§ 63 Insert the following new clause:
§ Misuse of Drugs Act 1971: redefinition of cannabis.
§
In section 37(1) (interpretation) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, for the definition of 'cannabis' there shall be substituted—
'"cannabis" (except in the expression "cannabis resin") means any plant of the genus Cannabis or any part of any such plant (by whatever name designated) except that it does not include cannabis resin or any of the following products after separation from the rest of the plant, namely—
§ 5.13 p.m.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 63. This new clause amends the definition of "cannabis" as at present set out in Section 37(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The background of this situation is as follows. In a recent case the Court of Appeal first decided that the leaves of the plant did not fall within the existing definition, which defines cannabis as the flowering and fruiting tops of the plant. The scientific evidence, however, shows that the leaves are quite capable of producing an intoxicating effect very nearly as great as the flowering and fruiting tops. Indeed, it was on the strength of the psycho-active content of the leaves that, in the same case to which I have just referred, the defendant, having been found not guilty by the Court of Appeal in relation to the charge of possessing cannabis, was subsequently found guilty in relation to a charge of possessing cannabinol derivatives on the strength of precisely the same material, and the Court of Appeal upheld that conviction in a judgment delivered the day after this Amendment was added to the Bill in another place. Cannabinol derivatives, however, are a Class A substance, the penalties for which under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 are greater than in respect of cannabis itself.
481 It is clear that the two decisions of the Court of Appeal have left the law in a profoundly unsatisfactory condition, with the leaves of the plant treated as a Class A drug, in the same category, for example, as heroin, which is manifestly unjust and contrary to the intention of Parliament. The Government have accordingly decided to take the opportunity this Bill has provided to redefine "cannabis". In doing so, we are supported by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which has recommended the Home Secretary to take this course in the letter from the chairman which my right honourable friend has already published. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. —(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
§ Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGERMy Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend one question. In thus altering the definition of "cannabis", are we making it rather more comprehensive than that of the international convention to which we are a signatory?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHNo, my Lords. I think that the redefinition has been found necessary solely as a result of these particular cases which came before the Court of Appeal. It does not Change the substance of the law in any way; it simply achieves some clarification of it.
§ Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGERMy Lords, my noble friend has not answered my question. Is our definition now exactly the same as the definition of the international convention to which we are a signatory, or is it different?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, so far as I am aware, the answer is, certainly, yes.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.