successive governments including in terms of our inquiry. i think you have a feeling that all of this strategy does not result in government and parliament being tough on those who use drugs. is that your view? are you worried about the way in which drug strategy is developed? >> the simple summary of my view is this. most discussion on drug policy in britain today is based on following false logic, there has been an attempt serious prohibition of drug use, that attempt at serious prohibition has failed, therefore we should abandon any future attempt to its prohibition. the truth is and it's easily examined if you look for instance at arrests, if you look at instructions to magistrates dating back to 1973, this country abandoned any serious attempt to prohibit the use and possession, particularly of cannabis, but actually of drugs,

many years ago and that we have informally and without admission a system of decriminalization in this country more advanced than in portugal or the netherlands and to argue on the bases of that the prohibition has failed so we should have less of it is not merely false and mistaken, but actually unhinged. >> that's very helpful. mary brett. the government's strategy. the new strategy. >> the new strategy. if they do what they say, i'm in drug education, really. if they do what they say and stop people from ever taking drugs in the first place, i'll be absolutely delighted. they say that they will give accurate and reliable information and that isn't out there at the moment. but if that's altered, yes, i'm happy with it. it makes a change from the harm reduction which is the last 10 or 15 years.

>> i agree that the war on drugs is -- you would like to say reports of my death have been much exaggerated. this is something that hasn't happened. we have got data to decriminalization as m brand said being arrested, if anything happens after you are luckier. i think since class cannabis was reclassified to class b, in effect all we have had is a majority of cases of warnings. so children haven't been protected. there hasn't been proper intervention and unfortunately, there aren't the type of intervention programs following that initial arrest or warning that do help children. and stop them from continuing. >> you are against decriminalization but you probably follow events in south america where following the visit of president obama and before he visited colombia

recently, the heads of government of south american countries all saying that we have to have a debate about decriminalization because the so-called war on drugs, this is where they agree with you, has not worked. is there no possibility do you think of any form of decriminalization to try to deal with the drugs barons who attempt to run these. >> we have decriminalization. we've had decriminalization since the passage of the misuse of drugs act. bipartisan measure in 197 wuchblt and particularly since its implementation after the speech at the imagine is great's association when he instructed magistrates to cease sending people to prison for cannabis possession which has grown into a reduction of penalties for the drugs to such extent that the prime police response to cannabis arrest is called a cannabis warning which doesn't even have your legislative seal on it. it was created by the association of police officers and has no legislative force nor

criminal force. cannabis in this country is effectively decriminalized. i want to point out further if you want me to go into this. >> please. >> because of an answer by nick blackwood some months ago, the performance of the criminal justice system toward class a drugs is not much stronger. so we have a situation decriminalization to argue that so any problem to do with drugs you would need to decriminalize is therefore to argue from a position saying we need something which we have already got and which we have had for 30 years. the huge tragedies visited particularly on central america are the result of the enormous self indulgence of consumers in the western world who happily take these revolting substances and create therefore this enormous and disastrous trade which leaves as we know to the

tragic results we're seeing particularly in mexico and other countryings. that's not because of prohibition policy, it's because after long term policy of decriminalization under which many people believe that effectively these drugs are legal. >> thank you. dr. hoppert. >> i'm fascinated, you've been arguing that there is a decriminalized policy since the 1971 act. currently around 18,000 people around the uk convicted of possession. if you think that is a decriminalized policy how many should be convicted each year on your criminal policy? >> it's not -- it's not the figures of convictions or arrests you need to look at. it's the disposal of the cases when they come about. as far back as 1994, john o'connor who was a former head of the scotland yard firing

squad said cannabis has been decriminalized drug for some time now. >> that's -- that doesn't answer my question. >> let's move on to the situation of cannabis. so in 2009, we have -- excuse me while i consult a note to get right. it's very, very important. in 2009, there were 162,610 cannabis cases handled by the police in england and wales. of these, 19,137 were dealt with through police cautions which expire after three months and need not be reported to employers. 11,492 resulted in penalty notices for disorder.

