|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
Braintree Community Safety Strategy Consultation - Part 1 Don Barnard Document Thursday 20 Dec 2001 DON BARNARD RANTS AT THE COUNCIL PART 1 OF 2: ============= Community Safety Strategy Consultation On behalf of the Legalise Cannabis Alliance. I welcome the opportunity to respond to your request for comments on the Braintree Community Safety Strategy. I do not pretend we have all the answers but we would argue: Judging and directing blame is easy. It is about time communities and those allegedly representing them took an active, positive interest in the rehabilitation of inmates in our correctional centres and the criminal justice system, rather than bitch about and turn our backs on them - Zero tolerance does not work. - We believe, as will be shown bellow there is a better way. If you require further information or clarification on any cannabis related issues. Please feel free to ask. If we don't know the answer - we probably know somebody who does. Kind regards Don Barnard 25 Aetheric Road Braintree Essex CM7 2 NE 20 December 2001 INFORMATION: The Legalise Cannabis Alliance supports freedom information and believes it is one of the cornerstones of democracy. We are pleased to offer you the benefit of some of our information free of charge. To ensure effective exchange and consultation we invite you to print, reproduce and forward this document electronically [unedited] to anyone expressing a prior interest in the enquiry or others you feel it may be of interest. SUBSTANCE MISUSE Introduction The Legalise Cannabis Alliance, being a single issue party [1] has no official policy on other illicit substances. We emphasis that we are referring only to cannabis in this submission. We do believe that other substances should be discussed but we simply leave the subject to those better informed. [2] It is not our intention here to debate whether cannabis is harmful or not, or to argue the case for specific changes to international or national law - indeed the remit does not permit this. Anyone wishing to follow this thread we refer you to [3], [4], [5] and [6]. It should be noted here [3] also argued that we should all take more notice of what government is doing in our name in the war on some drugs. There were also some interesting predictions made in this document. I will return to this in: Community Safety Strategy Consultation 2 of 2. FOR NOW WE SIMPLY POINT OUT: - Cannabis suppliers have succeeded to a remarkable extent in maintaining the supply for an increasing demand. It is hard to see how they could have been more successful had it not been made illegal. - The recent suggestions by the Home Secretary for the reclassifying of cannabis and the marked shift in the Governments and public perception of the alleged dangers of cannabis. WE ASK: - Has the time come for BDC elected representatives and appointed officials, Essex Police, those involved with the criminal justice system, employers and the general public to consider taking a different and maybe less expensive approach to the present system of local drug control policy and budgets? - Is it worth doing? With only 2% of those responding to a recent survey by BDC saying they had been affected by drug misuse and drug dealing and only 4% were aware of the of the Community Safety Strategy - We think it is! CONCERNS As has been shown in 1999 [3], cannabis use is associated with widely different views often attached to strong emotions or subject to media hype. It is likely any statement on cannabis will run the risk of having parts quoted out of context, even misquoted. As a consequence, we believe the general public are still confused and insufficiently informed about the issue. If we asked the question "What does the Governments 10-year Strategy on Drugs - "Tackling Drugs for a Better Britain" - mean?, we doubt 1 in 10,000 of the general public would have the foggiest notion what we were talking about. This is not surprising as the overall government drug war strategy involves a very complex and complicated system. What is surprising, however, is that this also appears to apply to many of those responsible for implementing Government Anti Drug Units policy at BDC who, despite being supplied [bombarded] with data and the intensity of the debate, refuse to consider alternatives to a local approach to local problems associated with cannabis. The reasons given to date appear to be - "Shhhs you must not or cannot talk about it, it's illegal!" 1: BDC. Does not feel it appropriate or necessary to hold / finance public meetings on the issues involving the significance of cannabis prohibition or alternatives in the local community because; 2: Cannabis possession is illegal under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; 3: Government is not formally talking about cannabis legislation; 4: There is a lack clear guidelines from Central Government on the issue of legalising cannabis and until these are received BDC will continue to work together with the Drugs Reference Group, Essex County Drug Action Team, other outside agencies and the public towards the objectives set down in the Government's anti-drugs strategy "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain"; 5: If the Government's position changes or if other substantial information emerges which suggests the need for the BDC to consider this issue in a public debate, this will happen as a matter of course. We are also led to believe: - Essex police do not think it appropriate to become involved in the debate; - It is not in the remit of the Essex DAT to consider or get involved in a debate on legislation of cannabis. We mention these points first to justify our scepticism as to what BDC means by open government, democracy, accountability and consultation. ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES 1: The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 gives a general duty to BDC among other things to: i) Consult the community about matters concerning policing of the area for which they have responsibility; ii) To considered all plans, policy and budgets from the standpoint of health and potential contribution to the reduction of crime and disorder; iii) to conduct audit of local crime and disorder problems publish a local community safety strategy, monitor the achievements and consult the community about matters concerning policing of the area for which they have responsibility. 2: It is true cannabis is illegal under the Misuse Drugs Act 1971. However, rather than debar DC from becoming involved in the constructive dialogue The Act allows for BDC, the DAT and the police to interpret and tailor it to local needs. 3: With the UK Government's on Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry on UK cannabis control; - The Home Secretary David Blunkett's suggestions that cannabis should be reclassified to class C, possession should no longer be an arrest able offence and maximum sentences for possession of cannabis offences should be reduced; - Former Home Secretary Jack Straw's suggestion that we should differentiate between domestic supply and real traffickers [those who trade in large quantities for profit]. - The recent debates in the House of Commons. Clearly this is no longer a valid excuse, if indeed it ever was. 4: Forgive us for stating the obvious here. If Government has not supplied BDC sufficient information to discuss these issues, how on earth can BDC make an informed considered opinion when endorsing government drug control policy [budget] at local level? Furthermore, if BDC Officials feel government has failed to advise Council, why has this not been raised with BDC legal department, local elected representatives, Alan Hurst MP or the Anti-drug industry at Home Office? 5: We are not surprised that only 4% of those responding to a recent survey by BDC were aware of the existence of the Community Safety Strategy. - Not talking about something does nothing towards creating more interest and understanding. UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUES Accepting it would be unreasonable to expect BDC to discuss any issue if they are not aware of the facts., the Legalise Cannabis Alliance and associates have engaged Government to supply this data. [11] Reading this on face value, it would appear to confirm that any change in the law must be done by national governments and there is no remit for BDC to get involved in the debate. As will be shown, below this is a 'misnomer'. Mr Botting goes into great detail on the restriction placed upon Government as signatories to various international agreements and the many arguments against legalisation. However, had he taken the same care in following the discretionary clauses in these agreements to their conclusions it would tell a different story. In paragraph 3, he states: "[...] Among other things, the 1988 Convention requires individual states - subject to their constitutional principles and the basic concepts of their legal systems - to establish the possession of many drugs, including cannabis, as a criminal offence under their domestic law. The states are free, however, to determine what level of sanctions to apply to such an offence in conformity with their domestic law." This is important because it this paragraph that gives the scope for BDC to become involved in the discussions on what changes we can make locally, if any, on future policing decisions for minor infringements of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971: United Nations Drug Control Panel, World Drug Report, New York: Oxford University Press, 1997:185, explains it thus: "...[none of the] three international drug Conventions insist on the establishment of drug consumption per se as a punishable offence. Only the 1988 Convention clearly requires parties to establish as criminal offences under law the possession, purchase or cultivation of controlled drugs for the purpose of non-medical, personal consumption, unless to do so would be contrary to the constitutional principles and basic concepts of their legal system... None of the Conventions requires a party to convict or punish those who commit such offences, even when they have been established as punishable; alternative measures may always substitute for criminal prosecution." LOCAL SOLUTION Having established as a 'misnomer government cannot make changes to there domestic drug control laws - Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; Consider now the alternatives available to Braintree District Council. Essex County Council; Essex DAT and Essex Police. The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 gives a wide degree of discretion to local authorities, police and other statutory bodies how they prioritise enforcement against those found in possession of cannabis in the areas they control. i.e. depending on where you live, what guidelines the Chief Constable issues to his officers and the discretionary powers of the interacting officers, all acts involving cannabis are illegal and punishable by a reprimand through to imprisonment. For example; Brixton police after 'consultations' with the local authority and local community have decided to trial a policy of not arresting people found in possession of small amounts of cannabis. Instead they confiscated the cannabis and given formal written warnings on the spot. A similar idea favoured by The Home Secretary, David Blunkett in his recent evidence to the Home Affairs Select committee on UK Drug Laws. Essex Police Authority policy appears to be that Parliament makes the law and it's the role of Essex Police is to uphold it: At the discretion of the divisional commander or his/her delegated representative (also a police officer) a person found to be in possession of cannabis can arrested and be subject to a caution or a reprimand and warning in the case of a young offender) if: - The person admits the substance was for personal use only. - They agree to be cautioned. - The amount concerned is no more than 3.5gm of cannabis resin or five reefers. - Repeat offending would normally be taken forward. Anyone wishing to explore these threads further we recommend: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]and [9]. Summary - If society is to achieve any success in its effort to control cannabis supply and awareness, we must all keep an eye on what our legislators are doing in our name and continually re-examine our own understanding and attitudes towards drug misuse or abuse. - We must examine the successes and failures and costs of past and present control, in particular: i) Arresting for minor cannabis offences removes police officers from the streets for several hours. ii) Taking a cannabis suspect to court can cost upwards of £400 at the Magistrates £10,000 at crown, iii) Keeping someone in prison costs over £400 week [plus the cost of other benefits to their families] iii) Places an extra burden on Essex Social Service and Essex Probations Service resources - to name but a few. Finally, we must: Address Human Rights issues when making decisions for future local policy because these may very well come back and bite us in the not-to-distant future. - Anyone wishing to follow the later thread for a starter pack should listen to [10] ACTION REQUIRED BDC Community Safety Group must hold meaningful open discussion involving everyone, including those who swear, get drunk and those who have taken or continue to take an illegal drug, to examine the successes, failures and alternatives of their current [proposed] policy anti-drug budgets. Issues to be addressed: - Is BDC Tenancy Agreement compatible with The Human Rights Act? - How many arrests we made for cannabis offences? - How many of these case were taken forward? - What is the overall anti-drug budget for the Essex DAT? - Are these resources used against cannabis possession being used wisely? - Could these resources be better spent in other areas of more concern to the local community? (i.e. allowing the police to spend more money and time on the street tackling local priority crimes). - Should BDC adopt a less expensive and more tolerant local policy for minor cannabis possession and cultivation offences such as: i) - Possession of small amounts of cannabis; ii) - Sharing a joint; iii) - Private premises to being used for smoking cannabis; iv) - Cultivating a few plants for own consumption. v) - Tolerating meeting places where people could socialise with like mind people. vi) - Is drug testing becoming a creeping invasion into private life? [see 2 of 2 to follow separate cover]. vii: - - For how much longer can we afford it? May I conclude by asking you and your colleagues to accept this situation will not go away, no matter how much money is thrown at it. It is within your remit to make a difference. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Don Barnard [Press Liaison Officer] Legalise Cannabis Alliance PO BOX 198 Norwich, NR2 2DE Phone 07940 485115 email: donbarnard@lca-uk.org http://www.lca-uk.org http://www.ukcia.org REFERENCES 1: - CANNABIS, LEGALISE AND UTILISE; A MANIFESTO AND INFORMATION DOCUMENT. ISBN 0 9535693 1 4 http://www.lca-uk.org/mani.htm 2: - TRANSFORM: an organisation who promotes the legalisation of all drugs. http://www.transform-drugs.org.uk 3: - Cannabis Law and Drug Testing - Campaign to Legalise Cannabis. http://www.lca-uk.org/displayitem.php?articleid=576 4: - The Legalise Cannabis Alliance - http://www.lca-uk.org 5: - The UK Cannabis Internet Activists website - http://www.ukcia.org 6: - The Cannabis Campaigners' Guide http://www.ccguide.org.uk 7: - Drugs? Cannabis? It's not a real crime, is it? - A talk by Eddie Ellison at the LCA 2001 Annual Conference. http://www.ukcia.org/newsite/mp3s/EddieEllison.mp3 Eddie retired from the Metropolitan Police in 1993 as Detective Chief Superintendent heading the Crime Policy Unit of Specialist Operations Department at New Scotland Yard. He also spent seven years on the Metropolitan Police Central Drug Squad. 8: - 'Room for Manoeuvre,' an independent enquiry on The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 by Drug Scope: http://www.isdd.co.uk/euro.pdf 9: - Drug Scope's evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee http://www.drugscope.org.uk/druginfo/evidence-select/cannabislegislative.htm 10: - "Our fundamental freedoms - the European Convention", talk by Roger Warren Evens, at the LCA 2001 Annual Conference. http://www.ukcia.org/newsite/mp3s/RogerWarrenEvens.mp3 Roger is a retired Barrister at Law, Member of the Society of Labour Lawyers, Member of LIBERTY Council and a senior manager in construction industry. Further recommended reading: Independent Drug Monitoring Unit [IDMU]: http://www.idmu.co.uk CC:News: http://www.ccnews.org.uk 11: - GOVERNMENT SUMMARY I am replying to your email on behalf of the Action Against Drugs Unit and I will attempt to state clearly the Government's position on the legalisation of cannabis. The Government has no intention of legalising cannabis. Allowing its recreational use would be a breach of our international obligations under two United Nations Conventions, which commit the international community to working together against the illicit drugs trade. These Conventions are the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 and the Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988. The 1961 Convention limits the use of narcotic drugs to medical and scientific purposes only and, in relation to drugs such as cannabis, it prohibits (where prohibition is regarded as the most appropriate means of protecting public health and welfare) the possession and all use of the drug except for scientific and medical research purposes. Among other things, the 1988 Convention requires individual states - subject to their constitutional principles and the basic concepts of their legal systems - to establish the possession of many drugs, including cannabis, as a criminal offence under their domestic law. The states are free, however, to determine what level of sanctions to apply to such an offence in conformity with their domestic law. The Government accepts that prohibition, upon which our drug laws are based, does not prevent drug misuse, but it does help to limit it. It considers that legalisation would inevitably increase consumption - a simple comparison with the number of alcohol and tobacco users is illustrative - and that increased use would significantly add to public health costs. Also, it believes that the law enforcement costs of a regulated market are not inconsiderable. Nobody would suggest that drugs should be available to children, and the experience of alcohol and tobacco mshows that criminal gangs would seek to operate around a taxed and regulated supply. Unless the selling price was very low, an illicit drug market would still exist. Also, children would have greater access to drugs - compare existing controls on tobacco and alcohol which do not prevent access by children. Nor does the Government intend to introduce " cafes" - along the lines of the Dutch coffee shop policy, for example, under which small-scale possession and supply of cannabis remain illegal but the laws are not enforced. This would not only run counter to our international obligations but cannot be a model for the United Kingdom, since our legal system does not allow for the systematic non-enforcement of laws. Also, it is not clear that such a policy would work well even if it were to be introduced. The Dutch experience illustrates not only how difficult it is to restrict the sale of cannabis, including to children, through a licensed source, but also that the semi-legal trade in cannabis in the Netherlands has helped to make that country a safer place for big-time crooks. In short, the Government believes that regulated markets would appear to replace one set of problems with another without necessarily achieving any effective gain. With regard to the medicinal use of cannabis, the Government's position is that it does not believe that doctors should be allowed to prescribe cannabis unless and until the quality, safety and efficacy of a medicinal form have been scientifically established. This would have to be followed by a marketing authorisation, issued by the Medicines Control Agency. It is a procedure that all prospective new medicines must go through and a policy supported by the Multiple Sclerosis Society. The Government welcomes and has encouraged research into the possible medicinal use of cannabis and indeed, as you have noted, the Home Office has licensed a number of laboratory and medical research projects in this area. If these trials into cannabis are successful and the Medicines Control Agency approves the application, a cannabis-based medicinal product could potentially be available in the UK by the middle of 2003. In these circumstances, the Government has made it clear they would be willing to amend the misuse of drugs legislation to permit the prescribing of such a medicine. It would, however, be premature to take such a step before its quality, safety and efficacy have been established. I appreciate your feeling that the state should have no role in the private life of consenting adults. In this respect the Government has the unenviable task of balancing the rights of individuals on the one hand and the greater public health and welfare considerations on the other. That is not to say that the Government is not open to debate on the issues you have raised. On the contrary, the Home Secretary has called for a sane, sensible and informed adult debate and you will readily appreciate that issues of personal freedom and the link between drugs and crime are at its heart. The outcome of this debate cannot be predicted, but whatever change to the law there may eventually be, if any, within the context of our international obligations, will not take place without the most careful consideration of all the issues. The effect on public health and the link between drugs and crime will remain central to the debate and your contribution to it at this time is most welcome. Yours sincerely Malcolm Botting. Action Against Drugs Unit
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!