|
You
are in Research CPRU
at the ACPO Drugs ConferenceAssociation
of Chief Police Officers [ACPO] Drugs Conference [Blackpool] Speech
given By Ms Tiggy May, on 5th September 2002 Tiggy
is a Member of the Criminal Policy Research Unit [CPRU] at South Bank University
who recently ran a research project on the methods of policing of cannabis funded
by the Joseph Rowntree Trust. This
study was the first study of its kind examining the police force's attitude to
current legislation, their thoughts on cannabis, how cannabis is discovered ,
and their decision making processes once it is discovered. It was undertaken at
a time of intense media and political interest. We had three main aims, we wanted
to provide a snapshot view of the policing of cannabis, to examine the relationship
between government policy and police practice and to assess how that policy and
practice effects the individual and the community. The methodology was multi-faceted.
At a national level, we had several synthesized published statistics for England
and Wales that related to offences covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Home
office provided us with a random sample of 30 000 offenders on the police national
computer data base, known to have cautions or convictions for any offence since
1998. Of this sample. 10% had caution or conviction for a cannabis possession
offence. We examined their previous offending history and current offences, and
basic demographic information on them We
also did a secondary analysis on the 2000 British crime survey, to examine peoples
experience of being stopped and searched and their confidence in the police. We
then looked in more detail at eight forces, and collected statistics on stop and
search and drug offences, and also asked any of them to provide any policies relating
to cannabis. In order to get more detail, we looked in two force areas, and These
involved 90 observations of operational officers, nearly all of which we conducted
between 10 in the evening and seven in the morning. The observations entailed
sitting in the back of a police car and attending every call the officers answered,
following them around. We also interviewed 150 police officers and analyzed 30
000 custody records from the year 2000. We then interviewed 61 young people from
the four detailed case study sites and finally we developed some crude estimates
of the cost of policing cannabis. employing cost effective analysis. Before I
look at the research I shall first briefly outline the various twists and turns
that the cannabis debate has taken. In
February 2000 the Police Foundation published a report and suggested that cannabis
ought to be reclassified. Jack Straw and Tony Blair announced that there would
no change and rejected many of the recommendations, That October, Ann Widdicombe
decided to get tough , and suggested ed on -the- spot £100 fines, for those
found in possession. However around election time, Peter Lilley decided to go
soft on cannabis, as did Michael Portillo. In 2001 the Lambeth experiment was
announced, and welcomed by many commentators. In October David Blunkett started
to reconsider and asked the AMCD for their advice When the report was published,
they recommended, not for the first time, to reclassify cannabis. In July David
Blunkett announced his plan which shocked most onlookers, He said that he intended
to reclassify cannabis, but would consider retaining power of arrest in certain
aggravating circumstances, and at the same time he would also increase the maximum
sentence for supplying cannabis to fourteen years. It was at this point that the
backlash started. The tabloid press turned sour, there was hysteria about drugs
and crime, The Daily Mail ran a banner headline just after his announcement, stating
that muggings were up 28% - Guess where its worse, drug infested Lambeth! The
Lambeth experiment was reconstructed as a failure, 'Commander Crackpot' ran the
tabloid headline. 'Read about this girls cannabis nightmare Mr. Blunkett and rethink
your drugs policy.' The Tories suddenly went very quiet about legalisation. Finally
Keith Halliwell decided to have a change of heart. telling the Home Secretary
that reclassification was sending out the wrong messages. What we were left with
was just total confusion. So
what is happening? During
this intense interest, we conducted our research, one of the things that is amiss
is that many people believe that there are few cannabis offences passing through
the system. In fact just under one in seven people passing through the system
in1999 did so because of cannabis offences. Since 1974 there has been a ten fold
increase in cannabis possession offences. For all other offences there has been
an increase of about a quarter in the same period. So
how does cannabis come to light? It comes to light in a variety of ways. A lot
of officers told us that it is often the by product of the investigation of other
offences. and many believe that this is the most common route. It is in fact untrue.