which is an on the spot review. generally no punishment. 22,478 actually ended in court, and many of them did so because there were only several charges against the defendant. 86,593 were dealt with by the cannabis warning which i discussed with you which is nothing. >> if i can make the point. the criminal justice system goes through the motions of pretending to enforce the law against drugs. but it does not actually do so. you can possess a drug which is technically illegal in this country, you can be caught in possession by the police and nothing whatever will happen to you. and most people know that. >> but first, 162,000 cases which strikes me as a lot. you're saying that -- >> it is. >> 80,000 get warnings, that still leaves 80,000 who are convicted or are cautioned, and that number -- >> not convicted. warning is not a conviction it

has no legal status whatsoever. >> i'm agreeing with you. 80,000 who have cannabis warnings, and 80,000 who are convicted or cautioned. you say that is not a proper criminal policy. i'd like to know how many you think ought to be convicted otherwise and are you aware, for example, of the european monitoring center which is across europe and found no association between the severity of sanctions and the amount of drug use. >> again, if the you -- depends on how you measure the severity of sanctions. the sanctions exist to some extent on the statute books of the countries involved. but there are no sanctions being applied. before the 1971 act, i think you'll find 21% of persons arrested for cannabis possession were sent to prison immediately. the fall of 71 completely changed our laws.

there was a sentence imprisonment for possession which is frequently applied on a first offense. now you're caught by the police, in possession of cannabis and they let you go. >> around 1,000 people every year are jailed. >> i would like to come back to dr. hoppert. very interesting study done by the european monitoring center he refers to. in fact, not only shows that drug use in britain is much higher than in nearly every other western european country, and that problem drug use is about three times higher but it shows the criminalization in the other countries that have lower drug use is much higher. the proportion of people who get convicted and sent to prison startlingly in this country is much lower than in the netherlands which actually adopt a krig rigorous approach to drug use. >> very helpful. miss brett, you wish to add anything on this? >> no.

i think the other two are much more -- >> can i say, on the bbc before christmas, that as long as people in the uk sniff coke here or in new york or paris we'll suffer here. we all know that at the moment 2% of people sniff coke here. people at russell brand would like to have us believe that this is common. it is not common, it's common in certain circles f. you decriminalize drugs the chances are the risk you take is greater usage would go up as the rate of smoking which is one fifth of the adult population. i wonder if any of the committee would stop to think how they would feel one fifth of the cabinet, one fifth of their children's school teachers, doctors or nurses possibly being able to sniff cocaine because it's not arrestable. >> the committee has actually met president santos last month and received the same message.

it's good of you to remind us. >> i think president san stos being clear he would like to have discussions about decriminalization as we see this is as a way of reducing the harm. >> programs he has given up on drugs here. >> he was clear about the discussions he would like to see on that. can i ask all three of you, there's a lot of question as to whether people look at the actual scientific evidence of the harm and the studies which are done and then reach a conclusion, or reach a conclusion and then look for aspects to support it. are you all in favor of the idea you should evidence based policy. >> a brief answer and then move on. >> of course i am. who wouldn't be. >> well, i am, but it's very abused. it can be evidence based or scientific tunnel vision. i mean, for example the methadone trials that a previous doctor giving evidence. what do they demonstrate.

frankly, they demonstrate that if you give free opiates to addicts you will retain them in treatment for a while. they give evidence that it minorly reduces their dependency on street drugs. other evidence shows that methadone drug deaths have gone up dramatically since this type of meds sin was being used so. we have to be very careful about what counts, what's relevant and what's translatable. >> thank you. mary brett. >> yes. it must be given in evidence. my particular concern is cannabis. there has been quite a bit of discussion. the facts and figures being given about cannabis are inaccurate, they are misleading, if i talk about frank giving out things, the information, there are graver missions in the cannabis information and the

scientific evidence is there but a lot of it's being ignored. and i'd like the opportunity later in the meeting to tell you about the harm. >> quickly do you think frank was a success or failure? the government's initiative. frank. >> there are some very good bits about frank. but no, i mean, there was a survey in 2010 which found that only 10% of children would phone frank. would look to frank. this is the sort of thing coming through. and i've had personally very negative vibes about frank. >> very good. we'll come and ask you further questions on education. michael ellis a quick supplementary. >> you referred to the self inactual against in the use of

drugs. would you support the premise that actually it's not only those who are being self indulgent who partake in the use of drugs. do you accept many people when they start out using drugs are feeling unwanted and depressed and lonely and inadequate and when they get into the first use of drug, and they need help and they are in effect victims, too, and that sizable efforts need to be made towards rehabilitation rather than punishment. >> personally no. i think that taking drugs is a wrong thing to do. i think there is a good reason there being a law against it. if people do it should be funnished according to the law. if we held to that then we could still have the levels of drug use which we had before the 1971 act which were minimal. and i don't think drug users should be indulged. i don't think decriminalization should be indulged as the previous witnesses were. >> if i could quickly --

