News
Home Office forced to release suppressed Drugs Classification Review from 2006
Drug Equality Alliance Press Release
(12th July 2010)
The Home Office has been compelled to disclose a
previously suppressed draft consultation paper containing
suggestions for a review of the drug classification system. The
2006 review was finally released after three years of stubborn
Government resistance to a Freedom of Information request
submitted by Casey Hardison, acting with the Drug Equality
Alliance. On 9th July 2010 the Government finally
threw in the towel and released its controversial Review of
the UK's Drugs Classification system - a Public Consultation.
Section 6 of the report reveals the reasons for its suppression:
in paragraphs 6.8 to 6.11, the Government admits illogical
differences in treatment between the freedoms granted to users
of the lethal and addictive drugs alcohol and tobacco, versus
the criminalization of users of much less harmful drugs such as
cannabis, LSD and Ecstasy.
This echoes the October 2009 revelation by the former Chair of
the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, Professor David
Nutt, that alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than cannabis,
ecstasy and LSD. It will be recalled that this was the reason
Professor Nutt was fired by Home Secretary Alan Johnson, but
prior to this the Government had admitted as much in Paragraph
6.8 of the 2006 review:
"… alcohol and tobacco account for more health problems and deaths than illicit drugs. To many young people this presents problems in understanding the rationale behind controlling drugs such as cannabis and ecstasy when their misuse contributes less overall harm to society than widely available drugs such as alcohol and tobacco."
The embarrassing admissions contained in 6.8 to 6.11 of the
report, when considered along with the dateline of the report,
May 2006, leads one to question whether this was the real reason
Charles Clarke was sacked on May 5th.
Alcohol and Tobacco
At paragraph 6.10, the Report suggests the inclusion of alcohol
and tobacco in the drugs classification system to provide a more
structured and transparent system. However, the Government
rejected any consistency in drugs policy which included the
drugs alcohol and tobacco in the mistaken belief that the Misuse
of Drugs Act provides only for prohibition, and that the
prohibition of alcohol and tobacco would be culturally
'unacceptable'. However, a reading of the Misuse of Drugs Act
demonstrates this belief to be false because the Act provides
for a full spectrum of controls short of prohibition under
Sections 7, 22 and 31. The Act includes the power to authorise
the licensed supply, sale, transport, manufacture, etc. of
controlled drugs for non-medical and non-scientific use
purposes, ie. so-called recreational, sacramental and
self-healing uses.
But official ignorance of these centrally important sections of
the Misuse of Drugs Act leads to a 'policy of prohibition',
which gives rise to the legally false concept that 'drugs' are
'illegal'; indeed, under the Act there are no such things as
'legal' or 'illegal' drugs. Drugs are either 'controlled' under
the Act or they are not. With respect to the title of section 6
of the report: Legal and Socially Accepted Substances, it is
plain that the Government does not understand the Misuse of
Drugs Act.
"Policy of Prohibition"
Paragraph 6.11 of the Review reveals the depth of Government
ignorance:
"…most people would not want to see the drugs classification system as a mechanism for regulating legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco."
The Government falsely believes that control equals prohibition,
and further, the sentence above demonstrates the Government even
equates 'regulation' with 'prohibition'. However, the licensed
sales of alcohol and tobacco to over-18s are indeed 'controls'
applied to 'drugs', for which the Misuse of Drugs Act makes
explicit provision. Were such controls imposed on alcohol and
tobacco, most would be unaware that they were included under the
Misuse of Drugs Act, because little would change. Paragraph 6.11
continues:
"If applied to legal as well as illegal substances, this would conflict with deeply embedded historical tradition and tolerance of consumption of a number of substances that alter mental functioning."The Government admits its refusal to apply controls to alcohol and tobacco for reasons of culture and tradition and not for correct legal reasons. But the Misuse of Drugs Act is a neutral Act of Parliament which must be applied generally. It must not be legally distorted to afford unequal treatment to persons identically situated; such as people with interests in equally or less harmful drugs. However, this newly released report shows that to be exactly how it is administered by Government: arbitrarily and unequally.
Due to these egregious legal errors in the Government's understanding of the Misuse of Drugs Act, the Government refuses to guarantee equality before the law. As a result, at least one in ten people in the United Kingdom are routinely threatened with criminal sanctions, the loss of property, the denial of civil rights and arbitrary imprisonment.
Currently, over ten thousand UK citizens are in prison for peaceful activities involving less harmful drugs than tobacco and alcohol.
Download the documents below:
Cover letter (PDF)
Review of the UK’s Drugs Classification System - a Public Consultation (PDF)
