Police retain discretion over arrest for cannabis use
Cannabis is reclassified, but the Home Secretary refuses to introduce reforms to the regulations on heroin and ecstasy
By Ian Burrell, Home Affairs Correspondent
Independent
11 July 2002
Dopesmokers who had rolled a celebratory joint in honour of the Home Secretary finally relaxing Britain’s cannabis laws may have spluttered in frustration yesterday when David Blunkett decided possession of the drug should remain an arrestable offence.
Although the Home Secretary went ahead as expected with his proposal to reclassify cannabis from Class B to Class C, he appeared to have reacted to criticisms that he was “going soft on drugs”.
And so instead of implementing a blanket policy treating marijuana possession as a non-arrestable offence, he announced a hybrid system, under which police could hold some people caught with the drug, in certain circumstances.
Those who smoke cannabis near a school or repeatedly light up in a public place where other people object to their drug use could still find themselves being marched to the police station.
The caveats will please police officers who have complained of having joints waved defiantly in their faces by drug users in Brixton, south London, where the Metropolitan Police has been piloting a softer stance on cannabis.
But they will also allow police to retain a considerable degree of discretion in dealing with cannabis users. Welcoming Mr Blunkett’s announcement yesterday, the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said: “The retention of the police power of arrest will enable the police to have greater flexibility in dealing with incidents on the street.”
Such powers will worry supporters of cannabis decriminalisation, who would point to a recent study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that appeared to show a minority of officers were already pursuing something of a personal crusade against marijuana.
The study found that 3 per cent of police were responsible for 20 per cent of cannabis possession arrests and that some police saw it as their duty to help rid society of all drugs.
Mr Blunkett said yesterday Acpo would soon issue national guidelines to police forces, explaining the definition of the “aggravating circumstances” that would make cannabis possession arrestable.
Drugs agencies hope the guidance will help to create a level playing field and end the “postcode lottery” that results from different approaches being taken to the drug in neighbouring police divisions. Mr Blunkett said the guidelines would “ensure that in the vast majority of cases officers will confiscate the drug and issue a warning”.
If this is the case, the changes will have a noticeable effect on the policing of cannabis, which in the year 2000 led to 75,000 arrests for possession, with some offenders being fined and a small minority imprisoned.
Last night Roger Howard, chief executive of the charity DrugScope, pointed out that even after reclassification people could face being sent to jail for up to two years for “simple possession”.
He also voiced concerns over Mr Blunkett’s proposals for tougher measures against those involved in the supply of cannabis. Mr Blunkett said he would consider a new offence of supplying the drug to children and would retain a maximum sentence of up to 14 years for dealing, even after downgrading the drug to Class C.
Mr Howard said people who supplied the drug to friends or grew cannabis plants may find themselves facing a custodial sentence.
Yesterday in Brixton, where police have piloted the idea of relaxing the laws on cannabis, there were mixed views on the project’s success.
An unnamed police officer claimed the project had not worked and said that school children who were smoking cannabis with impunity were no longer being arrested and referred to drug workers.
But Bashir Ahmed, who runs a carpet shop, said the change in the law would cut crime. He called for legalised cannabis cafés to end the street dealing.
Other commentators warned that the reclassification of cannabis should not disguise the potential dangers of the drug.
David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said the softening of the law should “not make a blind bit of difference to school drug policies”.
The changes to the cannabis laws were accompanied by a refusal to introduce reform of the regulations on heroin and ecstasy. In spite of recommendations to the contrary by the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, Mr Blunkett refused to reclassify ecstasy as a class B drug and rejected the idea of controlled “shooting galleries” for injecting drug users.
Although it was overshadowed by the cannabis reforms, the refusal to provide safe injecting rooms will be a severe disappointment to drug treatment professionals.
The introduction of such a scheme in Australia reportedly led to 17 drug users being resuscitated after overdosing in the first month of the project’s operation. Supporters of the scheme claim that without such supervised facilities such people might have died.
Drug experts were also angry that Mr Blunkett, as a politician, chose to dismiss the reclassification of ecstasy [which was also backed by a review of drugs laws by the independent Police Foundation] rather than allow a decision to be taken by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.
Narcotics: how they are classified
Class A: (The most harmful category). Includes heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, LSD, and amphetamines (speed) if prepared for injection. Maximum sentence for dealing is life and seven years for possession.
Class B: (An intermediate category). Includes amphetamines and barbiturates. The maximum sentence for dealing is 14 years in prison plus a fine, and for possession it is five years plus fine.
Class C: (Least harmful). Includes anabolic steroids, anti-depressants and growth hormones. In July next year this will be joined by cannabis and cannabis resin, which are currently Class B. Maximum sentences for dealing in Class C substances are to be upped from five years to 14. The maximum term for possession is two years in jail.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=313981