>> i have to say i do differ with peter here. i agree with much of what mr. brand said about abstinence. i don't agree with his views on the legal status of drugs. i do think that drug addicts need confrontation, and then it should be supported but i do think it should be quite conditional on a level of compliance and cooperation. i think the drug courts in america have been hugely successful, about 3,500 of them, and they have sentenced abstinence treatment, our problem is we do not sentence abstinence treatment. we sentence people to further use of synthetic opiates. >> a quick clarification. you were mentioning about coke use, for example, and how it would increase to the level of smokers if it was decriminalized

or legalized. the committee should think about that. we -- this has been a long inquiry and we have searched the world on the subject. are you making the assumption that the committee are in favor of decriminalization or legalization. >> i was worried that you took your terms of reference or apparently, wrote about the terms of reference from the global commission on drugs policy which is basically a highly financed legalizing lobby and that disturbed me. they had given out and widely disseminated in the press incorrect figures about drug use spiraling out of control globally when it's shown that it's been stable. so that did concern me that your direction of travel may have been influenced by lobbies who are very much in favor of decriminalization. if that's not the case, i'm very

happy to -- >> can i just say, we've traveled to united states and we've seen many witnesses and i think it's fair to say every person we've seen has given us different figures. so no two figures have been the same. whoever we speak to. >> no. but there's only one -- you either have to accept the statistics, that are collected and used by the united nations. and that's reported in a huge report every year and unfortunately the global commission slightly misused these figures or reported them incorrectly. so it was a difference of 30% in the case of hard drugs. that's my only point. and you did mention them in your terms this particular body and the terms of reference of your inquiry. >> please be assured the committee has not taken a view on any of these issues. that's why we're seeking evidence in the widest possible

sources of witnesses. the end of the day we'll publish our results. we are not under the control of any individual group. as mr. steve mccabe will show. >> i wonder if i could ask this question. i wonder from your experience what you thought was the most effective way of warning -- of schools warning children about the dangers of drugs. >> asking mr. kitschens. >> i don't claim any particular expertise in what schools should do but if you have a properly enforced law where cannabis possession, which is illegal, is punished when detected, then one of the most important things you'll do is you will armor people who are under strong peer

pressure from their school fellowes to take drugs. we'll give them a good reason. they can say no, i don't want to risk having a criminal record. i don't want to risk never being able to travel to the united states. i don't think it's worth it. one of the purposes after strongly enforced and clearly set out legal prohibition of drugs is to strengthen people against that sort of pressure. i think in schools it would be enormously helpful if we had a proper law and it was seen to be enforced. >> a statement about the law by people who are responsible would, is the thing that makes the most difference to children. the thing i found difficult when my sons were growing up is find that cannabis had been declassified, and i had a son at one point telling me it's not against the law. i said, well it is against the law. i think parents need the support of the law in order to be very clear with their children and clear with your children as the

most effective way to prevent them using drugs in the first place. and that is my own experience. it's been born out by my own experience. absolute clarity about the law and the wrongness of doing this. and i think we've lost sight of that. we're very casual. >> thank you very much. now, wonder if i could ask, i read that you had said that heroin prevention has no place in the classroom and i wonder if you koumd explain to the committee what you meant by that. and what you think about the comments you just heard. >> heroin reduction has its place. if you have an addict, somebody dependent then you can reduce the dose gradually. that in my opinion is where harm reduction belongs. not in the class. you stand up in front of a class, you have 30 children there, 90% of them have no intention of taking drugs. now, the policy has been harm

reduction for the past i don't know, 10, 15 years, something like that. harm reduction assumes that children will take drugs anyway so we need to use -- to show them how to do it safely. we know there is no guaranteed safe way of taking any drug. the other phase that keeps cropping up is informed choice. now i hope to be able to explain the not being properly informed at the moment and -- hold on, we're giving them a choice to do an illegal act. we don't give them a choice to pilfer or spray graffiti. and the choice in the guidelines is from age 7. now, 7-year-olds have extremely immature brains, i don't need to tell you that. and the other thing about children choosing is they are completely incapable because the risk taking part of the brain develops before the part of the brain so the children are most likely going to take this risk.

if you go in and give harm reduction advice to children, on the assumption they are going to take drugs which is rubbish, 30 or 40% may try them but the actual use of cannabis in the 11-15-year-olds in regular use in the last year was 4.4%. it was very low. so you shouldn't assume that they are going to take it. you give harm reduction advice and on frank there still is harm reduction advice. this is the amount of mushrooms that people use. ecstasy, drink water, sip it. that's all harm reduction. that sort of thing acts as a green light for children. and i know instances where it's happened. have gone on franks website, looked up the advice, have taken the advice and in the case of cannabis it's removed now. >> can i check. i think the statement about the

clear legal position is obvious. mr. somers seemed to suggest that one of the problems of giving advice that young people may know not to be entirely accurate is that it weakens the impact of your message. do you have sympathy with our view? >> with not giving advice? >> he suggests that youngsters are told things about drugs you know are not entirely accurate it may lead to them dismissing the entire message you're trying to convey. i wondered if you had any sympathy with that view? >> well, if drug education is done properly, i was a biology teacher and i taught in a grammar school for 30 years, and i know if you give them -- and i researched cannabis for years now, i wrote a huge report in 2006. i keep it updated. i have really gone into this in

a big way. if you talk to children and explain it, in a scientific way but age appropriate obviously, because it was a boys school they were interested in the scientific side anyway. and to give them the truth, don't exaggerate, don't patronize, just talk to them as sort of equals and give them the scientific truth, they will not take drugs. people get children wrong. the vast majority of children have no intentions of taking drugs. what they want, actually, is good accurate really reliable information about drugs. so they can say no to their peer group. someone mentioned peer group earlier. kids want excuses. i know this. they used to tell me, give us more information, parents used to take information away so they could talk to their children. so, if you do it honestly,

clearly, are willing to be challenged, have your evidence, then you are 90% there. >> thank you. >> is it your view that if there was a real hard line policy, more hard line than successive governments have assumed, the number of people taking drugs would substantially fall? >> yes, it is. and i think it was the case. obviously, the arrival of cannabis in this country after the second world war was a slow business. the number of convictions for cannabis in 1945 was 4. in 1960, 235. even in the early and mid-60s it was only a lex of 1,000. it is since the 1971 misuse of drugs act which was itself an

implementation of lady baronness's report which was not for legalization but in effect decriminalization of cannabis, the numbers have gone up immensely. 1972, before the act had begun to take full effect. 12,999. now up to 160,000 arrests a year in england and wales alone not including scotland. that's an immense change. you can put some of that down but how much of that social change can you attribute to the legal change and the increasing unwillingness of the legal system and the police to arrest, prosecute, i think they have to be linked. >> the figures do confirm more or less what you are saying. the british crime survey showed, for example, that some 2.2 million people were using cannabis, and 1 in 6 young

people took can that bills. are you really saying to this committee that if there was a harder policy, large number of those people would simply stop because they will be frightened of being convicted and go to prison? >> yes. but you must understand this has been a long slow process of change which has been very -- the interesting thing about '71, it contained various mechanisms to put provisions under constant review. the penalties originally set out in 1971, have been reduced again and again until the introduction without legislation of the cannabis warning after the experiment of the early 1990s. and there has been a long slow conveyor belt which the penalties are reduced and the police found it tiresome and time wasting to bother enforcing the law which doesn't have

penalties. you couldn't immediately reintroduce the penalties and expect a revolutionary change. what you shouldn't be thinking of doing is reducing the penalties still further and imagine by doing so you make anything better. it's clear that during the time when penalties are reduced things have groan worse. to argue as so many do and i name this the simon jenkins, to say over and over again that we have a serious problem of over enforced prohibition, this is failing, therefore we must resort to total decriminalization. it's not logical. the facts don't support it. we have not been prohibiting cannabis or the class a drugs during that time. >> you'll correct me if i'm wrong, heaven forbid i put words in your mouth. if there was a far firmer policy by government what would be the

position in effect. is it a drug war would be what? >> you would certainly have much less drug abuse in this country. i hope your committee will be, if it's traveling abroad, sweeten the one european country which has not generally taken the possession of harm reduction and decriminalization, formal or informal and has as a result rather lower drug use. particularly of cannabis. >> i doubt if there is any one here in the house of common who is has sympathy with drug taking. what would be your response to the view that prohibition rarely works and the example we gave, time and again, one which you would accept is prodigs which collapsed totally. you would say there is no comparison between the