Ms Niamh Eastwood:

They introduced a change in the law last year. In 2006, after five years of decriminalisation, the constitutional court decided that anybody caught above the threshold amount would have committed a criminal offence of possession. They introduced almost a two-tier system. Roll on 15 years, that has not been satisfactory because it is people who are drug-dependent who are often being caught above those thresholds. Therefore, they made a decision that, because it was not benefiting all people who use drugs and who were not suspected of supply, they wanted to abolish the thresholds or, at least, the way it is working at the minute is that the thresholds are a floor, not a ceiling. If one is caught below the threshold and there is no evidence of supply, one will automatically be diverted to the dissuasion committee. Above the thresholds, one is, therefore, diverted as well, again, in the absence of supply. It gives some police discretion to this. We are in early days of it, but it seems like a sensible approach. It reflects the international evidence of the nonsense of thresholds. It is so arbitrary. There are countries such as Mexico where it is 0.5 g of cocaine, while in countries such as Spain it is 7.5 g. There are these wide arbitrary amounts that are not based on any evidence. I absolutely agree with Professor Stevens that we should not go down the rabbit hole of thresholds.