The drug policy in the UK has generated concern into the effectiveness of its legislation. One main characteristic of such debates is the paradox between whether the drug ‘problem’ should be a punitive and legal issue or a health issue. According to Holloway (cited in Barton, 2011), there are three distinct models of regulation around drug control, the first of these is ‘consumer sovereignty’ which refers to there being no formal or legal restriction to access drugs, using or purchasing drugs is entirely at the consumer’s discretion with no moral or legal condemnation. The second model is ‘occupational control’ in which the control of selling and supplying is by trades or professional groups as seen in the Middle Ages, guilds used the need to be a guild member in order to limit the extent of trading. Lastly, bureaucratic legislation is when the state exercises control over the use, sale and trade of certain substances, much like today alcohol and tobacco are legal substances whilst others such as cannabis and cocaine are restricted and banned. This essay will demonstrate a brief analysis of some of the most important legislation within the UK’s drug policies from pre-historic times to present day.
Evidence from archaeologists has shown that individuals have been known to understand and use psychoactive substances to alter their consciousness since earliest human records. The earliest cultural evidence of cannabis use originates from the Neolithic era in China, over 6000 years ago, there is also evidence of opium use during this period for both medicinal and recreational purposes throughout much of Britain (Plant, 2011). According to Croqc (2007) it has been found that priests or shamans have ingested plants to induce states of dissociative trance in religious ceremonies, such as the mushroom amanita muscaria used in Central Asia for at least 4000 years.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
From the beginning to the middle of the 1800’s, Holloway’s concept of consumer sovereignty can be identified as there was no formal or legal restriction to access drugs. Drugs were used both recreationally and medically and there was little concern over addiction. Substance use was normalised until the end of the century.
Condemnation began with the spread of Christianity, the growing influence of the church led to massive civil and social changes. Psychoactive substances were believed to be linked to witch craft and devil worship. Furthermore, signs of change in public attitudes towards drugs were seen in the latter of the 1800’s and early 1900’s as excessive opium use was beginning to be seen as a form of addiction. Mounting concern over the use of psychoactive substances such as cocaine and opium, during World War 1 by troops on leave urged the need for intervention.
Initially, no government department was willing to assume responsibility for substance control which may be understandable at a time when Britain was thrust into war (Barton, 2011). It could be argued that there was a need to solve a drug ‘problem’ earlier than the 1900’s but government did not have the time or facilities to do so. Robson (1994) comments that legislation pre-1916, such as the 1868 Pharmacy Act which restricted the possession of cocaine to authorised persons, was weak and there was a ‘roaring black market in cocaine’. This is testimony that drug policies between then and now have not reduced the demand for drugs as this is still the case today. Robson also does not go on to say whether post-1916 legislation has been a success.
The period of time between 1909 and 1926 witnessed a massive shift from a consumer sovereignty model to a situation where there were stringent controls of a number of substances (Barton, 2011). The Treaty of Versailles contained a clause that required all signatories to introduce domestic legislation to deal with their respective drug ‘problems’. In Britain, this led to the Dangerous Drugs Act (1920). From the 1920’s, possession of all opiate and cocaine-based products without the authorisation or medical prescription became prohibited with heavy punishments, Edwards (1981) suggests that this legislation marked the birth of the contemporary system in the UK.
The Rolleston Committee (1926) set up to investigate opiate prescribing confirmed that the 1920 Dangerous Drugs Act allowed only medical practitioners to prescribe morphine, cocaine and heroin but it was not clear whether prescribing drugs to addicts constituted legitimate medical work. The Act was criticised because drug users could play a ‘sick role’ in order to receive a regular supply of these drugs. However, the underlying issue of whether drug use was to be dealt with by criminal justice or medicine had still not been resolved (Barton, 2011). Police has the power to prosecute unauthorised drug use, supply and possession but medical professionals could still treat addiction. It is still not clear from current legislation, explored later in the essay, that this concern has been resolved. This policy remained in Britain until the 1960’s, it is worth noting that this is the period during and after WW2 and although drug use may have been problematic, reassessment of drug policies were not a priority.
