Ossebaard H.C. & van de Wijngaart G.F. (1998) Volume 9, Number 4. p. 263-271
1.8
HARALAMBOS, Michael. HOLBORN, Martin. HEALD, Robin. (2004). Sociology Themes and Perspectives. 6th Edition. London. Collins Educational.
Chapter 6 (pages 335-337) Sub-cultural theories.
Chapter 6 (pages 347-349) An Interactionist perspective on crime and deviance including labelling theory and studies carried out by Jock Young (1971), Chambliss (1973) and Jones (2003).
Chapter 6 (pages 358-363) Left Realism.
HUGHES, Rhidian. LART, Rachel. HIGATE, Paul. (2006). Drugs: Policy and Politics. Open University Press.
Chapter 1. Social Exclusion, Drugs and Policy.
Chapter 5. Drugs, Law and the Regulation of Harm
Chapter 9. Contemporary Social Theory in the Drugs Field.
These chapters focus on contemporary drug policies and the social implications.
STOCKWELL, Tim. GRUENWALD, Paul J. TOUMBOUROU, John W. LOXELY, Wendy. (2005). Preventing Harmful Substance Use: The Evidence Base for Policy and Practice. John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
(1.1 )Preventing Risky Drug Use and Related Harms. (page 3) refers to the need for new knowledge.
(5.4 )Deterrence Theory and the Limitations of Criminal Penalties for Cannabis Use. (page 267)
This text does refer to the United States but will remain applicable to this investigation.
1.9
This investigation will take the form of a literary review incorporating qualitative and quantitative data from a variety of secondary sources such as books, journals and the internet. To undertake a research project using primary methods such as survey or ethnographic techniques would involve high costs in time and money therefore a literary review is the best approach to take when considering the limited time and funds available.
The two social disciplines of sociology and politics will be integrated into this investigation as they complement one another in the context of the main research question. Psychology is a more common discipline to be applied in the investigations of drug use however there are a number of interesting and relevant sociological perspectives including labelling theory although it could be argued this theory itself takes a more psychological and individualistic approach.
CHAPTER 2.
2.1
Drug policy is a collection of policies that affect the use and application of drugs. In Britain, policy is based on prohibitionist principles. Prohibition in this case refers to laws which outlaw the distribution and consumption of drugs, deemed to be illegal by UK policy. (see Appendix 1 and 2).
Current drug policy in the UK has come under increasing scrutiny from a number of different organisations. A recent report entitled An Analysis of UK Drug Policy (April 2007) commissioned for the new UK Drug Policy Commission (UKDPC) demonstrates that the United Kingdom has the highest level of problem drug use and the second highest level of drug-related deaths in Europe.
Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker defends the current Labour government policies arguing that there priority was harm reduction, cutting drug misuse by 21 percent and investing in a 7.5 billion pound programme of enforcement, education and treatment.
“We have no intention of reviewing the drug classification system,” he concluded. (Yahoo! News UK, Article 1)
Alternative ideologies include decriminalisation and legalisation. The term decriminalisation refers to a policy of reducing or abolishing criminal penalties in relation to certain acts. Legalisation takes this further by supporting the complete legalising of consumption and distribution.
The concept of crime and deviance is relative in that it is defined relative to the norms and values of any given society. Social theories such as Labelling theory, Becker (1963), offer explanations of the social impact of policies and suggest alternatives and improvements.
2.2
The central issue of this investigation is to determine the effectiveness and implications of drug policies, by focusing on contemporary UK policy and its alternatives.
2.3
For the investigation it was necessary to carry out a literary review of relevant secondary sources such as books, journals and internet material. This provided a balance of qualitative data regarding drug policy supported by quantitative data in the form of trends and statistics which are provided at the back of the report. A literary review was the most viable option when considering the limited funds and time scale available.
