DOCSLIB.ORG

How Can the Lens of Human Rights Provide a New Perspective on Drug Control and Point to Different Ways of Regulating Drug Consumption?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
How Can the Lens of Human Rights Provide a New Perspective on Drug Control and Point to Different Ways of Regulating Drug Consumption? How can the lens of human rights provide a new perspective on drug control and point to different ways of regulating drug consumption? A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities 2015 Melissa L. Bone School of Law Table of Contents Index of Tables……………………………………………………………………..….5 Table of Cases………………………………………….………………………………6 Table of Statutes, Treaties and Legislative Instruments……………………………....10 List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………15 Abstract………………………………………………...…………………………….18 Candidate’s Declaration and Copyright Statement…………………………………...19 Acknowledgements…………………………………...……………………………...20 Introduction………………………………………………………………..…………22 Chapter 1: Understanding the origin and value of human rights and psychoactive consumption………………………………………………………………………….32 1.1 What are human rights and where have they come from?………..……………….33 1.2 Human right foundations and the question of importance…………...……………36 1.3 The grounds for human rights…………………………………………….………42 1.3.1 ‘The universalist challenge’…………………………………………..46 1.4 The origin and value of human psychoactive consumption……………………….49 1.5 Conclusion……………………………………………………………..…………54 Chapter 2: Understanding how human rights can address the drug policy binary: the conflict between the interests of the State and the interests of the individual………….55 2.1 Defining ‘the State’……………………………………………………...………..56 2.2 Identifying four ‘typical philosophical positions and the binary which underpins them……………………………………………………………….………………….62 2.3 How human rights can address the State/individual binary…………………….…70 2 2.4 Conclusion…………………………..……………………………………………77 Chapter 3: Exploring the legal architecture behind the drug control and human rights frameworks from an international and a UK perspective……………………..………80 3.1 The international human rights framework…………………………….…………80 3.2 The regional and domestic human rights frameworks in the UK……………...…..86 3.3 The international drug control framework……………………………...…………90 3.4 The domestic drug control framework……………………………………………99 3.5 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………104 Introduction to Part II: Employing health rights and religious rights to demonstrate how human rights could improve the drug control framework…………………………...107 Chapter 4: Employing health rights and related human rights to improve the drug control framework…………………………………..………………………………111 4.1 Definitions of ‘health’………………………………………………………...…111 4.1.1 Positive ‘health’ rights under the international human rights and drug control frameworks………………………….………………………………113 4.1.2 Positive ‘health’ rights under the domestic human rights and drug control frameworks………………………………………………………………….115 4.1.3 Negative ‘health’ rights under the international human rights and drug control frameworks………………………………………………………….116 4.1.4 Negative ‘health’ rights under the domestic human rights and drug control frameworks………………………...………………………………………..118 4.2 Case law……………………………………………………………………..…..120 4.2.1 Domestic case law………………………………………………..……121 4.2.1.1 Critiquing Quayle…………………...…..…………………………..126 4.2.2 International case law…………….……………………………………131 4.3 Regulatory implications from a health rights perspective…………………...…..137 4.3.1 Case law which constitutes and is constitutive of regulatory policies….137 3 4.3.2 How a human rights lens facilitates broader regulatory implications….142 4.4 Conclusion……………………………………………………..………………..147 Chapter 5: Employing religious rights and related human rights to improve the drug control framework…………………………………………………………………..149 5.1 Definitions of ‘religion’ and ‘religious manifestations’…..……………………..149 5.1.1 Definitions of ‘religion’ and related rights under the human rights framework……….………………………………………………………….151 5.1.2 Definitions of ‘religion’ and related rights under the drug control framework…………………………………………………..