75 % of the possession arrests in 1999 were just for simple possession. Most cannabis
offences do in fact come to light through stop and search. But for many the search
is not initiated for cannabis, but cannabis is stumbled across . Officers often
encounter obvious and unavoidable evidence of cannabis use, we observed several
incidences of this during our field work. some resulted in an arrest, others were
totally ignored, and some were informally disposed of. During our interviews with
officers, we asked if they had ever, at any point their careers, disposed of cannabis
informally. 69% stated that they had. However the reasons for doing so were not
always associated with what is commonly referred to as 'passing the attitude test'.
Officers often made their decisions on the basis of the amount that somebody is
found with. or whether the individual had previously had contact with the criminal
justice system, and the operational pressures on the shift at that particular
time. And finally we wanted to look at whether cannabis possession offences were
intended strategy or tactic targeted. We found no evidence that senior police
managers had adopted this strategy at a local level. We did however find that
individual officers sometimes targeted cannabis users to make possession arrests.
Our analysis of the 30 000 custody records showed that 3% of officers accounted
for 20% of all arrests. Clearly stating that there are some specialists. So what
do police officers do when they decide to arrest an individual, to caution or
charge? In some degrees it is taken out of their hands, but in 1999 around 58%
of individuals arrested for cannabis possession were cautioned, However there
were large variations across noted across force areas. Caution rates varied from
40% in Thames Valley to 72% in Avon and Somerset. There is however different interpretations
of the data,. A low arrest rate indicating the low priority attached to the offence,
although cannabis use is lower than elsewhere a low caution rate could also indicate
a tough policy at a local level. However whatever the explanation, this disparity
is not supported and this therefore suggests that consistency of approach is not
being applied. This
inconsistency does not stop with policing, it carries on to court disposals. Nationally,
42% of individuals arrested for cannabis offences were dealt with at court. Fine
rates vary from 42% in Avon and Somerset to 70% in the Met. imprison rates also
vary. Nottinghamshire imprisoned 10% of those appearing in court for cannabis
possession offences, the MDF 32% it should however be noted that imprisonment
for cannabis only offences are rare, it usually only occurs when concurrent offences
are present. So
What do police officers think? Three quarters of the officers that we interviewed
felt that the present legislation criminalises individuals who would not other
wise come into contact with them. Often this matter alone prompted officers to
dispose of cannabis offences informally. and suggests that many officers do not
hold the view that those caught in possession are criminally active with other
offences. Just under half of them felt that cannabis possession regulations damage
the relationship with the community they police, and this is a worry to many officers
that we spoke to. over half were in favour of reclassification. to class C, and
just under half were in favour of decriminalisation. We also asked officers to
rank all drugs in terms of harm. Just under 2/3 see cannabis as being not very
harmful or not at all harmful. When looking at all drugs, both officers and young
people we interviewed shared similar views on the harmfulness of class A and Class
B and legal substances. Just under 3/4 felt that the current legislation needs
to be updated to reflect attitudes towards the drug. They believe that attitudes
to cannabis have changed considerably, since the '71 Act, and that legislation
needs to reflect this to try to send out a clear message based on harm. Power
of arrest `However
we wanted also to look at the benefits of retaining the power of arrest . There
were three points which were often mentioned to us while conducting our field
work as to why cannabis should remain both a class B drug, and why power of arrest
should remain if the Home Secretary decides to reclassify. Often it was said to
us that cannabis possession can lead onto the detection other more serious offences,.
Doubtless some serious arrests are detected as a result a arrests for cannabis,
However an analysis of some 30 000 custody records, identified 857 primary cannabis
offences in 82 cases another arrest followed. However in only eleven cases was
the offence a serious arrestable offence. In short, secondary detections arising
from cannabis arrests are rare. We also questioned the reasons for retaining the
offence on the statute book, or retaining the power of arrest purely for the purpose
of possibly uncovering other offences, Another reason given to us by officers
for retaining cannabis as a class B drug, was that it would reduce the tendency
of individual trying a class A drug. Informed opinion is skeptical about this
theory. Drugscope, in their evidence to the Home Affairs select committee concluded
that. The Theory is a redundant staple and lacking in any real evidence base.
