cannabisnews.com: The Pragmatic Path To Cannabis Reform 





The Pragmatic Path To Cannabis Reform 
Posted by FoM on October 24, 2001 at 11:12:46 PT
By Charles Shoebridge
Source: Guardian Unlimited
David Blunkett's proposed relaxation of drug law endorses Metropolitan Police policy introduced in Lambeth in July, since when those found in possession of small amounts of cannabis have not been prosecuted. Instead, the drug is confiscated and a formal warning issued. Media reports at the time, of a radical change in the way police dealt with cannabis, ignored, however, the realities of everyday urban policing. The new approach simply represents a formalisation of policy practised on the streets, certainly in London, for at least a decade. 
To the average police officer, straightforward cannabis possession is little more than a nuisance. Not a nuisance to the community, or to any perceived victim, but to the officers themselves, who are expected to search, arrest, interview and administer each suspect in a process that removes them from the streets for hours, and costs the taxpayer thousands of pounds. Accordingly, police powers of discretion mean that a discovery of cannabis for personal use will often find the offending substance quickly (and within sight of the offender) disappearing over the nearest hedge or down the nearest drain. Only where the possession occurs simultaneously with another offence that would require arrest anyway, or where the offender isn't happy to "lose" the cannabis, would he or she be likely to accompany the officer to the station. Cannabis possession in certain areas is so prevalent amongst otherwise law abiding people that any other policy would by now have led to criminalisation of large sections of the population. Also, there are simply far more pressing demands on an officer's time. The resulting informal prioritisation of resources has produced for some parts of the country, and for many years, a de facto legalisation of cannabis possession. Many experienced police officers have serious doubts over the validity of two of the most commonly heard justifications of the current law - that cannabis use encourages crime, and that it leads to the use of harder drugs. Whilst most heroin users have used cannabis, the reverse would certainly not be true. There actually appears to be less logic in the suggestion that cannabis leads to heroin than that tobacco leads to cannabis, particularly given the highly addictive nature of nicotine. As for encouraging offending, the falling price of cannabis means that an average criminal user has to commit far less crime to fund his drugs than to pay for his tobacco, alcohol, and certainly less than to buy his clothes. No claim has been made that designer sports wear results in more crime and therefore should be criminalised, yet any experienced officer, particularly those dealing with youth offending, could provide compelling evidence to the contrary. Unlike alcohol, of course, cannabis is also not normally associated with any form of violent crime.Government statements of drugs policy have until now failed to acknowledge this. Successive home secretaries and the former drugs "czar", Sir Keith Hellawell, refused to contemplate legalisation, despite calls from a number of senior police officers to do so. The attitude of the authorities is quite different, however, when the legal consequences of cannabis use are considered. Even where an arrest takes place, the trend has been for many years towards cautions rather than prosecution. Between 1982 and 1988 for example, the number convicted nationally for possession rose threefold, whilst those cautioned increased by 115 times. Cases of simple possession dealt with at a court normally result in a £20 fine or less. The message both for those enforcing and those living under the law appears to be clear. The government has also recently urged the police to concentrate on combating hard drugs, in the context of which yesterday's announcement is being presented. The concept of cannabis users facing warnings and confiscation, rather than arrest, is not new, having been proposed by Dame Runciman last year in her report into the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Metropolitan Police commissioner, Sir John Stevens, also stated in April last year that arresting suspects for possession was not a "policing priority". This having been said, the formalisation of existing policy does raise new concerns. The fact that, as a matter of certainty, no punishment or inconvenience will result from being found with cannabis can only increase the numbers in possession. This would not necessarily be a problem, were it not for the matter of supply. From a moral perspective it seems difficult to argue that supplying a drug is bad, when possession of it is not. Thus, dealers will be in the position of satisfying a quasi-legitimate demand, which may in the eyes of the most vulnerable add legitimacy to the harder drugs sold, in many cases, by the same dealers. The problem here is that, according to the law, both hard and soft drugs remain illegal. People know they can possess cannabis without sanction, yet they have technically broken the law. That a dealer is also breaking the law becomes therefore nothing