2.4
The investigation incorporates the disciplines of Sociology and Politics. Sociologists attempt to understand and explain the social world and in doing so have borne a number of varying perspectives. One such perspective is Symbolic Interaction, within which lies labelling theory. The following quotation is taken from Howard S Becker (1963), he argues:
“The deviant is one to whom the label has successfully been applied; deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label.” (Haralambos 6th ed. P346)
What Becker and labelling theory implies is that deviant acts only become so depending on the definitions and perceptions placed upon the act by others. Becker proceeded to examine the consequences for an individual who has been labelled as deviant, he argues that this becomes the master status overriding that persons status as mother, employee and friend. The responses to the label by other members of society may then shape the self-concept of the individual resulting in further and possibly more serious deviance. This is often referred to as the ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’. (Haralambos 6th ed. P347)
An alternative sociological perspective on crime and deviance is that of the Left Realists. Originating in 1980’s Britain, Left Realists adopt an approach similar to the ideology of the British Labour Party. Theorists such as Jock Young and Richard Kinsey argue that local communities should have more involvement in dealing with crime in their area and a policy of minimal policing adopted by the authorities. It is important to note that this policy refers to a reduction in police involvement and not a policy of decriminalisation. This however is a just one aspect, the main focus of this theory is on reducing the inequalities in society as a means to reduce crime. (Haralambos 6th ed. P358)
Politics touches on all most everything from every day exchanges and interactions to large scale organisations such as businesses and religious groups. Political science is the study of political behaviour and examines the acquisition and application of for example voting systems, voting behaviour and policies. It also involves the study of political philosophy, which seeks a rationale for politics and is built on the work of renowned philosophers and theorists such as Plato, Roussos and Locke. The focus of this investigation is on UK drug policy and its effectiveness. Discussions on drug policy generally fall into one of three categories, either decriminalisation, legalisation or prohibition. Current policy in the UK is based on prohibitionist principles, meaning it is illegal to use or distribute certain drugs identified by the authorities.
The Labour party gained power in 1997 and in ten years have deviated little from the legal position laid out by the Conservatives in 1971. Exceptions to this are the downgrading of cannabis to Class C in 2004 and the criminalisation of unprocessed ‘magic’ mushrooms. However many Labour supporters argue that the real progress has been made in investment and strategy (See Appendix 3). The Home Office outlines the four key elements of their cross-government strategy as;
- Reducing drug related crime.
- Reducing the supply of illegal drugs.
- Preventing young people becoming drug users.
- Reducing drug use and drug-related offending through treatment and support.
(www.home office.gov.uk)
The flagship programme of the Labour government strategy is the Drug Interventions Programme (DIP). It began in 2003 and receives around 165 million in funding for the treatment of addicts. (www.drugs.gov.uk/drugs-interventions-programme/)
The Conservative party introduced the policy of classifying and reprimanding based on perceived harm, with the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. They also introduced the Controlled Drugs Act in 1985 and the Drug Trafficking Offences Act the following year. These two Acts increased jail sentences for trafficking class A drugs and empowered police to search and seize material and assets. Current Conservative leader David Cameron has fallen short of outlining a complete strategy or policy for his party. However he has outlined possibilities such as legalising cannabis for medicinal use if there were sufficient evidence of health benefits. Responding to a question on his internet web site the Conservative leader did make it clear that he did not endorse legalising the drug for recreational use. He argued;
"It is right that it's criminal because if you decriminalise you increase the availability and make it more difficult for parents who are trying to keep their children away from drugs." (news.bbc.co.uk). Article 1.
In contrast one country which has adopted a policy of decriminalisation is the Netherlands. Law set out in 1976 differentiates between hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine and the softer drugs like cannabis. The latter carries only a minor punishment for use and is rarely implemented in any case. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Dutch drug policy is the existence of a small number of independent and unlicensed cafes which sell cannabis under strict conditions such as age limits and advertisement bans. The over all aim of this policy is to provide a safe environment for cannabis users whilst breaking the link between drugs and crime. This is supported with investment in education, rehabilitation and other harm reduction policies such as centres for addicts.
