is curiously intolerant of any dissent from the most punitive interpretations of the conventions. They made sure the offending passage was removed, in effect, censored.

Even this was rather fumbled, with a reference to the now deleted section four on cannabis laws remaining in the opening paragraph, until it was spotted by a Transform blog commenter, at which point it too disappeared the following day.

Now, however, the contentious section four on cannabis laws has reappeared but, in a rather troubling development, it bears no resemblance to its previous incarnation. In a rather audacious bit of textual revisionism, all discussion of the merits of decriminalisation have been excised (references, authors, and all), with a call for proportionality in sentencing and alternatives to custody, the only vague nods in the direction of reform. Instead we now have an INCB-style argument for maintaining the criminal status of users, along with some stern warnings about the 'multiple negative health and social consequences' of cannabis use (that notably doesn't sit easily, in its tone or content, with the more measured risk analysis in the preceding three sections).

Thanks to the excellent Internet Archive Wayback Machine we can now bring you all three versions of the page:

• Original Page (23.02.10)
• Page with section 4 deleted (25.02.10)
• Current Page with 'revised' section 4 re-inserted (accessed 30.03.10)

Calls to UNODC have failed to produce an account of why the decision was made (any explanation would still be welcome).

In many respects this episode is somewhat trivial, but it does point to something more important.What are they so concerned about that they should feel the need to resort to this sort of censorship and revisionism? It certainly isn't the Transform blog, so one can only assume it is born of a more fundamental concern. Decriminalisation, despite the fact that it is happening across the world, from the US and Canada, South and Central America, Australia, Israel, and much of mainland Europe, is a direct challenge to the fundamental punitive tenets of prohibition, at least in the quasi-religious formulation of some key hardline voices. For them, evidently, this means that dissent (even rational discussion or evaluations of alternative approaches) is a heresy that must be stifled. And if that means rather lame Orwellian rewriting of obscure pages of official websites, so be it.

The revised text follows, but first here is the original text of section 4 'The effect of the cannabis laws' as it read before we blogged about it. The text considered too dangerous for delicate UNODC web readers (that didn't make the revised version) is highlighted in red.

Cannabis Series - Part 4
The effect of cannabis laws

A number of countries are debating their marijuana laws, in most cases, trying to decide whether the penalties for possessing small amounts of cannabis should be reduced. Some advocate legalization of cannabis, that is, making it available through controlled, legal sources, as are tobacco and alcohol. However, most policymakers see that option as a huge social experiment, with outcomes that are difficult to predict. Others advocate that possessing personal amounts of cannabis should no longer be viewed as a criminal offence and penalties should be reduced. This is because, even though marijuana is not a harmless drug, an increasing number of health officials, researchers and politicians in these countries view the penalty to be out of proportion to the potential harm of using cannabis. The following are some of the arguments being made for reducing the penalties so that possession of small amounts of cannabis is no longer a criminal offence:

A criminal record is a serious matter
A criminal record labels a person caught with possessing small amounts of cannabis as a criminal and severely limits their ability to find employment, professional certification and to travel to other countries. Criminalizing a behaviour has a number of effects: it may make it more attractive to some youth, and it may result in the further marginalization of some youth, making it more difficult to help them.

Reducing the severity of the penalty doesn't seem to lead to increased use
Cannabis use (particularly heavy use in combination with other substances) poses risks, so it is important that any change not result in increased use. Based on the experiences of those countries or states that have reduced their penalties, various reviews agree that there is no indication that this will happen. For example, the 11 US states that decriminalized marijuana possession in the 1970s did not see increases in use beyond that experienced by other states; neither did the Australian states that have introduced a civil offence model over the past decade.

Laws don't seem to matter one way or another to young people
Over the past 10 years in most Western countries, the use of cannabis by young people has increased and attitudes have generally grown more tolerant toward the drug, with no difference between countries that had stiff or reduced penalties. For example in the Netherlands, where cannabis use is not a criminal offence, usage rates are lower than in the US, which has some of the toughest cannabis laws in the Western world. Young people who do not use cannabis generally say that their decision is based on health concerns or that they are just not interested. They aren't as likely to mention the laws as being a factor in their decision. In fact, research with teenage students suggests that the criminalization of cannabis and the stigmatization of cannabis use as a dangerous and forbidden activity makes it even more attractive to some.

