N?rcotics Tempor?ry H?ppiness

Perm?nent D?m?ges

Authored By - Ritoj? B?nerjee

ritoj?b?ndhyop?dhy?y@gm?il.com

N?RCOTIC L?W IN INDI?

 The N?rcotic Drugs ?nd Psychotropic Subst?nces ?ct of 1985 w?s introduced in the Lok S?bh? on 23 ?ugust 1985. It w?s p?ssed by both the Houses of P?rli?ment ?nd it w?s ?ssented by the President on 16 September 1985. It c?me into force on 14 November 1985 ?s THE N?RCOTIC DRUGS ?ND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBST?NCES ?CT, 1985 (shortened to NDPS ?ct). Under the NDPS ?ct, it is illeg?l for ? person to produce/m?nuf?cture/cultiv?te, possess, sell, purch?se, tr?nsport, store, ?nd/or consume ?ny n?rcotic drug or psychotropic subst?nce.

Under one of the provisions of the ?ct, the N?rcotics Control Bure?u w?s set up with effect from M?rch 1986. The ?ct is designed to fulfil Indi?'s tre?ty oblig?tions under the Single Convention on N?rcotic Drugs, Convention on Psychotropic Subst?nces, ?nd United N?tions Convention ?g?inst Illicit Tr?ffic in N?rcotic Drugs ?nd Psychotropic Subst?nces. The ?ct h?s been ?mended three times - in 1988, 2001, ?nd most recently in 2014.

The 2014 ?mendment recognizes the need for p?in relief ?s ?n import?nt oblig?tion of the government. It cre?tes ? cl?ss of medicines c?lled Essenti?l N?rcotic Drugs (ENDs). Power for legisl?tion on ENDs h?s been shifted from the st?te governments to the centr?l governments so th?t the whole country now c?n h?ve ? uniform l?w covering these medicines which ?re needed for p?in relief. 

Subsequently, NDPS rules which would be ?pplic?ble to ?ll st?tes ?nd union territories h?s been ?nnounced by the government of Indi? in M?y 2015. It ?lso h?s included 6 drugs n?mely Morphine, Fent?nyl, Meth?done, Oxycodone, Codeine ?nd Hydrocodone. ?ccording to these rules, there is ? single ?gency - the st?te drug controller - who c?n ?pprove recognised medic?l institutions (RMI) for stocking ?nd dispensing ENDs, without the need for ?ny other licences. The RMIs ?re obliged to ensure proper document?tion ?nd to submit ?nnu?l consumption st?tistics to the drug controller of the st?te.

The ?ct extends to the whole of Indi? ?nd it ?pplies ?lso to ?ll Indi?n citizens outside Indi? ?nd to ?ll persons on ships ?nd ?ircr?ft registered in Indi?.

? propos?l to ?mend the NDPS ?ct vi? ? Priv?te Member's Bill w?s ?nnounced by Dr. Dh?r?mvir? G?ndhi MP in November 2016. Dr. G?ndhi's bill would leg?lise m?riju?n? ?nd opium. 

Prevention of Illicit Tr?fficking in N?rcotic Drugs ?nd Psychotropic Subst?nces ?ct

The Prevention of Illicit Tr?fficking in N?rcotic Drugs ?nd Psychotropic Subst?nces ?ct is ? drug control l?w p?ssed in 1988 by the P?rli?ment of Indi?. It w?s est?blished to en?ble the full implement?tion ?nd enforcement of the N?rcotic Drugs ?nd Psychotropic Subst?nces ?ct of 1985.

The N?rcotics Control Bure?u (NCB) is the chief l?w enforcement ?nd intelligence ?gency of Indi? responsible for fighting drug tr?fficking ?nd the ?buse of illeg?l subst?nces. It w?s cre?ted on 17 M?rch 1986 to en?ble the full implement?tion of the N?rcotic Drugs ?nd Psychotropic Subst?nces ?ct (1985) ?nd fight its viol?tion through the Prevention of Illicit Tr?fficking in N?rcotic Drugs ?nd Psychotropic Subst?nces ?ct (1988). 

PUNISHMENT

?nyone who contr?venes the NDPS ?ct will f?ce punishment b?sed on the qu?ntity of the b?nned subst?nce.

• where the contr?vention involves sm?ll qu?ntity(<1 kg), with rigorous imprisonment for ? term which m?y extend to 6 months, or with fine which m?y extend to ?10,000 or with both;

• where the contr?vention involves qu?ntity lesser th?n commerci?l qu?ntity but gre?ter th?n sm?ll qu?ntity, with rigorous imprisonment for ? term which m?y extend to 10 ye?rs ?nd with fine which m?y extend to ?1 l?kh;

• where the contr?vention involves commerci?l qu?ntity, with rigorous imprisonment for ? term which sh?ll not be less th?n 10 ye?rs but which m?y extend to 20 ye?rs ?nd sh?ll ?lso be li?ble to fine which sh?ll not be less th?n ?1 l?kh but which m?y extend to ?2 l?kh.

The following list mentions the n?mes of ?ll subst?nces b?nned or controlled in Indi? under the NDPS ?ct. The list uses the Intern?tion?l Nonpropriet?ry N?me (INN) of the drugs but in some c?ses mentions drugs by their chemic?l n?me. Widely known drugs such ?s g?nj?, coc?ine, heroin etc. ?re mentioned by those n?mes.

Cultiv?tion/production/m?nuf?cture, possession, s?le, purch?se, tr?nsport, stor?ge, consumption or distribution of ?ny of the following subst?nces, except for medic?l ?nd scientific purposes ?nd ?s per the rules or orders ?nd conditions of licences th?t m?y be issued, is illeg?l. 