2.5
The following points from a to f refer to a monograph written for the UK Drug Policy Commission by Peter Reuter, University of Maryland and Alex Stevens, University of Kent. It is entitled An Analysis of UK Drug Policy (April 2007). (www.ukdpc.org.uk).
a. The aim of Alex Stevens and Peter Reuter was to examine the strengths and weaknesses of current UK drug policy whilst providing a survey of the effects and problems associated with various drugs. They offer a summary of the historical development of British drug legislation and have written five chapters in all, examining drug use and related problems, as well as the impact of current policy and related policy and research issues.
b. The main findings of An Analysis of UK Drug Policy (2007) were as follows;
- The United Kingdom has the highest level of dependent drug use and amongst the highest levels of recreational drug use in Europe.
- The drug problem steadily worsened over the last quarter of the twentieth century. For example the number of dependent heroin users increased from around 5,000 in 1975 to a current estimate of 281,000 in England.
- The annual socio-economic cost of drug related crime in England and Wales was estimated at over £13 billion.
- Occasional drug use is not the principle cause of Britain’s drug problems.
- Drug problems such as dependency, infection and crime tend to concentrate in areas of social deprivation.
- The majority of government expenditure on drug policy is devoted to enforcing drug laws.
- Cannabis use has declined since its re-classification in 2004.
- There is little evidence from the UK or any other country, that drug policy influences the number of drug users or the percentage of users who are dependent.
c. Reuters and Stevens analysis is an example of an objective report with no signs of political or ideological bias. It is well structured and each argument and issue is clearly signposted from start to finish and is supported with clear and relevant empirical evidence in the form of graphs, tables and statistics.
d. The original aim of the authors was to analyse current drug policy in the UK, this was clearly conveyed to the reader from the very beginning of the report. This was achieved by analysing social problems such as crime and dependency, whilst offering a review of current drug policy and its implications. The purpose of any report is to provide an objective and un-biased examination of a certain topic or issue. Reuters and Stevens (2007) have done this and delivered a piece of work which integrates social and political issues in a clear and structured manner, and thus simple for the reader to follow and understand.
e. The authors provided definitions of the key concepts in the introduction and provide a history of drug policy in the UK, which puts the main body of the report into context for the reader. Throughout there is appropriate use of tables, graphs and statistics which clarify and support issues such as Britain’s high levels of problem drug use.
f. In terms of it’s remit Reuter and Stevens report met its original aim in an objective and structured manner. However It could have been improved upon by examining and offering alternatives to current UK drug policy. It could also incorporate social theories and party policies, although this could result in bias and remove focus from the initial and more simpler aim.
2.6
The aim of this report is to determine the effectiveness and implications of UK drug policy. After reviewing the relevant material, comparing ideologies and policies and applying sociological theory, the following was found;
- Evidence suggests there is a strong correlation between problem drug use and acquisitive crime such as muggings, burglary and theft. For example 69 percent of arrestees tested positive for one or more illegal drugs. Similarly 60 percent of arrestees who reported using one or more illegal drugs and committing one or more acquisitive crimes acknowledged a link between their drug use and offending behaviour. (www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rdspdfs2/r179.PDF)
- Prohibition as a policy appears to be having little effect on problem drug use and related crime in the UK. Between 1994 and 2005, the annual number of people imprisoned rose by 111 percent and the average length of their sentences increased by 29 percent. In contrast drug use has increased significantly in the last decade and most recent estimate was that there were 327,000 problematic drug users in England 2004/5. (An Analysis of UK Drug Policy 2007 P19)
- The Home Office defends government drug policy and argues that more drugs are being seized, offenders caught (See Appendix 4 and 5) drug related crime is falling and record numbers are entering and staying in treatment (See Appendix 3). In 2005/6, the number of individuals receiving structured treatment rose by 13 percent from the previous year. While the number of drug related deaths in England fell by 14 percent from their peak of 1,666 in 2002 to 1,427 in 2004.(www.drugs.gov.uk)
-
Labelling theorists would argue that by maintaining a policy of prohibition, the British government risks labelling a large number of normally law abiding citizens as criminals. In some cases this can lead to further deviance. Jock Young (1971) conducted a study of marijuana users in Notting Hill, London. He argues, that police perceptions and actions towards the ‘hippies’, results in the latter retreating into small groups and forming a deviant self-concept with deviant norms and values. Young concluded that because of increased police activity, ‘drug taking in itself becomes of greater value to the group as a symbol of their difference, and of their defiance of perceived social injustices.’ (Haralambos 6th ed. P348)
- Decriminalisation as an alternative holds little support from the major Westminster parties such as Labour and the Conservatives. When applied as a policy, as has been done in the Netherlands, results are varied and inconclusive. In terms of problem drug use and the general health of drug users, the Dutch sit mid table in the European statistics. For example the prevalence of cannabis use amongst young adults aged 15-24, was 17 percent (2001/02). In comparison in England and Wales (2004/05), drug use for the same age group was 24 percent.(European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction). Unintended implications of the law include drug tourism and the pollution associated with other forms of tourism.
