Drugs – the risk of taking the wrong approach – Part 2

Continuing where we left off yesterday, let’s look at some of the other proposals in Policy Paper 47.

Those who work in the criminal justice system know that the ‘simple’ possession offence is the one that comes most often before the criminal courts, and Class B is frequently the most common because it covers cannabis, easily the most ‘popular’ of drugs. I can count on one hand (maybe slight hyperbole) the number of people who have said “yes, I had that drug for supply”. It is always for ‘personal use’ and if that’s the case, how do you prosecute those people if personal use is legal? People could legitimately stockpile large quantities for their own use, or cultivate it, and it would be extraordinarily difficult to prove supply without further intelligence gathering – the very expenditure that this policy paper suggests is inefficient.

The policy paper suggests that a policy of imposing imprisonment for simple possession should be avoided. The situation must have changed since 2001 because anyone – probably everyone – who works in the criminal justice system today will tell you that unless they are charged with dozens of offences, defendants do not receive imprisonment for simple possession. These offences are most usually dealt with by way of a fine and forfeiture and destruction of the drug. I can honestly say, in years of working in the field, I have never seen someone given imprisonment for a simple possession offence where that is the only offence before the court.

Conversely, the policy advocates a zero-tolerance policy on drug driving. That has been overtaken by changes in legislation, as there are now legal limits for drugs use when driving. However, it is hard to imagine reconciling a “use as you see fit” policy on drugs with an “absolutely not” policy on drug driving. People typically do not realise how long drugs stay in the system as they metabolise and I can easily foresee scenarios where people are charged with drug driving and plead not guilty, arguing the government has said they can use drugs, and they didn’t know it was still in their system. This will only pour fuel on the fire of the court backlog issue. This would perhaps be manageable only if, as the policy paper suggests, more was poured into drug awareness and education.

At one point the paper suggests imposing a public policy instruction that it isn’t in the public interest to prosecute certain drugs offences. The drafters of this policy clearly didn’t appreciate the role of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), and the role of the legislature. If you don’t want something to be prosecuted, you repeal the offence. You do not try and dictate what the CPS – an arms-length, independent prosecuting agency – does and does not prosecute. Down that road lies madness and a corruption of the role of both the government and the prosecuting agencies. 

The paper goes on to say that prohibition means otherwise law-abiding citizens can end up with criminal records. Well yes, that’s true. But the police don’t regularly break down doors just to check if Joe Smith at number 67 is using drugs. If you do use a drug recreationally in your own home, and don’t go about the streets with it – and give the police cause to stop and search you – the likelihood is that no one is going to know you have or use it. Those at risk remain those who openly flaunt using drugs – and the policy paper says the party doesn’t support drug use – and those who commit offences under the influence and end up being tested for drug use. In my view, this argument is a nonsense.

The party has a history, the paper argues, of following the philosophies of Locke and Mill, interfering in people’s lives only when their actions risk harm to other individuals or society as a whole. I challenge anyone to come and sit in the criminal courts on a daily basis, even for just a week, and see the damage drug use can have, even just using cannabis. It doesn’t only harm the defendant; when they commit offences under the influence or drive a car dangerously whilst under the influence, or supply defective drugs which cause injury and death, drugs have an impact. It is rarely positive (medicinal cannabis has been legal for some time, so let’s shelve that argument before it comes up – you can even drive having used it, as long as you keep to your prescription). 

The real drive to legalise, if we’re honest, is money. We want to regulate the industry and reap the benefits in monetary terms. There comes a point, though, where we have to stand on our principles and say “yes, this might make us a lot of money but no, it isn’t right”. And if we’re legalising drugs so we can regulate – that is, to control – I’m not necessarily sure we can say we’re following the principles of Locke and Mill in completeness.

I am not suggesting we should toughen our stance on drugs, necessarily. I agree we definitely need to increase our drugs education funding and improve awareness not just of drug use, but of the detrimental impact it has on those surrounding the user. The higher the level of awareness, the less likely people are to choose to use it (according to this policy paper). But legalisation is not a “fix all” balm, and in my view it shouldn’t be used to sweep under the rug a genuine problem that does exist; misuse of drugs.  I know this view might put me at odds with many in the party – and maybe the party itself – but so be it.

 

* Daniel is a party member from Cheadle

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

7 Comments

  • Laurence Cox 19th Jan '25 - 3:07pm

    Not specifically relating to drugs, but this article illustrates that we have policies that were passed by Party Conferences in the past where circumstances have changed so much since then that we would be better starting again from scratch rather than trying to apply an existing policy. This particular policy paper was from the Spring Conference in 2002; I, myself, was a member of a working party on Pensions Reform that reported to Autumn Conference in 2004. Whilst that policy was progressive at the time, the landscape has changed so much since then that we would start afresh if tackling the same subject and there is no likelihood that the old policy would appear in a future election manifesto. So the author makes a valid point which is wider than just this issue. Should the Party have a process for reviewing and replacing old policies, rather than just allowing them to remain zombie-like as party policies that we know that we would never implement?