………………153 5.1.3 Psychoactive usage as the ‘manifestation’ of a religion or a belief…….156 5.2 Case law…………………………………………………………………………159 5.2.1 Domestic religious law………………………………………………...160 5.2.1.1 Critiquing Taylor…...……………………………………….160 5.2.2 International religious case law…………………………………....…..165 5.2.3 Beyond religious freedom: Case law which enmeshes human rights to freedom of belief, freedom of thought and the notion of cognitive liberty…..170 5.3 Regulatory implications from a religious and related human rights perspective...178 5.3.1 Case law which constitutes and is constitutive of regulatory policies.....178 5.3.2 How a human rights lens facilitates broader regulatory implications….182 5.4 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………....187 Conclusion…………………………………..………………………………………188 References…………………….…………………………………………………….198 WORD COUNT: 71,045 4 Index of Tables Table 1: Amalgamating MacCoun and Reuter’s (2001) philosophical positions with Goode’s (1997) standard policy proposals ………………………………………………………………………………………..63 Table 2: Structuring Part II of the thesis ………………………………………………………………………………………108 5 Table of Cases Barralet v. Attorney General, 3 All ER 918 (1980). ………………………………………………………………………………………152 Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629 (9th Cir 2002) cert denied (2003). …………………………………………………………………………....132, 133, 189 Employment Division v. Smith, 494 US 872 (1990). ………………………………………………………………………………………163 Gonzales v. O Centro Espı´rita Beneficente Unia˜o do Vegetal, 348 US 418 (2006). ……………………………………………………………168, 168, 180, 184, 190, 193 Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). ……………………………………………………………………………133, 182, 190 Hitzig v. Canada, CanLII 30796 (ON C.A.) (2003). …………………………………………………………………134, 140, 141, 189, 190 Hanes, WL 1551069 (FCA) (2007). ………………………………………………………………………...…………….173 Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria, 34 EHRR 55. Para 78. (2002). ………………………………………………………………………………………156 Jakobski v. Poland, 30 BHRC 417 (2010). ………………………………………………………………………………………157 Kokkinakis v. Greece, judgment of 25 May 1993, Series A, No. 260-A, p. 17. (1993). ……………………………………………………………………………………....152 Kuch v. United States, F Supp 439 (1968). …………………………………………………………………………………158, 172 La Corte di Cassazione con sentenza n. 14876 del 18 aprile 2012, (The Court of Cassation judgment no. 14876 of April 18, 2012). …………………………………………………………………………………165, 193 Leary v. United States, 383 F.2d 851 (5th Cir. 1967) (1967) ……………………………………………………………..…..158, 160, 173, 174, 175 6 MAB, WAT, J-AYT v. Canada, Communications No 570/1993 UN doc A/49/40vol 2 (1994). ……………………………………………………………………………..…..160, 171 Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia v. Moldova, 35 EHRR 306 (2002). …………………………………………………………………………………..…..156 NORML v. DEA, 559 F.2d 735, 741 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (1977). ………………………………………………………………………………………131 O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal v. Holder, (CV 00-1647 JP/RLP (NM 2010)]) (Gonzales Exemption) (2010). ………………………………………………………………………………………184 Olsen v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 878 F.2d 1458 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (1989). ………………………………………………………………………...…………….167 Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 326-327 (1937). ………………………………………………………………………………………174 People v. Woody, 61 Cal. 2d716 (1964). ……………………………………………160, 162, 167, 173, 177, 179, 180, 189, 190 Peyote Way Church of God v. Smith, 556 F. Supp. 632 (D.Ct.N. Texas 1983) (1983). …………………………………………………………………………..…………..179 Peyote Way Church of God v. Thornburgh, 922 F.2d 1210 (5th Cir. 1991) (1991). …………………………………………………………………………...………….179 Pretty v. United Kingdom, (2346/02) (2002). ……………………………………………………………………………………....118 Prince v. The President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope, (CCT36/00) ZACC 1; 2002 (2) SA 794; 2002 (3) BCLR 231 (2002). ………………………………………………………162, 166, 167, 176, 177, 189, 193 R v. Altham, EWCA Crim 7 (2006). 