Reefer madness: Do the drug laws work? UK
- From: thewesterner <mscowboy@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 18:26:13 -0700 (PDT)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/reefer-madness-do-the-drug-laws-work-822160.html
Reefer madness: Do the drug laws work?
Gordon Brown is expected today to announce tougher laws against
cannabis possession, even though medical experts and the police
believe he is wrong
By Jeremy Laurance and Nigel Morris
Wednesday, 7 May 2008
Defying the weight of medical and scientific opinion, Gordon Brown is
to order tougher new laws today on cannabis possession. The Prime
Minister has decided to overrule his own expert advisers and reverse
the downgrading four years ago of Britain's favourite illegal drug
from a class B to a class C substance, threatening cannabis smokers
with five-year prison terms.
His announcement comes amid fears that Britain is in the grip of an
epidemic of cannabis-induced psychosis. This is based on the
conviction that the cannabis sold on the streets is stronger than it
was a generation ago and is tipping increasing numbers of vulnerable
people into metal illness, including schizophrenia.
Headlines proclaiming that skunk is 20 to 30 times as strong as the
cannabis smoked in the 1970s have fuelled public alarm. The Prime
Minister has spoken of the "lethal" effects of the new strains, as if
they were comparable with the harm caused by heroin and crack cocaine.
Yet there is no epidemic of psychosis – rates have actually declined
since the mid 1990s. Almost three million people a year use cannabis;
very few develop psychosis. Despite this, parents are more worried
today that their children will become schizophrenic if they smoke
cannabis than they were five years ago.
The new focus on the harm caused by cannabis is to be welcomed, as
there are reasons for concern. What has united medical specialists and
drug workers is the conviction that whether cannabis is classified B
or C is an irrelevance. Worse, it could distract attention from the
central issue, which is the need to educate young people about the
risks. Mr Brown's announcement, which ministers believe will be
popular with the Middle Britain voters who deserted Labour last week –
was endorsed by the Cabinet yesterday. It would mean the maximum
penalty for possession of cannabis rising from two to five years.
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, will argue that the about-turn is
necessary because of the increasing strength of cannabis in
circulation. She is also expected to warn that it can act as a
"gateway" drug to more addictive substances. But ministers were
accused last night of using the classification system, which places
illegal substances into three categories according to their harm, to
score points against their opponents.
Shortly after arriving in Downing Street in June last year, Mr Brown
announced a review by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
(ACMD) of the status of cannabis, making clear that he wanted its
reclassification from B to C reversed. That decision had been taken in
2004 by David Blunkett when he was Home Secretary, and was meant to
free police time squandered on prosecuting users. Mr Brown believed it
sent the wrong message to young people. But the advisory council
reached the opposite conclusion last month in a report sent to the
Home Office in which it said cannabis should remain in class C. It
dismissed the argument that downgrading the drug had sent a confusing
message to the public and said the link between heavy cannabis use and
mental illness was unproven.
Despite the advisory council's refusal to support moving cannabis up a
category, the Prime Minister has made clear he is intent on doing so,
last week describing much of the stronger "skunk" variety of cannabis
as "of a lethal quality".
His concern about the dangers chimes with that of psychiatrists
treating the victims of drug-induced psychosis, but his remedy does
not. Doctors have been worried for at least a decade about the impact
of cannabis on mental health. It is our most widely used illegal drug
and studies show that the cannabis available on the streets is
stronger than it used to be – though not as strong as some have
claimed. Skunk, which is now ubiquitous, contains at least 14 per cent
of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) compared with about 6 per cent in 1995
(and 3 per cent in the herbal cannabis available in the 1970s). That
makes it two or three times as strong as it was a decade ago, not 30
times.
Some 80 per cent of people with schizophrenia smoke cannabis, but this
does not prove that it causes the illness. Many sufferers use it to
self-medicate. The drug may aggravate their symptoms, but there is
conflicting evidence about its role in causation. In its last review
in 2006, the advisory council concluded: "The evidence suggests at
worst that using cannabisincreases the lifetime risk of developing
schizophrenia by less than 1 per cent."
Its new report is expected to accept that the skunk that now dominates
the market in the southern cities is stronger than in the past. In
addition, a pooled analysis of 35 studies published in The Lancet in
June found that cannabis users were 40 per cent more likely to develop
a psychotic illness than non users, and the risk was doubled in heavy
users. On that basis the researchers – seven psychiatrists from
Bristol, Cardiff, London and Cambridge – estimated that 14 per cent of
cases of schizophrenia might be due to cannabis.
The psychiatrists admitted they could not prove cause and effect but
concluded that there was "now enough evidence to inform people that
using cannabis could increase their risk of developing psychotic
illness later in life". Professor Robin Murray of the Institute of
Psychiatry, a leading exponent of cannabis-induced psychosis, welcomed
the finding but said it underplayed the risks from the stronger skunk
now available: "My ownexperience suggests the risk with skunk is
higher. Therefore the estimate that 14 per cent of cases of
schizophrenia in the UK are due to cannabis is now probably an
understatement."
A second factor is that cannabis contains two main psychoactive
ingredients – THC and cannabinidol – the second of which is thought to
have anti-psychotic effects. Skunk contains almost no cannabinidol.
Others have challenged The Lancet finding, pointing out that there has
been no significant increase in the incidence of schizophrenia over
the past 30 years, despite a sharp increase in cannabis use. A review
of trends in the UK by the University of Keele, commissioned by the
ACMD, found that cases of schizophrenia fell between 1996 and 2005.
