Independent London Drugs Commission sets scene for robust national debate on cannabis

It sets the scene for a “robust national debate” on how best to reduce the harms associated with cannabis and the laws which govern it.

The report reaches five overarching conclusions:

• Cannabis can be addictive and more explicit provision of services focused on problematic use and addiction to the drug is needed, alongside greater join-up across health services;
• Possible gains from legalisation, including tax revenues and reductions in criminalisation, can be realised early. However, the extent of harms, particularly with respect to public health, as well as personal and societal costs, take longer to emerge and are not yet well understood;
• Inclusion of cannabis as a Class B drug in the Misuse of Drugs Act is disproportionate to the harms it can pose relative to other drugs controlled by the Act. The sentencing options currently available, especially for personal possession, cannot be justified when balanced against the longer-term impacts of experience of the justice system, including stop and search, or of serving a criminal sentence can have on a person;
• Cannabis policing continues to focus on particular ethnic communities, creating damaging, long-lasting consequences for individuals, wider society, and police-community relations; and
• The content and timing of education about cannabis and its use, for both young people and healthcare professionals, is inadequate. It fails to acknowledge drivers of use and, in school settings, is often led by providers who lack sufficient credibility and insight.

Overall, the report makes 42 recommendations for London and central government to deliver a safer approach to managing cannabis use in London’s communities.

These range from better education for young people about the dangers of cannabis, improvements to health and addiction services and changes to ‘stop and search’ protocols and the legislation under which ‘natural’ as opposed to ‘synthetic’ cannabis is governed.

After studying extensive evidence from other countries and jurisdictions which have changed the legal position of cannabis in recent years, and from educators, youth workers, medical practitioners and police who deal with the adverse effects of cannabis every day, the Commission does not call for cannabis legalisation. Instead, its principal recommendation is that the legal regime move natural (ie, not synthetic) cannabis from the Misuse of Drugs Act to the Psychoactive Substances Act.

This would allow the production and supply of cannabis to be policed and remain criminal, whilst possession of small quantities for personal use would not be penalised. It would also help address ongoing disproportionality in the operation of stop and search, which particularly impacts London’s Black communities.

In addition, the report puts forward workable proposals to help policing in London; bring some order to schemes which aim to divert people out of the criminal justice system; further develop coordination across parts of the health system and improve education on the risks and uses of cannabis.

The report follows detailed analysis of written and oral evidence from more than 200 experts and academics from London, the UK and around the world.

Lord Falconer and his deputies were assisted by leading experts from criminal justice, public health, community relations and drug policy and supported by academics from University College London (UCL).

The chair of the LDC, Lord Charlie Falconer KC, said: “This is the most extensive consideration of what is the correct public policy response to cannabis in recent times. It is clear that a fundamental reset is required. Legalisation is not the answer.

“The criminal justice system response needs to focus only on the dealers and not the users. Those who suffer from the adverse effects of cannabis – which may be a small percentage of users but it is a high number of people – need reliable, consistent medical and other support. And there needs to be much more education on the risks of cannabis use. Our Report provides detailed recommendations on how the law needs to change to reflect a new focus for the criminal justice system, and how the response of the public and other sectors can better support those damaged by cannabis use.”

Jason Harwin KPM, retired deputy chief constable, former drugs lead for the National Police Chiefs’ Council and member of the LDC’s Expert Reference Group, said: “Individuals use illicit drugs for many different reasons. Diversion is an evidenced based, proportionate approach that seeks to address the causation of an individuals actions. Evidence shows effective diversion not only better understands and addresses an individuals actions but reduces offending and risk for the future. It is critical London has a consistent approach to diversion.”

Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC) joint leads on Addictions and Substance Misuse, PCCs Joy Allen and David Sidwick said: “While we recognise that this is an issue where some PCCs may take different views, as the APCC’s Addictions and Substance Misuse leads, we disagree with the Commission’s recommendation that possessing a small amount of cannabis should be decriminalised. We will now be consulting further with our PCC colleagues to discuss and develop our approach.

“As this report recognises, cannabis is a harmful drug that has serious adverse effects on its users. It also rightly concludes that legalisation, as we have recently seen in other jurisdictions, would increase the availability of this harmful drug and could significantly amplify the health and mental health risks.

“We believe that decriminalisation could carry similar risks by making people more likely to use cannabis. In addition, under these proposals, cannabis would continue to be supplied by drug markets that are run by criminals, bring violence and anti-social behaviour to our communities, and exploit the vulnerable, including children and young people. Furthermore, these recommendations would create confusion and result in increasing subjectivity by officers determining what ‘a small amount’ is defined as, or knowing the difference between ‘natural’ cannabis and ‘synthetic’ cannabis.

“We have previously argued for a more robust approach to policing the possession of cannabis and other drugs, but not a narrowly punitive one. The focus should be on referring people who are using harmful drugs onto education and support programmes, that can reduce their risks of future harm and requiring them to attend. This approach is in line with the three pillar approach combining enforcement, treatment and prevention to tackle illegal drug use, which has rightly been at the core of government policy.”

Deputy chair Janet Hills MBE, who has 30 years’ experience in the Metropolitan Police Service, said: “It is time for a shift in our approach to cannabis enforcement to create a more equitable and just system. This report is a driver for change in our community. The 42 recommendations include reforming cannabis enforcement practices and highlight the need for a more balanced and compassionate approach to policing in our city.”

Deputy chair Professor Virginia Berridge, Professor of History and former Director of the Centre for History in Public Health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said: ‘Our report balances a focus on social and racial injustice with public health concerns and will help to resolve the cannabis conundrum.”

Professor Marta Di Forti, Professor of Drugs, Genes and Psychosis at King’s College London, Lead Consultant of the Cannabis Clinic for Psychosis at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and member of the LDC’s Expert Reference Group said: “Learning from increasing post legalisation data from Canada and US, any changes to the law should come along with the resources needed to support the increasing minority that develop psychosis when consuming cannabis, and with adequate and engaging education campaigns about the effects of heavy cannabis use on mental and physical health”

Professor Adam Winstock, Consultant Psychiatrist and Addiction Medicine Specialist, Honorary Clinical Professor at the Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, UCL Faculty of Population Health Sciences, and member of the LDC’s Expert Reference Group, said: “It’s good to have been part of an independent expert panel that received submissions from across the political, ideological and cultural spectrum that makes London what it is today. The recommendations challenge the status quo but don’t make any assumptions that alternatives will resolve issues that are embedded in far wider socioeconomic issues.

“It prompts all of us to ask not only should things change but how, and how we might monitor and mitigate unwanted consequences.”