7 ………………………………………………………………………118, 134, 136, 180 R v. Andrews, EWCA Crim 947 (2004). ………………………………………………………………………157, 164, 165, 180 R v. Aziz, EWCA Crim 1063 (2012). ………………………………………………………………………157, 164, 165, 180 R v. Daudi and Daniels, 4 Cr App R (S) 306 (1982). …………………………………………………………………………………156, 165 R v. Dalloway, 148 JPN 31 (1983). ……………………………………………………………………………..…..156, 165 R v. Hardison, Lewes Crown Court, January, unreported (2005). …………………………………………………………………..32, 160, 164, 175, 176 R v. John-Lewis, EWCA Crim 2085 (2013). ………………………………………………………………....134, 136, 164, 165, 171 R v. Parker, 188 DLR (4th) 385 (2000). ………………………………………………………………………134, 140, 189, 190 R v. Quayle; R v Wales; R v Taylor and another; R v Kenny; Attorney General’s Reference, (No2 of 2004) EWCA Crim 1415 (2005). ………….…118, 126 128, 129, 130, 132, 134, 136, 141, 142, 160, 161, 180, 189, 194 R v. Taylor, EWCA Crim 2263 (2001). …………………157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 169, 171, 176, 180, 189 R v. Williams, 1 Cr App R (S) 5 (1979). ……………………………………………………………………..…………..156, 165 R (N) v. Secretary of State for Health; R (E) v. Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, EWCA Civ 795 (2009). ………………………………………………………………………………...…….123 R (on the application of Nicklinson) v. Ministry of Justice; R (on the application of AM) v. Director of Public Prosecutions and others, EWHC 2381 (Admin) (2012). 8 …………………………………………………………………………………...….118 R (Williamson) v. Secretary of State for Education and Employment, UKHL 15 (2005). ………………………………………………………………………………………156 Reed v. Faulkner, 653 F. Supp. 965 (N.D. Ind. 1988) (1988). ………………………………………………………………………………...…….157 Robinson v. Foti, 527 F. Supp. 1111 (E.D. La. 1981) (1981). ………………………………………………………………………………………157 Sahin v. Turkey, 44 EHRR 5 (Grand Chamber) (2007). …………………………………………………………………………………..…..156 Shelley v. UK, 46 EHRR SE16 (2008). ……………………………………………………………………...………….121, 122 State
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Actors and Incentives in Cannabis Policy Change: an Interdisciplinary Approach to Legalization Processes in the United States and in Uruguay
    1 UNIVERSIDADE DE SÃO PAULO INSTITUTO DE RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS Fernanda Mena Actors and incentives in cannabis policy change: an interdisciplinary approach to legalization processes in the United States and in Uruguay São Paulo 2020 FERNANDA MELLO MENA 2 Actors and incentives in cannabis policy change: an interdisciplinary approach to legalization processes in the United States and in Uruguay Original Version Ph.D. Thesis presented to the Graduate Program in International Relations at the International Relations Institute, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil, to obtain the degree of Doctor in Science. Advisor: Prof. Dr. Leandro Piquet Carneiro São Paulo 2020 Autorizo a reprodução e divulgação total ou parcial deste trabalho, por qualquer meio convencional ou eletrônico, para fins de estudo e pesquisa, desde que citada a fonte. 3 Catalogação na Publicação* Instituto de Relações Internacionais da Universidade de São Paulo Mena, Fernanda Actors and incentives in cannabis policy change: an interdisciplinary approach to legalization processes in the United States and in Uruguay / Fernanda Mello Mena -- Orientador Leandro Piquet Carneiro. São Paulo: 2020. 195p. Tese (doutorado). Universidade de São Paulo. Instituto de Relações Internacionais. 1. Relações exteriores (História) – Brasil 2. Relações internacionais (História) - Brasil 3. Política externa – Brasil I. Mena, Fernanda II. Actors and incentives in cannabis policy change: an interdisciplinary approach to legalization processes in the United States and in Uruguay CDD 327.81 4 MENA, Fernanda Actors and incentives in cannabis policy change: an interdisciplinary approach to legalization processes in the United States and in Uruguay Ph. D. Thesis presented to the International Relations Institute, at the University of São Paulo, Brazil, to obtain the degree of Doctor in Science.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal and Regulatory Approaches to Rehabilitation Planning