The Drugs ?nd Cosmetics Rules (1945)

This is supplement?ry legisl?tion to the Drugs ?nd Cosmetics ?ct, 1940 ?nd is concerned m?inly with the st?nd?rd qu?lity of drugs, ?p?rt from exercising control over the “m?nuf?cture, s?le, ?nd distribution, of Drugs ?nd Cosmetics”. In order to ?ssist the progress of the st?tement of results from ex?min?tion or experiment of drug s?mples to ?ssess their ch?r?cteristics, the Centr?l Drugs L?bor?tory w?s est?blished in 1962. Individu?l st?tes h?ve st?rted Drugs Control L?bor?tories. Subst?nd?rd or fr?udulent drugs ?re punish?ble with h?rsh pen?lties if they ?re m?nuf?ctured, stocked, or sold. The requirements for conducting clinic?l studies for newer medicines h?ve been tightened.

?ccording to the Drugs ?nd Cosmetics Rules, drugs ?re divided into the following Schedules:

• Schedule C ?nd C1—Biologic?l products, e.g. serums ?nd v?ccines.

• Schedule D– Non-medicin?l subst?nces, such ?s condensed or powdered milk, o?ts, spices ?nd s?uces, ?nd so on.

• Schedule E1—In the ?yurvedic (including Siddh?) ?nd Un?ni systems of medicine, ? list of toxic drugs is m?int?ined.

• Schedule G—Chemother?peutic ?gents for c?ncer, ?ntihis-t?minics, ?nd hypoglycemic ?gents.

• Schedule H ?nd L—Inject?bles, ?ntibiotics, ?ntib?cteri?ls ?nd other prescription drugs.

• Schedule J— ?IDS, c?ncer, c?t?r?ct, congenit?l m?lform?tions, de?fness, blindness, hydrocoele, herni?, piles, leukoderm?, st?mmering, p?r?lysis, ?nd other dise?ses ?nd ?ilments th?t ? drug m?y not purport to prevent or cure or m?ke cl?ims to prevent or cure, such ?s ?IDS, c?ncer, c?t?r?ct, congenit?l m?lform?tions, de?fness, blindness, hydrocoele, herni?, piles, leukoderm?,

• Schedule O— Disinfect?nt fluids must ?dhere to cert?in guidelines.

• Schedule S—St?nd?rds to be followed with reg?rd to cosmetics ?nd ?llied products.

• Schedule X drugs— ?mphet?mines ?nd other stimul?nts, ?s well ?s b?rbitur?tes ?nd other sed?tives.

• The N?rcotics Drugs ?nd Psychotropic Subst?nce ?ct (1985)

• The N?rcotics Drugs ?nd Psychotropic Subst?nces (NDPS) ?ct  w?s en?cted “to consolid?te ?nd reform legisl?tion pert?ining to n?rcotic drugs, ?s well ?s to provide strict me?sures for the control ?nd regul?tion of N?rcotic Drugs ?nd Psychotropic Subst?nces ?ctivities.” 

• The legisl?tion m?kes it illeg?l “to produce, m?nuf?cture, cultiv?te, own, sell, tr?nsfer, purch?se, or consume ?ny N?rcotic Drugs ?nd Psychotropic Subst?nces”. The term “n?rcotic” in the leg?l sense is quite different from the one used in the medic?l context which denotes ? sleep-inducing ?gent. Leg?lly, ? n?rcotic drug could be ?n opi?te (? true n?rcotic), c?nn?bis (? non -n?rcotic), or coc?ine (the very ?ntithesis of ? n?rcotic, since it is ? stimul?nt). Mind-?ltering drugs such ?s LSD, phencyclidine, ?mphet?mines, b?rbitur?tes, meth?qu?lone, benzodi?zepines, mesc?line, psilocybin, ?nd designer compounds ?re referred to ?s “psychotropic subst?nces” (MDM?, DMT, etc.).

• Initi?lly, there were no Speci?l Courts however, by ?n ?mendment in 1989, now the Government c?n est?blish Speci?l Courts. ?nd there will be one single Judge who h?s powers to t?ke cogniz?nce of ?ll the offences under the NDPS ?ct. 

• There ?re cert?in procedur?l s?fegu?rds under NDPS ?ct, like P?nchn?m?, Seizure report, Se?l report, Proper ?rrest report….etc. One of the key fe?tures of the NDPS ?ct is, not only is the consumption of drugs ?n offence, but possession of drugs is ?n offence, ?s well.  So th?t is to s?y you h?ve kept illeg?l drugs in your house, but you don’t consume them, you will still be punished under sections of the NDPS ?ct. The consumption of Drugs is punish?ble under “Section 27 of NDPS ?ct”. 

• One more import?nt thing to underst?nd in the NDPS ?ct is, your punishment will depend on the qu?ntity of drugs involved in the c?se. The NDPS ?ct c?tegorises drug qu?ntity into 2 types. One is ? Sm?ll Qu?ntity ?nd the other one is Commerci?l Qu?ntity. If you h?ve Sm?ll Qu?ntity drugs your punishment will be of ? lesser degree ?nd if you h?ve Commerci?l Qu?ntity your punishment will be higher. To know wh?t is Sm?ll Qu?ntity ?nd Commerci?l Qu?ntity, NDPS ?ct itself provides det?ils of the Qu?ntity of e?ch drug. They ?re given below ?s ? T?ble.

• Your punishment will r?nge ?nywhere from 6 months to rigorous imprisonment of 20 ye?rs. ?nother fe?ture of the NDPS ?ct is Section 31? which prescribes the de?th pen?lty, for repe?ted offences or cert?in r?re c?ses. 

• There ?re ?lso some speci?l provisions for ?ddicted persons prescribed under the NDPS ?ct. ?s st?ted ?bove, the consumption of drugs is ?n offence under Section 27 of the NDPS ?ct. However,  if the ?ccused person wishes to undergo ? de-?ddiction progr?mme ?nd expresses his intent “to undergo some de-?ddiction progr?mme then he will be immune. Section 64? of NDPS ?ct provides “immunity from prosecution to ?ddicts volunteering for tre?tment.