Resources could be better placed elsewhere
Cannabis offences can take one or two officers off the street for up to several hours + their time for court appearances + tying up other court resources. These $ could have more impact put into apprehending producers and traffickers, or directed at prevention, education and treatment. Although the law is an important means of controlling behaviour, accurate and balanced information and education should be seen as the primary means to enable young people to make informed choices about their drug use. For example, laws cannot distinguish between levels of use, whereas educators can help young people by providing clearer messages (for example, all drug use contains some risk - heavy use can result in serious problems for young people, while light, infrequent cannabis use poses fewer risks).

A case example
In Canada police are often reluctant to apply the penalties for possessing small amounts of cannabis, not only because of the work involved, but also because they do not want to saddle a young person with a criminal record. When a young person is found in possession of small amounts of cannabis in Canada, the typical police response is some combination of taking the drug, detaining the person in the police car or station, giving them a warning and letting them go. As a result, young people feel that the police do not take the laws very seriously; some also feel that they are applied unevenly depending on a person's ethnicity, the clothing they are wearing, etc.

One of the options being considered is to give the person a ticket, like a traffic ticket. Even though this would seem like a softer approach, it would in fact represent a greater penalty than many young people currently experience. And if the police "widen the net" (that is, become more active in apprehending youth) as apparently occurred in Australia when penalties were reduced, it would actually mean that young people would be more likely to be penalized.

Another possible outcome is that parents are more likely to be involved when their child is fined than if they are just "slapped on the wrist" and let go, providing an opportunity for parent/child discussion on the issue.

Also, creating a reduced penalty option reduces the deviance attached to the behaviour, which does lead to a climate more open to actual health promotion messages (e.g., that using around driving and sexual situations, or using to the point of intoxication, or using in combination with other substances or medications, or while involved in physical or cognitive activity can be harmful).

SOURCES:

Fischer, B, Albanes, R, and Amitay, O. "Marijuana, Juveniles and the Police: What high school students believe about detection and enforcement", Canadian Journal of Criminology, Vol 40(4): 401-420, 1998.

Gary Roberts, Senior Associate Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse

Here's how it reads now, the surviving text from the original above version above highlighted in red, the rest being entirely new:

Cannabis Series - Part 4
Cannabis laws

A number of countries are debating their marijuana laws, in some cases deciding to transform the penalties from criminal to administrative charges or to commute criminal justice sanctions in education or treatment interventions.

The possession, cultivation and purchase of cannabis are criminal offences in the provisions of the International Treaties. Currently, the international community treats cannabis as a serious drug, in the category "Schedule I," since its use is associated with multiple negative health and social consequences. Cannabis use poses serious health risks, particularly for young people, affecting especially psychosocial development and mental health. In addition, cannabis has been found to be involved in other increased risk, such as for lung cancer or car accidents. Keeping cannabis illegal can have the effect of reducing use, since availability, access, advertising, and promotion (unlike alcohol or tobacco) are restricted in a control system.

Although cannabis remains illicit and should not be underestimated with respect to its risks for health and behavioural disorders, we also understand that overly harsh sentences for cannabis users can be counterproductive. To this purpose, the Conventions repeatedly underline the need for early identification, treatment, education, after-care, rehabilitation and social reintegration for drug users. Article 38 of the Single Convention (1961) states that "the Parties shall give special attention to and take all practicable measures for the prevention of abuse of drugs and for the early identification, treatment, education, after-care, rehabilitation and social reintegration of the persons involved", underlining the crucial role of health and social interventions. Moreover, Article 36 b states that "abusers shall undergo measures of treatment, education, after-care, rehabilitation and social reintegration". In its 2007 report, the International Narcotics Control Board 2007 (EN/INCB/2007/1), when discussing the principle of proportionality highlighting that "with offences involving the possession, purchase or cultivation of illicit drugs for the offender's personal use, the measures can be applied as complete alternatives to conviction and punishment".

While the possession, cultivation and purchase of illicit drugs remain offences, drug users and drug dependent people should be offered education, treatment, and/or innovative criminal justice interventions (such as drug courts, or swift and certain sanctions) when appropriate, as alternatives to incarceration.

SOURCES:

Examples of sources on health risks

Hall W, Degenhardt L (2009), Adverse health effects of non-medical cannabis use, Lancet, 2009 Oct 17, 374(9698), 1383-91.

Gerra G, Zaimovic A, Gerra ML, Ciccocioppo R, Cippitelli A, Serpelloni G, Somaini L (2010), "Pharmacology and toxicology of cannabis derivatives and endocannabinoid agonists", Recent Pat CNS Drug Discov, 2010 Jan, 5(1):46-52.

Documents quoted

The three International Drug Conventions
The INCB Report 2007

UNODC censors its own website making the case for cannabis decriminalisation

note: for an update on this story see here  (the censored section has returned in dramatically edited form)

The page on the UN Office on Drugs and Crime site that we flagged up on the blog earlier this week, has now been censored to remove the section featuring a rare outbreak of pragmatism making the case for cannabis decriminalisation.

This seems rather pathetic. The page in question has sat unmolested since September 2006, over 3 years, only to be stripped of the decrim-arguments now, the day after we blog about it. Why, its almost as if......

Anyway, as people should all know by now the internet never forgets, and you can read the page as it was using the ever useful Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

• Page before
• Page now (note missing section 4)

I hope that the fact they have rather childishly censored this page on their own site will help teach the UNODC another lesson: Internet users do not like being treated like idiots and tend to respond rather badly.

So to all our internet friends: Please link this and the previous blog as much as possible, blog about it elsewhere, and use twitter, facebook and all your other internet toys to get the original page (and its censorship) as much publicity as possible.

By all means contact a few journo friends as well, see if you can get it in the news. They should be interested as it makes considerably more interesting news than (or at least an interesting counterpoint to) the latest tedious INCB report, obsessed as ever with attacking countries who, wait for it, dare contemplate decriminalising drug possession.

UN Office on Drugs and Crime makes the case for cannabis decriminalisation

UPDATE:  25.02.10 - Dissapointingly The UNODC YouthNet page discussed below has apparently now been updated with the section on cannabis decriminalisation removed - read more in this follow-up blog

 
It was interesting to stumble over this page titled 'Cannabis - a few issues' on the UN Office and Drug and Crime website, nestling within the on 'Youth and Drugs' pages of the the UNODC 'Youthnet' micro-site, making a clear and convincing case for decriminalisation of cannabis possession.

The page open with this introduction:

Cannabis (including marijuana, hash, hash oil) continues to be a controversial drug in many countries as people try to figure out the place that the drug has in their society. In the Western world, marijuana smoking by young people has become a very common activity - in some countries even more common than tobacco smoking. The UN's international conventions require countries to treat cannabis and other drug offences as criminal offences. However, these conventions leave the door open for countries to establish alternative measures as a substitute for criminal prosecution. Consequently, much of the debate about cannabis is around the legal status of the drug.

These questions are not simple. For that reason through the month of November, the Global Youth Network is going to review what is known about cannabis use and young people in a four- part series dealing with:
(i) the level of use worldwide;
(ii) why some young people use cannabis/why some have problems;
(iii) the harms associated with cannabis use; and
(iv) the effect of cannabis laws.

What follows is a refreshingly sensible and balanced review of the issues highlighted. Most interestingly is the final section on the cannabis laws, copied in full below,  making a strong case for cannabis decriminalisation:

Cannabis Series - Part 4
The effect of cannabis laws 

A number of countries are debating their marijuana laws, in most cases, trying to decide whether the penalties for possessing small amounts of cannabis should be reduced. Some advocate legalization of cannabis, that is, making it available through controlled, legal sources, as are tobacco and alcohol. However, most policymakers see that option as a huge social experiment, with outcomes that are difficult to predict. Others advocate that possessing personal amounts of cannabis should no longer be viewed as a criminal offence and penalties should be reduced. This is because, even though marijuana is not a harmless drug, an increasing number of health officials, researchers and politicians in these countries view the penalty to be out of proportion to the potential harm of using cannabis. The following are some of the arguments being made for reducing the penalties so that possession of small amounts of cannabis is no longer a criminal offence:

A criminal record is a serious matter
A criminal record labels a person caught with possessing small amounts of cannabis as a criminal and severely limits their ability to find employment, professional certification and to travel to other countries. Criminalizing a behaviour has a number of effects: it may make it more attractive to some youth, and it may result in the further marginalization of some youth, making it more difficult to help them.

Reducing the severity of the penalty doesn't seem to lead to increased use
Cannabis use (particularly heavy use in combination with other substances) poses risks, so it is important that any change not result in increased use. Based on the experiences of those countries or states that have reduced their penalties, various reviews agree that there is no indication that this will happen. For example, the 11 US states that decriminalized marijuana possession in the 1970s did not see increases in use beyond that experienced by other states; neither did the Australian states that have introduced a civil offence model over the past decade.

Laws don't seem to matter one way or another to young people
Over the past 10 years in most Western countries, the use of cannabis by young people has increased and attitudes have generally grown more tolerant toward the drug, with no difference between countries that had stiff or reduced penalties. For example in the Netherlands, where cannabis use is not a criminal offence, usage rates are lower than in the US, which has some of the toughest cannabis laws in the Western world. Young people who do not use cannabis generally say that their decision is based on health concerns or that they are just not interested. They aren't as likely to mention the laws as being a factor in their decision. In fact, research with teenage students suggests that the criminalization of cannabis and the stigmatization of cannabis use as a dangerous and forbidden activity makes it even more attractive to some.

