In the UK, more than a third of the population have taken cannabis by their mid twenties, [33] at least 80% of all drug users have taken it [34] and an estimated three million people smoke it at least once each year. [35] The National Audit Office estimates that casual cannabis users spend £100 per year on the drug, and heavy users spend £600 - equivalent to the cost of about half a bottle of moderately priced wine a day.
We identified key areas of concern as:
Cannabis possession
Cannabis possession accounts for a large majority of drug-related offences, and we have become convinced that the time of the police and the courts could be better spent tackling the problems of harder drugs, which are more associated with anti-social behaviour.
Home Office figures for 1996 show that of the 95,000 people found guilty of drug-related offences, or who were cautioned or otherwise dealt with by the police without being prosecuted, 77% had committed offences involving cannabis. Ninety per cent of these cases involved possession. The proportion of drug-related offences involving cannabis is high every year, accounting for around 80-90% of all drug offences. Fifty-seven per cent of those caught in possession of cannabis are under 25 years old, with 24% aged 17-21. We are extremely concerned that the criminalisation of young people, who may be otherwise law-abiding, may affect their future chances of employment.
The sheer number of cannabis offences has also placed a huge strain on police resources. It has become the policy of many forces in England and Wales to caution first-time offenders found in possession of a small amount of cannabis (or of some other drugs) for personal use - a form of unofficial decriminalisation. [36] Between 1986 and 1995, cautions for the possession of cannabis increased ninefold, whereas the number of prosecutions for the same offence doubled. During the same period, cautions for the unlawful supply of cannabis increased tenfold, whereas prosecutions doubled.
But the use of cautions is not uniform across the country. In 1996, police in London and the West Midlands cautioned 50-70% of drug offenders. In Dorset, the figure was 30%; in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, over 70%. [37] As Paul Flynn, Labour MP for Newport West, told us, this is 'justice by postcode'.
Paul Flynn is a well-known supporter of the decriminalisation of cannabis, on both medical and social grounds. He argued to us that cannabis prohibition increases the use of hard drugs because both cannabis and hard drugs are often sold by the same dealers or in the same places.
Despite many requests, the government - which opposes decriminalisation - was not willing to nominate any minister to talk to us. However, we did also take evidence from Phil Woolas, Labour MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth, who argued against decriminalisation on the grounds that it would create a 'drug culture', and that cannabis is addictive and people steal to pay for it. However, not one of the police officers we spoke to - who included the head of the drugs unit in Mr Woolas's constituency - agreed that cannabis is linked to theft.
All of the police officers we spoke to were none the less against the decriminalisation of cannabis. Some believed it was a 'gateway' drug. Most believed that although the decriminalisation of any drugs might remove some existing problems, there would always be new problems and new drugs that young people would use. This same argument was put forward by Keith Hellawell, the 'Drug Tsar', when he launched the white paper on drugs. Detective Inspector Ian Robinson of the Thames Valley Police fiercely argued against relaxing the laws on cannabis, and instead suggested more restrictions on alcohol and tobacco.
Ultimately we felt that these arguments failed to address the serious issues that surround cannabis.
Is cannabis a safe drug?
We were uncertain about the safety of cannabis, and sought as much information as possible to help judge whether health risks justified its prohibition. The most important psychoactive ingredient in cannabis is a tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which acts on brain receptors to produce effects including a heightened appreciation of sensory experiences, talkativeness, and a state of relaxation or drowsiness. Some users report temporary mild paranoia, anxiety or feelings of panic, but it is common for those who experience adverse effects to stop using the drug.
Several of us noted the World Health Organisation report on cannabis recommended that it should remain illegal on the grounds that it damages health, although no more than alcohol and tobacco do. [38] On the other hand, in 1995 the medical journal The Lancet concluded that 'the smoking of cannabis, even in the long term, is not harmful to health'. [39]
Long-term risks are primarily associated with the fact that the drug is smoked. It is difficult to distinguish between the long-term physical effects of cannabis and those of tobacco, with which it is often mixed. However, cannabis smoking is associated with respiratory problems such as bronchitis, [40] and there have been links made between cannabis and some cancers, even among young people. [41] These problems have been attributed to high levels of tar and carcinogens in cannabis. However, many of these studies have been disputed. [42]
In addition to possible physical risks, there is evidence that long-term cannabis use may cause psychological harm, aggravating schizophrenia in predisposed patients, for example. [43] In addition, several studies have found that cannabis causes short-term memory impairment. [44, 45]
Although we accept that cannabis may affect health, we believe that its dangers have been grossly overstated. We are mindful of the fact that many people use cannabis for years without major problems, and that there has never been a death from overdose or for which cannabis was the sole attributable cause.
It is clear to us that cannabis research is all too often partisan and agenda-led, and we feel that perhaps no amount of research is likely to satisfy either side of the debate.