The stepping stone theory has been dismissed by scientific enquiry and research. The
notion that cannabis use causes further harmful drug use has been and should be
comprehensively rejected. The last point that officers pointed out to us was that
cannabis remaining a class B drug would help to curb the extent of drug driving,.
This has become a relatively submerged issue in the cannabis debate, but it is
a serious issue and one that the Govt. should not ignore. Unfortunately we can
offer no evidence from our current study, but we do firmly believe that the government
should issue and awareness campaign, similar to that of drink driving. Social
costs of policing cannabis Policing
cannabis does have the potential to bring individuals into adversarial contact
with the police. With three million current users, the issue needs to be addressed.,
If the laws which the police most frequently enforce are regarded by the police
as unreasonable and unnecessary, It is unlikely that police power will be regarded
as legitimate. The erosion of legitimacy can only be a bad thing for the police
trying to do a particularly hard job. A number of studies have concluded that
contact with the police through cannabis can have a negative influence on young
peoples confidence in the police. This would perhaps be one of the benefits of
reclassification and the removal of power of arrest would achieve. The removal
of some of the friction that currently prevents better and more co-operative police
- community relationships. So
how do we get reclassification right and send out the right message ? The Home
Secretary needs to adopt strategies that ensure greater differentiation between
those drugs that are very harmful and those that are less harmful. We need to
drive a wedge between class A and class C markets. The tougher the enforcement
action against offences of cannabis supply, The more the group of persons that
heed that harm will be deterred from selling, thus leaving the cannabis markets
to criminal entrepreneurs, who sell a variety of drugs including crack and heroin.
Is it perhaps an idea that we could have greater toleration of personal cultivation?
If one wanted to drive a wedge between the markets this could be a perfect opportunity
to pilot some ideas. A personal allowance for a small number of plants, say three
could be tolerated., above that you would have power of arrest. Thus allowing
cannabis users to not come into contact with those selling class A drugs. But
more importantly we need to send out proper and clear harm reduction messages,
this has to be the education department and the health service. Young people need
to know that cannabis is harmful - and we need to tackle drug driving How
to deal with possession? We
need to minimise bureaucracy If the current system is replaced by one that increases
bureaucracy, it will aggravate operational police officers and will in the end
prove unworkable. We need to avoid neck biting, but aggravating factors if they
are not supplemented by sound pragmatic guidelines from ACPO, This could in fact
happen. And there is the chance of saving money, At present, the total cost of
policing drug offences is £516 million. Cannabis takes up a possible £350
million of this budget, or 500 police officers full time, or 1/2 % of the police
budget, We also need to have effective confiscation procedures, to protect both
officers and those caught in possession of cannabis. We need to have something
in place for repeat offenders, and the logic of warning. There needs to be clear
guidance from ACPO, and though I have read recently what the papers have said,
until this affair is actually ratified by ACPO it would be foolish to comment
upon them. However repeatedly issuing warnings devalues their currency, and it
would appear sensible to set a limit. To have no consequence at all is to have
no warning at all. Finally,
lets just take a quick look at Europe. Switzerland proposes legalisation, Portugal
already has a system of decriminalisation in place. The Dutch have has success
in driving the class A and class B markets apart. In Spain and Italy it is a health
and education issue, they have effectively decriminalised cannabis possession.
What we need to do is to help politicians keep their nerve, we need to avoid making
decisions on what the tabloid press print, or indeed ill informed commentators.
What police officers should demand is a clear commitment from both the health
dept the education department and also ACPO to issue clear guidelines so that
young people have a clear message about what harm cannabis causes. Thank
you The
CPRU report titled: 'The Times They Are A Changing: Policing Of Cannabis' by T.
May, H. Warburton, P. Turnbull M . Hough is available from the publisher: York
Publishing Services
64 Hallfield Rd
Layerthorpe
York
YO317ZQ (
Tel: 01904 431213) price
£13. 95 [plus £2 p&p ]= £15.95
|