The Crimin?l Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973

Section 39:  Public to give inform?tion of cert?in offences. Everyone who is ?w?re of the commission or intention to commit ?n offence sh?ll inform the ne?rest police st?tion or ne?rest m?gistr?te.

Section 40: Duty of person in l?w enforcement working in connection with m?tters or business to be t?ken c?re of in ? vill?ge to form ? cert?in report. 

Section 175: Power to summon persons- police officers in ch?rge of the police st?tion or other police officers h?ve the power to summon the person who h?s committed the offence.

The Indi?n Evidence ?ct (IE?), 1872

The Indi?n Evidence ?ct (IE?), Section 32, Cl?use 1, “?llows ? doctor to record ? dying decl?r?tion when the p?tient’s de?th is imminent ?nd the ?rriv?l of the m?gistr?te is del?yed.”

Supreme Court guidelines to prevent ?cid ?tt?cks

1. Over the counter, the s?le of ?cid is completely b?nned except th?t the sellers keep up ? register to record the s?le of ?cid th?t will hold the det?ils of the individu?l to whom ?cid is sold ?nd the qu?ntity of ?cid sold. The record/register is going to register the ?ddress of the person to whom it w?s sold.

2. The seller or the ph?rm?cist c?n only give the ?cid to the buyer if he/she shows ?ny ID c?rd issued by the government which includes the correct ?ddress of th?t person. ?nd he /she should ?lso mention the proper re?son for purch?sing the ?cid.

3. The seller must inform ?bout ?ll stocks of ?cid before the concerned m?gistr?te within 15 d?ys to

4. ?cid sh?ll not be sold to people who h?ve not ?tt?ined the leg?l ?ge.

5. Fine m?y be imposed on sellers who do not decl?re the ?cid stocked before the concerned sub-division?l m?gistr?te. The fine is upto 50,000/-.

6. The concerned sub-division?l m?gistr?te m?y impose ? fine upto 50,000/- on ?ny person who commits ? bre?ch of ?ny of the directions mentioned ?bove.

The following guidelines should be followed by educ?tion?l institutions, rese?rch l?bor?tories, hospit?ls, government dep?rtments, ?nd dep?rtments of public sector org?nis?tions th?t ?re required to preserve ?nd store ?cid:

1. They should m?int?in ?nd produce ? register th?t keeps the inform?tion ?bout ?cid stock before the concerned M?gistr?te.

2. ? person will be t?sked with keeping the ?cid ?nd keeping it s?fe in their ?re?.

3. The ?cid will be stored under the supervision of this person, ?nd students or st?ff le?ving the l?bor?tories/stor?ge sp?ce where the ?cid is used will be subjected to m?nd?tory inspection.

Conclusion

In Indi?, we h?ve ? situ?tion of illicit ?nd illeg?l use of drugs. We h?ve de?ddiction progr?ms, drug peddling ?nd tr?fficking issues ?s well. The circumst?nces we ?re living in ?re becoming more d?ngerous d?y by d?y. Metropolit?n cities h?ve become the drug hubs of the N?tion. Inste?d of ?sking why people ?re getting ?ddicted or why Indi? is becoming ? drug hub we ?ll should ?sk ourselves how we should stop this. We h?ve miscell?neous ?cts ?nd l?ws to control the drug men?ce. It is v?lu?ble for not only doctors ?nd ph?rm?cists but e?ch ?nd every citizen to recognize the drugs prescribed by the doctors.  Its ?w?reness c?n help us refr?in or st?y ?w?y from negligence due to our ignor?nce of these rules ?nd in ?ddition to specifying prudent medico-leg?l viewpoints th?t h?ve connections with drugs ?nd poisons. We ?ll must follow the rules ?nd regul?tions provided to us by l?ws ?nd st?tutes. ?s we ?ll know the proverb “Prevention is Better th?n Cure”, so let’s prevent the ?buse of drugs ?nd poisons before it erodes us completely.

N?RCOTICS L?W IN UNITED KINGDOM ?ND UNITED ST?TES

Supply reduction h?s not cont?ined or reduced prev?lence, despite huge investment ?nd extreme police ?nd milit?ry ?ctivity (H?rm Reduction Intern?tion?l, 2017). Inste?d it h?s cre?ted ? highly profit?ble crimin?l bl?ck m?rket, resulting in violence ?nd corruption, loc?lly, n?tion?lly ?nd glob?lly (McCoy, 2003). Some drug entrepôt countries ?re on the verge of coll?pse ?s effective st?tes (McCoy, 2003; Shirk, 2011) ?nd glob?l networks initi?lly used for drugs ?re now used ?lso for we?pons, illicit donor org?ns, people smuggling ?nd, indeed, ?ny in-dem?nd illeg?l commodity (Lichtenw?ld et ?l., 2009).

There is ? subst?nti?l ?nd undiminishing dem?nd for illicit drugs th?t is currently being met by ?n entirely illeg?l, unt?xed ?nd unregul?ted industry, run by intern?tion?l crimin?l networks, which is one of the l?rgest industries in the world (United N?tions Office on Drugs ?nd Crime (UNODC), 2018). For ex?mple, the tot?l glob?l c?nn?bis ret?il m?rket in 2005 w?s estim?ted ?s between £35 billion ?nd £105 billion ($57 billion ?nd $170 billion) (Reuter ?nd Tr?utm?nn, 2009). The tot?l glob?l v?lue of the illicit drugs tr?de m?y be £236bn (Godlee, 2018), ?ll of it controlled by those crimin?l networks to fund their ?ctivities ?nd denying governments ?ny revenue through t?x?tion. Yet, in e?ch of six US? st?tes th?t h?ve leg?lised the s?le of c?nn?bis (?l?sk?, C?liforni?, Color?do, Nev?d? ?nd Oregon), over $1bn h?s been collected in t?x revenue.

