MEMORANDUM 58
Submitted by Brian Rowland
DECRIMINALISATION
OF DRUGS
I submit this Memorandum to the Select Committee
against a background as a retired police officer who served for
30 years and has been interested in all aspects of the criminal
law touching on police duty for over half a century. From 1969
to 1977 I was Secretary of the Police Superintendents' Association
of England and Wales and was awarded the Queen's Police Medal
for Distinguished Service in the 1977 Birthday Honours List.
I have not been made aware of any terms of reference
that might have been issued and submit this Memorandum solely
on the basis of my personal knowledge and opinions.
I would first of all pose two questions on the
work that is to be undertaken. The first is, are only drugs that
come under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and any allied primary
and delegated legislation to be reviewed by the Committee and
the second is, exactly what is meant by decriminalisation?
I pose the first question because of my concern
about the effects alcohol has on the community which, I would
submit, renders it far more dangerous than drugs covered by the
1971 legislation. Something like 20,000 to 30,000 deaths occur
annually from the effects of alcohol which contrasts quite sharply
against the figures of fatalities arising from drug misuse which
seem to amount to something like 1,000. As far as I can establish
the figures of deaths from both substances are not known for their
degree of accuracy, so I therefore think it essential that the
Select Committee take steps to find out the precise extent of
the fatalities they cause and include the problems associated
with alcohol into their deliberations. It should also bear in
mind the effect alcohol has in matters such as child abuse, violent
crime and road casualties. An added factor is that alcohol and
drugs are frequently used together but somehow seem to become
detached by the police who are prone to deal with such matters
as solely drug-related. This factor, together with diversionary
arrangements that have been developed in recent years to keep
habitual excess alcohol users away from the criminal courts, has
failed to take account of the damage such individuals do to society.
One hears much about the fear of crime but to an elderly person
or a young child a lurching drunken, often foul mouthed, person
under the influence of drink is a very frightening experience.
I would therefore urge the Committee to treat alcohol as a drug
and examine the effect it might have if the more generally accepted
drugs were decriminalised. I would also submit that the majority
of drug issues are linked directly with alcohol abuse. The latter
has somehow become lost in the welter of information that is accorded
to drugs and it is to be deplored.
I now turn to the second question I posed, namely
what exactly is meant by decriminalisation? This word in relation
to drugs first began to feature in any meaningful form in the
mid-1970s and for a great many years appeared to relate to Cannabis.
More recently one has seen the first suggestions that hard drugs
might follow a similar path. No doubt the Committee will be looking
at those issues. In this regard there would appear to be a great
dearth of information about the numbers of people using drugs
of all kinds. If that were not enough there are two other issues
that the Committee might wish to examine, quite apart from alcohol
that I have already mentioned. The first concerns the introduction
of new drugs onto the market. Progress in the pharmaceutical industry
has of necessity to be commercially sensitive and it is only when
an illegal off prescription market opens up for such substances,
or the police become aware through their immediate contact at
such places as public houses or night clubs, that authority is
alerted. There then appears to follow an interminable delay before
secondary legislation is produced to close the gap. Government
must act more quickly when such circumstances come to light but
should also have a permanent body in being whose task should be
to thoroughly examine all possible uses to which a new drug might
be put. If drug users can ascertain such use, it should not be
beyond the wit of scientists and other suitably trained people
to forestall the practices which I believe exist. The second factor
I would wish to draw to the attention of the Committee is the
manner in which drug users are all lumped together as a mass of
common law breakers, whereas the reality is far different. It
is true the law does categorise drugs into classes, but very little
is done to categorise users. There seems no doubt that were this
given greater priority by investigators the detection of offenders
would be much enhanced. Let me, at this stage briefly illustrate
my point, which I will enlarge on later in this Memorandum. As
you will be aware, Heroin and Cocaine are both Class A drugs,
but generally speaking the first named is largely used by the
less intelligent members other community, whereas the latter is
much more likely to be the preferred choice of the better educated.
