The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is an independent body that advises government on drug related issues in the UK. It has 32 expert members. So why do ministers commission reports from them only to ignore their major recommendations?

Last year they were asked to review the classification of cannabis in the light of concern about the potential mental health effects and, in particular, the use of stronger strains of the drug. The Council recommended that “after a most careful scrutiny of the totality of the available evidence… cannabis should remain a Class C substance.” The government dismissed this advice and reclassified cannabis as a Class B drug. The Council has now produced a report on ecstasy, currently a Class A drug. They recommended that “in reviewing the evidence of the harmfulness of MDMA (ecstasy) to individuals and society, the Council’s collective view is that the balance of harms most closely equates to that of other substances in Class B.” Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has vetoed this proposed downgrading.

The purpose of the drug classification system is to gather together like substances, as evidenced by the stepped scale of potential sentences on conviction:-

Having possession of a controlled drug.
Max. Sentence on Indictment:
Class A drugs: 7 years or a fine, or both.
Class B drugs: 5 years or a fine, or both.
Class C drugs: 2 years or a fine, or both.

Supplying or offering to supply a controlled drug.
Max. Sentence on Indictment:
Class A drugs: Life or a fine or both.
Class B and Class C drugs: 14 years or a fine or both.

(See ‘Criminal Offences Handbook’, Anya Publishing)

In advising the government on the classification of a substance, the Council is required only to consider its harmfulness to individuals and society. It is not for them to take into account matters such as the message that is conveyed to the public, or the consequences for policing priorities. In rejecting the ecstasy recommendation, Home Office minister Alan Campbell said the government would not send a signal to young people that ecstasy was to be taken less seriously. But it already is by the police. In a key part of its report the Council state that ecstasy possession has a lower priority than other Class A drugs, specifically heroin and cocaine, and attracts a greater number of cautions (37%) than those for possession of other Class A drugs. The fatality evidence is significant. The annual death toll for ecstasy is 33 (apparently the same as horse riding) and for cannabis 17, both figures just fractions of the mortality rates for those other drugs of choice, tobacco and alcohol. Should they therefore be classified? A, B or C?

The drugs world follows strict market forces. Where there is demand there will be supply. Close contact with drugs investigation teams in Customs & Excise some years ago left me with great admiration for their skill, dedication and bravery in this most dangerous field. Outstanding results were obtained, but the level of street prices after big successes just showed that as one ring was taken out others moved in seamlessly. Efforts to get health messages home in the essential work of reducing demand can only be hindered by classifications that are clearly politically, not evidence, based, and are not substantiated by the every day experience of (particularly) young people.

Ecstasy report: see http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication-search/acmd/mdma-report?view=Binary.
Cannabis report: see http://drugs.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication-search/acmd/acmd-cannabis-report-2008?view=Binary

An earlier blog (10.06.08) contrasted ‘Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’, where 42 is the answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything, with the Government, for whom 42 is more a problem than an answer. 42 achieved the status of a threat to the leadership of the Government through the wheeling, dealing and almost daily concessions to get the provisions of the Counter-Terrorism Bill through the Commons, with the actual number itself seeming to be sacrosanct.

This week the headache became a full blown migraine for the Government when plans to give police up to 42 days to question terrorism suspects were crushed by the House of Lords. Peers voted against the measure by 309 votes to 118. This came after opposition to the proposals from all sides, with 24 Labour rebels including two former Lord Chancellors, Lord Irvine and Lord Falconer, as well as Baroness Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5, Lord Justice Woolf, the former Lord Chief Justice, and Lord Condon, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

In an emergency statement to MPs, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith conceded defeat and said that the Counter-Terrorism Bill would continue its journey through Parliament without the 42 day measure. According to the ‘Guardian’, Government sources said the Prime Minister’s hand was forced because whips in the Commons told Downing Street that they would struggle to muster a majority in favour of the proposal. The 42 day plan was only passed by MPs in June by nine votes after the Prime Minister won the support of the nine Democratic Unionist MPs. If ministers had insisted on keeping the 42 day plan there would have been the need for a series of votes in the Commons to overturn the Lords’ rejection and eventually the use of the Parliament Act to force the bill through next year.

The capitulation was defiantly unrepentent. In her Commons statement, the Home Secretary was positively reproachful. She said “The other place has tonight voted to remove from the Counter-Terrorism Bill the protections that the government believes should be in place. Not to amend; not to strengthen; simply to remove. Mr Speaker, my priority remains the protection of the British people. I do not believe, as some hon. members clearly do, that it is enough to simply cross our fingers and hope for the best …that is not good enough. Because when it comes to national security, there are certain risks I’m not prepared to take.”

In what some see as a face saving gesture, the Home Secretary announced that she had “prepared a new bill to enable the police and prosecutors to do their work – should the worst happen, should a terrorist plot overtake us and threaten our current investigatory capabilities… The Counter Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill now stands ready to be introduced if and when the need arises. This would enable the Director of Public Prosecutions to apply to the courts to detain and question a terrorist suspect for up to a maximum of 42 days. Individuals could only be detained where this is authorised by a judge.” Once again the totemic 42 days.

The climb down has pleased a wide diversity of groups, and it is reported that David Davies, who resigned his seat and fought a by-election over this issue, shared a celebratory bottle of champagne in the Commons with Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty.