MPs face double test on legal status of cannabis

IN the 19th century, you could walk into a
pharmacist and buy opium as easily as aspirin
today.

The dispensation of laudanum, especially as a
painkiller, is charted in many Victorian novels.
Queen Victoria used it in tincture form to ease
period pains. It was possible to buy any drug
until early in the last century. But by 1908, curbs
had been introduced on sales of cocaine. In
1912, the International Convention on Opium
limited its manufacture and trade and its sale
was prohibited to unauthorized persons.

The First World War encouraged our political
masters to believe that a popular predilection
for intoxication, through narcotic drugs or
alcohol, must be controlled. The Defense of the
Realm Act 1916 introduced controls on
possessing cocaine and the Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1920 put controls on the importation and
manufacture of cannabis.

In 1928, an international convention on
narcotics, limited the use of drugs such as
morphine and cocaine to medicinal use.
Cannabis, though not a narcotic, was included
in the convention and its possession and
cultivation made illegal. It was not until the
Sixties that possession of LSD and
amphetamines was restricted. By the Seventies,
cannabis was unavailable on prescription.

Today, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 remains
the legal template for defining the social
disapproval and addictive nature of certain
drugs. It introduced three classes of controlled
drugs, with penalties for possession and
trafficking linked to their classification. Class A
includes heroin, ecstasy, LSD and cocaine;
Class B cannabis and amphetamines; and Class
C anabolic steroids.

The Runciman committee that reported this
week after a two year investigation into drugs
laws said cannabis was less harmful than
alcohol or tobacco. Sir Bernard Williams, the
philosopher, who took part in the review, said
that if it had included the two legal "drugs",
alcohol would be Class A and tobacco Class B.
Cannabis would be Class C.

The Runciman report: "Cannabis is not a
harmless drug: there are physical and
psychological risks to the individual from
regular, long-term cannabis use and there are
dangers to others from the impairment to motor
and cognitive functioning from intoxication. But
by many of the main criteria of harm - mortality,
morbidity, toxicity, addictiveness and
relationship with crime - it is less harmful to the
individual and society than any of the other
major illicit drugs, or than alcohol and tobacco.
The present law on cannabis produces more
harm than it prevents."

The committee wanted to "depenalize" the
possession of cannabis. It would no longer be
an offense punishable by imprisonment, though
few, in practice, are sent to jail. Possession
would still be a crime, but punishable by
cautions, fines or warnings. Possession would
no longer be an arrestable offense. The police
said this could hinder their investigations of
other crime.

The committee said the balance of advantage
was in favor of reducing cannabis possession
at least to a misdemeanor because the law
was "very expensive of the time and resources
of the criminal justice system and especially of
the police". The report said: "It inevitably bears
more heavily on the young people on the streets
of inner cities, who are also more likely to be
from minority ethnic communities, and as such
is inimical to police community relations. It
criminalizes large numbers of otherwise
law-abiding, mainly young people, to the
detriment of their future."

Would not the effective removal of cannabis
from the criminal law send the wrong message
to young people who might be drawn to a life of
drug taking? The committee said: "The most
dangerous message of all is that all drugs are
equally dangerous. When young people know
from their own experience that part of the
message is either exaggerated or untrue, there
is a serious risk that they will discount all of the
rest."

The report proposed reducing the penalties for
possession of ecstasy and LSD and for tougher
action against traffickers, but cannabis use was
its main concern. The logic of the report was
that cannabis should be legalized. But, apart
from suggesting medicinal use without penalty,
the committee avoided this recommendation.

Lady Runciman said it was circumscribed by
international conventions preventing
signatories from legalizing banned drugs. But
there was scope, as in Holland, for keeping
cannabis illegal while creating a regulated
market for small scale supply. The report
ducked the biggest question: would the
appalling levels of criminality surrounding the
supply of narcotic drugs be eradicated if they
were legal?