Coaker’s line on the BBC

The “softening up” process leading up to reclassification of cannabis to class B has started. The BBC played its usual role of government messenger again, this time with a  programme broadcast on the digital station 1xtra last week entitled “Home Grown” supported by a website page, the documentary is online here for the next few days at least. This is probably a taste of what we can expect over the coming months.

The programme  did carry a range of opinions, but gave over a large proportion of the content to the claims of a causal link to mental illness, consisting in large part of the testimony of one person who blamed his heavy use of cannabis to the onset of his illness. This claimed causal link was then used as a justification for the proposed move to B.

Although some views were aired to the effect that the law change will make no difference, no critical examination of the effectiveness of prohibition was made, much less any credence given to the role of prohibition in creating the situation we see around us. Of course, subtle use of background music was made throughout.

The programme carried comments from Vernon Coaker, the Home Office minister responsible for the proposed upgrade. Of course in typical BBC style these were carried without comment, let alone any critical examination.

Now, at the risk of being accused of “digging dirt”, it is important to remember that Vernon Coaker has himself used cannabis, this was before the downgrading and so he knows from personal experience that the law – with cannabis as a class B drug – doesn’t prevent its use.  So here we have a government minister justifying a legal measure on the basis it will “send out a message” to young people, a message he personally ignored.

But it goes further than that. The BBC allowed Coaker to make several claims for the measure which simply cannot be sustained:

Coaker said:

Cannabis is a very serious drug – its the most prevalent drug amongst young people

Actually alcohol is, followed by tobacco, but never mind. The fact that cannabis use is very prevalent amongst the very group of people the policy for the past 30 years has claimed to be protecting surely shows that policy has failed in it’s key aim? He ignores the (government) claims that use has fallen since classification to C and that use increased massively when it was a class B drug and of course, wasn’t picked up for it by the programme

It’s a very dangerous drug, particularly in the “skunk” form, that’s why were taking the action we are

Oh dear, where to start? In the beginning there was nice, safe imported hash. Then we had the policy Coaker is promoting which  has seen the imported product virtually eradicated to be replaced a “home grown” product. Is it any surprise that the forces of a supply and demand made the option of home growing so much more attractive? With that of course came the huge profits gifted to organised crime which set about providing the public with the product it demanded. What on earth did he expect would happen? Does he not understand the basics of supply and demand?

In truth the government doesn’t have a clue what’s going on with the cannabis market, with the latest evidence (which they haven’t been keen to shout about) indicating there’s actually been a fall in potency over the past few years as reported last week in the Guardian and elsewhere. It doesn’t have a clue because prohibition prevents any study of the market using valid statistical sampling.

There are concerns about other drugs, but alongside alcohol cannabis is the one that’s of real concern to us

So he has two drugs of concern, alcohol and cannabis. One – the addictive drug that kills on overdose and is associated with high levels of violence –  he supports a regime of control and regulation, the other which despite being supplied by organised crime and being totally unregulated has only a weak link to possible problems, he supports outright hard line prohibition. Being consistent isn’t Coaker’s main failing.

If you’re getting evidence as we are that the potency is increasing and the availability of those stronger strains has increased I think you’d be silly not to reflect on that and change the classification

Well, a bit of reflection is indeed called for. It could of course be argued that if the regime you support has meant the potency has increased without you knowing about it there might be something wrong with your regime. Indeed, as we’ve said so many times here illegal cannabis is not a controlled drug, changing the classification of illegalness isn’t going to change that reality.

But it’s also important to note that there is no evidence at all that increasing penalties for drug use leads to lower levels of use. Has he deliberately ignored the reports from the government’s own strategy unit, the RSA and more recently the UK Drug Policy Commission? Coaker’s whole case isn’t built on evidence, but on some faith-like belief as we all know.

After a gentle and non-critical question about the move to class C leading some to think cannabis had been legalised, he went on:

There’s been increasing concern that cannabis on the streets – so called  skunk – we now believe that accounts for 80% of the market compared to  30% a few years ago, that’s a hugely significant increase

Which you had no idea was going on, did you Mr Coaker? If your law is so effective and cannabis is “controlled” as you claim, how is it possible this could halve happened? Simple answer, you’re not in control, are you? That’s the truth about prohibition really.

He continued:

… and something the government would be – you know – if we didn’t take action it’s  something we could rightly be criticised about. It’s something we need to demonstrate to people that its something the government takes even more seriously than it has done and that’s why it’s going to be reclassified to a B.

Of course, the move to class C had no impact on dealing (as, to be fair the programme pointed out) which carries a maximum of 14 years inside, a draconian penalty which has not deterred the growth of the “skunk” industry. Moving it back to B won’t affect that at all of course,  the programme pointed this out – but before Coaker’s contribution and again, he wasn’t challenged on it.

So why reclassify? Coaker justified it thus:

Reclassification from C to B will mean the police will take a tougher  line with respect to it, er, they’ll have some flexibility with it as every police officer does on the street,

A tougher line with what? Not dealing, not cannabis farms, not organised crime, the only difference the change will make is with how small time users are treated – who, incidentally, are almost never if ever given the full two years sentence the present Class C allows for. What he skated around there was the fact that the police have said, despite asking for the move back to B, they will continue to enforce the cannabis laws as present.

A possession offence for a class C drug is two years, obviously if you reclassify to class B it means for a possession offence it can be up to five years so that’s a significant change. That doesn’t mean in every case the courts will use that maximum but it is available to them should they chose to do so. So we’ve toughened the law and you can expect tough police action and tougher court action alongside that.

Actually a bigger risk for the government is that the law will fall into even greater disrepute than it has already. Is he really threatening to put people down for 5 years for possession of a bit of weed? If so he’d better get building these Titan prisons pretty damn quick if he is. It’s a hollow threat and he knows it.

As a side note the BBC documentary made great play of the claim that cannabis causes severe mental illness yet offered no real proof (probably because there isn’t any)  and relied largely on one persons claim that his heavy use had caused the illness, the issue of cannabis and mental health is far more complex than this would suggest of course. The role of prohibition and the resulting unregulated trade was not explored and the false impression given was that more repressive laws were the only option. This falls way below the standard of reporting we have a right to expect from the BBC and sadly is yet another example of the corporation meekly putting out the government line. Gone it seems are the days of good, critical investigative journalism.

Two footnotes:

When the ACMD reported on the classification of cannabis earlier this year, it was reported they had evidence to show that rates of severe mental illness had actually dropped over the past few years. This was research conducted for the home Office by the ACMD. We were told it would be published “in the summer”, but it never was. How odd.

Second, as of Sunday August 31st, the BBC 1Xtra webpage mentioned above ends with a section asking for feedback

Where do you stand on penalties for using, dealing or growing weed? Will reclassification make any difference? Why?

E-mail us using the form below and we’ll publish a selection of the best comments here.

Strangely, no-one has commented. Again, how odd.