Friday, October 14, 2011

ACMD repeats call for decriminalisation of drug possession

In its submission to the drug strategy consultation last year, the ACMD effectively called for the decriminalisation of drug possession for personal use of all drugs. The term 'decriminalisation' is rather ill-defined, and often misunderstood as either legalisation, or removal/complete repeal of a law. Given this, the ACMD understandably avoided the term - opting instead for diversion, which perhaps more usefully describes what they were suggesting (even if they were also unambiguous about not being 'processed through the criminal justice system'). The wording they used was as follows:
"The ACMD believe that there is an opportunity to be more creative in dealing with those who have committed an offence by possession of drugs. For people found to be in possession of drugs (any) for personal use (and involved in no other criminal offences), they should not be processed through the criminal justice system but instead be diverted into drug education/awareness courses (as can happen now with speeding motor car offenders) or possibly other, more creative civil punishments (e.g. loss of driving licence or passport). If, however, there were other trigger offences (e.g. theft, burglary etc) then the usual test and treatment procedures would occur. Such approaches may be more effective in reducing repeat offending and reducing costs to the criminal justice system.

There should be “drugs awareness” courses to which those found in possession can be referred as a diversion – this would be the equivalent of the apparently successful “speed awareness” courses to which drivers can be referred as a diversion. These could also be available to those being conditionally cautioned where there is evidence of drug use. "
For some reason this didn't attract the attention of the media - somewhat oddly given recent history on arguably less contentious issues such as minor changes in penalties for cannabis possession. The inclusion here of the '(any)' making this a much more significant call in practical terms. Presumably no journalists actually read the whole document (consultations are famously tedious), and with organisations like Transform choosing to let the ACMD manage it as they saw fit, and no press releases emerging, it has remained largely under the radar. The only public sighting was in the recent LibDem drug policy reform motion - but even the considerable media this attracted didn't seem to draw attention to the ACMD call.

The ACMD has now repeated the call in its submission to the Sentencing Council consultation on drug offences. The specific issue of non-criminal sanctions for possession offences was (somewhat absurdly given developments around the world), outside of the remit of the consultation. The ACMD has chosen to include the call (using almost identical text to that included in the strategy consultation submission) in part of their response to the open ended final question: 'Are there any further comments that you wish to make?':
"The ACMD also believe that there is an opportunity to be more creative in dealing with those who have committed an offence by possession of drugs. For people found to be in possession of drugs (any) for personal use (and involved in no other criminal offences), they should not be processed through the criminal justice system but instead be diverted into drug education / awareness courses (as can happen now with speeding motor car offenders) with concomitant assessment for treatment needs (if the person consents), or possibly other, more creative civil punishments (e.g. loss of driving licence or passport). If, however, there were other trigger offences (e.g. theft, burglary etc) then the usual test and treatment procedures would occur. Such approaches may be more effective in reducing repeat offending and reducing costs to the criminal justice system. There should be “drugs awareness” courses to which those found in possession can be referred as a diversion – this would be the equivalent of the apparently successful “speed awareness” courses to which drivers can be referred as a diversion. These could also be available to those being conditionally cautioned where there is evidence of drug use."

Whether anyone notices this time  or if there is a fuss as a result, remains to be seen (it has been reported in the Times and NI stablemate Fox news and is popping up on twitter). It is, on the face of it, a very reasonable proposition, argued with reference to efficacy as you would hope from the Council, and making a useful parallel with the manner in which driving offences are dealt. The call has presumably been informed by growing evidence of such diversion schemes in various Latin American and European countries, most prominently Portugal.

A tweet from the Guardian's Alan Travis notes that the Home Office has stated in response that "We have no intention of liberalising our drug laws"- the standard line they use when any such reforms are mooted (failing to engage with the argument or evidence in any way). This may now prove to be inadequate, given that the call has come from the body of experts appointed by the Home Office under the auspices of the Misuse of Drugs Act, and operating within the Home Office. A ministerial response may be necessary - although neither ACMD statements were directed to a minister specifically.

However this now develops it is a welcome move from the sometimes timid ACMD, and inspiring to see they have not been cowed by the political heat that followed the David Nutt debacle.

11 comments:

Gart Valenc said...

«A ministerial response may be necessary - although neither ACMD statements were directed to a minister specifically.»

Can the ACMD recommendation be ignored or does it carry any punch?

Gart Valenc
http://www.stopthewarondrugs.org

thepoisongarden said...