Rem?rk?bly, ?ll six st?tes collect more revenue from their excise t?xes on c?nn?bis th?n from their excise t?xes on beer ?nd wine. Two st?tes, Color?do ?nd Nev?d?, collect more from their c?nn?bis excise t?xes th?n from their excise t?xes on ?ll ?lcohol, including liquor, wine, ?nd beer. ?nd in W?shington St?te, c?nn?bis excise t?xes ?re ne?rly on p?r with excise t?x revenue from ?ll forms of ?lcohol. 

The economic ?rgument for regul?ted s?les of c?nn?bis seems ?ttr?ctive, but it is opposed by ? drug prohibitionist policy st?nce. These tensions will be further borne out ?s more St?tes in the US? continue to ?dopt new drug policies.

The prim?ry concern of this p?per is public he?lth. The f?ct th?t m?ny psycho?ctive subst?nces ?re illeg?l h?s not prevented people from using them. ?t minimum, ? l?rge minority of users t?ke them in h?rmful w?ys with subst?nti?l person?l ?nd soci?l costs. From ? public he?lth perspective, this is b?rely different from the problems of ?lcohol ?nd tob?cco use, except th?t the industry gener?tes no t?x revenue, which c?n support tre?tment ?nd reh?bilit?tion for those who develop problems, ?nd is beyond regul?tion. The p?per will not discuss the economics of drugs policy bec?use the relev?nt figures ?re enormous, involve estim?tes of the costs of int?ngibles such ?s h?rm to f?milies, ?nd involve estim?tes of the ?ctivities of ? secretive industry.

Despite intensive resist?nce by the tob?cco industry, cig?rette smoking h?s been t?ckled by obt?ining unequivoc?l rese?rch evidence th?t smoking is h?rmful, regul?ting the s?le ?nd m?rketing of cig?rettes ?nd ch?nging soci?l norms ?bout smoking, including developing the widespre?d perception th?t smoking is not worth the he?lth risks. In ?bout forty ye?rs, smoking prev?lence in the UK h?s dropped to ?bout ? qu?rter of its pe?k. Since 1974, smoking in the UK h?s f?llen from just below 50% of the ?dult popul?tion to just below 20% (ONS, 2018). The b?n of smoking in public pl?ces h?s been ? m?jor public he?lth benefit ?lso. The industry, however, h?s incre?singly diverted its s?les efforts to less regul?ted m?rkets in the developing world. While the costs of smoking ?re high ?nd the d?ngers well documented, few would c?ll for outright prohibition. Due l?rgely to the known d?ngers of the unintended consequences of such ?ction th?t led to the repe?l of ?lcohol prohibition in the US, but still persists with other, less h?rmful, psycho?ctive drugs.

?lcohol ?lso h?rms public he?lth ?nd its s?le ?nd m?rketing c?n be regul?ted, by v?rious me?ns including pricing ?nd t?x?tion, volunt?ry industry cooper?tion ?nd by ch?nges in soci?l norms. Over the p?st forty ye?rs, gross UK ?lcohol int?ke, ?nd consequent h?rms, h?s incre?sed. Che?per ?lcohol m?y be one re?son for this, perh?ps p?rti?lly solv?ble by minimum pricing (Ludbrook et ?l., 2012). ?lthough the ?lcohol industry is not public he?lth’s ‘friend’ (W?ll?ck, 1992), the industry does, for ex?mple, under pressure, regul?te to some extent the m?rketing of its products. It ?lso resists pressure from public he?lth, for ex?mple continuing to sponsor sport ?nd music events. For ex?mple, the Scotch Whisky ?ssoci?tion (SW?) h?s, for over four ye?rs, ?ctively opposed minimum unit pricing (MUP) of ?lcohol in Scotl?nd – ? cross-p?rty, widely supported initi?tive (?lcohol Focus Scotl?nd, 2016). Despite their efforts to stymie the ?ct, MUP is now oper?tion?l in Scotl?nd, ?nd one ye?r on from its introduction h?s received positive ev?lu?tion ?nd h?s shown to decre?se the volume of tot?l ?lcohol consumption (Mooney ?nd C?rlin, 2019). Soci?l norms ?bout ?lcohol th?t h?ve ?lso ch?nged for the better include intoler?nce of ?lcohol-rel?ted violence, including domestic violence (Livingston, 2011), ?nd reduced drunk-driving.

No such options ?re ?v?il?ble for illeg?l drugs. Repe?ted commission reports ?nd public discussions ?bout ?ppropri?te norms tend to get buried or dismissed ?s sending the “wrong mess?ge” (Smith, 2009). ?pp?rently, the only politic?lly ?ccept?ble option is to document the h?rms c?used by illeg?l drugs ?nd use these ?s r?tion?lis?tions for their gener?lly unsuccessful suppression. Yet, for m?ny drugs the h?rms ?re less th?n for ?lcohol or tob?cco (Nutt et ?l., 2010). Moreover, ?lthough drugs c?n be potent determin?nts of he?lth ?nd dise?se, in prim?ry c?re settings, drug users h?ve obvious motives for being discreet ?bout these beh?viours, including concerns ?bout being stigm?tised ?s drug users, which c?n h?ve ? knock-on detriment?l effect on their individu?l recoveries (McPhee et ?l., 2013). These d?mpen efforts to pr?ctice prevent?tive medicine ?nd minimise h?rm.

Recent ch?nges to regul?te c?nn?bis inste?d of b?nning it m?y be encour?ging, but it is uncle?r th?t c?nn?bis is ? speci?l c?se, ?ny more th?n ?lcohol or tob?cco. Drug h?rms ?re more to do with the mindset of users ?nd the settings of use, including the extent to which products ?re qu?lity controlled, f?irly priced ?nd c?n be obt?ined s?fely (Shew?n ?nd D?lg?rno, 2005).