- Legalisation is the most controversial policy, and is unlikely to ever be applied in the UK or any other Western society. However many supporters argue that if it were to be introduced, it would almost entirely eliminate the criminal element associated with drug use. Whilst handing control to the authorities who could regulate and tax, in order to fund a focused harm reduction and rehabilitation programme.
2.7
The following points from a to d refer to the research article, Attitudes to Drug Policy and Drug Laws; a review of the international evidence. Russell Newcombe (2004);
a. The article cited above is written and prepared for an academic audience. The author offers a detailed record and interpretation of secondary data collected from a number of societies and presents it in a style typical to a research article. It is well sign posted and consistent with its aims.
b. Newcombes article is divided into two main sections. The first deals with problems associated with the surveys and studies into drug policy and opinion. The second section reviews evidence from polls and research in America, Oceania, Asia and Europe. It was delivered in a coherent and logical order, offering background information before divulging into statistical analysis. This aided in effectively expressing the original purpose.
c. The report in question was well structured with a balance of qualitative and quantitative data. Taking into account both purpose and audience, the author provides clear definitions, headings and coherent links.
d. Spelling, punctuation and syntax appear to be consistently accurate throughout. Similarly sentence structure, paragraphing and vocabulary adapt to suit the purpose of the report. For example shorter, simpler sentences when analysing statistical data and longer and elaborate sentences when addressing the qualitative problems with research methods.
2.8
Evidence taken from resources such as Reuter and Stevens Analysis of Current UK Drug Policy (2007) suggests that although funding has increased and progress been made in areas such as education and rehabilitation, the over all effectiveness of prohibition as a policy is failing and appears rather to be antagonising the problem of drug use. For example the number of dependent heroin users in England increased from an estimated 5,000 in 1975 to a current estimate of 281,000.
Alternative policies to Prohibition come in the form of harm reduction, decriminalisation and legalisation. There are a number of groups and organisations who advocate the adoption of such policies, for example The UK Harm Reduction Alliance and the Scottish Socialist Party.
Sociologists such as Becker (1963) argue from a Symbollic Interaction perspective. It is his belief that the labels such as criminal and deviant are being applied to normally law abiding citizens and in some cases can shape the self concept of an individual and result in further deviance. This implies that if the criminal and deviant labels were removed from acts such as drug use, it can be regulated and prevented from spiralling into further deviance.
Left Realists in contrast adopt an approach similar to that of the Labour party and support prohibitionist principles. However there focus is on encouraging community involvement and reducing police presence. This in some ways acknowledges the criminalizing effect of police presence and perceptions discussed in Beckers (1963) Labelling theory.
Despite the sociological evidence, decriminalisation as a policy holds little support from the major UK political parties and when applied, as it has been in the Netherlands, produces inconclusive evidence. It can however be argued that it does not perpetuate problem drug use and offers a safer environment for users.
