Tuesday, February 19, 2013

New Ipsos MORI poll shows 53% of GB public want cannabis legalised or decriminalised

News release
Embargoed until 00:01 Tuesday 19 February


Tel: 07980 213 943 or 07970 174 747
Web: www.tdpf.org.uk
Registered charity number: 1100518


New Ipsos MORI poll shows 53% of GB public want cannabis legalised or decriminalised, and 67% want a comprehensive review of our approach to drugs
 

A new poll by Ipsos MORI, commissioned by Transform Drug Policy Foundation, shows that over half of the public (53%) support cannabis legalisation (legal regulation of production and supply) or decriminalisation of possession of cannabis. Only 1 in 7 support heavier penalties and more being spent on enforcement for cannabis offences. In addition, the survey shows that around two thirds (67%) support a comprehensive independent review of all the possible policy options (from legal market regulation to tougher enforcement) for controlling drugs.

The findings indicate that 45% of mid-market newspaper readers (including Daily Mail and Express readers) support cannabis legalisation (legal regulation of production and supply) or decriminalisation of possession of cannabis, with less than one in five (17%) supporting heavier penalties and more being spent on enforcement for cannabis offences. For tabloid readers these figures are 47% and 20%. Around 65% of mid-market newspaper readers and 66% of tabloid readers support a full review of all drug policy options.

Additional survey findings include:

  • 53% of the public support legal regulation or decriminalisation of cannabis - 50% of Conservative supporters and 55% of Labour supporters also support these options, as do 46% of Daily Mail readers
  • Only 14% of the public (and 17% of Daily Mail readers) support tougher enforcement and heavier penalties for cannabis offences
  • 67% want a comprehensive review of all policy options. 70% of Conservative supporters and 69% of Labour supporters also feel this way, as do 61% of Daily Mail readers
  • When outcomes from Portugal were briefly described, almost 40% of the public support the Portuguese-style decriminalisation of small quantities of drugs for personal possession

A spokesperson for Transform said: “These results show just how far ahead of politicians the public are. Whilst Labour and Conservative politicians shy away from the debate on drugs, around half of their supporters want to see legal regulation of cannabis production and supply or decriminalisation of cannabis possession, and a significant majority want a comprehensive review of our approach to drugs – including consideration of legal regulation. The poll demonstrates that even amongst Daily Mail readers, almost half support less punitive approaches to cannabis, and a majority back an independent review of all options, which may come as a surprise to the paper’s editors.

“Politicians have repeated their ‘tough on drugs’ propaganda for so long that they assume the public are more fearful of change than they really are. In fact the world has changed, and the public are far more progressive than was thought, right across the political spectrum. At the very least the government should heed long standing and growing calls for a review of all policy options, including legal regulation. And as a matter of urgency the coalition should engage in experiments in the Portuguese style decriminalisation of possession of drugs for personal use. Now is the time for the heads of all parties to show the leadership citizens surely deserve.”

Contact

Danny Kushlick, Head of External Affairs: 07970 174 747 danny@tdpf.org.uk

Steve Rolles, Senior Policy Analyst: 07980 213 943 steve@tdpf.org.uk
 




Notes

1. The full poll data is available here: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Ipsos_MORI_TPDF_poll.pdf

Technical Details

Ipsos MORI carried out the survey, on behalf of Transform Drug Policy Foundation, between 25th January and 5th February 2013. A sample of 946 British adults aged 18+ completed a face-to-face survey via the Ipsos MORI omnibus. The data has been weighted by gender, social grade, age, region, working status, housing tenure and ethnicity to reflect the known local population profile.

Questions / Definitions

  • Given the subject matter, questions were presented to respondents on showcards with options reversed for some respondents. Respondents read out a letter to indicate their response.
  • Q1 was a split sample question: half sample were asked Q1A half sample were asked Q1B.

Q1A. Possession of illegal drugs is currently a criminal offence in the UK. Some other countries have ‘decriminalised’ possession of small quantities of illegal drugs for personal use.  This means that possession of a small quantity for personal use is usually punished with fines (like a speeding fine), or attendance at a drug treatment or education programme, rather than arrest. Under ‘decriminalisation’, drugs are still confiscated. Production and supply to others remain criminal offences that may result in punishments carrying a criminal record, for example a prison sentence, fines or community service.