    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Review Legal and Regulatory Approaches to Rehabilitation Planning: A Concise Overview of Current Laws and Policies Addressing Access to Rehabilitation in Five European Countries Aditi Garg 1,*, Dimitrios Skempes 1,2 and Jerome Bickenbach 1,2 1 Department of Health Sciences and Medicine, University of Lucerne, Frohburgstrasse 3, 6002 Luzern, Switzerland; [email protected] (D.S.); [email protected] (J.B.) 2 Swiss Paraplegic Research, Guido A. Zäch Str. 4, 6207 Nottwil, Switzerland * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-519-239-5295 Received: 6 May 2020; Accepted: 5 June 2020; Published: 18 June 2020 Abstract: Background: The rising prevalence of disability due to noncommunicable diseases and the aging process in tandem with under-prioritization and underdevelopment of rehabilitation services remains a significant concern for European public health. Over recent years, health system responses to population health needs, including rehabilitation needs, have been increasingly acknowledging the power of law and formal written policies as strategic governance tools to improve population health outcomes. However, the contents and scope of enacted legislation and adopted policies concerning rehabilitation services in Europe has not been synthesized. This paper presents a concise overview of laws and policies addressing rehabilitation in five European countries. Methods: Publicly available laws, policies, and national action plans addressing rehabilitation issues of Sweden, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom were reviewed and descriptive documents analyzed. Actions found in national health policies were also evaluated for compliance with the key recommendations specified in the World Health Organization’s Rehabilitation 2030: Call for Action.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Service Commissioners Act 1993
    Changes to legislation: There are outstanding changes not yet made by the legislation.gov.uk editorial team to Health Service Commissioners Act 1993. Any changes that have already been made by the team appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. (See end of Document for details) ELIZABETH II c. 46 Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 1993 CHAPTER 46 An Act to consolidate the enactments relating to the Health Service Commissioners for England, for Wales and for Scotland with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. [5th November 1993] F1Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— Annotations: Amendments (Textual) F1 Act repealed (S.) (23.10.2002) by 2002 asp 11, s. 25(1), Sch. 6 para. 14 (with savings in Sch. 7); S.S.I. 2002/467, art. 2 Modifications etc. (not altering text) C1 Act applied (1.4.1999) by S.I. 1999/686, art. 5(1), Sch. Pt. II Act applied (with modifications)(1.4.1999) by S.I. 1999/726, art. 5(1)(2), Sch. Pt. II Act applied (6.4.2001) by S.I. 2001/137, art. 5, Sch. Pt. II Act applied (S.) (31.3.2002) by S.S.I. 2002/103, art. 6, Sch. Pt. II (with art. 4(4)) Act applied (S.) (27.6.2002) by S.S.I. 2002/305, art.
    [Show full text]
  • Texto Completo Libro (Pdf)
    LAS SENDAS DE LA REGULACIÓN DEL CANNABIS EN ESPAÑA Consejo editorial María Eugenia Aubet - Manuel Cruz Rodríguez - Josep M. Delgado Ribas - Oscar Guasch Andreu - Antonio Izquierdo Escribano - Raquel Osborne - R. Lucas Platero - Oriol Romaní Alfonso - Amelia Sáiz López - Verena Stolcke - Olga Viñuales Sarasa Serie General Universitaria - 191 REGULACIÓN RESPONSABLE (ed.) LAS SENDAS DE LA REGULACIÓN DEL CANNABIS EN ESPAÑA Editor académico: David Pere Martínez Oró edicions bellaterra Diseño de la colección: Joaquín Monclús © Sus autores, 2017 © Regulación responsable, 2017 © David Pere Martínez Oró, 2017 © Edicions Bellaterra, S.L., 2017 Navas de Tolosa, 289 bis. 08026 Barcelona www.ed-bellaterra.com Quedan prohibidos, dentro de los límites establecidos en la ley y bajo los apercibimientos legalmente previstos, la reproducción total o parcial de esta obra por cualquier medio o procedimiento, ya sea electrónico o mecánico, el tratamiento informático, el alquiler o cualquier otra forma de cesión de la obra sin la autorización previa y por escrito de los titulares del copyright. Diríjase a CEDRO (Centro Español de Derechos Reprográficos, http://www.cedro.org) si necesita fotocopiar o escanear