special. Were cannabis to be fully legalised, this linkage between the supply of hard and soft drugs could perhaps be broken. In many ways the present halfway house of illegality without sanction represents the worst possible option, particularly where the choices of children are involved. The question of how the new official policy will actually apply to children has not been made clear. Nor has it been specified as to how warnings for possession will be recorded. At present, formal warnings for a range of offences are filed at local level. Were the same person to be found in possession on three separate occasions in the same week, would the different officers need to know? If they were aware and new warnings were the only result, the question to be asked is surely what the point is of the warnings being issued at all. The new policy may not result, as claimed, in a substantial saving of police time if those now caught in possession would not have been arrested under the "old" policy in any case. Other benefits will result, however. Both Runciman and MacPherson highlighted that stop and search brings conflict between police and the black community. A large proportion of such stops are for drugs searches - often because the Misuse of Drugs Act gives wider scope for a search than some other powers enabling searches for other, larger, objects such as knives. Nationally, stops and searches for drugs increased threefold from 1990 to 1997. It may prove a disincentive to officers to carry out such searches if they know that possession will not result even in major inconvenience for the person concerned. As such, the numbers of stops may decrease. Other considerations are less certain. At present, formal warnings represent solved crimes, since the offender has been identified. Instead of being ignored, cannabis possession will now result in the issue of such a warning. Depending on the number issued, the local clear-up rate of all offences (which includes drugs) may show a dramatic improvement. Conversely, as each warning also represents an offence, the total crime rate for the area may be seen to worsen. Regardless of the detailed ramifications, the Lambeth policy has been innovative in recognising how unquestioning enforcement of the law can conflict with practical reality. Many see prohibition of cannabis to be counter-productive. Serious crime places enormous demands on policing resources which simply should not be wasted on pursuing what is at best victimless, and at worst self-inflicted, behaviour which to many is a crime by statute only. Not prosecuting offenders brings the law into disrepute, but in areas such as Lambeth, the enforcement of cannabis possession law was questionable long before now. July's announcement represented a triumph of pragmatic policing policy, now endorsed by proposed legislative change. It may yet prove a significant step in guiding politicians along the path towards almost inevitable decriminalisation. Note: Regardless of the detailed ramifications, the decriminalisation of cannabis is innovative in recognising how unquestioning enforcement of the law can conflict with practical reality, writes Charles Shoebridge. Source: Guardian Unlimited, The (UK)Author: Charles ShoebridgePublished: Wednesday, October 24, 2001Copyright: 2001 Guardian Newspapers LimitedContact: letters guardian.co.ukWebsite: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Related Articles:Special Report: Drugs in Britain http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Blunkett Rejects Spin Claim http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11166.shtmlGovernment Takes Relaxed View of Cannabis http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11162.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #3 posted by Stajin on October 25, 2001 at 07:42:54 PT
Legalise it - makes more sense!
Well putting it as class C still makes it an offence, but how can anyone be commiting a crime for smoking a plant? no harm is commited, i've never heard anyone robbing for cannabis, and how many people do you know who have smoked a joint and started a fight? now how many after a drink? Which is legal? make sense? Besides which if any body here's religous, doesn't the bible say everything on earth is put by god to use? Now I'm not a christen, but isn't that against religion? and against human rights?
Why is it illegal to sit in your own home and have a phat one? no one gets hurt, no trouble is caused, your too stoned to cause any crime, you just sit, chill and have a budda so why would that be illegal?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by TroutMask on October 24, 2001 at 12:35:14 PT
Good Article
I thought this was a good outline of why full legalization is inevitable.-TM
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by E_Johnson on October 24, 2001 at 11:20:53 PT
Those despicable clothes addicts
As for encouraging offending, the falling price of cannabis means that an average criminal user has to commit far less crime to fund his drugs than to pay for his tobacco, alcohol, and certainly less than to buy his clothes. I really need a hit of Liz Claiborne right now, anybody got some?I'll take an ounce of Dolce and Gabbana too.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment