Cannabis and the Law - Government rejects Runciman Inquiry's recommendations

In 1997 The Police Foundation, with the co-operation of the Prince's Trust, set up an Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act of 1971. The distinguished membership was chaired by the Viscountess Runciman and the ink on the report was scarcely dry before the Government had made clear its intention of ignoring it. Perhaps Lady Runciman reflected on the difficulties her father-in-law had in negotiating a settlement of the Sudetenland problem with Adolf Hitler. Government sources rejected the report and the Prime Minister himself went on record as strongly dissenting from its conclusions.

Although the report covers the application of the 1971 Act to all drugs, it was the chapter on cannabis which attracted the most attention. Lady Runciman clearly hoped to stimulate informed debate about a contentious subject which few would claim to be adequately dealt with at the moment. Respected journalists, such as those quoted here, doctors, policemen, and politicians all had their say but, faced with the government's straight refusal to countenance any suggestion of a new approach, the debate will remain hypothetical.

Among the report's recommendations are that cannabis and its derivatives should be down-graded to Class C and that its possession should no longer be an imprisonable offence. As T.E. Utley poined out in the Daily Telegraph, ordinary people might legitimately question the fairness of laws against cannabis when President Clinton and Mo Mowlem openly talk about their criminal use of the substance in the past. Whether these two public figures are an advertisement for drug use is, of course, a matter of individual judgement. Rather more importantly, whilst acknowledging that the changes to the law proposed in the report might lead to wider use and increased dependency, Lady Runciman suggests that these would be minor problems compared to the advantages. The changes, say the report "would lead to a law that fits better with public attitudes, and overcomes the present inhibition on accurate education about the dangers of cannabis, especially the long-term risks."

A major concern of the members of the inquiry was to minimise "the adverse, unnecessary, and disproportionate criminal consequences for very large numbers of otherwise law abiding, usually young, people." The recommendations "are intended to support the education , prevention, and treatment elements of a broader health agenda, which itself reflects the relative risks of different drugs including cannabis."

The point is made that, as long as cannabis remains illegal and widely used as it is, it will be the drug which takes up most enforcement and court time. At present, it is suggested, the huge number of arrests and prosecutions indicate that the law is not acting as a deterrent. The report's authors are convinced that the present concentration on cannabis tends towards the lessening of respect for the law. "The evidence strongly indicates that the current law and its operation creates more harm than the drug itself."

The report claims to set out more effective and less coercive ways of reducing the harms associated with cannabis use, which it by no means minimises. It will be a matter of regret to those with an involvement in both drug policy and treatment if the entire report is ignored because a section of it is politically contentious.

The report Drugs and the Law is published by The Police Foundation and is available from The Secretary, Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 1, Glynn Street, Vauxhall, SE11 5RA (020 7582 3744).

At the same time a working party of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Physicians has produced a report, Drugs: Dilemmas and Choices, published by Gaskell, London. It provides an overview of the historical background of the misuse of drugs, the causes of their use, the research which is taking place, and the key issues of the moment.

Press comment on the Runciman Inquiry's report has been surprising to many observers. The Independent, which has led the campaign for the legalisation of cannabis, and the Guardian might have been expected to be friendly, but The Telegraph, The Daily Express, and The Daily Mail also looked favourably on its conclusions whilst criticising what they saw as the Government's irrational and knee-jerk reaction: Although most "facts" about drugs tend to be prejudice thinly veiled in anecdote, two generalisations seem robust. Britain has the toughest drugs laws of any major Western country, yet it has the highest consumption of drugs and the worst addiction rate. Only a fool would say that these generalisations are unconnected. Simon Jenkins in The Times Despite this paper's instinctive reservations over a more relaxed approach to drugs, we believe that the issue deserves mature and rational national [sic] debate. Daily Mail editorial The "war against drugs" of which politicians and police officers like to speak resembles those permanent wars between superpowers that are a feature of George Orwell's 1984: it is never won, though its "victories" are constantly trumpeted. There is a very big demand for drugs that cannot be curtailed by law, and there are possibilities for supply so great that the law can do no more than push the price up... ..People like substances that alter their mood, and only strict puritans believe that they should never use any of them. A cup of coffee, a glass of wine or beer, even the odd cigarette are among the legitimate pleasures of life. The reason that they do not do much harm is that they have been socialised - they are surrounded by customs and manners and jokes and friendship and all the things which make life tolerable. Alcohol and tobacco remain lethal, and alcohol, unlike tobacco, has the power to destroy the character of the person who uses it: it does so for tens of thousands of people in this country every year. Charles Moore in The Daily Telegraph With an extraordinary coalition lining up against them, Government ministers are in the position of small children covering their ears with their hands and crying, in response to an unwelcome request, "I won't! I won't! I won't!" Their stance is neither realistic nor effective...It is also dishonest, lumping together substances as different in their effects as cannabis, Ecstasy and cocaine. Joan Smith in The Independent. MY FIRST instinct...when I read Lady Runciman's suggestion that penalties for the possession of soft drugs should be relaxed was that it sounded very sensible. Quite a few of my friends take cannabis, and I would hate to see any of them go to prison for it. Nor do I think that they deserve to. If they are doing any harm to anybody, after all, they are harming only themselves...They become more dim-witted and boring as every year passes. But they are grown-ups, and that is a matter for them. Tom Utley in The Daily Telegraph