algún fragmento de esta obra. Impreso en España Printed in Spain ISBN: 978-84-7290-809-3 Depósito Legal: B. 6.579-2017 Impreso por Prodigitalk. Martorell (Barcelona) Índice Autores, 15 Presentación, 25 A modo de prólogo. Las sendas de la regulación del cannabis en Es- paña, 27 BLOQUE I Los consumos de cannabis en clave sociocultural 1. Cannabis en España. Continuidades y puntos de inflexión históri- cos, 33 Desde la Antigüedad a la Edad Moderna, 33 • Exotismo, literatura y terapéutica durante el siglo XIX y primer tercio del XX, 35 • El Protec- torado de la Zona de Marruecos y la guerra civil, 37 • Los grifotas del franquismo, 38 • Transición y consolidación democrática, 40 • Refe- rencias bibliográficas, 43 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Health AA Recomcmp.Book
    Health and Social Care Bill [AS AMENDED, ON RE-COMMITTAL, IN PUBLIC BILL COMMITTEE] The Bill is divided into two volumes. Volume I contains the Clauses. Volume II contains the Schedules to the Bill. CONTENTS PART 1 THE HEALTH SERVICE IN ENGLAND The health service: overview 1 The Secretary of State and the comprehensive health service 2 Secretary of State’s duty to promote comprehensive health service 3 The Secretary of State’s duty as to improvement in quality of services 4 The Secretary of State’s duty as to improvement in quality of servicesreducing inequalities 5 The Secretary of State’s duty as to reducing inequalitiespromoting autonomy 6 The Secretary of State’s duty as to promoting autonomyresearch 7 The NHS Commissioning Board 8 Commissioning consortia Arrangements for provision of health services 9 The Secretary of State’s duty as to protection of public health 10 Duties as to improvement of public health 11 Duties of consortia as to commissioning certain health services 12 Power of consortia as to commissioning certain health services 13 Power to require Board to commission certain health services 14 Secure psychiatric services 15 Other services etc. provided as part of the health service 16 Regulations as to the exercise by local authorities of certain public health functions 17 Regulations relating to EU obligations 18 Regulations as to the exercise of functions by the Board or consortia 19 Functions of Special Health Authorities 20 Exercise of public health functions of the Secretary of State Further provision about the Board 21 The NHS Commissioning Board: further provision 22 Financial arrangements for the Board Bill 221 55/1 ii Health and Social Care Bill Further provision about commissioning consortia 23 Commissioning consortia: establishment etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Considering Marijuana Legalization
    Research Report Considering Marijuana Legalization Insights for Vermont and Other Jurisdictions Jonathan P. Caulkins, Beau Kilmer, Mark A. R. Kleiman, Robert J. MacCoun, Gregory Midgette, Pat Oglesby, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, Peter H. Reuter C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/rr864 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2015 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface Marijuana legalization is a controversial and multifaceted issue that is now the subject of seri- ous debate. In May 2014, Governor Peter Shumlin signed Act 155 (S.
    [Show full text]
  • Annex 1 Current Encod Membership – April 2014
    ANNEX 1 CURRENT ENCOD MEMBERSHIP – APRIL 2014 HARM REDUCTION ORGANISATIONS - 6 ASSOCIAZIONE TILT – Italy AILAKET - Spain COLLETIVO INFOSHOCK – Italy Akzept e.V. - Germany DRUG PEACE INSTITUTE - Netherlands ALICE-PROJECT - Germany FHN – Norway Blue Point Drug Counseling and Outpatient Center – Forum Droghe – Italy Hungary INEIDFO - Germany BUNDESVERBAND DER ELTERN – Germany LEGALIZACE.CZ – Czech Republic FEDERACION ANDALUZA DE DROGODEPENDENCIAS LEGALIZE! – Netherlands Y SIDA ENLACE - Spain Liaison Antiprohibitioniste – Belgium Meres pour la Marijuana - France CONSUMER ORGANISATIONS, CANNABIS - 40 Netherlands Drug Policy Foundation - The Netherlands ACMEFUER – Spain Norml France – France AICC CANNABISCAFE – Spain Norml UK - UK AIRAM - Spain SNARROTIN – Iceland ALACANNABIS – Spain TILT ROMA - Italy ASARTE CLUB SOCIAL CANNABIS – Spain VEREIN LEGALIZE – Austria Asbl Sativa - Belgium VOC - Netherlands Asociación Club Calidad de Vida – Spain Asociación Casa María – Spain MEDIA - 9 Asociación Kali Club – Spain Cañamo – Spain ASSOCIAZIONE ASCIA - Italy Cannabis Magazine – Spain Bündnis Hanfparade e.V. - Germany Cannaclopedia - Belgium CANNABIS COLLEGE – Netherlands CANNAWEB.CH - Switzerland CANNABIS SANS FRONTIERES – France CANNAWEED – France Cannabis Social Club Maribor - Slovenia CANNAZINE – United Kingdom Chanvre et Libertés – France GONZOMEDIA - Netherlands CIRC NORD EST - France Radio K Centrale – Italy CLUB SOCIAL DE CANNABIS DE GRAZALEMA – Spain The Stoned Society - Netherlands CSC MA WEED PERSO - Belgium Deutscher Hanf Verband – Germany
    [Show full text]
  • Hoe Begin Ik Een
    HOW TO SET UP A CSC IN 4 STEPS Presentation by Joep Oomen, Encod SPAIN • Since 2005, approx. 200 clubs have been set up • Legal basis: cultivation for personal use is not prosecuted • Some clubs have thousands of members, consumption room, open daily • One Spanish village (Rasquera, Catalonia) is ready to produce for CSC’s, regional authorities are considering legal regulation for clubs • www.fac.cc BELGIUM • One CSC: Trekt Uw Plant, operating since 2010 • Legal basis: ministerial guideline allowing 1 plant per adult • TUP has 300 members, 2 regional sections • 14 growers, with a max. of 32 plants each • Every 2/3 months: harvest • Information on homegrowing, healthier ways of growing and consuming, lobby for cannabis regulation • www.trektuwplant.be FRANCE • Initiative to organise collectives who wish to work along the CSC guidelines since July 2012 • Legal basis: none – it is an act of civil disobedience • 150 initiatives around the country, first meeting to agree on common principles in december 2012 • Facebook: Cannabis Social Club Français GERMANY • Facebook page to promote the idea • Legal basis: none – it is an act of civil disobedience • In February 2012, a hearing on CSC’s took place in German parliament • Facebook: Pro Cannabis Social Club's für Deutschland UNITED KINGDOM • Website to promote the idea • Legal basis: none – it is an act of civil disobedience • Some 50 clubs exist on the website – unclear if they are active or not • www.cannabiscure.co.uk ITALY • Several initiatives to open the discussion • Legal basis: none –
    [Show full text]
  • Police and Crime Commissioners
    Police and Crime Commissioners : emerging 'drug policy actors'? AUSTEN, Liz <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2837-8297> Available from Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive (SHURA) at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/11365/ This document is the author deposited version. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from it. Published version AUSTEN, Liz (2016). Police and Crime Commissioners : emerging 'drug policy actors'? Safer Communities, 15 (1), 4-10. Copyright and re-use policy See http://shura.shu.ac.uk/information.html Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive http://shura.shu.ac.uk Police and Crime Commissioners: Emerging 'drug policy actors'? Dr Liz Austen Sheffield Hallam University Safer Communities: Viewpoint Article Pre-publication draft Abstract Purpose In 2013, the Police and Crime Commissioner for Durham, Ron Hogg, initiated a debate around the future of British drug policy. In June 2015, the Derbyshire PCC, Alan Charles, opened a similar debate with representatives from policing, third party support agencies, national advocates and academics to discuss the possibilities for change. This short article presents the views and actions of senior figures in the police service and discusses motivations for pursuing change. The aim of the paper is to introduce Police and Crime Commissioners as 'drug policy actors' (Seddon 2011) and to highlight key areas for further academic enquiry. Design/methodology/approach This article is based on press releases and media accounts of the recent activity of the PCCs in relation to national drug policy. This article provides an academic viewpoint on recent events, supported by theoretical literature critiquing drug policy and contemporary policing.