The ?rguments

There ?re four options open to us: (1) Le?ve things ?s they ?re; (2) Extend l?ws to b?n ?lcohol ?nd tob?cco; (3) Decrimin?lise or depen?lise some or ?ll currently illeg?l drugs; (4) Leg?lise ?nd regul?te some or ?ll currently illeg?l drugs.

Let us consider some implic?tions of e?ch of these options in turn.

Option 1: Le?ve our drug l?ws – n?tion?l ?nd intern?tion?l – ?s they ?re ?nd continue ?s we h?ve done for the p?st h?lf ? century.

Current drug l?ws effectively crimin?lise millions of otherwise l?w-?biding citizens ?nd perpetu?te ? v?st illeg?l ?nd unregul?ted industry. Unregul?ted, the industry c?n sell ?dulter?ted products, products th?t ?re in p?rticul?rly d?ngerous formul?tions, ?nd products th?t ?re bogus. These c?n be sold by ?nyone, to ?nyone, with no requirement for responsible m?rketing, or p?ck?ging th?t expl?ins how to minimise risk, or offers informed choice between different products, or provides ?ny rules or norms ?bout ?ppropri?te use.

The unpredict?ble content of ‘drugs’ m?kes wh?t is ?lre?dy ? risky p?stime consider?bly more so. T?king heroin ?s ?n ex?mple, the illeg?lity of the tr?de together with ?n unreli?ble supply c?n h?ve the effect of m?king the end product question?ble in terms of both content ?nd strength. Even minor fluctu?tions in potency c?n result in de?ths. Le?ving things ?s they ?re, ?bdic?tes he?lth ?nd s?fety controls to ? crimin?lised industry ?nd the folklore of drug users. In recent ye?rs, de?ths from overdose in the US?, for ex?mple, h?ve risen sh?rply, much of it rel?ted to the incre?se in fent?nyl-l?ced street heroin (Cicc?rone, 2017). The ?ppe?l of fent?nyl for the bl?ck m?rket is l?rgely th?t it is very potent, m?king it e?sy to smuggle in sm?ll qu?ntities cont?ining m?ny doses.

Yet, UK governments h?ve gener?lly focussed on supply reduction r?ther th?n regul?tion ?nd tre?tment r?ther prevention. There ?re complex re?sons for f?vouring the st?tus quo, including unknown pressures from powerful lobbies such ?s the ?lcohol, tob?cco ?nd ph?rm?ceutic?l industries ?nd concerns reg?rding medi? opprobrium (see H?mmersley, 2018; H?mmersley ?nd Reid, 2002).

Option 2: We c?n extend the existing l?ws to include currently leg?l subst?nces known to be h?rmful; this would me?n th?t ?lcohol ?nd tob?cco would come within the dom?in of the v?rious n?tion?l ?nd intern?tion?l l?ws ?nd their ?mendments.

The extension of existing drug l?ws to encomp?ss currently leg?l subst?nces with proven ?nd irrefut?ble links to person?l ?nd soci?l h?rms, specific?lly ?lcohol ?nd tob?cco (Nutt et ?l., 2010) m?y, on the f?ce of it, be ?ttr?ctive to m?ny. This would be ? logic?l move in th?t it would c?tegorize two of the more h?rmful ?nd most widely ?v?il?ble subst?nces where they should properly be. However, one p?rticul?r fl?w with this is th?t ?lcohol in p?rticul?r is cultur?lly integr?ted, enormously popul?r, ?nd its use ?ssoci?ted with celebr?tions ?nd festiv?ls. Moder?te imbibers (of whom there ?re m?ny) would be pen?lised for the tr?nsgressions of the immoder?te. We ?lre?dy h?ve ? plethor? of legisl?tion to regul?te the product, ?s well ?s the ?dverse soci?l problems ?ssoci?ted, from weights ?nd me?sures to drink driving.

? more concrete problem would be the ?lmost inst?nt cre?tion of ? further bl?ck m?rket for crimin?l c?rtels. ?lcohol prohibition w?s f?mously tested in ?meric? in the 1920’s ?nd resulted in some he?lth improvements, but coupled with consider?ble public he?lth ?nd s?fety problems (Levine ?nd Rein?rm?n, 2004) ?nd the prolifer?tion of highly org?nised crimin?l g?ngs (McCoy, 2003). The repe?l of prohibition in 1933 s?w these s?me crimin?l org?nis?tions move se?mlessly into the supply ?nd distribution of other intoxic?nts, heroin in p?rticul?r (McCoy, 2003; Musto, 1999). During Covid-19 lockdowns, ?lcohol b?ns in Sri L?nk? ?nd South ?fric? beg?n c?using public he?lth problems ?nd losing government revenue ?lmost immedi?tely.

M?king illeg?l something th?t people enjoy – ?nd pl?inly, this is the princip?l motiv?tion for intoxic?nt use with most people – does not stop them from w?nting it, ?nd it does not stop the drugs industries from meeting those desires. Illeg?lity pushes up prices, ?nd pl?ces m?ny useful public he?lth controls beyond the l?w. ?lso, the ?rguments ?g?inst option 1 ?pply even more so to the possibility of ?ll m?jor intoxic?nts being illeg?l.

? more effective ?ppro?ch might be to m?ke ?lcohol soci?lly un?ccept?ble, ?s is being ?chieved to ?n extent with drunk driving ?nd violence whilst intoxic?ted. Conversely, when ? widely used drug is illeg?l, then both the l?w ?nd medic?l ?dvice c?n seem bi?sed ?nd hypocritic?l to users, who m?y l?rgely disreg?rd offici?l w?rnings ?s l?cking credibility. Current bl?nket b?ns on ?ny illeg?l drug, ?nytime, ?nywhere ?re incre?singly det?ched from re?lity in ? society where, for ex?mple, the current Prime Minister h?s ?dmitted to ?dolescent c?nn?bis ?nd coc?ine use (D?w?r, 2008).

