Behind the news: Britain’s drug laws
With a group of MPs predicting that cannabis will be legalised during the coming decade, VIRGINIA BERRIDGE traces the social forces and geopolitical rivalries that have shaped UK drugs policy over the past 150 years
As interest in cannabis’s medicinal properties has grown, so has the number of newspaper headlines that it’s generated. With the drug increasingly being used in the treatment of conditions as diverse as multiple sclerosis and intractable epilepsy, campaigners are now calling – with ever more urgency – for its medicinal benefits to be exploited further still. As recently as July, a cross-party group of MPs predicted that the UK will fully legalise cannabis use within 5 to 10 years.
Their predictions may or may not be realised. But the fact is, for almost five decades, the Misuse of Drugs Act has applied stringent restrictions to cannabis’s medicinal application. And that act is just one part of a panoply of legislation that has regulated the use of ‘dangerous drugs’ in Britain. Why was this legislation introduced? Who does it serve? What is it for?
These laws, which have been in existence in one form or other for more than a century, have undoubtedly aimed to protect the public and to deal with the health problems caused by unrestricted drug use. But if the past 100 years has proved anything, it’s that drug laws have never been about the use of drugs alone. From the interests of the domestic pharmacist profession to geopolitical rivalries, there have always been other interests in play.
This was certainly the case with the very first drugs regulation: the Pharmacy Act of 1868. Before 1868, drugs such as opium had been sold through a multiplicity of outlets. The act changed the landscape by giving sole control of the sale of opiates above a certain strength to the newly emergent pharmacist profession. This was a public health measure – quality was uncertain and overdoses and accidental deaths commonplace. But it was also one that gave pharmacists the authority they needed for professionalisation.
Pharmacy-based drug control was a purely domestic measure. But, soon, Britain’s drug-law policy was increasingly being shaped by events beyond its borders.
One of the first examples of this phenomenon was seen in the late 19th century, when the United States – aiming to extend its strategic influence in the far east, and pressurised by American missionaries in
After the Second World War, cannabis became popular among a younger, more hedonistic cohort of users
China – agitated to end the India-Chinese opium trade. This was a sign of things to come and, by the end of the First World War, the issue of drugs control had taken on a truly global dimension.
One little-noticed aspect of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, the peace treaty that ended the First World War, was the introduction of an international framework for the control of drugs, meaning nations such as Germany, a major manufacturer of cocaine, no longer had the power to veto moves to control the drug. Bodies like the International Narcotics Control Board, which dates to just after the First World War, are still operative today.
Geopolitics has had a huge influence on drugs policy throughout the 20th century – and has shaped global attitudes towards cannabis. When British delegates took
their seats at an international opium conference in Geneva in 1925, cannabis caused few problems back home in the UK. But the Egyptian delegation was determined to use the drug to embarrass its former colonial rulers, and pointed out that, when Egypt had been swamped with smuggled cannabis under British rule, the authorities had done little to address the problems. The subsequent decision to control the drug globally was therefore partly motivated by colonial interests.
‘Parked’ on methadone
Cannabis use began to rise in Britain in the wake of the Second World War, becoming popular among a younger, more hedonistic (though still small) cohort of users. The 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act spoke of “controlled drugs”, rather than dangerous ones, and separated them into three categories: Classes A, B and C. Class A drugs included heroin and cocaine; cannabis was placed in class B; while Class C contained some amphetamines and benzodiazepines. This period also witnessed the establishment of a specialist hospital-based treatment system run by consultant psychiatrists (replacing GPs as the primary interface with drug users).
Drugs treatment has changed radically since then. At first, abstinence sat atop psychiatrists’ agenda, but that was then superseded by a renewed emphasis on harm reduction – and, in the wake of the emergence of HIV/ Aids, maintenance with the opiate-substitute drug, methadone. Now, 40 years on, the focus has reverted to ‘recovery’ and abstinence. This has, in part, been politically driven, but is also informed by a desire not to leave users ‘parked’ on methadone.
Policymakers’ attitudes to cannabis use have evolved too. Internationally, many countries have moved towards less punitive and more health-focused approaches. A ‘zone of pragmatism’ emerged in the EU, while the establishment of licit markets for cannabis in Uruguay and Canada, and the extension of marijuana reforms in US states, have challenged long-established United Nations conventions on drugs control.
Nations are now broadly split into three groups over drug control policy: those who support the status quo, such as China, Russia, much of east Asia and the Middle East; moderate reformers, among them a number of European nations; and radical reformers, including many in Latin America.
But what of Britain? As long ago as 1968, the government’s Wootton Report attempted to reduce the high penalties for possession, and to separate cannabis controls from those for heroin and other opiates. In the early 2000s, home secretary David Blunkett appeared to confirm the general drift towards liberalisation by downgrading cannabis to a Class C drug. (By 2009, however, it had been moved back to Class B). In November 2018, a law was passed allowing doctors to prescribe medicinal cannabis products under certain circumstances.
It’s impossible to foretell what the future holds in Britain. But what we can predict with some certainty is that the push and pull of domestic and international politics will continue to affect drug control. Drug regulation is, as I’ve said, always about so much more than the drugs.