From: [Stewar t P] at [tuareg.demon.co.uk] (Stewart Parkinson)

Understandably the focus of the various 'drugs' groups is so far
'Americo-centric', and the story of how criminalisation was achieved in
Great Britain has not been told.

The following is something of a 'narrative' approach.  Should anyone be
interested in source material, please mail me for details.

Of course, any factual corrections or comments are warmly welcomed...



THE CRIMINALISATION OF CANNABIS IN GREAT BRITAIN

The criminalisation  of  drugs in Great Britain was focussed initially
on the issue of opium.  The opium trade had been fundamental to the
economy of colonial India, and Great Britain was the world's largest
trader in narcotics.  One of its primary markets was Imperial China,
which went very much against the wishes of the Chinese government.

By 1909 the US was sponsoring a series of international initiatives aimed
at curbing this British trade, mainly for political reasons.  By this time
the opium trade had become less crucial to India, and the British government
reluctantly complied.

At home the British medical authorities were keen to stamp their authority
on the UK population.  At this time the universal cure-alls were opium or
cocaine solutions which were sold without restriction.  This free
availability undermined the power of the doctor, and as a consequence the
medical profession lobbied strongly to make the solutions available only
under prescription.  This took some time;  Great Britain had always argued
that "it is not able to accept the view that opium should be confined simply
and solely to medical purposes".  However the medical practitioners had
friends in very high places.  By 1912 in the Hague, Britain became a
signatory to the document (the Hague Convention) which is the foundation
block to all subsequent anti-drug legislation.  It is very interesting to
note that the document asked signatories to "examine the possibility" of
penal sanctions on members of the public who used proscribed drugs for
non-medical purposes.  It has been argued that as a result the UN drug
conventions do not require possession of drugs for personal use to be a
criminal offence.

Very soon the tide of events was taken over by the first world war.  By
1916 concern had been raised among senior Army personnel about the use of
intoxicants by soldiers on leave, particularly Cocaine.  By May of that
year the Army Council had acted to stop the supply of intoxicants to members
of the armed forces other than under prescription.  Speaking on behalf of
the medical profession, the Lancet called for the restrictions to be
extended to the general public before the end of the war forced a peacetime
democracy to examine the issue.  By July the authorities had agreed to the
demands, and passed Defence of the Realm Regulation 40B (DORA 40B) which
forbade the supply of opium and cocaine preparations down to 0.1% without
prescription.  During this process no research of any kind was conducted
on the actual effects of the drugs concerned, nor was there any formal
examination of the likely reaction of the public.  In fact in 1917 when a
study was undertaken, the government committee concerned recorded its
'unanimous' opinion that 'there is no evidence of any kind to show that
there is any serious, or, perhaps, noticeable prevalence of the cocaine
habit among the civilian or military population of Great Britain'.
Nevertheless the legislation remained in place.

With the end of the war, the government looked to formalise its anti-drug
legislation.  Implementation of the Hague Convention took place on 1st
September 1920 in the form of the 1920 Dangerous Drugs Act, aimed primarily
at opium.  Restrictions were harsh; even to possess opium smoking utensils
was to offend against the act, a law that remains in force today.  The
pattern for legislation was now set.  As yet cannabis was not included
in British law, mainly because usage was virtually non-existent.  When at
a meeting in Geneva in 1925 an Egyptian doctor railed against marijuana as
a major cause of insanity in his country, the British signed the resulting
international treaty without hesitation.  Surprisingly, the Egyptian doctor
had presented no easily verifiable evidence for his case.

In 1926 the British government extended the Dangerous Drugs Act to cover
cannabis and coca leaves, as a follow up to its agreement to the 1925
Geneva Convention.  The possession and use of marijuana in Great Britain
without prescription was now a criminal offence.


ONGOING PROHIBITION

Alcohol was the common recreational drug in the US in the early 1900s.
Whilst the government believed in prohibition the populace at large did
not, and very rapidly a black market developed to supply demand.

The problem was not so extreme with marijuana.  Only certain sections of
the population consumed it, and so the outcry at prohibition was not very
severe.

The overall problem would therefore have been minor if marijuana had not
been 're-discovered' in the 1960s.  Drug usage and experimentation grew,
and drugs themselves became something of a symbol for the new generation.
At the same time there was a public perception that levels of crime were
growing in the US, and Conservative politicians such as Nelson Rockefeller
and Richard Nixon argued that this rise in crime was inextricably linked to
drugs.

Part of the problem from the US government's point of view was that the
new experimenters and users were primarily white, educated and middle
class.  These were the people whom the government were most interested in
targeting, since they held much political and financial influence.  They
were also difficult to target using police methods as these would lead to
alienation among a group that the government saw as being key to the
stability of the country.

The US government therefore commissioned extensive research into marijuana
and its effects on the human body, relying on this research to persuade
the new users to cease their experimentation and to stop others being
tempted into usage.  Unfortunately for the US government the research
indicated that marijuana was a relatively safe and user-friendly drug.
Nevertheless 'scare' stories continued to be forthcoming, though the
evidence the back up the claims was not.

