---

Drug Classification

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Indeed, when Professor Sir Michael Rawlings and Professor David Nutt came before our Committee, as did the Minister, we received some clarification. However, it is fair to say that even after that meeting, many of our key recommendations were not accepted. We found that frustrating, because the issue is hugely important. We hope that, having had time to reflect on the report, the Minister will be able to provide us with more hope. I for one know that he is as anxious as any hon. Member to tackle the multi-billion-pound evil of the illicit drug trade and arrest the huge social damage caused by drug misuse. My task today as the Chairman of the Committee is to provide an overview of the key themes covered in the report, give a brief update on developments of relevance and highlight some of the outstanding issues to be addressed by the Government. I am delighted to see two of my Committee colleagues here, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and the hon. Member for Bolton, South- East (Dr. Iddon), who is something of an expert. We look forward to hearing his contribution later. I shall begin by addressing what I see as a lack of evidence supporting the current classification system. It was introduced in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and our attitudes to policing and punishment for possession and supply are scaled according to a drug’s classification. It is therefore essential that the classification is fit for purpose, but we found a range of anomalies in decision making about drug classification, some of which I am sure the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East will wish to refer to. By way of example I shall focus on two particular drugs: magic mushrooms and ecstasy. Fresh magic mushrooms have been placed in class A, the highest level, despite an almost total lack of evidence to support that. There is a lack of evidence that such classification reflects the harms associated with their misuse or even that they are being misused. The chairman of ACMD told us that the active substances in magic mushrooms were psilocin and psilocybin, and that they were highly dangerous. Nobody particularly disputes that, but he went on to say:"““I have no idea what was going through the minds of the group who put it in Class A in 1970 and 1971…It is there because it is there.””" It is surely unacceptable that drugs are in particular classes just because they have always been there. We are relying on classifications made more than 30 years ago, when there was less concern about the evidence base supporting policy. The 1971 Act does not specify why particular drugs were placed in different classes, and the then Home Secretary James Callaghan said that the Government had attempted in the Bill to put drugs"““in the order in which we think they should be classified of harmfulness and danger.””—[Official Report, 25 March 1970; Vol. 798, c. 1453.]" That was in 1970. In many cases, therefore, we rely on a classification system based on what the Government thought then. We also considered the classification of ecstasy and heard evidence from Professor Colin Blakemore, the chief executive of the Medical Research Council, who said that ecstasy was"““at the bottom of the scale of harm””" and"““on the basis of present evidence…should not be a Class A drug””." In a climate of evidence-based policy making, which is what the Government say underlines the policy process, one should therefore reasonably be able to assume that the classification of ecstasy would be reviewed and that, if appropriate, reclassified. However, even if there were a wealth of evidence undermining the classification, ecstasy would remain in class A, because the Government have no intention of reviewing or reclassifying it. The Government’s approach to ecstasy therefore appears to be entirely political rather than evidence-based. The Minister told us:"““What I am saying is the ACMD, of course, can conduct research and look at whatever they wish to with respect to drugs and make recommendations to the Government. What I am saying quite clearly is that we have no intention of reclassifying ecstasy.””" It seems pretty pointless to have an organisation that is there to do the very job of advising the Government if they say, ““No matter what evidence you bring before us, we’re not even going to look at it.”” I would be interested to hear whether the Minister has changed his mind on the issue. If not, will he at least recognise that the decision to keep ecstasy in class A is political rather than evidence-based?