If this is accepted than all sorts of issues can be deduced. Heroin
users are more likely to be unemployed or in casual employment,
often flitting from one place of residence to another and generally
live a totally disorganised life. They are consequently required
to commit crime to fuel their habit, although again this is an
issue that I will also refer later, whereas Cocaine users will
often be holding down responsible jobs commanding high salaries.
This difference does not seem to have been recognised by the police
who are content to lump all drug users together and as a result
a canteen culture has grown up which has distorted the picture.
Examples of this are the acceptance of the "gateway"
principle that suggests that the taking of Cannabis virtually
automatically leads on to the taking of hard drugs and the wildly
exaggerated figures that are put about regarding the use of hard
drugs. At a time when the police are endeavouring to reduce the
fear of crime they, at the same time suggest that heroin, in particular,
is a major killer. The fact is that deaths resulting from drugs
are about one third of the road casualties in this country. This
is not to say that I approve of drugs, but merely to suggest that
they are a problem that needs to be kept in perspective. Again
the police are not consistent in their attitude to drugs. I have
seen quotes from police officers that a heroin addict needs an
annual income of up to £30,000 to feed his habit but they
then mention hauls of relatively low figures in the local press
as major successes. They also link drugs with crime for the same
reason and this is true to a limited extent, but without doubt
the major reason for committing crime to feed a habit is that
associated with the use of alcohol. In my experience property
crime is rarely committed without the perpetrator being fortified
by an intake of alcohol. It is surely not without significance
that thefts from supermarkets are very often centred around the
alcohol shelves. Again it is my experience that those persons
who use drugs for non-recreational reasons are also heavy users
of alcohol. In addition one may wonder why, if drugs are such
a massive problem when it comes to the commission of property
crime, that so few accused persons are charged with burglary and
drugs possession offences. There are also other issues that the
Committee might like to examine as to how much drug usage is linked
with the commission of crime. I say this because a substantial
proportion of crimes is committed by the young, indeed the very
young, and yet one does not hear of school authorities reporting
a major problem so far as drug abuse by the pupils is concerned.
If drugs are not as big a problem, as I have
suggested, it might properly be asked why do the police make such
accusations as I have mentioned in the previous paragraphs. I
would suggest that the main reason is that membership of a drugs
squad is seen within police circles, and indeed among the general
public, as a form of elite policing. Until quite recently offences
involving Cannabis were a massive proportion of all drug offences
brought before the courts, the vast majority for possessing minute
quantities. Indeed the numbers of offences involving all other
kinds of drugs were just a fraction of those related to Cannabis.
Even with recent changes in attitudes relating to that drug the
position has not altered to any great degree. I am of the view
that this situation has been allowed to continue through lack
of good management. Police resources have been committed largely
because of the "canteen culture" that has grown up around
the drug menace, rather than any determination of the extent of
the problem. In other words without hard evidence, I would, in
support of this argument, make the point that not even the Drugs
Czar was able to obtain any useful information on the number of
persons using the various drugs, largely I would submit for two
reasons. Firstly the amount and type of drug available in the
country cannot be accurately defined. That they are on the increase
is not in doubt because seizures virtually consistently show an
upward trend, but to establish precise quantities is just not
possible. Secondly, and the Committee might feel it is linked
to the first, is that the information supplied by the police is,
to a large extent, based on the amounts of drugs that come into
their hands following the detection of property crime. If one
accepts that the police base their opinions on this premise it
must also be borne in mind that detection rates for such offences
are extremely low, barely reaching double figures in some cases
and virtually never achieving 25 per cent. It follows that even
given the most favourable circumstances, the police have no hard
evidence about whether or not the other 75 per cent minimum are
drug-related. Some undoubtedly are and even if the seizures of
designer drug offences, not usually associated with property crime
because the figures of the latter offences are quite small in
comparison, are added, I would suggest they do not make any significant
difference. There is a real need to attempt some extent of the
whole drug problem by assessing the divisions between the various
users, the type of drugs used and a collation of estimates provided
by the various bodies associated with drugs. Until this is done
I would submit the Committee is going to be hampered in coming
to any rational judgement about decriminalisation.