With this in mind, which of the following comes closest to your view of the law in the UK?

  1. The law in the UK should stay as it currently is, so that possession of illegal drugs remains a criminal offence.
  2. The law in the UK should be changed, so that the possession of small quantities of illegal drugs is ‘decriminalised’, as described.
  3. An experimental trial of ‘decriminalisation’ should take place for a limited time period in some parts of the UK, to allow its effectiveness to be evaluated.
  4. Other

Q1B. Possession of illegal drugs is currently a criminal offence in the UK. Some other countries have ‘decriminalised’ possession of small quantities of illegal drugs for personal use.  This means that possession of a small quantity for personal use is usually punished with fines (like a speeding fine), or attendance at a drug treatment or education programme, rather than arrest. Under ‘decriminalisation’, drugs are still confiscated. Production and supply to others remain criminal offences that may result in punishments carrying a criminal record, for example a prison sentence, fines or community service.

Since this was introduced in Portugal in 2001, and resources were instead spent on healthcare, overall use of drugs rose at a similar rate to neighbouring countries. However, there were higher numbers accessing drug treatment, the justice system spent less time and resources on drug-related crime, and there were falls in problematic drug use, and drug use amongst school age children also fell.

With this in mind, which of the following comes closest to your view of the law in the UK? 

  1. The law in the UK should stay as it currently is, so that possession of illegal drugs remains a criminal offence.
  2. The law in the UK should be changed, so that the possession of small quantities of illegal drugs is ‘decriminalised’, as described.
  3. An experimental trial of ‘decriminalisation’ should take place for a limited time period in some parts of the UK, to allow its effectiveness to be evaluated.
  4. Other

Q2. Would you support the government commissioning a full independent review of drug policy, that compared our current system of criminalisation with alternatives, including: increasing the criminal penalties for production, sale and use of drugs; decriminalising drug possession as described; and the legalisation and state regulation of production and supply for some currently illegal drugs?

  1. Yes, I would support a review
  2. No, I would not support a review
  3. Other

Q3. Here are a number of different options for regulating the production, supply and use of cannabis (also sometimes called marijuana, pot, hash, grass, skunk, weed, spliff or joints). Please read through this card and then read out the letter next to the option which you think best matches how you think cannabis should be regulated.
 



Scenario A. Legal – minimal control


Legal to produce and sell cannabis with minimal control and regulation. 

Similar to tea and coffee, there is unrestricted advertising and availability.  Only basic trading standards and quality controls apply, with prices, location and number of outlets decided by the market.



Scenario B. Legal – moderate control

Legal production and availability  of cannabis with moderate government control and regulation

Similar to the current system for tobacco and alcohol, but cannabis is only available from licensed shops or premises. The number and location of outlets is decided by the government, which also influences prices through taxes or setting minimum prices. Packaging carries health warnings, and advertising and age restrictions apply.

If you are underage and in possession of cannabis, it may be confiscated. Licensed premises selling the drug to anyone underage will be fined, and may lose their license. All unlicensed sales are illegal and may result in punishments that carry a criminal record, for example a prison sentence, fines or community service. 



Scenario C. Legal – strict control

Legal production and availability of cannabis with strict government control and regulation

Like controlled medicines, cannabis is only available either with a doctor’s prescription for medical uses, and/or bought over the counter from a licensed retailer similar to a pharmacist, trained to give health information and advice.  The government decides prices, maximum quantities sold, and the number and location of outlets.  Users may be registered, age restrictions apply. Packaging carries health warnings, and branding and advertising are banned.

Any licensed retailers selling cannabis to anyone underage will be fined and may lose their license. All unlicensed sales are illegal and may result in punishments that carry a criminal record, for example a prison sentence, fines or community service. 



Scenario D. Illegal – decriminalise possession

Illegal to produce and supply, but possession of cannabis does not lead to a criminal record

Supply of cannabis is only through the illegal market where manufacture, distribution and sale are unregulated. Those found in possession of a small amount of cannabis for personal use would not be given a criminal record. But the drug may be confiscated, and the user given a fine (similar to a speeding fine), or a requirement to attend a drug treatment or education programme.

Production and supply of cannabis to others remain criminal offences that may result in punishments carrying a criminal record, for example a prison sentence, fines or community service.



Scenario E. Illegal – current laws apply

Illegal to produce, supply and be in possession of cannabis 
 all lead to a criminal record

Supply of cannabis is only through the illegal market where manufacture, distribution and sale are unregulated. Production, supply and possession for personal use, or to supply others, can result in punishments that carry a criminal record, for example a prison sentence, fines or community service.



Scenario F. Illegal – much heavier penalties apply

Illegal to produce, supply and be in possession of cannabis 
 all carry a prison sentence

Supply of cannabis is only through the illegal market where manufacture, distribution and sale are unregulated. Possession for personal use is always punished with a prison sentence, or a young offenders’ institution for under 18s. Production and supply to others is punished with an automatic life prison sentence. Substantially more money would be spent on enforcement against suppliers and users. 
ENDS


9 comments:

Harry McCulla said...

Illegal drugs don't exist. Imagine a further option for Q1:

"The law in the UK should be changed, so that the possession of small quantities of illegal drugs is ‘legalised’, as in Colorado state."

It makes no sense, because at that point they are no longer 'illegal'. If you need to use an adjective, the proper one is 'controlled' drugs.

The 'd. other' option as an answer to Q1 would apply for anyone that disagrees with decriminalisation of possession; supporters of legalisation as well as those who want the laws toughened. Is that what was intended?

Steve Rolles said...

I dont understand your first point - we have to use language that the people being asked the questions understand and worked very hard to make sure it was as clear as possible. Second point is valid but I suggest it's still very clear and I dont think that possibility would have meant people who support ging further would choose other instead of the decrim option, although i suppose its possible. At least we cant be accused of bias in favour of reform!

Tom said...

" The relative numbers of the opposing parties have nothing to do with the question of right. " L.Spooner.

" as if all a man's natural rights expired, or were suspended by the operation of a paramount law, the moment he came into the presence of superior numbers. " L.Spooner.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial12.html#p206

"TRIAL BY JURY

CHAPTER XII

Limitations Imposed Upon The Majority By The Trial By Jury"

Sunshine Band said...

Too right Steve doesn't understand Harry's first point - so many years later and Transform are still creating the prohibtionist paradigm whilst claiming to oppose it.

Steve Rolles said...

...or you could explain what it means in response to my perfectly polite reply.

Sunshine Band said...

It means that your work revolves around a fiction discussed ad nauseum, my view is that by not that underpins drug policy, by believing it's not important, that this is the lie that traps the current in reasing momentum for reform in the headlights of history. My view is thast whatever happens now, and my view is that it is going to get much much worse for drug related freedoms in this country, seriously we are in for far more testing and new forms of intervention, that progress or failure pivots on more people adopting the correct paradigm now. The alternative is a never-ending cycle of denial that your central thesis is wrong (even though your policy recommendations are often sensible)- the approach is skewed by the way the trap works, you end up focussing on drugs and not outcomes, especially when talking about 'regulating' or legalising the possession of cannabis. Yes, people want this, but we are panderring to the notion that 'cannabis laws' are wrong, when in fact we should be saying that the law is being applied across the board without any thought of human rights or managing drug misuse outcomes because it thinks it can create these mythical concepts that you insist are understood by the public, namely 'illegal drugs'.

The law must regulate the person and the question is only what is the threshold for that intervention, for that is the essential liberty question of the whole matter of drugs. The point about enforcement of the Act properly is something being missed by the entire movement bar a few knowledeable people here and there. We must distinguish between peaceful and problematic drug-related outcomes, and it is this very differentiation that became impossible via the reversal or subject (us) and object (drugs) in the way the system is described in words. Failure to deal with this is the problem, to suggest that the Act needs scrapping as Lucas has just done for example is akin to letting the government off the hook for their abuse of powers in applying the Act properly. The latest Sativex con agreed with the ACMD is the natural follow on from allowing tobacco and alcohol giants free reign to sell recreational drugs in a skewed market run as a protection racket to preserve vested interests.

Harry McCulla said...

Steve, a simplified version of the question would be "Do you think it should be legal to possess illegal drugs". It doesn't make sense because it is the possession that is illegal, not the drug itself. You may think it's pedantic but I think it's important not to artificially divide drugs into 'legal' or 'illegal' categories, which only helps supporters of prohibition.

