Independent Inquiry Into the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Drugs and the Law REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO THE MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1971 Chairman: Viscountess Runciman DBE i Drugs and the Law Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 Report of an independent inquiry established by The Police Foundation, 1 Glyn Street, Vauxhall, London SE11 5RA. Copyright 2000: The Police Foundation All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or otherwise, without the prior permission of The Police Foundation. ISBN 0 947692 47 9 Information about this inquiry and information about how to obtain the report are available from: The Secretary Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 1 Glyn Street Vauxhall London SE11 5RA Telephone: 020 7582 3744 Facsimile: 020 7587 0671 ii Preface Origin and remit of Inquiry We were set up in August 1997 by The Police Foundation, with the assistance of the Prince’s Trust, to review the effectiveness of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Our report follows. Our membership and terms of reference are set out at Appendices 1 and 2 respectively. We were assisted in our work by many organisations and individuals and we gratefully acknowledge here our indebtedness to all those who helped and supported us. Further details of this and of our programme of work are given in Appendices 3,4 and 6. iii iv Acknowledgements We are glad to be able to record our gratitude for the help and support which we have received in the course of this Inquiry. Our greatest debt is to the Trustees, Director and staff of the Police Foundation. They conceived the idea, raised the resources, and ensured our independence. The Foundation’s support has been central to our work. We have also benefited from the assistance which we have received from the Prince’s Trust, especially during the Inquiry’s early stages. Several Trusts made grants towards the Inquiry’s work. They were the Peacock Trust, Esmée Fairbairn Charitable Trust, Minerva plc, The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, The Prince’s Trust, The Pilgrim Trust, The Hayward Trust, The Wates Foundation and The Tompkins Foundation. The substantial financial help which we received from them underpinned the entire Inquiry and enabled us to commission research and seek evidence which would not otherwise have been available to us and which played an important part in informing our decisions. At most of our meetings we were privileged to be able to discuss the many complex issues involved with some of the foremost experts and professionals in their field. We list them at Appendix 3. We were also greatly helped by those individuals and organisations who responded to our request for written evidence. They are listed at Appendix 4. We held meetings with three groups of young people in different parts of London. Our thanks go those who facilitated our discussions with them, which were very illuminating and instructive. We have not named the young people we met or the organisations which enabled us to do so. We owe much to the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, who provided us with data additional to the published statistics which placed extra demands on them in their already demanding timetable. The Home Office Action Against Drugs Unit enabled us to attend a seminar on drugs issues addressed by Professor Mark Kleiman of the University of California at Los Angeles. They also responded unfailingly to our many requests for information. We appreciate the sanction given to this work by both Permanent Under Secretaries of State during the period of our Inquiry. We are also much indebted to the Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport whose representative, Mr. A. D. J. Keizer, answered innumerable queries as well as coming over to discuss Dutch policy with us together with a colleague, Mr. Ed Leuw, from the Netherlands Ministry of Justice. We are very grateful to them both. We have kept in touch informally with the progress of the working party on Drug Misuse and Public Policy set up by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Physicians, who also arranged a joint seminar addressed by Professor Peter Reuter of the University of Maryland. We greatly appreciated the cooperation of the working party and the Chairman, Dr.Robert Kendell. The Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence (ISDD) conducted a study for us of the legal position in six European Union member states, France, Germany, Italy, v Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden. The resulting report, edited by Nicholas Dorn and Alison Jamieson, brings together and synthesises contributions from six national legal experts from the countries concerned. It has proved invaluable in enabling us to understand other countries’ approaches to the same problems that we face and to appreciate the differing ways in which it is possible to implement the international conventions that apply to all of them. We are most grateful to the editors and the national experts for producing it. We were able to survey the attitudes of schoolchildren and adults to drugs through two surveys conducted on our behalf by Market and Opinion Research International (MORI). We discuss the main findings in Chapter Two of our report. We gladly record the unfailing assistance of MORI’s researchers in this enterprise, which covered ground that had not been explored before. We asked Professor Howard Parker of Manchester University to produce for us a submission explaining, on the basis of published and some unpublished research, how young people make decisions about whether or not to try or use one or more of the illicit drugs. His submission has proved an essential introduction to this crucial topic. Professor Michael Levi of Cardiff University prepared for us an overview of financial measures such as confiscation of assets and legislation against money laundering. This was enormously helpful for our understanding of a notoriously complex area. Professor Robert Baldwin prepared an instructive note for us on the regulatory alternatives to the criminal law in dealing with drugs. We have held 28 meetings and are grateful to the Law Society for providing the facilities for these. British Airways organised and supported the travel of one of our members between the United Kingdom and the United States for many months. We greatly appreciate their generosity. We are also grateful to the British Airports Authority for letting us use their management centre at Pease Pottage near Crawley for a special two-day meeting. We have been most fortunate in our Secretariat. William Saulsbury, our Secretary, organised and directed our work with unfailing efficiency, tenacity and good humour. Joy Mott, our Research Secretary, brought long experience of research in drugs and the criminal justice system, and guided us through the labyrinth of statistical and research material. James Addison, former Secretary to the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, minuted our meetings and drafted much of the report with skill and speed which has our united admiration. We owe a great deal to Sue Roberts who cheerfully and efficiently dealt with a very heavy administrative burden. The advice and support of Colin Phillips, representing the Prince's Trust, has been of great benefit to us. Without this array of help and support our work would not have been possible. We are very grateful for all of it. The results are our responsibility alone. vi Contents Tables .................................................................................................................xi Figures ..............................................................................................................xiii Overview .............................................................................................................1 Chapter One: The Legislation in Context Introduction ......................................................................................................11 The United Nations Conventions.......................................................................12 Other countries’ approaches...............................................................................14 The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 ..........................................................................15 Related legislation..............................................................................................18 The Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 ...................................................18 The Medicines Act 1968.........................................................................................20 The Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990..............................20 The Drug Trafficking Act 1994 ............................................................................20 Chapter Two: The Present Situation Introduction ......................................................................................................21 Scale and nature of drug use ..............................................................................22 The Addicts Index..................................................................................................23 The regional drug misuse databases .......................................................................23 National and regional surveys...............................................................................24 European comparisons............................................................................................26