I now turn to the issues the Committee might
like to consider regarding the problems it is, in my view, going
to encounter in collecting the data that I referred to in the
previous paragraph.
I have lost count of the bodies involved in
dealing with the drug issue. The police and H.M. Customs are obviously
the main enforcement bodies, who, it is generally accepted, only
touch the tip of an iceberg. The steady increase in all aspects
of drug matters dealt with by those two bodies are proof that
such is the case. However, it is when other aspects relating to
endeavours to alleviate drug abuse are considered, that one finds
what I can only describe as a complicated mess. Many public services
are involved, such as Hospital and Mental Health Trusts and local
authorities and the private sector involve many charitable organisations,
some, no doubt, funded in part from public funds. One can only
guess who co-ordinates all of these groups. From my study in this
area I suspect it is very much a hit or miss affair. More importantly
all these disparate bodies must have leaders, administrative officers
and accommodation, which must make for the wasteful expenditure
of both public and private funds as well as money donated to charitable
causes. I will now list two examples that I have discovered in
recent times. On 7th July 1999 two advertisements for Drug Workers
in Worcester appeared in The Guardian. The first was inserted
by the Worcestershire Community Healthcare and the second by Turning
Point, which I understand is a charitable organisation based in
Nottinghamshire. I wrote to both regarding this duplication inviting
an explanation. Not being satisfied by the response I then wrote
to Keith Helliwell about the matter who, having contacted the
Worcester DAT Co-ordinator, thus bringing a third component into
the equation, seemed satisfied that the two groups were operating
satisfactorily. Then on 26 May 2001 two advertisements were placed
on the same page of The Guardian for a Drug Training Co-ordinator,
ostensibly by the West Mercia Constabulary. The wording on the
other hand to describe the post, appeared to have come from the
West Mercia Drugs Net, a partnership comprising the West Mercia
Police, Drug Action Teams and the Drugs Prevention Advisory Service.
It is important to note that the advertisement mentioned the fact
that the partnership had recently been awarded approximately £500,000,
presumably from public funds. I mention this point because of
the duplication factor. The two advertisements were identical
save for two matters. The first being that the type style differed
and the second related to a reference showing H05/07 in one advertisement
and H05/09 in the other. One can only wonder why these two advertisements
were placed, bearing in mind the cost factor and I incline to
the view that there was a lapse of co-ordination between the various
bodies within the partnership that allowed them to be separately
placed without, it must be assumed, prior consultation. The cases
I have highlighted indicate that there seems to be a clear need
to bring all agencies connected with drug matters under a single
head.
I next turn to the need to deal with the referral
of those who require help in dealing with drug and alcohol abuse.
At the moment the number of places available for treatment within
the National Health Service appears to be dismally small and again
I understand that charities assist to some degree. If you find
that decriminalisation is a viable proposition, treatment for
both drug and alcohol abuse has to be available, albeit that the
failure rate might be high, and such treatment facilities should
be brought under the single head I have mentioned above.
Finally I will deal with the matter of drugs
raids by police. It is the custom to carry out such raids at dawn,
with the media often being in attendance. The exception is when
premises are occupied by high profile persons. Such dawn raids
are almost always executed by smashing down doors with purpose
made tools that enable a quick entry to be effective. The reason
for such entry is alleged to be to prevent drugs being hastily
flushed down a convenient toilet to destroy the evidence. The
facts are that such people, particularly heroin users, live in
squalid premises and during the early hours are almost always
suffering the effects of alcohol. I would therefore submit that
in the vast majority of raids such breaking down of doors, thus
creating damage, is unnecessary and that the desired result could
be achieved without the need for such drastic action. I would
therefore submit that when premises are the subject of a raid,
violent entry should only be carried out where there are very
good reasons for such action and that where that is thought necessary,
the reasons should stated on the application for the warrant.
September 2001
|