Drug News
Archive
09/03 to
09/04

Drug News Archive: (archived 02/06)

This area contains news and developments on drugs. It will include legislation, policy, strategy and other drugs news. As well as reporting on what is going on this section will also provide some analysis and commentary, looking at the real implications of these developments.

The articles are arranged with the most recent at the start, and older material at the bottom. Use the "quick finder" section below to jump to specific areas.

Material dating to before 11/03 has been archived; please go to the Drug News Archive to view this material.

All information relating to SECTION 8 has been moved to a new section HERE.

Blog

• Drug Testing in Schools: Bad Gesture Politics 23.2.04
• The war on drugs - who is calling the shots? 25.1.04
• More cannabis coverage: Blunkett lets rip 25.1.04
• Media furore over cannabis legislation 19.1.04
• Our Response to the Consultation on the Anti-social Behaviour Act consultation. 21.12.03
• Consultation on Closure powers contained in Antisocial Behaviour Act. URGENT NEED TO READ AND RESPOND 21.12.03
• Section 8 and cannabis: Government ruling leaves housing providers in ludicrous position 23.11.03
• 'Poverty chief' to take up top job at Drugscope. 23.11.03
• Cannabis Reclassification - badly thought out and badly executed. 23.11.03
• ACPO Cannabis Enforcement: Full text and commentary 23.11.03
• Water, water everywhere and not a drop to fix? 23.11.03

An example of a drug strategy now just gesture-politics.

The widely-reported announcement that the Government was to endorse random drug-testing in schools came as a surprise to many.

The mystery of the DfES Guidance Document:

Certainly it seems to have come as a surprise to Drugscope, to the teaching unions and associations and to other Drug charities. It will also come as a surprise to the DfES who published their "Drugs - Guidance for Schools" this month.

This Guidance Document, for headteachers, Governors and LEAs covers all aspects of drugs education and prevention in school settings. The Guidance Document was put together by Drugscope, Alcohol Concern and the DfES, and is endorsed by Stephen Twigg, the Undersecretary of State.

The Guidance document makes little reference to sniffer dogs or drug testing. The report "Headteachers are within their rights to invite the police or private companies to bring sniffer dogs onto school premises or employ drug testing."

However, the report does not advocate such an approach, and does not go in to detail about how to implement such a strategy.

What the report does stress is the need to ensure that any enforcement measures such as sniffer dogs or drug testing are "consistent with the pastoral responsibility of the school to create a supportive environment," and that "A headteacher requesting the use of sniffer dogs [and/or drug testing] solely as a deterrent,where there are no reasonable grounds for suspicion and where prior consent has not been sought, will need to consider possible challenges by parents and pupils under the Human Rights Act."

The announcement made by Blair go far beyond the guidance reccomended by the Guidance document and put a greater weight on sniffer dogs and drug testing than have ever been discussed before.

Blair and the Cult of the Sparkly New Idea

So why should Tony Blair use an interview with the News of The World as an opportunity to announce that the Government is to put its weight behind random drug testing in school settings.

The actual comments made by the PM are not in themselves earthshattering. All he has actually said is 'If heads believe they have a problem in their school then they should be able to do random drug testing,' he told the News of the World. 'Guidance will be given to headteachers next month which is going to give them specifically the power to do random drug testing within their schools.'

But since his announcements, a range of ministers have spoken on the subject and elucidated on the subject and, it seems, added a range of meanings to the PMs comments.

So Ivan Lewis (Education Minister) spoke on Channel 4 news as a process of identifying people early so they could be refered for treatment and counselling. He went further on the Today programme on Monday, arguing that schools could use it as a part of the school policy and pupils or parents who refused to accede could be rejected from the school. He stated that the Government "expected schools to take all appropriate measures [to prevent drug abuse]" suggesting that the Government expected schools to introduce drug testing. But Lewis was clearly under-prepared and under briefed for this interview, saying that he thought most headteachers wanted this power, but unable to say what consultation had taken place, and what the outcome was. John Prescott spoke about testing being a deterrent. And Downing Street added commentary, saying that the aim would not be to see pupils expelled from school.

Who leads on drugs?

But the implication was the same: Blair had produced a "policy" from nowhere, in contradiction to what the DFES was saying and without reference to the drugs or education field. ANd on the back of Blair's statements, a range of other Government heads were wheeled out to speak on the subject. But not, crucially, Caroline Flint or Blunkett. So is this a strategy that has been approved by them or is it Blair's alone.

There are potentially a number of driving forces behind Blair's statement. One has to note that Blair's direction here mirrors (once again) that of George Bush. Just as Blair seems willing to follow Bush into a war on Iraw without a robust evidence base, so it seems that he is prepared to pursue Bush's campaign of schools drug testing, even though the worth of such an approach is not proven.

Similarly, Blair was visited by Sweden's PM may have influenced Blair's view of drug policy. The Swedish drugs policy is credited in some quarters as having reduced the extent of problematic drug use in Sweden and is held up by critics of liberal drug policy as a viable alternative.

But alongside the obvious influence of Bush and the possible influence of other European countries, we must look at influences much closer to home. Either actively or tacitly, we are in to the initial stages of an election campaign. And as predicted elsewhere on this website, drugs are going to form a core aspect of this campaign.

Blunkett and Blair seem to be lurching to outdo Michael Howard and Letwin. But without any loud, effective voices to challenge this drift, there is little scope for stopping it. With most major drugs charities now wholly or partly tied to Government funding, there are fewer and fewer with the independence and scope to get their voices heard.

And let us also not lose sight of how some of the research in to school drug testing was funded. The most recent study in Scotland was funded by Euromed - one of the leading manufactures of drug testing products. Not necesarily the most objective of sources. Yet this report is now being cited as grounds for the expansion of school drug testing.

A resounding 'NO' to random drug-testing in schools:

The proposals to endorse or encourage drug testing in schools is ill-thought, unworkable and counter productive.

School Drug Testing:

• Cannot take place without the consent of the young person in question in school settings: to do so otherwise is likely to be assault
• Is a poor indicator of substance use; most drugs have a very short window of detection
• Breaks down trusting therapeutic relationships between schools and pupils
• Cannot differentiate between use that has taken place in leisure time and that which has taken place in school time
• Is likely to result in more school exclusion and truancy to the most at-risk
• Will not deter those who use drugs
• Is unworkable in practice and
• Is contrary to all good policy and practice on the subject

KFx will be producing a more detailed resource on the subject in the next two weeks...watch this space.

The war on drugs: who calls the shots in the looming policy war: Blair, Blunkett or Johnson?

On Friday the 25th January the Independent, along with other papers, ran a news piece about some of the recommendations spilling out from the Forward Strategy Unit in Downing Street. One of the ideas to make the news was that a new offence of using drugs should be created and a conviction for use should act as a trigger either for enforced treatment or for imprisonment.
The news article was not new; rather it first ran in the Independent at the end of last year, under the banner "PMs drug report shifts focus to high harm users."

The ideas described in both articles have emerged from work coordinated by the Forward Strategy Unit; this Unit within 10 Downing Street is headed up by civil servant Geoff Mulgan, former head of DEMOS. Work is undertaken by a number of advisors, most famously John Birt.

The report prepared by the FSU concerning drugs has not been published, and is supposed to be a confidential document within Downing St. The 'Birt report on drugs' supposedly looks at a greater emphasis on enforced treatment, and looking at a regime that orders imprisonment or treatment for anyone testing positive for heroin. Other measures in the report are said to include increased monitoring of identified users through a register of addicts.

The measures proposed in the report are alarming and would result in many more people being unjustly targeted, criminalized or forced inappropriately in to prison. Yet the report is supposed to be the result of a year's research and presumably involved input from various 'experts' in the field.

Unfortunately, the report has not been published, so the researchers involved and the authorities consulted are, at present unknown. The research is, according to the Independent "too sensitive to publish," and Downing Street has described the research as a private piece of work.

The report, its contents and its status within Government throw up some intriguing questions.
Why, for example has this private report been cited, twice now, in the Independent. Given that the Indy ran it at the end of December, it suggests that it was intentionally leaked from Downing St or by someone within another department attempting to expose the proposals in the report.

The fact that the news story reappears again in the Indy this week is probably more to do with the Indy trying to tag an old story on to the current controversy surrounding cannabis. If it isn't it would perhaps suggest that parties unknown are leaking the story again, presumably also to fuel controversy around cannabis. Either way, the timing would seem to be either to distract from the Home Secretaries fumblings with cannabis, or to let the public know that he means to deal with other drugs robustly.
But more importantly, the issue of the report indicates deeper and more worrying concerns. Because all the indications are that three or four departments are now tugging in different directions when addressing drugs; instead of a joined-up strategy, different factions are fighting, presumably over both resources and profile.

The Home Office has been primus inter pares for a while now. While its status was somewhat reduced during the brief reign of the drugs czar, the mantle for drugs has been firmly taken back into the Home Office since Blunkett moved.

However, this position of pre-eminence is being gently eroded on several sides; the ODPM is taking a lead on some aspects, most notably efforts to move rough sleepers and other street populations into hostels and treatment. Given the associations between substance use and antisocial behaviour, the Antisocial Behaviour Unit, under Casey and Brady, is effectively directing a substantial swathe of drugs policy and money.

Similarly, the role of the Prime Minister's office (and the Forward Strategy Unit) suggests that Blair is interested in playing a more active role in directing drugs policy. The article in the Independent talks about Home Office sources expressing unhappiness about how policy is being shaped, and questioning the nature and reasons behind the PMs involvement.

The almost unheard voice in all this is that of Melanie Johnson. As the undersecretary in the Department of Health whose brief includes drugs, one would expect to hear more from her, nor her departmental boss John Reid.

Aside from a single written response regarding links between cannabis and schizphrenia, little can be found of her thoughts in Hansard. A better glimpse is provided in a newspaper report at the time when Blunkett was seeking to extend the Closure powers in the Antisocial Behaviour Act to cover class B and C drugs too. Johnson was quoted at the time as saying ""I have serious concerns about the possible impact that the extension of these powers to class B and C drugs may have, as suggested." Whilst hardly conclusive, it would suggest that she was sufficiently unhappy with the Home Secretaroes stance that she was prepared to disagree and do so publicly.

Unfortunately it is very clear at this stage that the Home Office, the ODPM and the Prime Ministers office are taking a lead and also perhaps wrangling for the upper hand somewhat. In the meantime, the DoH, who should be taking a strategic lead, are left languishing. And as it does so the health agenda is still further subsumed by the other three Departments.

This situation will only get worse as the General Election draws closer. The latest that this could be is June 2006. But if this an earlier date was preferred, then key policy areas like drugs will become a political battle ground. A contest for the drugs vote is not likely to offer many favours to harm reductionists or policy reformers. And if the ground is to be fought out between Blunkett and Michael Howard, we should be very worried indeed.

If you have a copy of the report which we could view in confidence, please get in touch. Similarly, if you contributed to the report, or, alternatively, were not invited to contribute and want to make it clear that you were not involved, please get in touch too.

Cannabis: Discussion deteriorates and Home Office produces its leaflets

Under increasing pressure from the media, drugs professionals, users and the medical profession, Blunkett came out of his bunker with all guns blazing. After he had put both feet in, many in Government may have wished that he had kept quiet and let the more-capable Caroline Flint try and deal with the flack.

On the Today programme, Blunkett said that the cannabis policy that he had implemented would be "transparent, non-variable and understandable." Given that the policy being rolled out is the exact opposite of this, it is hard to fathom if Blunkett is just utterly in denial or is simply unaware of the amount of confusion.

Given a policy that is being interpreted in a different way by individual forces, where ultimate decisions are left to an officer's discretion and has confused everyone, it is hard to see how Blunkett can think that the policy has achieved Blunkett's aims.

But, even more astonishingly, he has already concluded that his approach is right, saying that he is "not prepared to consider reversing it." So no matter what the evidence base, Blunkett has decided that this is the correct approach and he will not be changing it.

It may be indicative of the Home Secretaries increasing inability to grasp these points that, rather than continue to engage with the debate in a meaningful way, he instead launched an astonishing attack on Michael Howard, and asking him to confirm or deny if he had ever smoked cannabis, a question that Michael Howard refused to answer.

This undignified spat put Blunkett and Downing street on the back-foot. Downing Street dismissed it as 'political knockabout,' but others held this up as evidence that the Home Secretary is becoming increasingly gaffe-prone.

Certainly in a week when the Home Secretary was keen to see his Anti-Social Behaviour Act take pride of place in the media, he will not have been pleased to see it knocked into the inside pages while cannabis dominated all the papers.

In this flurry of media coverage, sniping and counter sniping, the Home Office produced its series of leaflets which, according to Caroline Flint, have been extensively piloted.

The leaflets are very poor: the one aimed at children makes no reference to school exclusion; it fails to make it clear that for young people on their second or third offence, they will be refered to the YOT and go to court. And the emphasis is primarily on the good jobs that cannabis could spoil or the holiday abroad. Certainly not the two things that are going to put off young people in Hackney from smoking!

The second leaflet, aimed at adults is, if anything worse. It oversimplifies, contains misleading legal points and forgets to mention things like allowing use on premises. Worse still, although FRANK is branded all over the leaflets, when you phone him he hasn't seen them, and doesn't know what they say.

But links to the leaflets are included below:

Home Office Portal on Cannabis: http://www.drugs.gov.uk/NationalStrategy/CannabisReclassification

Leaflets: http://www.drugs.gov.uk/NationalStrategy/CannabisReclassification/Resources

Home Office Circular: http://www.knowledgenetwork.gov.uk/ho/circular.nsf/WebPrintDoc/8A2C33E23BB704D880256E0F005C3FD1?OpenDocument

ACPO Guidance: http://www.drugs.gov.uk/NationalStrategy/CannabisReclassification/ACPO

Media furore over cannabis legislation

With the reclassification of cannabis only a fortnight away, all sections of the media were running cannabis stories like they were going out of fashion. Indeed, the number of hacks that were walking the streets purchasing cannabis samples either for their own use or for testing must have seen them tripping over each other.

The coverage in the press has been generally critical of the Government's stance. The criticisms are varied according to the political leanings of the source, but primary concerns include:

• the confusion relating to how under 18s will be treated. The Evening Standard highlighted widespread confusion amongst young people and teachers who were receiving the erroneous impression that cannabis was now legal, and the reality that according to the ACPO guidance they should be arrested under all circumstances;
• the ongoing debate regarding the relationship between cannabis use and mental well-being. With ongoing research exploring how cannabis impacts on mental wellbeing, many papers concluded (without a robust evidence base) that reclassification would result in an increase in mental illness amongst young people;
• the fact that police nationally are not sure how the law should be implemented despite the ACPO guidance. The Metropolitan Police have produced their own guidance, described by the Independent as being 'subtly at variance' with the ACPO guidance. Sources within the Met were quoted in the Indy, saying:" Senior Met sources have flagged significant differences between the wording of the recommendations and those issued by the Met to its borough commanders. "The Met guidelines say there is a presumption against arrest. It is urging officers not to make arrests."