This letter was published on the ACMD website along with three other documents the day before the ACMD annual report was published.

It looks like an administrative catch-up so the committee members might not be ready for the fuss that is now beginning.

Sunshine Band said...

I'm not happy about the medicalising / social service intervention of drug users through diversion. They need to leave people alone unless they are causing a real problem. It strikes me as the same as the persecution of gays when d0 -gooders came along and said homosexuality is more mad than bad. This represents an insidious increase in state power to be diverting people - prison before psychiatry. The vatr majority of 4 million controlled drug users do so without causing significant harm to anyone including themselves, and much of the harm that is caused is due to policy anyway.

Govt is obliged to consult with the ACMD - they are not as David Nutt mistakenly thought obliged to take a blind bit of notice. However the ACMD are really the public and parliamentary advisory body - so at least the diversion between the expert and political can be seen.

Steve Rolles said...

Clearly theres no need to put non problematic users into treatment, and treatment should always be voluntary (possibly excepting some some extreme cases). Its worth noting that in Portugal most cases are simply discharged - as no further intervention is deemed neccassary.

Tbf though the ACMD make a number of sugestions - and dont really go into specifics. We would need to scrutinise the detail of any more substantial proposals.

Decrim models are welcome in that they represent progress - they are more effective than more punitive models and also avoid the stigma of a crimianl record for users. I dont think they are ideal - and they obviously dont deal with the crimianl trade issues.

Reform will happen in small increments and we should welcome movement in the right direction if it delivers improved outcomes - but remain critical.

David Hart said...

S.B. - Given the remarkable parallels between today's legal persecution of minority drug users and the mid-20th Century legal persecution of homosexuals, I see what you're saying, but I'll take slow progress over no progress. The attempts to redefine homosexuality as illness rather than evil did in fact represent a stage on the way to full decriminalisation. If medicalisation is a phase that society must pass through before realising that a mistrusted minority are not actually doing anything pathological - if one step back is the price we must pay for two steps forward, then bring it on:-)

Rory said...

Say what you like about Fox news, but I think their report on this issue has been (no irony intended - honest) indeed fair and balanced.

Decriminlisation would seem to me to be a (very) small step in the right direction; but I welcome it all the same. A small step is better than none at all.

Anonymous said...

"loss of passport"! That's supposed to be a "creative punishment", wtf? Do they present any evidence that stigmatizing and "punishing" people who use drugs has any public health benefit?

Sunshine Band said...

I'm not sure that the lobbotomies and ECT given to gays was really progess David. It wasn't one leading to the other, it was a sick deviation from a society tied up in the misuse of the bible that ended up with the abuse of people for sexual orientation by doctors. What I am about is rescuing the subjectivity of persons from this denial of human agency put about by 'reformists' - it all starts with the old chestnut about de-personalising the issue through expressions like 'war on drugs' and 'illegal drugs' rather than spot that we are regulating persons with respect to drugs and not the other way round, then we see the divisive entitlement led attempts to say some people are worthy because they are needy or helpless in the face of illness of religious beliefs, and now we see these diversions into saying choice is a sickness. It's simply not progress, yes maybe nicer to chat to someone who wants to take an holistic approach and sort your life out than go to prison, but the whole ethos is very very dangerous proposition. It's not small steps towards rescuing the subject, its big steps backwards. I keep saying this, but you dont actually move twards freedom by compromising your values in this way, you are creating even greater loss of autonomy.

Steve Rolles said...

re loss of passport - I suspect this has been mentioned by the ACMD as it s one of the non-criminal sanctions used in Europe - either Spain or (I think) Italy. suspension of driving license is another. Obviously both could have potentially very serious consequences and there are questions about proportionality (if they affected your ability to work for example).

I imagine if the ACMD were to go into more detail on this subject they would probably not include it in their recommendations, although Im not aware there are plans to do a specific report on this - their agenda is too weighed down with tedious harm evaluations and the recovery stuff they are looking at. If they started looking at decrim in more detail the Home office would probably strangle their funding even further.

Sunshine Band said...

Yes, the ACMD are in the pockets of the Home Office - what they actually need is legal advice about their remit and the MDA itself - then they should exert themselves through these means to protect their own remit and existence.

Prescription Drug Rehab said...

I don't agree about the suspension of passport/license neither since it won't help to solve the problem. But I think the drug awareness program is constructive to new drug users. For addicted users a rehab is better than prison. Also, there are many ways a drug user affects the environment and the people around. In fact, addiction can affect co-workers, crop fields and relationships.