Expert Reports

From 'Potology' ISBN 0 9520082 1 1 ... a 70 page A4 softback about cannabis published by the Manchester 'Lifeline' Drugs Agency "Telling the Truth, About Drugs." GBP 6.95 'Adults Only'

p.62 and on ... "Recent Expert Reports"

A report by the Royal College of Psychiatrists' Special Committee on Drugs (Drugs Scenes) in 1988 concluded that:

"there are limits to what laws can achieve and there are social costs as well as social benefits to legal enforcement.. any slide toward greater criminalisation and harsher penalties imposed only for wishful and symbolic reasons should be resisted".

In 1989, the EEC-funded Drug Policy Review Group (DPRG), and expert body of academics and professionals in the UK drugs field, produced a report overviewing aspects of drug policy in the UK and the Netherlands, followed by a second report in 1990 focusing on the social and economic costs. The first report concluded that the Dutch drug policy, particularly the de facto decriminalisation of cannabis, was more effective than the British policy, which took a harder line; and that the best strategy toward drug consumers is to "prioritise health-care, social assistance and educational approaches". The second report concludes that the estimated identifiable costs of responding to all drug misuse in the UK in 1988 were about GBP 2,000 million (of which 80% is the replacement of goods stolen to fund drug habits), with the cost to the government being GBP 350 million a year. It was concluded that:

"if Dutch style policies were applied in the UK to the same effect, the cost of law enforcement and drug related crime would fall dramatically", and that there were substantial advantages to the "legalisation of cannabis ... and relaxing the law as it applies to possession".

A resolution supporting drug policy reforms at city level was endorsed by four of the five delegations attending the First International Conference of European Cities at the Centre of Illegal Trade in Drugs in Frankfurt in 1991 (i.e. Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Hamburg and Zurich). The agreement includes a recommendation to legalise possession of up to 30 grams of cannabis for personal use. According to the local press, the Merseyside delegation, the only representatives not to endorse the Resolution, experienced a split in the ranks, with five of the six delegates leaving the conference early in protest.

The EEC's Committee of Enquiry on Drug Trafficking in 1991 concluded that "drug addiction and drug misuse should primarily be treated as a subject of health and welfare and not as one of police and justice. Possessing illicit drugs in small quantities for personal use should not be considered as a criminal offence".

Around the same time The South Australian Commission on the Non Medical Use of Drugs called for the abolition of the crime of drug possession, since this can be implemented relatively easily without breaching UN conventions on psychoactive drugs.

In 1991, the prestigious Justice committee (British Section of the International Commission of Jurists) - comprised of lawyers, police officers and psychiatrists - produced a report recommending that cannabis offences should be depenalized, and calling for a distinction between supply for commercial gain and supply for social reasons (eg. passing a joint). Justice recommended that cannabis be moved from Class B to Class C of the Misuse of Drugs Act, reducing maximum penalties to five years for trafficking offences and two years for possession. However, since possession of Class C drugs is a non-arrestable offence under the Police and Criminal Evidence act (1984), this would mean that the police would be unable to arrest someone in possession of cannabis unless that have reasons to believe that the name and address given are false, and that patrolling officers would have to carry materials and equipment to seal confiscated cannabis into exhibit bags at the site of the incident. Consequently, following internal disputes, it was concluded that cannabis possession should remain an arrestable offence, and that a special provision should be made to retain the power of arrest for cannabis offences.