The prohibition of ?lcohol would h?ve enormous implic?tions for public he?lth. On the f?ce of it, such ? move should theoretic?lly le?d to improvements, but in re?lity, the situ?tion would be ?lmost identic?l to th?t of the illicit drugs m?rket, which is to s?y th?t while consumption would continue, we would see ? corresponding drop in purity/qu?lity, ?n incre?se in ?dulter?nts ?s individu?ls (or org?nis?tions) ?ttempt to produce their own, ?nd ?n inevit?ble incre?se in neg?tive he?lth outcomes. Prohibition of ?lcohol would ?lso result in ? sh?rp ?nd very steep rise in cost, ?ffording even gre?ter fin?nci?l rew?rds to crimin?ls. In the end, it seems ? much more prefer?ble option to h?ve better regul?tion of cost, ?v?il?bility ?nd tr?ining for st?ff in order to reduce ?lcohol rel?ted h?rm (B?bor et ?l., 2010).

Option 3: We c?n introduce the decrimin?lis?tion or depen?lis?tion of some/?ll drugs, ?s the Scottish N?tion?l P?rty h?s ?dopted ?s ? future policy for the Scottish Government (Chi?r?, 2019) ?nd ?s h?s been ?dopted in Portug?l where ?ll drug offences ?re now civil not crimin?l offences.

In Portug?l, ?nd most other pl?ces, it does not seem to h?ve m?de much difference (Hughes ?nd Stevens, 2010). For ex?mple, public he?lth in Portug?l rem?ins frustr?ted th?t h?rm reduction ?nd tre?tment f?cilities rem?in limited ?nd drug injectors continue to live ?nd inject in squ?lid conditions. While drug supply itself rem?ins illeg?l the industry c?nnot be t?xed or regul?ted. There c?n be positive public he?lth g?ins, such ?s reduction in blood borne virus infection ?nd drug injecting (C?br?l, 2017; Greenw?ld, 2009) but there is ? d?nger of confl?ting recre?tion?l use with problem use, with incre?sed referr?l to ‘tre?tment’ for those who deem it unnecess?ry. This ?ppro?ch risks contributing to the widely-held, but mist?ken belief, th?t drug users, of ?ny description, ‘need’ to be ‘tre?ted’.

Decrimin?lis?tion is ?n imperfect compromise; it looks good in theory but the re?lity is th?t it is unwork?ble without ? number of different ?uthorities ?nd offici?l bodies being prep?red to “turn ? blind eye”. ? decrimin?lised drug is not leg?l, nor strictly illeg?l, depending on cert?in circumst?nces, nor is it necess?rily of ?ny better qu?lity ?s it comes from the s?me sources ?s ?ny other illeg?l drug. To use the Netherl?nds ?s ?n ex?mple: c?nn?bis is decrimin?lised ?nd c?n be sold in licensed coffeeshops to consumers over the ?ge of 18 in ?mounts up to 5 gr?ms. However, this process h?s m?ny problems. For one, coffeeshops ?re not leg?lly permitted to hold more th?n 500 gr?ms of c?nn?bis for s?le ?t ?ny one time. Further, growing c?nn?bis on the premises, ?nd the tr?nsport?tion of c?nn?bis from ? (the producer) to B (the ret?il outlet) is forbidden by l?w. ?nd yet, ?ll three of these problems ?re circumvented by simply ignoring the l?ws. This st?te of ?ff?irs c?n only re?lly exist with the goodwill of the l?w enforcement services, something th?t c?n, hypothetic?lly ?t le?st, dis?ppe?r ?t ?ny time. This is ?n ?d hoc rel?tionship, me?ning th?t there is consider?ble lever?ge for corruption ?nd continues to ?fford ?mple opportunities for org?nised crime.

Option 4: We consider the leg?lis?tion ?nd strictly enforced regul?tion of ?ll common types of drug for person?l, non-medic?l use.

This is the thorny subject th?t needs to be deb?ted. It is fr?ught with difficulty, being l?den with emotion ?nd with medi?-driven preconceptions ?nd misconceptions, but ?s we h?ve st?ted e?rlier, there ?re now m?ny countries, st?tes ?nd regions th?t ?re fully leg?lising ?nd regul?ting c?nn?bis (GDPC, 2018). We ?re not proposing ? “free for ?ll”, ?nd ? r?nge of leg?lly binding ?nd strictly observed c?ve?ts would be in pl?ce concerning, in p?rticul?r, the regul?tion, specific?lly ?pplied to the supply ?nd distribution of currently illeg?l subst?nces.

When drugs ?re regul?ted, then it is ?lso possible to develop m?ture policies ?nd pr?ctices ?bout where ?nd how they should be consumed. For ex?mple, which forms of opi?te or opioid would be ?v?il?ble ?nd ?t wh?t potencies? The popul?rity of ?lcohol does not extend to selling 100% eth?nol in convenience stores, or drinking whilst working. The b?n on smoking in public premises bec?me popul?r even with smokers. It would ?lso be possible to discuss pricing ?nd the ?ppropri?te forms of different subst?nces th?t should be sold, with ? view to reducing the soci?l ?nd fin?nci?l costs of illeg?l drug problems.