A number of high profile figures have started to criticise the way that the reclassification has been pursued. Ruth Runciman is quoted in the Standard as saying "We recommended that the position on cannabis should be that it is no longer an arrestable offence. What Mr. Blunkett has done is to take specific steps to maintain its arrestability. We still have some of the most punitive laws on cannabis in Europe. It is a very confusing situation."

With high levels of criticism of the strategy across the media, it was left to Caroline Flint MP to defend the strategy to the media. Blunkett remained strangely silent throughout. She is by and large in the right; she has inherited a muddle created by Mr. Blunkett and, barring a cabinet reshuffle post-Hutton, it is unlikely that Blunkett will accede to a change in direction now.

With the reclassificatio due on the 29th January, the Government insisted that publiciy material was being prepared by the Mentor Foundation and would be distributed in good time for the reclassification. The Mentor Foundation is avowedly an organisation that pursues a Prevention agenda; as part of the justification for this stance, the Mentor Foundation cites sources including the UN, stating "Drugs destroy lives and communities, undermine sustainable human development and generate crime. " No analysis is included to consider how international prohibition contributes to drug-related crime and harm.

Having looked at the content of the drug-specific information on the website, there is a great deal of inaccurate, value laden and sensationalist information which reinforces myths and misconceptions. Much of this is US-based and not relevant to the UK drug scene.

Quite why the Mentor Foundation should have been chosen to prepare literature for the reclassification is unclear. One of its trustees, the pro-hunting Tory Peer lord Mancroft, has come out against the use of criminal justice sanctions for cannabis use, saying "The use by successive governments of the criminal justice system in dealing with cannabis - "a health and social problem" - had produced "no results" and had led to "a massive increase in drug use." [BBC:18.10.2000]

To compound the above problems and confusion, the Observer [19.1.04] reports that, due to funding problems, a large number of Drugs Advisor posts are to be cut in April. These posts, who help schools to develop policy and practice in schools-based drugs education, support and responding to incidents, will come to an end as core funding is removed. While some LEAs will continue to fund the posts, others say they cannot afford to. WIth the piloting and role-out of Blueprint in the pipeline, this seems like a short-sited response.

In short, with the reclassification less than ten days away, we have an inconsistent and unworkable policy on cannabis which increases risk, increases confusion and utterly fails to increase the credibility of the drug laws. One person is responsible for this: Mr. Blunkett. The reclassification was a simple process and it is astonishing that he has been allowed to meddle with it with such disastrous results.

Government Consultation on Part 1 of the Anti Social Behaviour Act: KFx Responds

In November, the Government launched a (low key) consultation exercise relating to Part One of the Anti Soical Behaviour Act 2003 (Closure of Premises used in cpnnection with the production/use/supply of Class A drugs and Associated Nuisance.)

The Home Office produced notes of guidance for consultation. The Guidance notes and related documents are at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/inside/consults/current/index.html

The closing date for responses is the 5th January - so not an awful lot of time to make considered responses.

Having had a chance to read through the documents, we have prepared a detailed set of responses, and there is a link to these below. As the legislation and guidance stand, we have some very serious reservations about the power that they create. Our key points are:

• The legislation and associated guidance is certainly a step in the right direction away from the absolute offences created by Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
• However, given the far-reaching powers created by the Act, the lack of robust legal protection, and the potential for abuse of these powers, we feel that they cannot and should not be brought in to force at this time.
• We believe that essential considerations, including the duration of effect of a closure notice, the housing status of individuals removed from properties by and order and the status of tenancies thus affected has not been adequately addressed.
• We feel that the tone of the guidance notes has been primarily drafted in relation to "crack houses", and, as the guidance should relate to the Act in all its potential uses, it should be redrafted to reflect this wider application. We find the language and tone of the document, and its repeated reference to 'dealers' to be prejudicial and inflammatory.
• The powers that the Act creates are substantial, and should be viewed as a last resort; the Guidance does not seem to place sufficient emphasis on collaboration and planning to avoid or resolve problems.
  

To read a full copy of the response that we will be sending to the Home Office, please click here.

Cannabis Reclassification: Badly Thought out and Badly Executed

The House of Lords has ammended and passed the proposed legislation relating to powers of arrest for cannabis once the drug is relegated to Class C status. The original proposed legislation created a power of arrest for any class C drugs, but this power of arrest has been restricted by the Lords amendment to "cannabis and cannabis resin."

However, the increase in penalties for the supply of class C drugs will apply to all Class C drugs, not just cannabis.

Effectively, rather than following the advice of experts, and simply reclassifying Cannabis, the Government has tried to pull together a whole new legal position for cannabis which results in an arbitary and inconsitent piece of legislation that, amongst other things says the following:

• Cannabis will become a class C, Schedule 4(i) drug from late January 2004. This means that it will be in the same legal category as GHB and Benzodiazepines.
• But unlike GHB or Benzodiazepines, you can still get arrested for possessing cannabis, even a small amount. However, most of the time the police will not arrest you, they will just confiscate and caution.
  