It is unlikely however, that this kind of policy would be adopted in the UK. Firstly there is little support in mainstream politics, secondly if it were to adopt a policy similar to that of the Dutch cafes, it would contradict the now UK wide smoking ban. Finally, with Britain’s membership of the EU, and further discussions of a possible EU constitution after the French elections, UK drug policy may be dictated entirely by a general European policy.
Finally in addressing the main research question, it appears from the evidence collected that the current UK policy of prohibition is having little effect on issues such as the levels of problem drug users, health and related crime, amongst others. Progress has however been made in investment, particularly in education and rehabilitation. Decriminalisation as an alternative appears to offer a safer and healthier environment for drug users and removes much of the criminal element involved. Most importantly, evidence taken from the Netherlands suggests that drug use amongst the general population has not increased as some feared would happen as a result of decriminalisation. This therefore suggests that legalisation if adopted as a policy, wouldn’t perpetuate drug use and would also allow the authorities to regulate and tax distribution and consumption. Thus, a greater amount of tax revenue could be re-invested into a more rigorous rehabilitation and education policy on drugs. Finally it would entirely remove the criminal element involved with drug use.
CHAPTER 3.
3.1
Deciding to investigate drug use and policy was initially based on the wealth of literature and research on the subject. In time this proved to slow the progress of the report rather than benefit it. It is evident from this that more time must be invested in research of the topic.
3.2
Planning is the most critical part of any report design. Unfortunately in this case, the plan included an unrealistic timescale and lacked the focus and structure, gained with experience. Similarly the process of research was underestimated and lacked cohesion. Over all the original design of the report consisted of many weaknesses, however it can be said that one of its strengths was its versatility and its adaptability to the final product.
3.3
There was an enormous amount of sources and data available, however the problem lay in identifying the most suitable. The major issue with data was terminology which was wide and varied, this made comparisons more difficult. Similarly statistics on drug use and related crime are quite often based on individuals admissions and honesty, thus compromising the reliability of such statistics.
3.4
The major flaw with the original design was the unrealistic timescale, particularly in terms of research. This will be taken into consideration in future and appropriate time will be allocated to extensively research the topic. It is also true that the original design was simple and somewhat vague, this however, was purposeful in accommodating for this researchers inexperience and providing flexibility to develop the report. Modifications mainly involved the selection of texts, sources and data, this was due to funding and availability issues. In future reports all texts, sources and data will be identified and obtained before development begins.
3.5
The integrative nature of the investigation highlighted the need to incorporate the social disciplines when addressing an issue. In terms of drug policy for example, a full and balanced analysis cannot be given with out the integration of Politics, Psychology, Economics, Sociology and History.
3.6
Both disciplines were relevant to the subject and in terms of the political nature, there was a large amount of straightforward and useful information. There are also a substantial number of Sociological theories on crime and deviance, however when applied to the aspect of drug use, information and data became less readily available. In hindsight perhaps the discipline of Psychology would have been more applicable to this report.
3.7
The most important thing that can be learnt from this investigation is how to manage an appropriate timescale and also the necessity of a clear and structured plan. In terms of research, it develops the skills required to extract and evaluate the relevant information which can be applied in other areas of life.
3.8
The aim of the investigation was to analyse current UK Drug policy and its alternatives whilst incorporating a sociological perspective. The investigation achieves this, however it is not an extensive analysis.
3.9
The main body of the investigation offers a balance of political policy, political opinion and social theory. Each argument is clearly presented and structured whilst supported with empirical evidence. However it does not extensively analyse policy and in reality offers no more than a general introduction to the topic.
Appendix 1.
Information taken from www.drugs.gov.uk/drugs-laws/misuse-of-drugs-act/?version=1
APPENDIX 2
Drugs Act 2005 ; The new Act brings about new police powers to test for class A drugs and more.
Aims of Drugs Act:
- Increase the effectiveness of the Drug Interventions Programme by getting more offenders into treatment.
- Introduce a new civil order that will run alongside ASBOs for adults to tackle drug related anti-social behaviour.
- Enhance Police and Court powers against drug offenders.
- Clarify existing legislation in respect of magic mushrooms.