With the evidence coming in favour of marijuana rather than against it,
US government attitudes toward the drug began to soften.  In the 1970s
the US began the gradual process of reversing anti-marijuana legislation,
with President Jimmy Carter arguing for the legalisation of the drug.
During this period 12 US states effectively decriminalised the possession
of marijuana for personal use.

The 1980s however saw a Republican government come to power.  President
Ronald Reagan ascribed many modern ills to drug usage, and introduced
the concept of 'zero-tolerance'.  The only US state to resist the change
was Alaska, and it was only recently that the law there was changed.
Until 1990 it was legal for an individual to possess four ounces of
marijuana, or four hemp plants.

The 'zero tolerance' concept continued through George Bush's tenure of
office, and during this period the budgets available to anti-drug agencies
soared.  New and extremely stringent laws were passed, and new powers
exceeding those of virtually any other agency were given to the relevant
authorities.  It is theoretically possible for a US government agency to
seize any property or possessions of any individual whom they suspect of
possessing drugs, and unless the individual can prove conclusively that
the property was obtained using legitimate money, the agency can confiscate
the property and sell it.  The officers seizing the property are awarded
a percentage of this money.  Similar laws are in effect in the United
Kingdom.

Since the investiture of President Clinton, it appears that the US's
'War on Drugs' may be scaled down.  The new 'Drugs Czar', Lee Brown,
has recently been quoted as stating that no government should wage a
war on its own people, and that they should explore other options.  The
effects on the US judicial and prison systems have been overwhelming,
and both systems are showing distinct signs of pressure.  The profits
available from supplying illicit drugs has caused the establishment
of well-organised gangs with access to the very latest lethal weaponry.
In Washington this state of affairs has become so bad that the city
authorities have asked for a version of martial law to be imposed, and
for the National Guard to take over from the police force.

Britain's 'War on Drugs' has been less severe than that of the USA.
The problems associated with drug use have also been less severe, though
whether these two issues are related is a matter for debate.

The 1960s were a difficult time in the UK as well as in the US, with use
of illegal drugs spreading as part of the youth culture.  In 1964 the
Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act was passed, which was aimed at the use
of amphetamines.  'Designer' drugs were starting to appear, and it was
clear that some form of legislation would be required if the government
were to keep up with new developments.  The 1964 act was in fact also used
to control LSD as this latter drug gained popularity.

In 1926 the Rolleston Report had been commissioned to examine methods of
coping with drug use.  It had concluded that maintenance was the key,
whereby drug users could be given drugs on prescription from their doctor
on an indefinite basis.

The use of proscribed drugs had grown rapidly during the 1960s.  Users
often had no education of any kind about the effect of the drugs, and
partly as a consequence the number of addicts grew.  As a result, the
government commissioned another report in 1965.  The Brain Report concluded
that the previous policy was incorrect, and that heroin or cocaine
prescription should be restricted to licensed doctors in specialist
clinics.  The legislation resulting from the report were implemented
in 1967 as the Dangerous Drugs Act.

The problem continued to grow despite legislation.  A co-ordinated movement
had also been established which attempted to influence the government of
the day to decriminalise cannabis, on the basis that it should never have
been included with the far more dangerous opium based drugs in the first
place.

They were moderately successful.  The government commissioned a formal
study under the auspices of Baroness Wootton.  The Wootton Report was
issued in 1969.  Its recommendations were that no individual should be
imprisoned for possessing cannabis, and that penalties should be either
abolished or dramatically reduced.  However government action was restricted
to classifying controlled drugs into groups A, B and C.  Possession of
class A drugs such as the opiates, LSD and cocaine carry the heaviest
penalties.  Cannabis was defined as a class B drug.  In 1979 the
Government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs recommended that
Cannabis be re-defined as a class C drug, and the penalties reduced.
This did not occur.

Despite the findings of the Wootton report, the government decided to
further consolidate anti-drug legislation.  In 1973 the Misuse of Drugs
Act came into force, which drew together existing laws as well as extending
their scope.

With the establishment of Ronald Reagan as US president in the US, the UK
came under pressure to extend its drug laws even further in line with the
American model.  This resulted in the 1986 Drug Trafficking Offences Act,
which required the confiscation of assets of convicted drug suppliers.
(In theory, an individual can be convicted of supplying drugs if they pass
a joint to someone else at a party.  In practice as far as marijuana is
concerned, an informal line tends to be drawn by the police, where only
if an individual has more than five ounces of marijuana in their possession
are they then regarded as a supplier.)

Britain remains a key signatory to the various UN conventions which form
the cornerstone of international anti-drug legislation.  The powers of
anti-drug agencies have continued to grow.  In 1988 the UN Convention
Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
was signed which gave relevant authorities increased sanctions and powers
in respect of seizure and confiscation of assets, extradition and other
related matters.

Despite all of the efforts made to date, drug use in the US and western
Europe continues to rise, and the relative cost of virtually all illegal
drugs continues to fall.  The US Government is currently estimated to spend
in excess of USD40 billion per annum in combating drug use.  The British
government spends in excess of UKP500 million per annum.


END



---
 * Origin: COBRUS - Usenet-to-Fidonet Distribution System (1:2613/335.0)