Cannabis & The Law
Pot Night - The Book, Channel 4 Television, 1995
Keith S. Bovey
What the person in the street calls 'pot' and 'hash', the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 lists as 'cannabis' and 'cannabis resin'. This correctly indicates a common source, but the two are not the same. They are seperately defined in section 37 of this Act, and cannabis has since been redefined.
What happened was that the legislature was unaware that people smoked the leaves of the cannabis plant. Consequently, cannabis was originally defined as 'the flowering or fruiting tops of any plant of the genus Cannabis'. When the word got out that people not only did use the leaves but that prosecutions were failing because the Crown could not always show that flowering and fruiting tops were present in grass which had been seized, the legal definition was changed to 'any plant of the genus Cannabis' - i.e. the whole plant.
The definition of cannabis resin has remained as: 'the separated resin, whether crude or purified, obtained from any plant of the genus Cannabis'.
Cannabis seeds are neither plant nor resin and so their possession is not illegal, which is perhaps as well, since they are used as birdseed. 'Hash oil', though much more powerful, is still cannabis resin, greatly purified. However, some commentators have suggested that it could qualify as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) the principle active ingredient in cannabis, and, as such, be classified as a Class A drug. (Cannabis and cannabis resin are designated Class B drugs.)
The Misuse of Drugs Act makes 'unlawful possession' of cannabis or cannabis resin an offence. Lawyers refer to 'simple' possession to distinguish it from possession with intent to supply to others. You can get a three-month sentence for simple possession or one of up to five years in a higher court. However, the Appeal Courts generally frown on prison sentences for simple possession except when a person has already committed numerous similar offences. Instead, fines between £25 and £150 are commonplace. The practice of not prosecuting first offenders but sending warning letters is widespread in England, but less so in Scotland, although an increase in this is forecast there.
Then there are the supplying offences: 'supplying', 'offering to supply', 'attempting to supply', being concerned in supplying' or being in possession 'with intent to supply'. They all attract summary sentences of 12 months, or up to 14 years in a higher court.
Now that the whole cannabis plant is a controlled drug, cultivating it is usually prosecuted as an offence of 'unlawful production'. This attracts sentences of up to 14 years on indictment.
Of the supplying offences, the one that produces the most trials - and injustices - is 'possession with intent to supply'. Unless the intent can be well and truly proved by the conduct of the possessor, or by the presence of the specific paraphernalia of a dealer, or by a confession, the proof often rests on the evidence of an expert witness as to how much typical users need for themselves. The expert is, invariably, a police officer, a member of a drug squad. Although these squads use different yardsticks, it is common for one of their number to assert, on oath, that the most a user would have is, say, two ounces of hash; anything over that and the user has become a dealer and the maximum penalty shoots up to 14 years in prison. While sentences in double figures are pretty well reserved for importers of huge amounts, there are plenty of examples of people serving up to five years on the strength of such hypothetical evidence.
Disparity in sentencing maked the supplying offences not only hazardous but like playing a game of Russian Roulette. While one dealer will walk of with a fine to pay or a couple of hundred hours of community service to perform, another will find himself or herself in jail for a period of months or years. Generally speaking, big city courts have fewer Canutes than rural ones in the face of the tide.
Receivers (resetters in Scotland) of stolen goods are dealt out harsh sentences on the grounds, never far from the lips of sentencing judges, that without them there would be no thieves. With stunning illogicality, the judiciary applies the opposite reasoning to hash, treating users (i.e. the receivers) lightly and coming down like a ton of bricks on dealers.
Medical use of cannabis is a vexed question. It is receiving some attention in Europe, but most doctors in the UK would no more prescribe cannabis than they would alcohol. That can be attributed to the hallucinogenic properties, but also the fact that the substance is illegal is self-fulfilling. Regulations made under the Act of 1971 enable the Home Secretary to issue licences for the cultivation of cannabis plants (Reg. 12) and even for the smoking of it (Reg. 13), but only 'for the purpose of research'. Where that research may lead is anybody's guess. Meantime the patient who asks for it and the GP who might agree to prescribe it are equally frustrated: it cannot be done. Cannabis and cannabis resin have the distinction of being the only ones on a short list of Class B controlled drugs for which there is no approved medicinal use and the prescribing of which is prohibited with no available exemption.
Nothing can account for the present state of the law but blind ignorance and refusal to learn from past error. It has these two aspects in common with Prohibition in the United States: first, it is obscurantist and unenforceable; and second, it will surely pass away.