    [Show full text]
  • Key Dates in Tobacco Regulation 1962 — 2020
    Key dates in tobacco regulation 1962 — 2020 16 Further information about the early history of tobacco is available at: www.tobacco.org/History/history.html 1962 The first Royal College of Physicians (RCP) report, "Smoking and Health", was published. It received massive publicity. The main recommendations were: restriction of tobacco advertising; increased taxation on cigarettes; more restrictions on the sales of cigarettes to children, and smoking in public places; and more information on the tar/nicotine content of cigarettes. For the first time in a decade, cigarette sales fell. The Tobacco Advisory Committee (subsequently Council, and now known as the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association) - which represents the interests of the tobacco industry - agreed to implement a code of advertising practice for cigarettes which was intended to take some of the glamour out of cigarette advertisements. The code was based on the former ITA code governing cigarette advertisements on TV (before they were removed in 1964, with the co-operation of the ITA) 1964 The US Surgeon General produced his first report on "Smoking and Health". Its conclusions corroborated those of the RCP and the US Surgeon General has produced annual reports since 1967 on the health consequences on smoking. Doll and Hill published the results of a nationwide prospective survey on "mortality in relation to smoking: 10 years' observations in British Doctors". Between 1951 and 1964 about half the UK's doctors who smoked gave up and there was a dramatic fall in lung cancer incidence among those who gave up as opposed to those who continued to smoke. 1965 After considerable debate, the government used the powers vested in it under the terms of the 1964 Television Act to ban cigarette advertisements on television.
    [Show full text]
  • This Is the Peer Reviewed Version of the Following Article
    This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Potter, G. R., Barratt, M. J., Malm, A., Bouchard, M., Blok, T., Christensen, A.-S., Decorte, T., Frank, V. A., Hakkarainen, P., Klein, A., Lenton, S., Perälä, J., Werse, B., & Wouters, M. (2015). Global patterns of domestic cannabis cultivation: Sample characteristics and patterns of growing across eleven countries. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26(3), 226–237. which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.12.007 This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Elsevier’s Article Sharing policy and Hosting policy © 2014. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Accepted Manuscript Title: Global patterns of domestic cannabis cultivation: Sample characteristics and patterns of growing across eleven countries Author: Gary R. Potter Monica J. Barratt Aili Malm Martin Bouchard Thomas Blok Anne-Sofie Christensen Tom Decorte Vibeke Asmussen Frank Pekka Hakkarainen Axel Klein Simon Lenton Jussi Peral¨ a¨ Bernd Werse Marije Wouters PII: S0955-3959(14)00363-6 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.12.007 Reference: DRUPOL 1503 To appear in: International Journal of Drug Policy Received date: 22-7-2014 Revised date: 6-12-2014 Accepted date: 8-12-2014 Please cite this article as: Potter, G. R., Barratt, M. J., Malm, A., Bouchard, M., Blok, T., Christensen, A.-S., Decorte, T., Frank, V. A., Hakkarainen, P., Klein, A., Lenton, S., Peral¨ a,¨ J., Werse, B., and Wouters, M.,Global patterns of domestic cannabis cultivation: sample characteristics and patterns of growing across eleven countries, International Journal of Drug Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.12.007 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Queen's Or Prince's Consent
    QUEEN’S OR PRINCE’S CONSENT This pamphlet is intended for members of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. Unless otherwise stated: • references to Erskine May are to the 24th edition (2011), • references to the Companion to the Standing Orders are to the Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to Proceedings of the House of Lords (25th edition, 2017), • references to the Cabinet Office Guide to Making Legislation are to the version of July 2017. Office of the Parliamentary Counsel September 2018 CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 2 QUEEN’S CONSENT Introduction. 2 The prerogative. 2 Hereditary revenues, the Duchies and personal property and interests . 4 Exceptions and examples . 6 CHAPTER 3 PRINCE’S CONSENT Introduction. 7 The Duchy of Cornwall . 7 The Prince and Steward of Scotland . 8 Prince’s consent in other circumstances . 8 Exceptions and examples . 8 CHAPTER 4 GENERAL EXCEPTIONS The remoteness/de minimis tests . 10 Original consent sufficient for later provisions . 10 No adverse effect on the Crown. 11 CHAPTER 5 THE SIGNIFICATION OF CONSENT Signification following amendments to a bill. 13 Re-signification for identical bill . 14 The manner of signification . 14 The form of signification . 15 CHAPTER 6 PRACTICAL STEPS Obtaining consent. 17 Informing the Whips . 17 Writing to the House authorities . 17 Private Members’ Bills. 17 Informing the Palace of further developments . 18 Other. 18 CHAPTER 7 MISCELLANEOUS Draft bills . 19 Consent not obtained . 19 Inadvertent failure to signify consent . 19 Consent in the absence of the Queen. 20 Consent before introduction of a bill . 20 Queen’s speech . 20 Royal Assent .
    [Show full text]