Cannabis use also fell during this period but the researchers say
evidence from case control studies is inconsistent and the two trends
cannot be linked.
While the role of cannabis in psychosis remains a matter of dispute,
there is broad agreement over the issue of classification.
Most specialists accept there is no scientific basis for altering the
advisory council's 2006 conclusion that cannabis is "substantially"
less harmful than the class B drugs amphetamines and barbiturates and
should therefore remain in class C. Drug and mental health charities
agree that the law is too blunt an instrument to deliver public health
warnings, and have called for education campaigns to warn young people
of the risks. They point out that consumption of cannabis has fallen 4
per cent since 2003, after being downgraded to class C in 2004.
Mr Brown will cite the support of the Association of Chief Police
Officers (Acpo), which has changed its position on the classification
of cannabis, after backing Mr Blunkett's decision to downgrade the
drug from B to C four years ago. But Acpo said last week that it would
not revert to the days when cannabis possession technically gave rise
to automatic arrest, which wasted so much police time that it was
often ignored, and wanted officers to retain the option of cautioning
cannabis users, a stance which could lead to accusations that it would
become a class B substance in name only.
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs was set up in 1971 at the
same time as the current drugs classification system was established.
When Mr Brown overturns its conclusions today, it will only be the
second time the committee has been overriden by a government.
Martin Barnes, the chief executive of the charity Drugscope, made a
final appeal last night for the Government to abide by the advisory
council's conclusions. "We remain unpersuaded that a move back to
class B is the best way to reduce cannabis harms and levels of use,
particularly among young people," he said.
Roger Howard, chief executive of the UK Drug Policy Commission, said:
"The system of drugs classification is now at risk of becoming
discredited by political point-scoring and false expectations of the
benefits any changes in classification will bring. It is not an
effective way to 'send a message' to young people. The Government
ought to review the system, as it promised to do in 2006, and consider
options which return independent scientific analysis to the core of
future classification decisions."
The Labour MP Paul Flynn, called for a complete overhaul of the
approach to drug addiction, arguing the current classification system
was irrelevant to helping addicts kick their habit. He said: "Banging
people up in prison doesn't work. The message that Gordon Brown will
be sending out is that he doesn't understand drugs and doesn't
understand the problem, so he's going to try to win a few cheap
headlines."
The advisory council called for cannabis to be downgraded as early as
1979, but Margaret Thatcher's government said it would never reduce
drugs penalties. It was not until Mr Blunkett became convinced that
cannabis was unnecessarily diverting police resources, that he
announced the reclassification four years ago. But his three
successors have been uncomfortable with the decision. Charles Clarke
came close to reversing it, asking for evidence of links with mental
illness, but backed off on advice from the ACMD.
Last night, the Tories backed the reclassification, but said it had to
be properly backed up by police enforcement. David Davis, the shadow
Home Secretary, said: "If young people still believe it is OK to take
the drug and law enforcement agencies fail adequately to deter and
prosecute the misuse of cannabis then Gordon Brown will have failed
another test of leadership."
What the experts say
Deborah Cameron chief executive, Addaction
There is a contradiction at the heart of the Government's policy on
cannabis. The classification system has distracted politicians for too
long – we need to get back to tackling the actual harm drugs cause.
Chris Huhne Lib Dem Home Affairs spokesman
Instead of pandering to tabloid newspaper editors, the Government
should be listening to the independent experts. There is no point
wasting taxpayers' money on having the Advisory Council if their
advice is ignored.
Lord Ramsbottom Former Chief Inspector of prisions
You've got to have a coherent strategy that looks across all drugs and
targets them in proportion to the damage they do. It's no good
isolating cannabis... I simply do not believe that prohibition works.
Martin Barnes Chief executive of Drugscope
One of my concerns is that the Government should go against the
Advisory Council's advice and reinforce the cannabis scare stories.
Cannabis is not a harmless drug, far from it. That is why it is
already illegal.
Paul Flynn Labour MP, Newport West
Banging people up in prison doesn't work. The message that Gordon
Brown will be sending out is that he doesn't understand the problem,
so he's going to try to win a few cheap headlines.
Dr Brian Iddon Labour MP, Bolton South East
This will create further confusion. This government claims its
policies were based on evidence, but the Advisory Council has provided
the evidence and the Government is going to ignore it.
Richard Garside Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, King's College
London
If drug classification was based on harm caused to society then
alcohol would be higher than some class-B drugs. It sets out the
principles for which drugs are socially acceptable.
Mark Steel Comedian and columnist
It's crackers. The only reason Gordon Brown's doing it is because
otherwise the Daily Mail will have more ammunition against him. Most
people under 60 must have smoked it. That would make everyone
criminals.
Colin Blakemore Professor of Neuroscience, Oxford University
Gordon Brown has been a great supporter of science. It is a pity that
he has allowed his heart to rule his head in his desire to reclassify
Britain's most popular illegal drug.
Tim Kendall Deputy director of research, Royal College of
Psychiatrists
The debate about classification is at best a useless distraction and
at worst a diversion of attention and resources from the far bigger
problems of crack cocaine and heroin.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: OT: husband knows hoew wo mett wife's needs
- Next by Date: Re: LA times article
- Previous by thread: OT: husband knows hoew wo mett wife's needs
- Next by thread: Re: Reefer madness: Do the drug laws work? UK
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