Content of Drugs Act:
- Test drug offenders on arrest, rather than on charge.
- Require a person with a positive test to undergo an assessment by a drugs worker.
- Provide for an -intervention order- to be attached to ASBOs issued to adults whose anti-social behaviour is drug related, requiring them to attend drug counselling.
- Allow a court to remand in police custody for up to a further 192 hours those who swallow drugs in secure packages, to increase the likelihood of the evidence being recovered.
- Allow a court or jury to draw adverse inference where a person refuses without good cause to consent to an intimate body search, x-ray or ultrasound scan.
- Create a new presumption of intent to supply where a defendant is found to be in possession of a certain quantity of controlled drugs.
- Require courts to take account of aggravating factors - such as dealing near a school - when sentencing.
- Amend the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 to give police the power to enter premises, such as a crack house, to issue a closure notice.
- Amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, making fungi containing the drugs Psilocin or Psilocybin (-magic mushroom') a class A drug.
- Repeal section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.
Taken from http://www.drugs.gov.uk/drugs-laws/drug-act-2005/
APPENDIX 3
Facts and Statistics
Tackling drugs is one of the Government’s highest priorities – backed with record investment, new powers and an expanded workforce.
Key facts about the Drug Strategy:
- The Drug Strategy is delivering tangible improvements in communities across the country
- The Strategy focuses on the most dangerous drugs, the most damaged communities, on problematic drug users and the young people who are most vulnerable to developing drug misuse problems.
- The Drugs Act, the creation of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the neighbourhood policing agenda, the treatment effectiveness strategy and the Young People’s Delivery Plan all contribute to an extension of reach and interventions which will further reduce the harms caused by illegal drugs.
Increasing quantities of drugs are being seized and organised crime groups and dealers disrupted:
- In 2005/06, over 2,200 kg of heroin, 15,300 kg of cocaine were seized and taken out of the supply chain. 193 trafficking groups were dismantled or disrupted and £30 million of drug related criminal assets were seized.
- The total number of drug offenders brought before the courts has been rising since 2000.
- Since 2000, there has been a downward trend in the proportion of people perceiving drug use or drug dealing as very or fairly serious problems: from 33% in 2000 to 27% in 2005/06.
Record numbers of drug misusers are entering and staying in treatment:
- Treatment works and is cost-effective: for every £1 spent on treatment, at least £9.50 is saved in crime and health costs.
- The number of individuals receiving structured treatment has increased by 13% from 160,450 in 2004/5 to 181,390 in 2005/6. This represents an increase of 113% on the 1998/9 baseline of 85,000 people receiving structured treatment.
- 77% of those entering treatment in 2005/06 remained in structured treatment for 12 weeks or more, when treatment is more likely to be effective.
- Numbers of drug-related deaths in England fell by 14% from their peak of 1,666 in 2002 to 1,427 in 2004.
- Among young people under the age of 20, year-on-year declines have resulted in 47% fewer drug-related deaths in the period between 2000 and 2004.
- More drugs workers are being recruited – up to 10,106 in September 2005; up by almost 50% from March 2002.
Drug-related crime is falling:
- Acquisitive crime – to which drug-related crime makes a significant contribution - is continuing to fall and, in 2004/05, was a fifth lower than in 2002/03, the year before the introduction of the Drug Interventions Programme.
- Every month, around 2,500 drug-misusing offenders are entering treatment through the Drug Interventions Programme. This is on track to achieve our ambition to direct around 1,000 drug-misusing offenders into treatment every week by 2008.
- Drug testing on arrest and required assessment, introduced in the Drugs Act 2005, have been successfully implemented in all DIP intensive areas. Restriction on bail provisions have also been rolled out to all Local Justice Areas in England.
- the proportion reporting that they have ever taken any drug has fallen by 16%;
- the proportion reporting that they have ever taken Class A drugs has fallen by 18%;
- the proportion reporting the use of any drug in the past year has fallen by 21%;
- the proportion reporting the use of class A drugs in the past year is stable; and
- the proportion reporting the use of cannabis in the past year has fallen by 24%
- Use of any drug had decreased: 19% of pupils had taken drugs in 2005, compared to 21% in 2003.