Given the reluct?nce of the tob?cco ?nd ?lcohol industries to self-regul?te, the prim?ry imper?tive in ?ny move tow?rds the leg?lis?tion of drugs would be the exclusion of priv?te enterprise from the process beyond the production of specific subst?nces not ?v?il?ble vi? producer countries. Urugu?y h?s n?tion?lised c?nn?bis production, distribution ?nd s?le, which ?dds further revenue to the n?tion?l coffers (W?lsh ?nd R?ms?y, 2016). M?tters such ?s supply, distribution ?nd qu?lity would, ?s ? necessity, require st?te control (simil?r perh?ps to models for the control of ?lcohol used in C?n?d? ?nd some Sc?ndin?vi?n countries) with scrupulous ?nd ongoing monitoring. There ?re differing models emerging. The st?tes in the US seem to h?ve ? less regul?ted system for c?nn?bis, while Urugu?y ?nd C?n?d? prefer much more st?te involvement ?nd gre?ter control of the regul?tory process (Government of C?n?d?, 2019; W?lsh ?nd R?ms?y, 2016). ?lthough ? lesson le?rned from C?n?d? is th?t the st?te needs to be ?ble to deliver, or users will continue to purch?se illeg?lly.

We would like to discuss some possible implic?tions of leg?lis?tion on c?nn?bis – ?mong the most widely used illicit psycho?ctive subst?nces, ?nd the second most widely used psycho?ctive ?fter ?lcohol (UNODC, 2018).

The shift in p?tterns of c?nn?bis use ?nd m?nuf?cture ?re m?king it extremely difficult to g?uge, or estim?te, use glob?lly. However, on the ?v?il?ble d?t?, c?nn?bis is consumed by some 75 per cent of reported users of illicit drugs— ?n estim?ted 183 million people reporting use in the l?st ye?r (UNODC, 2017: 13). C?nn?bis ?ccounts for more th?n one h?lf (53%) of ?ll illicit drug seizures worldwide (UNODC, 2017: 40). This, ? drug which is now fully leg?l ?nd ?v?il?ble in two UN member countries (C?n?d? ?nd Urugu?y), fully leg?l in 11 US st?tes ?nd ?v?il?ble for medic?l use in ? further 33 (Business Insider, 2020), ?nd not t?king into ?ccount the number of countries where its use is decrimin?lised, such ?s Portug?l ?nd the Czech Republic. There ?re numerous ?ccounts of the economic benefits the leg?lis?tion of c?nn?bis (Wod?k et ?l., 2002; Rolles et ?l., 2012; Room, 2014); ?nd yet, under the UN Single Convention (1961) we persist in ?tt?ching ourselves to ? dikt?t th?t h?s completely f?iled in just ?bout ?ll th?t it set out to do.

C?nn?bis is consumed ?nd grown in ?lmost every country, ?nd the over?ll ?mounts produced ?re reportedly f?r l?rger th?n the tot?l production of other illicit drugs. Cultiv?tion is widely dispersed ?nd rel?tively little is known ?bout the extent of c?nn?bis production. 135 countries, covering 92% of the world’s popul?tion h?ve some sort of c?nn?bis cultiv?tion going on within their borders (UNODC, 2017: 39). Wh?t these figures from the UN tell us is th?t c?nn?bis use is embedded into most societies despite intern?tion?l prohibition policies (with the exception of those mentioned ?bove), with reported use incre?sing, p?rticul?rly in the developing world.

The UNODC w?s est?blished in 1997 ?s the Office for Drug Control ?nd Crime Prevention by combining the United N?tions Intern?tion?l Drug Control Progr?m (UNDCP) ?nd the Crime Prevention ?nd Crimin?l Justice Division in the United N?tions Office ?t Vienn?. It is ? member of the United N?tions Development Group ?nd w?s ren?med the UNODC in 2002. In 2018 it h?d ?n estim?ted ?nnu?l budget of US$326 million. This will be ? fr?ction of the tot?l worldwide l?w enforcement budget ?imed ?t preventing c?nn?bis production. Consider the potenti?l s?vings m?de by h?lting the interdiction of c?nn?bis ?nd leg?lising ?nd regul?ting it inste?d. Consider ?lso, why we h?ve ? situ?tion where, in one country (C?n?d?) where HRH Eliz?beth II is he?d of st?te, ? commodity is leg?l ?nd ?v?il?ble, while in ?nother (UK), possession, supply ?nd cultiv?tion ?re crimin?l offences punish?ble by loss of liberty.

The use of c?nn?bis is not only widespre?d in North ?meric?, L?tin ?meric? ?nd Europe, but is extremely common on the ?fric?n continent too. Indeed, the West ?fric? Commission on Drugs (W?DC), set up by former Secret?ry Gener?l of the UN, Kofi ?nn?n, reported in June 2014 th?t the region must emb?rk on ? r?dic?l rethink of support for drug prohibition policies. Olusegun Ob?s?njo, the commission ch?irm?n ?nd former president of Nigeri?, reported th?t,

We c?ll on West ?fric?n governments to reform drug l?ws ?nd policies ?nd decrimin?lise low-level ?nd non-violent drug offences. (W?DC, 2014: 1)

While the report l?ter st?tes,

Decrimin?lising drug use is one of the most effective w?ys to reduce problem?tic drug use ?s it is likely to f?cilit?te ?ccess to tre?tment for those who need it. (W?DC, 2014: 54)

There is little evidence to suggest th?t drug prohibition policies, whether domestic?lly or intern?tion?lly, ?re reducing the use, s?le or supply of controlled drugs predicted by the UN in 1961 (Bewley-T?ylor, 2001; GCDP, 2018; Lines, 2010; Rolles et ?l., 2012; Rosm?rin ?nd E?stwood, 2012; Stevens, 2011; Tr?ce, 2011).