• Unless you happen to be under 18 in which case the Police will ALWAYS arrest you because the guidance obliges them too. And if this is your third offence you will go to court and get a criminal record.
• Penalties for possessing class C drugs is a maximum of two years; however the penalty for supply or allowing premises to be used for smoking cannabis can carry a sentence of up to 14 years.
• Even though there is growing evidence about trends in the use of GHB for spiking drinks, the police would not have the power to arrest someone simply found in possession of GHB. Yet, where cannabis, which has NO association with similar activities is found, Police will have power of arrest!

Anyone searching for an iota of common sense on this would need to ask how a Government, so well informed by experts, could make such a mess of such a simple reclassification. The answer comes from the Baroness Scotland of Asthal, who, for Labour, replied: "government policy does not only rely on the advice of others, but derives from the analysis of what the Government themselves see as most pertinent and relevant." Or in other words, 'sod the evidence - here's the plan."

So little surprise then that in the Guardian, Caroline Flint, recently appointed Home Office Minister for Drugs says that she will be launching an information campaign to inform the public about the changes to the law. "there has been a lot of misinformation about the reclassification of cannabis that has not been helpful in getting information across to young people..." she laments. But, in fit of blame-shifting, she accuses newspapers of "deliberately spreading confusion." Rather than blaming the media, attention could instead turn to the Government's own strategy and its badly planned and badly executed revision. And at the end of it, when the people in the non-elected upper chamber can't get their basic drugs law facts right, what hope for the rest of us?

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds03/text/31117-04.htm

[Additional comment related to cannabis below]

Government ruling on Section 8 and cannabis puts Housing Providers in a ludicrous position:

The Government's ongoing attempts to tinker with elements of drugs legislation have created a ludicrous anomaly which will fuel the criminalisation and homelessness of young people.

The problem emerged because of a failure on the part of Government, especially Ministers and Civil Servants with responsibility for drugs, to map the overlapping effects of cannabis reclassification and the amendment to Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

From the time when cannabis is reclassified (likely to be January 2004) the maximum penalty for possession will drop to two years. ACPO have issues guidance which says that the presumption should be against arrest, unless use is taking place in public, or there are other aggravating factors.

This would all be well and good were it not for the additional obligations placed upon the managers and occupiers of premises by Section 8(d) of theMDA. This piece of legislation was of course replaced by Section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, and this amended piece of legislation is currently suspended for two years pending the development of new powers under the Antisocial Behaviour Bill which has just completed its passage through Parliament. To compound our problems, the guidance document from ACPO on enforcing cannabis does not consider this issue at all.

Section 8(d) obliged occupiers and managers to take steps to stop the smoking of cannabis (and prepared opium). This was widened by Section 38 to encompass "any controlled drug unlawfully held." A moratorium was placed on the commencement of this revised legislation when the Government heeded concerns from the field.

The issue that remained unclear was if the 'old' Section 8(d) relating to cannabis remained in force. This has been a source of confusion although it was the strongly-held opinion here that the 'old' clause 8(d) was not in force having been subsituted by the 'new' section, which in turn awaited commencement. KFx sought a written answer from Caroline Flint MP, the Minister responsible for drugs.

In a written answer from her office (approved by the Minister) a correspondent asserts that "in the meantime section 8(d) relating to cannabis, cannabis resin and prepared opium remains in force."

This interpretation is questionable and has bad implications for social housing providers and other bodies including residential childrens services.

The problem that housing providers would be left with is detailed in the (abridged) letter below. This was sent the Home Office questioning their interpretation of the current legal state of play. We will wait to hear back from them. In the meantime it can do no harm to raise concerns to both Caroline Flint and Tony Hall at the Home Office Drugs Legislation Enforcement Unit. The addresses are:

Caroline Flint MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Home Office 50 Queen Anne's Gate LONDON SW1H 9AT

Tony Hall Drugs Legislation Enforcement Unit Home OfficeHome Office 50 Queen Anne's Gate LONDON SW1H 9AT

Caroline Flint MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State
Home Office
50 Queen Anne's Gat.
London
SW1H 9AT

Monday, November 10, 2003

Dear Caroline,

I had written to you regarding a concern relating to the Misuse of Drug Act 1971, and yesterday received a reply from OB Jones. However, this reply raises some concerns for me which I hope that you will be able to address.

My letter of the 21st September related to the amendment of section 8(d) of the MDA by S.38 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, Following a series of training events and conferences, it was clear that one are was a source of great confusion and I was seeking clarification of this.

The item of concern was whether the old clause 8(d) of the MDA was still in force. In the letter that I received from OB Jones, the answer that I received was that "in the meantime section 8(d) relating to cannabis, cannabis resin and opium remains in force."

I am surprised and concerned by this response, and, for reasons that I will detail, would urge you to review this position.

In terms of Parliamentary process, I find the above conclusion puzzling. My understanding was as follows:

· as part of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, the wording of Section 8(d) was replaced with the wording of Section 38, and this substitution came in to effect when the Bill received Royal Assent. From this point onwards, it would therefore not be possible to enforce Section 8(d)

· The new powers created under Section 38, whilst on the Statute book, would however not come in to force until a Commencement Order was signed. The Government has wisely decided to postpone this decision pending piloting of new measures under the Anti-social behaviour legislation currently before Parliament.

