Survey Shows UK Public
Backs Treating Marijuana Possession Like a Parking Violation;
But Supports "Drug" Testing
The Manchester GuardianJune 9, 1998
letters@guardian.co.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
By Alan Travis, Home Affairs Editor
(Ed. note: This is a classic case of
"good-news/bad-news." The best news is that the younger people understand the
situation better.)
STRONG PUBLIC BACKING FOR ON-THE-SPOT DRUG FINES
The on-the-spot penalty fines for possession of cannabis have been given strong backing
by the public, according to a Guardian/ICM opinion poll looking at attitudes towards drug
abuse, published today.
The use of parking-style penalties for minor drug offences as an alternative to police
station official cautions or courtroom prosecutions is believed to be under consideration
by Home Office ministers.
Customs officers already use on-the-spot penalties to punish travellers they discover
with small amounts of cannabis. Keith Hellawell, the
recently-appointed drugs tsar who has strongly resisted calls for the legalisation of soft
drugs, is believed to have considered the idea of fixed penalty fines.
About half the people caught by police in possession of cannabis now are taken to a
police station and given a formal caution if there is no evidence of intent to supply. The
remainder are generally fined after a court hearing. On-the-spot fines would provide a
much more immediate form of punishment and save police time.
The Guardian/ICM June poll also shows that the public gave strong
backing, by 65 to 27 per cent, to the idea that employers should have the right to
introduce tests to check their staff are not taking drugs.
Such company testing programmes have become widespread in the US and some American
employers have started to introduce similar schemes in Britain.
See
Random Drug Testing At Work Drives Employees To Swap Cannabis For Hard
Drugs -- UK Report
The scale of the backing for drug testing at work is surprising since the Home Office has
assumed in the past that it would lead to civil liberties objections and would be regarded
as legitimate only in high-risk situations.
It is already a criminal offence for certain workers, such as airline pilots and train
drivers, to be unfit through drink or drugs while working.
But the surprising levels of support for drug testing generally in the workplace is
likely to influence policymakers. The Health and Safety Executive will shortly issue new
guidance on the treatment of drugs in the workplace.
Other key findings from the poll include overwhelming public support for the
Government’s policy of introducing "drug awareness" school lessons for
children aged between five and 11.
More than 75 per cent of the public believe that drug awareness lessons should be given
in primary schools, demolishing fears that parents would be shocked by it.
A significant minority (47 per cent) also believe the
illegality of such drugs actually encourages teenagers to experiment with them. Only 13
per cent believe that criminality actually deters teenagers from trying them. Among 18 to
24-year-olds, the proportion who believe that illegality is part of the attraction rises
to 64 per cent against 8 per cent who think it is a deterrent.
The poll also shows the generation gap in attitudes to illicit drugs remains as stark
as ever. A majority (53 to 47 per cent) of those polled aged 18 to 34 agreed with the
statement that "cannabis is no worse than smoking or drinking".
A similar proportion (53 to 46 per cent) of the same age group also rejected the notion
that if you use soft drugs, you will end up on hard drugs.
Legalisation is unlikely to lead to a boom in drug use, with only
16 per cent of the under-34s saying they would buy drugs if they were made legal.
The older generations aged 35 and over do not share this approach.
Only one in three of this group agreed that "using cannabis is no worse than
smoking or drinking" while 66 per cent of them believed that if you use soft drugs
you will end up on hard drugs.
(Ed. note: This demonstrates the cumulative impact of prohibitionist
propaganda versus actual experience.)
ICM interviewed 1,201 adults aged 18 and over by telephone between June 5 and 6, 1998.
Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the
profile of all adults.
Supported