McKeg?ney (2011) does ?rgue, however, th?t Sweden’s zero toler?nce ?ppro?ch to drug use h?s shown th?t tough ?ppro?ches to interpreting the UN Single Convention c?n succeed. His ?rgument stresses th?t ? tough ?nd consistent ?ppro?ch to drugs c?n produce results desired by the UN when he writes:

It m?y be necess?ry to ?dopt tougher enforcement policies, ?bstinence-focused tre?tment ?nd widespre?d prevention. (McKeg?ney, 2011: 145)

In isol?ting c?nn?bis, McKeg?ney (2011) seems to h?ve ? point, with Sweden’s c?nn?bis using popul?tion ?mong the lowest in Europe. However, when we look ?t Murkin (2014), wh?t c?n ?lso be seen is th?t Sweden’s c?nn?bis using popul?tion is ?lmost the s?me ?s Portug?l’s, which decrimin?lised c?nn?bis use in 2001 (Greenw?ld, 2009). In effect, the levels of c?nn?bis use in wh?t ?re two pol?r policies between Sweden ?nd Portug?l h?ve little imp?ct on reported consumption prev?lence. Of course, cultur?l ?nd environment?l differences between these two countries c?n be ?ssumed to be ? f?ctor in decisions to use. Despite this, it c?n cle?rly be seen th?t Portug?l’s c?nn?bis use is comp?r?tively very low.

?lthough there is nothing p?rticul?rly new ?bout countries deciding to sh?pe their own drug policy (?s is st?ted in ?rticle 4 of the UN Single Convention (1961), ?ll countries h?ve to develop their own bespoke prohibition policy) to suit the conditions ?nd policies within domestic borders, it is estim?ted th?t there ?re now somewhere in the region of 21 countries ?round the world with some kind of form?lised decrimin?lis?tion policies th?t ch?llenge the glob?l consensus cre?ted by the 1961 UN Convention (Rosm?rin ?nd E?stwood, 2012). The Netherl?nds, which h?s the longest tr?dition of employing decrimin?lis?tion policies in Europe, ?lso h?s the lowest per c?pit? number of people who inject heroin comp?red with ?ll other EU countries. Reporting ? f?ll in heroin users from 30,000 in 2001 to 18,000 in 2008 (Tr?nce, 2012: 7).

This highlights the complexity, ?nd even the contr?dictions, inherent in intern?tion?l drug prohibition policy. How c?n intern?tion?l tre?ties be observed when so m?ny countries, ?re se?rching for ? new w?y of interpreting existing glob?l leg?l proscriptions on cert?in commodities? When even the US?, the biggest b?cker of this policy h?s its own domestic pressure to ‘soften’ its ?ppro?ch through the recent votes to leg?lise m?riju?n?, there is ? suggestion th?t the Single Convention in its present form m?y be dism?ntled completely ?t some point in the future. Wh?t m?y be beginning to occur is the form?tion of blocs within the UN th?t ?re c?lling for ch?nge. M?ny of the L?tin ?meric?n countries ?re ex?mples of wh?t m?y be referred to ?s ‘like-minded st?tes’, getting together to ?ttempt to drive the deb?te to higher levels (Lines, 2010).

Unintended effects of prohibition

Synthetic c?nn?binoid receptor ?gonists (SCR?s) were origin?lly developed by the ph?rm?ceutic?l industry to:

h?ve potenti?l ther?peutic uses ?s ?ppetite suppress?nts ?nd ?s ?gents th?t improve memory. (Reggio, 2009: vi)

However, these subst?nces emerged onto the drugs scene in the e?rly to mid-2000s ?s ‘leg?l highs’ or ‘new psycho?ctive subst?nces’ ?nd m?rketed ?s ‘leg?l ?ltern?tives’ to c?nn?bis. Wh?t the industry thought would be ?n ?ltern?tive to c?nn?bis (? pl?nt, which c?nnot be p?tented) to tre?t ?ilments ?lre?dy ?ssoci?ted with ther?pies cont?ining THC ?nd CBD (Reggio, 2009), soon turned out to be ? p?rticul?rly vol?tile subst?nce with m?ny he?lth ?nd soci?l ?dverse consequences.

These products, commonly known ?s ‘Spice’ (?mong other br?nded n?mes such ?s ‘K2’ ?nd ‘Bl?ck M?mb?’), quickly ?ttr?cted the ?ttention of the medi? in the UK ?nd elsewhere, with v?rious ‘zombie’ he?dlines (e.g. The Mirror, 2019) due to the extreme debilit?ting effects of the drug on its users. While this is ? f?irly toxic ?nd potent ‘version’ of c?nn?bis, its ?ttr?ction w?s initi?lly due to its ‘leg?l’ n?ture, me?ning users would not be subject to prosecution under the UKMD? (1971). The popul?rity of these products h?s since declined though, with the introduction of the Psycho?ctive Subst?nces ?ct (2016), which effectively crimin?lised SCR?s to simil?r extents ?s their re?l counterp?rt – c?nn?bis.

Indeed, use of SCR?s h?s been reduced to those on the m?rgins of society – t?rgets of redtop newsp?pers – often homeless with complex ment?l he?lth needs. Closely followed by those in prison, l?rgely due to the smoking b?n ?nd the e?se with which the subst?nce c?n enter j?ils (Public He?lth Engl?nd, 2015). Some medi? ?ttention h?s highlighted th?t these drugs h?ve m?n?ged to get ? foothold in vulner?ble ?nd m?rgin?l communities with occ?sion?l ?ttempts from bro?dsheets in offering ‘underst?nding’ of the situ?tion (The Gu?rdi?n, 2019).

If ever there w?s ?n ?rgument for the leg?lis?tion of c?nn?bis, surely this is it. Very few would counten?nce the use of noxious subst?nces if there w?s ? leg?l, less h?rmful one ?v?il?ble ?s illustr?ted by Gr?ce et ?l.’s (2020) study of rele?sed prisoners in Engl?nd rejecting ‘Spice’ in f?vour of c?nn?bis. SCR?s ?re r?rely used where c?nn?bis is either leg?l or decrimin?lised.