Re decriminalisation of possession, it's a middle of the road approach which does little to help other than not threaten the end user with jail. The drugs are still produced and supplied by a criminal market, with no guarantees on strength or purity. Decriminalisation still means other sanctions are possible such as fines, loss of job/home, forfeiture of drugs and accessories, enforced drug counselling. I can't support it so given those options I'd have answered 'd. other'. I think you need to find out why people disagree with decriminalisation of possession and not make assumptions.
Still, if this is a representative sample it's good to see that so many are in favour of reform of drug policy, or at least a re-examination.

Sunshine Band said...

Sorry for all the typos in my post (corrected below), I am making the same excuses all over the place, being endlessly distracted at home from each and every task. Of course Harry is right and this is why the whole idea of de-criminalising / legalising drugs is such nonsense, once the object is ascribed the agency, and has a status in your depiction, even though you mean to qualify it later with all sorts of caveats such as adult age, responsible retail etc etc - really you are communicating something wrong on various levels. Why should it necesarily be legal for people to what they like with drugs anyway, my point is and always has been is that the law as applied doesn't differentiate between use and misuse, not that there is no place in law to address misuse of anything, even cannabis. It never starts with cannabis as that's getting it all back to front again. There are perhaps times when actions with cannabis should be curbed, the point is that it is the protagonist and how they are behaving that is the key - rescue the threshold for proportionate interference into liberty.

My last post corrected "

It means that your work revolves around a fiction discussed ad nauseum; my view is that by not addressing the key lies that underpin drug policy, by believing it's not important, that this is what traps the current reform initiatives to repeat the misinformation put out by govt thus supporting the regime not pulling it down. The momentum for reform in the headlights of history. My view is that whatever happens now, and my view is that it is going to get much much worse for drug related freedoms in this country; seriously we are in for far more testing and new forms of intervention, that progress or failure pivots on more people adopting the correct paradigm now.

The alternative is a never-ending cycle of denial that your central thesis is wrong (even though your policy recommendations are often sensible)- the approach is skewed by the way the trap works, you end up focussing on drugs and not outcomes, especially when talking about 'regulating' or legalising the possession of cannabis. Yes, people want this, but we are panderring to the notion that 'cannabis laws' are wrong, when in fact we should be saying that the law is being applied across the board without any thought of human rights or managing drug misuse outcomes because it thinks it can create these mythical concepts that you insist are understood by the public, namely 'illegal drugs'."

The law must regulate the person and the question is only what is the threshold for that intervention, for that is the essential liberty question of the whole matter of drugs. The point about enforcement of the Act properly is something being missed by the entire movement bar a few knowledeable people here and there. We must distinguish between peaceful and problematic drug-related outcomes, and it is this very differentiation that became impossible via the reversal or subject (us) and object (drugs) in the way the system is described in words. Failure to deal with this is the problem, to suggest that the Act needs scrapping as Lucas has just done for example is akin to letting the government off the hook for their abuse of powers in applying the Act properly. The latest Sativex con agreed with the ACMD is the natural follow on from allowing tobacco and alcohol giants free reign to sell recreational drugs in a skewed market run as a protection racket to preserve vested interests"

Steve Rolles said...

Id refer you to the responses ive made earlier on this. I essentially agree with you on the semantics - but suggest that 1) the confusion/problems you think it causes, and obstacle it creates, are essentially non-existant. Everyone is fully aware that when we are talking about 'illegal drugs' (or illegal ivory etc) that we are taliking about the actors/actions involved.

That is, with respect, obvious. To base a campaign around that point, is unliklely to lead anywhere useful. It simply doesnt have political traction. Reading your comments here; they dont clarify anything, they only confuse.

People need to be presented with critiques of current policy - and have alternatives presented clearly, with outcomes they can understand (like not being arrested for possession or having access to legal supply - neither of which are the case at the moment for most drugs - whatever language or legislative lens we view it through). IMHO Its just not as complicated as you propose.

The points on misadministation of the Act are arguably much stronger - particularly around anomalies re alcohol and toabco vs other drugs. (although I still think you tie yourself in unneccassry knots on much of this). My suggestion would be to focus your energy on these anomalies and drop the illegal drug sematics thread - at least as a political campaign.