Resources could be better placed elsewhere
Cannabis offences can take one or two officers off the street for up to several hours + their time for court appearances + tying up other court resources. These $$ could have more impact put into apprehending producers and traffickers, or directed at prevention, education and treatment. Although the law is an important means of controlling behaviour, accurate and balanced information and education should be seen as the primary means to enable young people to make informed choices about their drug use. For example, laws cannot distinguish between levels of use, whereas educators can help young people by providing clearer messages (for example, all drug use contains some risk - heavy use can result in serious problems for young people, while light, infrequent cannabis use poses fewer risks).

A case example
In Canada police are often reluctant to apply the penalties for possessing small amounts of cannabis, not only because of the work involved, but also because they do not want to saddle a young person with a criminal record. When a young person is found in possession of small amounts of cannabis in Canada, the typical police response is some combination of taking the drug, detaining the person in the police car or station, giving them a warning and letting them go. As a result, young people feel that the police do not take the laws very seriously; some also feel that they are applied unevenly depending on a person's ethnicity, the clothing they are wearing, etc.

One of the options being considered is to give the person a ticket, like a traffic ticket. Even though this would seem like a softer approach, it would in fact represent a greater penalty than many young people currently experience. And if the police "widen the net" (that is, become more active in apprehending youth) as apparently occurred in Australia when penalties were reduced, it would actually mean that young people would be more likely to be penalized.

Another possible outcome is that parents are more likely to be involved when their child is fined than if they are just "slapped on the wrist" and let go, providing an opportunity for parent/child discussion on the issue.

Also, creating a reduced penalty option reduces the deviance attached to the behaviour, which does lead to a climate more open to actual health promotion messages (e.g., that using around driving and sexual situations, or using to the point of intoxication, or using in combination with other substances or medications, or while involved in physical or cognitive activity can be harmful).

This section, that could have been written by any number of drug law reform NGOs that leading figures in the UNODC have been happy to make disparaging comments about in the past, has, it would seem, been sitting unbothered on the UNODC site for some years (the Youth and Drugs pages don't appear to have been updated since 2007).

There are clearly a range of views on this issue within the UN drug agencies, but the arguments put forward above are strikingly at odds with those traditionally expounded by the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), for example, that has been vocally opposed to any moves towards increased tolerance, decriminlaisation, or decreased penalties suggesting that such moves would increase use and undermine international drug control (famously attacking the UK s decision to reclassify cannabis in 2001).

The current Director of the UNODC, whilst sticking to his rather unpleasant mantra that countries 'get the drug problems they deserve' and generally lambasting what he sees as the 'liberalisation' of drug policy, has actually been open to, even supportive of, reducing cannabis penalties, for example suggesting  that administrative penalties, such as fines and treatment referrals would be appropriate for personal possession offenses (slipped into this otherwise ridiculous 2007 op-ed/rant). The UNODC's 2009 World Drugs Report also begrudgingly acknowledges that the decriminlisation of personal possession (of all drugs) in Portugal in 2001 helps "keep drugs out of the hands of those who would avoid them under a system of full prohibition, while encouraging treatment, rather than incarceration, for users" noting further that "It also appears that a number of drug-related problems have decreased". 

It is notable then, that at the same time as UK politicians are making a song and dance about 'sending out the right message' by is increasing cannabis possession penalties (upping prison sentences from 2 to 5 years),  a real, active and public debate around cannabis decriminalisation is opening up, even within the most conservative bastions of the UN. More importantly this debate is being driven not by politics, but primarily by the reality of the policy's increasingly widespread adoption and the growing evidence that it has not unleashed the pandora's box of addiction, crime and depravity anticipated by some of its more vocal opponents.

And, ironically enough, I found the UNODC Youthnet drug site in the links page of one such opponent's website.

Christmas comes early for gangsters as three more drugs are criminalised

Three drugs were prohibited yesterday; a synthetic cannabinoid often sold as ‘spice’, the synthetic stimulant benzylpiperazine or BZP, and the synthetic sedative gammabutyrolactone or GBL which also happens to be an industrial solvent. All have been brought within the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, GBL and BZP becoming class C drugs (subject to penalties of up to 2 years prison for possession or 14 years in prison for supply) whilst ‘Spice’ becomes a Class B (subject to up to 5 years in prison for possession or 14 years for supply).

legal yesterday, up to 5 years in prison for possession today

There’s a lot one could say about this move, but first it should be made clear that these drugs are clearly not without risks and there is no reason to argue with the harm assessments of them presented by the ACMD to the Government that informed the decisions (although the B decision for spice is distorted by the recent cannabis politics more than relative harm rankings). Legal status does not imply safety and never has, the 'legal highs' alcohol and tobacco highlighting this point very clearly.