As such, I am firmly of the mind that the old section 8(d) cannot be in force as it has been substituted by Section 38; in turn section 38 is not in force as no Commencement order has been signed.

Unfortunately, OB Jones and presumably yourself have arrived at a different interpretation. I am very keen to understand the legal basis by which this decision has been reached.

I am currently involved in training and consultancy work with a number of DATs and other statutory bodies across the UK, and it may help if I detail the basis for my concerns.

Key amongst these concerns is that to maintain that the old S.8(d) is in force creates an absurd legal and practical situation. On the one hand it says that housing providers can house on-going users of drugs such as heroin, can be aware of their ongoing use on site, and can legally work with them within the law. On the other hand, where the drug involved is cannabis, the organisation is obliged (in the view of the Home Office to use all reasonable measures to prevent this use continuing or the organisation would risk prosecution. Such a situation is clearly ludicrous and, as i am sure you will acknowledge, puts housing providers in an insecure position. While I am sure that you would not want to see a housing provider evicting a young person from housing for the use of cannabis, you would also not want such a provider to work in a way that they knew was illegal.

This situation will become untenable once the reclassification of cannabis comes in to effect.

While the penalties for possession of cannabis will be reduced to a maximum of two years in prison, the penalty for allowing premises to be used for smoking cannabis will be a maximum custodial sentence of fourteen years. And while most cannabis users will be aware that they will only be arrested in exceptional circumstances, they are equally aware that it will occupy a far lower priority in terms of policing. Unfortunately, the situation will be radically different for housing managers who will be obliged to act to stop this use on premises. Such a position is untenable; cannabis smokers, aware that the police will have little interest in cannabis use, will be pitched in to constant conflict and friction with housing managers obliged to stop them doing so.

As I am sure you will agree, this situation needs to be rectified, certainly before the reclassification on cannabis takes place. I hope therefore that you will be able to review the response given by OB Jones and hope that you will be able to conclude that indeed, the old S8(d) is no longer in force and therefore the problems that I have outlined are now redundant.

I would be very happy to discuss this issue with you further either in person or by phone. Otherwise, I will look forward to receiving a response from you and thank you for your time.

Yours Faithfully

Kevin Flemen
KFx

ACPO Guidance on Cannabis: Full Details and Analysis

Thanks to the lovely people at UKCIA, the general public are finally able to read the full text of the ACPO guidance on Cannabis. It is indicative that well resourced bodies such as ACPO, the Home Office or Drugscope have failed to do this, and takes wholly independent organisations to do so. The key documents are included below, with additional commentary added in Yellow.

ACPO Cannabis Enforcement Guidance:

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The purpose of this paper is to issue guidance to officers dealing with simple offences of possession of cannabis by adult offenders when the drug is reclassified from Class B to Class C of Schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

2. ARREST

2.1 A consequence of transferring cannabis from Class B to Class C is that under current legislation cannabis possession would ordinarily not be an arrestable offence under Section 24 of PACE 1984. However, the law is being amended in Parliament so that it will continue to be defined as an arrestable offence, but the presumption should be against using this power for simple possession offences.

2.2 There will be circumstances where it is appropriate to arrest for possession of cannabis. This is very much left to the discretion of officers who will be expected to take into account the prevailing circumstances in deciding whether to arrest or not. An officer may consider arrest in the following situations:

Our emphasis added. Herein lies the biggest problem, and one we have repeated again and again. This is not merely a postcode lottery on a force-by-force basis. It is a lottery on an officer-by-officer basis. In other words, arrest is wholly at an officers discretion.

2.3 Beyond simple possession of cannabis

Context
The smoking of cannabis in public view is not in the spirit of re-classification. Such flagrant ignorance of the law has the potential of undermining the illegal status of possession of a controlled drug. A similar undermining could occur where, on a local basis, a police officer is aware of a person who is repeatedly dealt with for possession of cannabis.

Police officer may arrest
- Where a person is smoking cannabis in public view
- Where locally a person is known to be repeatedly dealt with for possession of cannabis.

We knew this was going to be there, but the wording is impressively loose. By saying "in public view," rather than "in public" creates a worrying grey area. If a person is visible through their windows from the street, or in a private garden, they may still be condsidered to be in 'public view.' This wording should be revised to provide better protection for people using at home.

The "locally known" test was always an outrage, and is frankly discrimnatory. It leads to unequal application of the law and should be the subject of legal review.

2.4. Youth Offenders

Context
The Crime and Disorder Act provides a statutory framework for Youth Offenders to be dealt with in a different way to adult offenders using the options of a reprimand, final warning and charge. Youth offenders will continue to be dealt with through the Crime and Disorder Act provisions and not this Cannabis Enforcement Guidance. The Crime and Disorder Act legislation requires offenders to be dealt with at the police station which, in practice, means that police officers should arrest persons aged 17 years or under who are in possession of cannabis for personal use.

This section seems to have slipped past the media and most commentators. Young people under 18 will always get arrested. Those with any previous will be refered tp YOTs and/or the courts. Which is of course just what the YOTs need; thousands of young people being put before them for possession of cannabis. Those who are put before the courts will get criminal records for possesion.

It is hard to see at thispoint how this will lead to savings in police time or reduce the uneccesary criminalisation of young people.

