The following is the Drug Education Forum’s submission to the ACMD for their review of cannabis.
Drug Education and Cannabis Classification
The Drug Education Forum as a group interested in educational outcomes and the wellbeing of children and young people believe that, as far as possible, classification should be intelligible and logical so that it can be explained in a justifiable and rational way. To that end, frequent changes are not helpful in enhancing credibility of politicians or scientists unless there are new facts available to justify a change of opinion or politicians are prepared to say their previous decisions were mistaken.
It is important that children and young people get clear and consistent messages about drugs, both legal and illegal. This would include cannabis, the most widely used illegal drug by young people.
Effective drug education seeks to improve children and young people’s knowledge, skills and attitudes towards drugs. Included in this will be information about the legal status of particular drugs.
However, it is important that, should cannabis be reclassified, that this is accompanied with the appropriate resources are made available to ensure that children and young people understand the law and the consequences that flow from breaking it. These resources need to be appropriate for delivery in a variety of different settings (including schools, colleges, PRUs and informal settings such as youth clubs) and for different age groups.
Evidence suggests that drug education is more effective when it is combined with wider drug information campaigns. Should cannabis be reclassified it would be essential if schools and other educational settings receive guidance on the changes to the legal position in time for them to be able to plan and deliver sessions during the same period as any public awareness campaigns are programmed.
We believe that information and guidance is needed at both national and local level, as interpretations will vary in terms of local policing and prevention priorities and activities. We would stress that everything should be done to avoid the needless criminalization of young people – which may after all represent one of the greatest harms from cannabis, depending on levels of use.
We also commend the uptake of the kind of sensible advice contained in the guidance documents for schools, youth services and police produced by the government (in the case of the former) and Drugscope (for the latter two) – although these may well need to be updated to reflect any changes in the classification of cannabis.
Filed under: ACMD, cannabis, classification , ACMD, cannabis
Yes, of course, everyone including young people should be left in doubt as to the the anticipated mental, physical and legal consequences of cannabis use. At present insofar as possession for personal use is concerned cannabis is all but decriminilised.
Repeated changes in classification are counterproductive, not to mention confusing. We need to accept that the downgrading of cannabis was not because of the ostensible reasons of relative harms, but because use is so common that enforcing the law had become at best unviable.
However changes in legislation do not affect the properties of any drug, but in the case of cannabis,notwithstanding political claims to the contrary, use has escalated, and the increasing numbers seeking treatment simply confirm the evidence that was readily available prior to reclassification, but for reasons of political expediency,and, or ideological view points, were either ignored, or supressed.
The idea that anyone should attract a criminal record for illicit drugs use, especially for a first offence is unacceptable; however that does not preclude the concept of specialised educational facilities, where attendance for a prescribed period is mandatory, and where the individual would have ample opportunity to meet with ex users and get their ‘truth’ of how use affected their life.
Habitual users who come to the attention of the Criminal Justice System, are entirely another proposition We need to face up to the fact that many of these do resort to criminal activities to fund their habit, together with the fact that many of them also have mental problems either arising from use, or aggravated by a pre-existing condition.
Notwithstanding 10 years of seeking to ‘reduce harm’, the current strategy has failed to produce facilities and resources, where the co-occuring problems can be treated in parralel. In fact the NTA are unable to provide any information on the numbers of those ‘in treatment’, who have co-occuring disorders, or for that matter what facilities there are for their treatment. It is therefore not surprising that our prison population has a considerable number of inmates with comorbidity, whose pattern of re-offending continues.
Yes, by all means let us have education focusing on all the consequences of drug use, and the most effective methods of addressing them, but perhaps we should start that process in our own back yard before we seek to preach that which we are failing to practise.
“Education” is largely in the hands of the media and journalists who make no effort to present a balanced interpretation of the research findings. At the ACMD review on 5th February I did not hear any evidence that moving cannabis to Class B would discourage people from using it. Yet there were claims that to move it to B would “give a message” of its dangers.
I support RETHINK’s recommendations not to move to class B but instead to have a health information campaign. However cannabis users themselves should take a partnership role for any health campaign for it to have the most impact. If they are engaged they are less likely to dismiss the risks. Threatening to move it to B is not a good way to engage cannabis users in being open about specific risks.