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