Cannabis warnings improve police-youth relations, Yard argues

[Lunar Loops]

This rather ridiculous article in the Daily Mail (UK) (right wing, middle England and now Ireland, tashy tabloid). I will not do a hatchet job on it myself, but post a rather eloquent reponse from Transform below.
Cannabis warnings improve police-youth relations, Yard argues

By BEN TAYLOR - Last updated at 22:00pm on 10th January 2007


Handing out tens of thousands of warnings instead of arresting those caught with cannabis is "positive" because it improves relations between police and drug users, a Scotland Yard report has claimed.
Britian's biggest police force praised the controversial policy of simply ticking off those in possession of the drug and not taking them to a police station because it has "reduced friction" between youngsters and officers.
That is despite the fact that the "softly softly" approach is contributing to a huge rise in cannabis use.
New Met Police figures show that between April 2005 and January 2006, 24,916 people were accused of cannabis possession. This is an increase of 2,771 - or 12.4 per cent - over the previous year.
The vast majority of those, nearly seven in ten, were let off with a formal warning.
The report to the Metropolitan Police Authority reveals that since Labour relaxed the laws on cannabis and reclassified it from a Class B to Class C controlled substance, there has been a "steady increase over that period in the number of people accused of cannabis possession".
But, the report adds, "the policy of enforcement appears to be successful".
It goes on: "The number of street warnings issued is indicative of the number of people who would otherwise have been arrested had this policy not been in place.
"As the majority of people accused of cannabis possession are young adults, the policy will have had a positive effect in reducing friction between young people and police thereby improving public/police relations.
"In addition it has undoubtedly been beneficial in terms of the number of officer hours which have been freed up to deal with Class A and Class B controlled drugs and other priority policing concerns.
"This represents significant financial savings in terms of officers' time and prosecution costs."
Last night Richard Barnes, a Tory member of the authority, said: "This is ridiculous. It stands to reason that if laws are not enforced then those who have been let off will be happy.
"If you stopped prosecuting motorists for speeding I am sure drivers would be delighted. But they don't.
"This remains an illegal drugs that is illicitly bought and illicitly supplied. It is also a gateway drug to harder substances. Cannabis production is booming in this country and it's not hard to see why."
Of those individuals caught with the drug, a staggering 71 per cent are under the age of 25 while 14 per cent are children aged between 10 and 17.
Forty per cent of those caught with the drug are black, 38 per cent white and 13 per cent of Indian or Pakistani origin.
Prior to reclassification in 2004, Scotland Yard pioneered the policy of warnings for cannabis use in the borough of Lambeth, South London.
Critics said it made the area a magnet for dealers and sent out the message that the drug was legal. Supporters argued that it freed up officers to concentrate on harder drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine.
At present, there is a national policy of "presumption against arrest" when police find cannabis. However following increasing concerns about the health damage caused by the drug, officials at the Association of Chief Police Officers have launched a review of the policy.

[Lunar Loops]

This response from Transform (http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/) :

Daily Mail gets confused on cannabis (again)


The Daily Mail today continues its long history of fuzzy headed cannabis news reports with a piece today entitled Cannabis warnings improve police-youth relations, Yard argues. Unfortunately what appears to be a potentially promising title (assuming we think that improved police-youth relations are a GOOD THING) immediately stumbles into statistical nonsense almost before it is out of the blocks.

We are told that it is a 'fact' that 'the "softly softly" approach is contributing to a huge rise in cannabis use.'; the data presented to support this 'fact' is that there was a 12% rise in cannabis arrests in 2005.



Let's be absolutely clear about this: arrests are NOT a measure of levels of use. There is no direct causal relationship; an increase in arrests is most likely to be the result of changes in policing policy or the intensity of policing efforts. It could be suggested that the 2004 reclassification has meant people are more open in their cannabis use and, not really understanding the new law, are being arrested more often as a result. But the Mail's analysis isn't that sophisticated, instead opting to present and entirely spurious link between arrests and prevalence as fact. Which it isn't.

A more reliable way of measuring levels of cannabis use is to ask a suitably large number of people if they use cannabis and then tot up the results - a so-called 'survey of drug use'. There are lots of these in the UK, the biggest official ones being the British Crime Survey, and one done annually by the Department of Health. They are not without methodological flaws and are generally acknowledged to underestimate the totals, but they do at least show year on year trends fairly well. If Ben Taylor of the Daily Mail had consulted the figures he would have discovered that cannabis use has actually levelled off or even (if you believe the BCS) fallen marginally since 2004. So not quite the 'huge rise' he reports.

Its not the first time the Mail have gotten all in a spin on cannabis and ended up with news story that is some distance from representing reality. Last year, under the headline 'The deadly downgrade' (blogged here) they reported that 'drug deaths spiralled after Labour downgraded cannabis' on the basis that drug deaths had increased marginally between 2003 and 2004. This whole story looks pretty ridiculous when you consider that:
- none of the deaths were cannabis related (they were almost all opiate related)
- the drug death data covered a period before reclassification occurred
- cannabis use fell marginally after 2004 anyway

There was also a another piece of hopeless news coverage (also blogged) about a campaigning Vicar (who amusingly penned the Sinitta disco smash 'So Macho' back in the 80s) who is uncritically reported blaming all sorts of terrible things on the reclassification of cannabis (not the drug itself - the actual policy change) from murder to mass insanity.

This latest report, like the various others before it, seems to be an attempt to have a go at UK drug policy and in doing so make the Government look bad. Fair enough I suppose if that's your political/editorial position, but if so then the really baffling thing about the Daily Mail's ongoing rubbish reporting and bad science in its coverage of the cannabis issue is that there's just no need for it. There is so much wrong with UK drug policy that they could be running all manner of withering coverage without having to misrepresent and twist statistics. The drug strategy has been a disaster on almost every indicator you could choose from, so it seems downright odd that the Mail repeatedly chooses to direct its ire at one of the very few bits of Government drug policy that the police can legitimately argue has been vaguely successful.

[oldfart]

So basically. Mj use Has increased, tension has been relieved between a volitile youth and The Yard, and not one of the other crimes have gone up. OK wheres the down side to that?