- Cannabis use had decreased: 12% of pupils had used cannabis in 2005, down from 13% in 2003, 2002 and 2001.
*Taken from http//:www.drugs.gov.uk/drug-strategy/facts-and-statistics/
APPENDIX 4
'Drug offences' - Long-term national recorded crime trend
Source: Research Development & Statistics (CRCSG) Home Office
- There were a total of 178,502 drug offences recorded by the police in
2005/06. This represents a 23 per cent increase from the previous year. The increase, for the most part, was due to an increase in the recording of possession of cannabis offences which coincided with an increase in the number of formal warnings for cannabis possession which were issued.
- With effect from 1 April 1998, offences of drug possession and other
drug offences were introduced into the series.
Understanding the chart
- Numbers of recorded crimes are affected by changes in reporting and recording practices. Expanded coverage and revised Counting Rules came into effect in April 1998. The National Crime Recording Standard was introduced nationally in April 2002. The national impact in 2002/03 was estimated to be 10 per cent for total recorded offences. It is not possible to estimate the effect on the total number of drug offences.
- In 1998/99, the chart shows a break because of changes in the way police were asked to record 'Drug offences'. It is not possible to draw direct comparisons before and after 1998/99.
- Data for the British Transport Police are included from 2002/03 onwards.
*Taken from http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page16.asp
APPENDIX 5
'Possession of controlled drugs' - Long-term national recorded crime trend
Source: Research Development and Statistics (CRCSG) Home Office
- There were a total of 152,627 possession of controlled drug offences recorded by the police in 2005/06. This is an increase of 27 per cent from the previous year. The increase, for the most part, was due to an increase in the recording of possession of cannabis offences which coincided with an increase in the number of formal warnings for cannabis possession which were issued.
- Possession of controlled drugs offences were introduced into the series with effect from 1 April 1998.
Understanding the chart
- Numbers of recorded crimes are affected by changes in reporting and recording practices. The National Crime Recording Standard was introduced nationally in April 2002. The national impact in 2002/03 was estimated to be 10 per cent for total recorded offences. It is not possible to estimate the effect on the number of drug possession offences.
- Data for the British Transport Police are included from 2002/03 onwards.
*Taken from http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page17.asp
BIBLIOGRAPHY & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
HUGHES, Rhidian. LART, Rachel. HIGATE, Paul. (2006). Drugs: Policy and Politics. Open University Press.
HARALAMBOS, Michael. HOLBORN, Martin. HEALD, Robin. (2004). Sociology Themes and Perspectives. 6th Edition. London. Collins Educational.
BERTRAM, Eva. BLACHMAN, Morris. SHARPE, Kenneth. ANDREAS, Peter. (1996). Drug War Politics: The Price of Denial. University of California Press.
STOCKWELL, Tim. GRUENWALD, Paul J. TOUMBOUROU, John W. LOXELY, Wendy. (2005). Preventing Harmful Substance Use: The Evidence Base for Policy and Practice. John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Crime statistics for England & Wales (1993-2006)
Crime statistics for England & Wales (1993-2006) www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page16.asp
Penalties for possession and dealing (2007)
REUTER, Peter. STEVENS, Alex. An Analysis of UK Drug Policy (April 2007) http://www.ukdpc.org.uk/docs%5CUKDPC%20drug%20policy%20review.pdf
NEWCOMBE, Russel. Attitudes to Drug Policy (2004) 2004.pdf
Cameron on cannabis (2007)
UK Drug Classification (2007)
Drugs Act 2005 (2007)
Facts and statistics; UK drug strategy (2007) http//:www.drugs.gov.uk/drug-strategy/facts-and-statistics/
Home Office; Drug Related Crime (2007)
UK Drug Strategy (2007)
EU Drug Strategy (2007)
Illegal Drugs Ratings Criticised (2007)