There was a substantial rise in recreational drug use and the number of addicts had dramatically increased in the first half of the 1960’s. There was a sharp increase in heroin use with the total number of heroin ‘addicts’ known to the Home Office increasing from 68 to 342 in the five years between 1959 and 1964 (Spear, cited in Simpson et al, 2007). A small number of medical professionals were to blame for this dramatic rise in heroin use due to over-prescribing therefore increasing the availability of the drug. The Dangerous Drugs Act 1967 attempted to prevent further escalation of the problem (which would later lead to the 1980’s heroin epidemic) by tightening controls on heroin prescribing. Within a short period of time, the illegal imported heroin market became the primary supply source as it is today.
By 1970, the British state had been forced to reassess the policies of controlling drug use due to a continued increase in heroin use, the number of ‘addicts’ notified to the Home Office had dramatically risen to 2240 between 1964 and 1968 (Simpson et al, 2007). This dramatic rise is important to mention because it is arguably the beginning of societal drug use as is known in the UK today. The introduction of new psychoactive substances such as amphetamines and LSD further enforced the need for new disciplines which led to legislation that is still used today to control drugs.
The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 introduced the dichotomy of ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ drugs by creating three classes of controlled substances – A, B and C. The punishments and penalties for drug offences such as use, supply, possession and the intent to supply are dependent on the drug involved. Illegal substances are categorised by the level of harm they inflict and how addictive the substances are however, this has been disputed by the government’s former chief drugs adviser David Nutt (Nutt, 2009) and it can be argued that classification is based on traditional and societal perceptions of certain substances. There is still debate over the classification of drugs as a result of this Act, for example there was significant public concern over decisions to reclassify cannabis from Class B to Class C in 2005 (Home Office, 2006).
A final point to touch on here is the definition of the wording of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The term ‘misuse’ is to use something in the wrong way or for the wrong purpose which implies that there is scope to the degree of prohibition on psychoactive substances. To a certain extent there is a correct way to use ‘illegal’ drugs that makes them legal in that medical professionals administer morphine and heroin but it would be an offence if one was found in possession of such drugs without medical authorisation. Yet drugs such as ecstasy and cocaine have no medicinal purpose in the UK but are still governed by the ‘misuse’ act.
Since 1971, there have been numerous Acts to amend the predecessor, such as the 1985 Controlled Drugs (Penalties) Act which increased the penalty for trafficking Class A drugs to life imprisonment. Another important piece of legislation emerged recently with the introduction of drug testing on arrest enabled by the Drugs Act 2005. The Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 was introduced to restrict the production and supply of a new class of drugs known as ‘legal highs’ in an attempt to tackle new substances being used by society for recreational intoxication purposes. This Act replaced the previous system of enacting temporary controls of substances using temporary class drug orders to provide more rapid control of the increasing number of new psychoactive substances.
The current drug strategy aim is ‘to reduce the harm that drugs cause to society, to communities, individuals and their families’ (HM Government, 2017). The Government has maintained this fundamental aim, but deep concern has been expressed by critics regarding over-reliance on criminalisation does not achieve its objective to reduce the misuse of drugs. A combination of reasons have been presented by Pryce (2012) as to why UK’s drug policies have not produced a drug-free world. Predominantly, many people want to use or try drugs seeking intoxication from legal and illegal psychoactive substances. Furthermore, a change in the laws does not necessarily change behaviour and the law seems to be no match for those who want to make money by supplying. Although UK’s drug policies have not created a drug-free world, the latest statistics from the Home Office Crime Survey for England and Wales 2017/18 (Home Office, 2018) suggest that among people aged 16-59, use of most drugs has been decreasing for several years and is at its lowest since 1996. This is important because this indicates that these policies do work to an extent but are still in need of reform.
To summarise, an immediate feature of the first half of the 1800’s is the lack of legal control and worry displayed by society over psychoactive substances that cause major concern today. Britain’s substance control legislation from 1923-1964 implemented as a result of international treaties, not domestic problems which seem to appear in the mid to late 1960’s. By this time recreational substance use was dramatically increasing, known ‘addicts’ increased and were getting younger (Barton, 2011).
Concern grew over health and addiction in the latter half of the century with led to the formation of legislation as we now know it. Introduction of new drugs after the Second World War led to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 which is still used today. Although numerous amendments have been made such as penalties and classification, the UK still relies heavily on drug policies set out nearly 50 years ago.
Millions around the world regularly still use illegal drugs regardless of the policies in place to prohibit this. Therefore the policies are unsuccessful in achieving what are set out to do – eliminate drug use, supply and dependence. Although drug use in the UK is decreasing, the current system is outdated, ineffective and in need of regeneration.
Stuck on your essay?