2.5 Locally Identified Policing Problem

Context
There may be circumstances such as a fear of public disorder associated with the use of cannabis which are causing a local policing problem that cannot be effectively dealt with by other powers.

Why clauses like this have been included escapes me. It is so wide as effectively mean that locally can mean from an operational level down to a local beat level. So at the point where it is perceived to be a 'local policing issue,' this clause can be invoked.

Officers may arrest
- Persons who are in possession of cannabis under circumstances that are causing a locally identified policing problem.

2.6 Protect Young People

Context
There may be occasions where the possession of cannabis may create a risk to young people. However, this guidance is subordinate to any partnership agreement or memorandum of understanding within education establishments.

Officers may arrest
- Persons in possession of cannabis inside or in the vicinity of premises frequented by young perso ns, e.g. schools, youth clubs, play areas.

3. OFFENDERS UNDER 10 YEARS

3.1 When children under the age of 10 years are found in possession of cannabis, this should be considered an "at risk" incident prompting the appropriate referrals to other agencies through the child protection team.

4. VULNERABLE PERSONS

4.1 The term "vulnerable person" includes a person who may be mentally disordered or mentally handicapped or incapable of understanding the significance of questions or replies. They should be dealt with within the terms of this strategy by being arrested, their own personal welfare and interests being paramount. Final disposal will be within the ACPO Case Disposal Guidelines. All case disposal options, including Formal Warning, are available for consideration by the custody officer.

AH/13.06.03

Cannabis Enforcement Guidance FAQ from the ACPO

1. Why has there been no guidance given in respect of what constitutes a quantity of cannabis suitable for personal possession?

Both the ACPO Drugs Sub-Committee and the Home Affairs Select Committee have discussed this in great detail. Both groups firmly believe that if a specific quantity is stipulated as to what constitutes simple possession then street dealers will only carry around amounts smaller than that prescribed and carry on dealing to individuals. Secondly, there are occasions when an individual may only have a small amount but also have scales, dealers lists etc. therefore, each case will need to be looked at individually dependent on all the attendant circumstances.

Finally, it could be problematic for officers to determine weights or quantities on the street causing greater potential for inconsistent application of any policy.

2. How should the investigation of the offence on the street be conducted and recorded?

The interview should be short but sufficient to prove the offence or identify a defence. This could be as little as two questions such as "What is this?" and "Who's is it?". This should be recorded contemporaneously in an officer's pocket book or forces could consider altering their stop and search forms to include an area for recording the interview. This has been undertaken successfully in some areas. This would reduce paperwork and bureaucracy for patrol officers. The drug must be placed in a tamperproof bag, sealed and signed in the presence of the offender.

3. In paragraph 2.1 of the Cannabis Enforcement Guidance the following phrase is used. "…the presumption should be against using this power (of arrest) for simple possession offences". What does this actually mean?

Law enforcement effort is directed at Class A drugs, particularly heroin, cocaine and crack cocaine. In reclassifying cannabis from Class B to Class C, the Government has made it quite clear that should an offender be found with a "small amount" of cannabis intended for personal use they should not, wherever possible, be arrested, "freeing up" policing time to concentrate activity against Class A drugs.

ACPO has issued the Cannabis Enforcement Guidance to assist operational officers, recognising that cannabis is an illegal drug, but not a policing priority. Consequently, an officer should presume, or take for granted, that a person in possession of a small amount of cannabis should not be arrested unless the circumstances meet the requirements of the guidelines.

4. What if an officer makes an arrest outside the guidelines? Will they be open to criticism or legal proceedings?

The power of arrest could be used on every occasion, provided that proper grounds for the arrest exist. Therefore, ordinarily, an officer would not be open to proceedings for unlawful arrest. The issue of "criticism" is a matter for individual service policy and management.

This highlights the toothless limits of the guidance. There is no sanction for individual officers or forces who continue to arrest, or arrest where there were not good grounds within the guidance. Whether or not to criticise or sanction an officer will be a local issue NOT dealt with at a national level. Disregarding the guidance will not, according to this, be a matter for ACPO.

5. What if the offender does not comply with the process, walks off and the officer is unable to identify the offender?

If the offender cannot be identified, it cannot be ascertained if they are repeat offenders thus undermining the spirit of reclassification and this Guidance. Consequently officers may consider using their powers of arrest.

This is worrying. It suggests that someone who is unable to demonstrate their identity faces arrest, even if willing to hand their cannabis over.

6. What means of disposal is open to an officer if a decision is made not to arrest the offender, e.g. NFA, Warning, Summons?

One of the aims of this process is to reduce police time spent on this offence. Accordingly, unless the factors detailed in the Guidance exist, an arrest should not take place. Generally, an officer will be able to take no further action in the street other than seizure of the drug and compliance with the investigative/administrative procedure outlined in question 2. This procedure provides an opportunity for an officer to reinforce the point that cannabis is still an illegal drug and that possession in the future may result in arrest.

7. Where an officer seizes cannabis from an offender, does it have to be recorded as a crime, regardless of the disposal, e.g. NFA, Caution, Charge/Summons?