The gateway theory
It is argued that that cannabis is a 'gateway' or 'stepping stone' to hard drugs such as heroin. This theory is supported by a study which reported that cannabis produces biochemical neural changes that prime brain receptors for harder drugs [46]
Harry Shapiro of the Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence suggested that the gateway argument is valid in that people might get habituated to using substances to alter their state or mood, making them more open to trying other drugs. However, he also observed that if cannabis was indeed a gateway drug, considering its widespread use it is very surprising we do not have an even greater heroin problem in this country than we do. Only 1% of people have used heroin, compared to 36% who have used cannabis. [47] Others argue that the real gateway drugs are alcohol and tobacco.
Both Dr Avril Taylor of the Scottish Centre for Infection & Environmental Health, and Dr Phil Robson consultant psychiatrist at the Chiltern Clinic, Oxford, told us that almost all addicts they have met had used cannabis. However, both stressed that they did not believe that cannabis is a gateway any more than are alcohol or tobacco. The vast majority of people who use cannabis do not go on to try amphetamines, ecstasy, LSD, poppers or magic mushrooms. Even fewer go on to heroin or crack cocaine. We met a couple who did not drink but had smoked cannabis all their adult lives without moving onto other drugs.
Separating markets:
the Dutch system
Paul Flynn's belief that it is the very illegality of cannabis that may make it a gateway drug - because it is sold in the same illegal market - is widely accepted in The Netherlands and has strongly influenced Dutch policy.
Commission members visited The Netherlands and spoke to Mr Schelto Patyn, the mayor of Amsterdam; Mr Gerhard Van Hoeven, a police chief commissioner; and Mr Gerrit Goedhart, the Chairman of the Amsterdam branch of the right-wing Christian Democratic Party. Nationally, this party opposes government policy on cannabis, but in Amsterdam the local party is supportive of it, arguing that a change would worsen the drug problem. Members of the commission also met with academics, with Mr Arjan Roskam, the owner of several 'coffee shops' in Amsterdam licensed to sell cannabis, as well as with senior clinicians from the Jellinek Clinic, which specialises in addiction problems.
The guiding principle behind Dutch drug policy is pragmatism and harm reduction. Its primary strategy is to reduce hard drug use by separating the sale of cannabis from the sale of hard drugs. Though the 1961 UN Single Convention on Drugs prevents The Netherlands from legalising cannabis, adults (over the age of 18) can buy the drug in small quantities from coffee shops regulated and monitored by local councils. Recently the saleable quantity has been reduced from 30g to 5g in response to criticisms from border countries that 'drug tourists' were taking cannabis back home. Another recent development is that dual licences to sell cannabis and alcohol are no longer being issued to coffee shops. This is designed to reduce the nuisance to local people and limit the number of coffee shops in any one area.
As cannabis remains officially illegal in The Netherlands, the wholesale production and supply of the drug is still controlled by criminal syndicates. Cannabis resin from Morocco or India is imported illegally. Arjan Roskam, the coffee shop owner we spoke to, said that this presents some problems, although there is now much more domestically produced cannabis ('Nederweed' or 'skunk'), often grown by single parents to supplement their income. Such people may grow up to a hundred plants, reaping a harvest every three months worth around £4,000.
All drugs other than cannabis are considered 'hard' in The Netherlands. Possession of hard drugs carries a one-year sentence and a fine, and possession of tradable quantities of hard drugs carries a 12-year sentence. This system enables law enforcement agencies to focus resources on drug trafficking and organised crime at the top of the chain rather than catching users at the bottom.
Effects of Dutch policy
The Dutch believe their system has been successful in breaking the connection between cannabis and other drugs. In Amsterdam, the average age of hard drug addicts is rising, an indication that fewer younger people are moving into hard drug taking. The average age of notified heroin addicts in 1995 was just over 36, more than ten years older than in the UK. Moreover, the average in Amsterdam has increased by about a year in each year since then.
References:
33 British Crime Survey (1996)
34 Drug Usage and Drugs Prevention: The views and habits of the general public, Leitner et al (Home Office 1993)
35 Drug Realities, , Leitner et al (Health Education Authority 1996)
36 Home Office Statistical Bulletin, , number 50 (October 1998)
37 Ibid
38 Cannabis: A health perspective and research agenda, (World Health Organisation 1997)
39 'Deglamourising Cannabis', The Lancet, volume 346, number 8985 (November 1995), page 1241
40 Drug Abuse Briefing, (Institute for the Study of Drug Dependency, sixth edition 1996)
41 'The Wonder Drug?', J Johnston, The Big Issue , (October 1994)
42 Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A review of the scientific evidence, , L Zimmer and J Morgan (Lindesmith Centre 1997)
43 'Cannabis and Schizophrenia: A Longitudinal Study of Swedish Conscripts', Andreasson et al, The Lancet volume 2, number 8574 (December 1987), pages 1483-85
44 The Health and Psychological Consequences of Cannabis Use, Hall et al (Australian Government Publishing Service 1994)
45 'The Influence of Marijuana on Storage and Retrieval Processes in Memory', CF Darley, Memory and Cognition number 1 (1973), pages 196-200
46 'Marijuana: Harder than Thought', Ingrid Wickelman, Science volume 276 (27 June 1997), pages 1967-8
47 British Crime Survey (1996)