  • When are we going to admit that the war on drugs has failed? It’s time to get rid of stigma, decriminalise and regulate.

  • Catherine Royce 20th Jan '25 - 2:48pm

    It is high time we moved from Crime and Punishment to Better Health and Harm Reduction. Drug addiction is simply another addiction like alcohol, nicotine, gambling etc etc and should be treated as such; it is part of the human condition most probably driven by a combination of genetic susceptibility and socio-economic circumstances in susceptible individuals.
    As Meg says; decriminalise, regulate, and tax consumption as we do with other ‘sins’
    An added benefit would be emptying prisons and allowing many, many children in care to return to their parents and homes.
    There is no medical reason why a well-controlled drug addict cannot hold down a job, look after their home and family and otherwise contribute to society. Of course many do, if they can manage to get untainted supplies from a secure source, usually requiring a higher income and better supply lines than most of us have access to.
    I tried more than once whilst sitting on FPC to suggest a new policy but it was considered too high risk and a vote loser, but to put it more bluntly, we Lib Dems just don’t have the balls for it.
    Gaulke’s prison and sentencing review will reveal that a significant proportion of the prison population (maybe even up to 50%) would simply not be there if drugs were decriminalised.
    Drug gangs, county lines and associated violent crime would collapse and vast quantities of police and judicial time be saved, not to mention thousands of lives, every year.

  • Daniel Stylianou 20th Jan '25 - 7:42pm

    I read the previous comments with interest but they are, I feel, misguided. Catherine mentions clearing out the prisons but as I pointed out, anyone who works in the criminal justice system knows that people are very rarely – if ever – sent to prison solely for possession of a controlled drug. Possession with intent to supply, yes. Conspiracy to supply, yes. But I reckon the number of defendants I have seen sent to prison solely for possession are in the single digits in the years I have worked in the criminal justice system. So, how are we clearing the prisons by decriminalising? We wouldn’t be. I would bet my life savings on the prison review NOT revealing the completely hypothetical figure that’s been quoted. Whether defendants are in prison because they’ve committed an offence whilst under the influence of drugs is NOT important, because they would STILL receive a sentence regardless. It is often an aggravating feature, but is never the ONLY reason to send someone to prison.
    All of these arguments would be solved if the people making them actually came and sat in a Magistrates’ Court for a day. People seem more keen to take the Conservative line on this topic than actually coming and seeing that, to be honest, they’re not far off the mark in some cases.
    I agree that drug is an addiction. It’s one people seem afraid to stand up and say “yes it’s an addiction and we need to help stamp it out”. I accept there needs to be a heck of a lot more education for people on the topic, but we as a party – through Ed Davey – have supported the banning of cigarettes. Smoking is an addiction like any other. We run the risk of being hypocritical in supporting the ban on one, but not the other. They’re both controlled substances.

  • When working as a manager at a large City Local Prison the staff checked with each reception for a week why they did what they did. Almost two thirds of the survey could relate to drug involvement, thieving to fund habits, violence when affected in some way etc etc So the number who are actually convicted of an actual drug offence may be relatively small, but the trigger for offences created by drugs is far, far wider. This piece of evidence suggests that legalisation would take much pressure off the Police, the Courts, Probation and the Prison Service, just for starters.

  • Daniel Stylianou 21st Jan '25 - 7:17pm

    Theakes, I disagree. The policy paper doesn’t suggest decriminalising offences where drugs are a factor in them; it suggests decriminalising possession and some other drug-related offences. The only thing that will reduce that is an increase in drugs-related education, which we ALL support. The two – a sustained drugs enforcement policy and drugs education – don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

  • Peter Hirst 2nd Feb '25 - 5:15pm

    Your second part seems to be suggesting that the antidote to drug misuse is to increase control. The whole issue is part of a wider challenge of equality and chances in life especially for the less well off. A more lenient approach to casual drug taking along with a clear cut off point where actions become illegal would save money, create a more compassionate society and show a willingness to accept reality.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

This post has pre moderation enabled, please be patient whilst waiting for it to be manually reviewed. Liberal Democrat Voice is made up of volunteers who keep the site running in their free time.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Jack Nicholls
    I would accept the basic thrust of this argument but for one thing - the problematic creed you identify is not liberalism, though I agree it gets mislabelled as...
  • nigel hunter
    If we have to turn away from US protection those 2 aircraft carriers MUST be fully active as an umbrella for all of Europe.The effort to make them fully service...
  • Christopher Haigh
    @SimonR, quite agree with you. China is undemocratic and a massive polluter with its obsession with coal mining. Vince however, seems to be obsessed with tradin...
  • Anthony Acton
    Thank you Vince Cable for this. The Brexit debate was always about a strategic choice between Europe and the USA. We chose USA. What a disaster. Only the LDs h...
  • Thelma Davies
    Theakes; 'We're in the south to help and protect the Afghan people to reconstruct their economy and democracy. We would be perfectly happy to leave again in t...