However, what can be disputed is whether the move will have any positive impacts. In reality there are three likely outcomes – all of which reflect the fact that changes in legislation do not impact on overall demand for the intoxication/experiences these drugs provide:

1. Users of these formerly ‘legal highs’ will revert to the ‘illegal highs‘ that spice etc provided an alternative or substitute for. So we can reasonably expect a rise in cannabis use (instead of spice) as well as stimulants, including ecstasy, cocaine and amphetamines (instead of BZP and GBL). Whether this substitution has a positive or negative impact on risks and overall health harms is not clear, but the young people involved will certainly face increased risk both from interacting with an illegal market controlled by criminals, and from the law itself: the real risk of a criminal record or spell in prison. Criminal suppliers will be the obvious beneficiaries.
   
   
2. Some users of these formerly ‘legal highs’, assuming they are preferred to the illegal alternatives, will continue to use them but now obtain them by via illegal sources that will inevitably emerge to meet any remaining demand if the profit opportunity presents itself. It is hard to gauge to what degree this will occur (probably not at all with spice/cannabis but reasonably likely to some extent with BZP/GBL), and it is worth noting that the use of ketamine has increased since 2006 when it was prohibited and its status changed from ‘legal high’ to ‘controlled drug’. Again criminal suppliers are the obvious beneficiaries, not young people, who in this case are indisputably worse off.
   
   
3. A void will be created in the market that will be potentially filled by new drugs brought to market by the same back street chemists and largely unregulated business interests responsible for bringing us GBL, BZP, Spice etc. Of course it is the absence of legal regulated supply of cannabis, ecstasy etc. that created the market opportunity for these (formerly) 'legal highs' to emerge in the first place, and this latest ban will just repeat the dynamic. The inevitable next generation of ‘legal highs’ (including mephedrone for example) may or may not be less risky than their predecessors and we will certainly know even less about their risks - the young people consuming them without any useful risk information eventually providing the risk data for the ACMD to make their next assessment (assuming it is ever quorate again).

The experience with GBL illustrates this last point well, having only emerged following the prohibition of GHB in 2003. GBL and GBH are effectively the same drug (GBL rapidly turning into GBH in the body within minutes of consumption) the difference being that GBL is an industrial solvent (also widely available as a cleaning product) and almost certainly more risky (as well as being widely available - so hard to see how it can practically be restricted, although this is a separate issue).

Looking at the bigger picture then it is clear that prohibition created the problem with these ‘legal highs’ in the first place, and prohibiting them now is highly unlikely to deliver public health benefits (demand being met through other channels or substitute drugs) but will potentially create increased risks and overall social and health harms. The primary beneficiaries are the criminal suppliers who will see their markets expand as supply shifts from legal to illicit sources, and the Home Secretary and Government who get a few 'get tough' headlines from their 'crackdown'.

It is notable that at no point was legally regulating the market in these or any other drugs rationally explored at Government level. The Impact Assessments that went along with the consultations for GBL and BZP only looked at prohibiting them under the MDA or leaving them in the admittedly unsatisfactory unregulated market niche they occupied until yesterday. Neither is a good option – but the third and obviously sensible choice of strict legal regulation was never even considered. This was for transparently political rather than rational or pragmatic reasons.

This failing is particularly striking in the case of BZP as New Zealand had previously established a legal regulatory model (a ‘Class D’ appended to their A-B-C classification system) for the legally regulated supply of BZP. Transform had alerted the ACMD and Home Office to this system in 2006 when the BZP issue first rose to prominence – and whilst the ACMD apparently held meetings with their New Zealand counterparts no suggestion was made for it to be implemented (although former ACMD chair David Nutt has subsequently suggested a exploration of such a system for legal regulation of cannabis availability would be sensible). We expect politicized drug war myopia from the Home Office, but The ACMD – nominally a non-political and independent scientific entity - have no such excuse and must take some responsibility for the negative policy outcomes of their classification recommendations with these drugs. Good science in harm evaluations becomes largely meaningless when it translates into criminal justice policy and a hierarchy of prison sentences, the impacts of which go entirely un-evaluated.

Transform have proposed clear and detailed models for regulating different types of drugs that we hope will feature in future discussions, as a first step they must be an essential element of Impact Assessments when such decisions are being made.