Yes, under the National Crime Recording Standards all these occasions require the completion of a crime record/report. Whilst not a judicial disposal, each case should be considered for "clear up" under current Home Office Guidelines where:

"there is sufficient admissible evidence to charge the offender but the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) or a police officer of inspector rank or above decides that no useful purpose would be served by proceeding with the charge where a senior officer decides it is not in the public interest to prosecute".

The authorising officer will require a comprehensive crime report showing that there is sufficient admissible evidence to charge; an officer must be capable of identifying cannabis because of the regularity they come into contact with it and the knowledge they possess. The person should admit possession and that it is cannabis for 'personal use'.

In terms of policing time, there is still a substantial amount of paperwork involved. Any time saved is substantially undermined.

8. These guidelines will require a significant amount of training to all police officers. What help will be given to forces to assist with this?

Once the guidelines have been approved Centrex will devise a training package for forces to utilise before implementation of the legislation.

9. The Guidance makes reference to the word "locally" (paragraph 2.3 and 2.5). What does this mean?

"Locally" could be defined as an Operational Policing Area, Sector, Beat or specific locality within a Community. This decision would be made by the Area Commander based on such factors as highlighted in the Guidance.

As mentioned above, this interpretation means that the resultant postcode lottery will effectively be on a street-by-street basis, with decisions on how to implement being made locally.

ACPO: 04.09.03

It is interesting to highlight the areas NOT addressed by the guidance.This includes:

• guidance on the interpretation when dealing with premises offences; this has big implications for housing providers (see section above) and is a substantial oversight
• there is little to safeguard the police or the public in recording quantities seized or the correct approach for storage or disposal. How will weight seized be ascertained on the street? Will it be weighed at the station. How long will the record of the seizure be kept, and how long will confiscated drugs be kept for? Without clear accountability and scrutiny here, there will be every chance that confiscated drugs will not be accounted for adequately.
  

'Poverty' Chief takes up top job at Drugscope

Martin Barnes, currently Director of the Child Poverty Action Group, takes up the post of Chief Executive of Drugscope in the New Year. The move came following Roger Howard's move from Drugscope to Crime Concern.

Barnes has been Director of CPAG for 11 years. In this time, CPAG had expanded with a threefold increase in expenditure from the late 90's to the present. However, his departure from CPAG coincides with a period of internal disgareement at CPAG. The charity made the news as staff walked out on strike following management decisions to reduce terms and conditions of employment for new starters. While there has been no indication that the move to Drugscope was related to these internal issues at CPAG, it is to be hoped that Barnes' arrival at Drugscope will only be a boost to staff morale, rather than a portent of less good things.

CPAG has described itself as a "critical friend to Government" and traditionally CPAG has occupied a close position to Government in briefing on how economic strategy is liable to impact on poverty. It would be fair to describe CPAG as a strong campaigning body with good access to Government. They have however, had minimal contact with drugs.

It will be interesting to see if Barnes' arrival at Drugscope heralds a shift of focus. Over the past few years, Drugscope has embraced the Government's "drugs and crime" agenda; it is to be hoped that Martin Barnes will bring a shift instead to the "drugs and social exclusion" nexus instead. A focus that lifts people and communities out of poverty, and an agenda that looks at opportunity and involvement rather than punishment would be welcome.

The drugs field urgently needs strong,confident and informed voices to lobby and campaign for urgently needed reforms to policy and law. We hope that Martin Barnes can provide this voice and remains a critical friend of government.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/charitymanagement/story/0,8150,1043799,00.html
http://society.guardian.co.uk/charitymanagement/story/0,8150,1048094,00.html
http://www.cpag.org.uk/

Water, water everywhere and not a drop to fix:

Confusion has become apparent with the changes to the Paraphernalia Legislation initiated this summer. The changes to the legislation were discussed below.

At the time we highlighted these concerns and it has become obvious that these were well-founded.

A big concern was the lack of additional budget to fund these additional costs. The Government has effectively acknowledged the health benefits of revising the paraphernalia laws, but has not matched these with funds to purchase the resources. As a consequence, around the UK, exchanges are restricting what they give out because of the funding issue. These concerns were highlighted by Druglink and have been extensively discussed by UKHRA.

The second concern relates to the ongoing situation with water for injection/sterile water. The phrasing of the amendment, restricting water distribution to "water for injection" within the terms of the Medicine Act has resulted in a number of services feeling hampered in their distribution of water. This has been an especially big problem in areas where the local exchange is not linked to the NHS and so finds it more difficult to secure prescribed 'Water for Injection.'

Exchange Supplies have been working extensively to circumvent this problem, and are producing a guidance sheet to outline the current position.

Similarly, the arbitary stupidity of the decision to make citric lawful for distribution, but not ascorbic is just daft.

The other area of concern is a lack of clarity within the DLEU about what the law actually means. When asked to clarify what "utensils for the preparation" meant, the DLEU replied to us that they were not in a position to define this as it would be for a court to decide. They did however say that the terms was open and not resctricted to the examples cited.

However, others who have contacted the DLEU have received different answers, being told that some items were forbidden. Such lack of clarity in the DLEU, combined with the inadequate drafting of the legislation need to be addressed and further revision is now essential.