View Full Version : UK - Cannabis downgrade set to be reviewed [Megathread]
CANNABIS CONFUSION
The application of the law on cannabis is a muddle. You may believe that
the decision to downgrade cannabis from a class B to a class C drug from
the beginning of the year means it is no longer illegal to possess and use
cannabis but only illegal to trade in it. You risk arrest if you buy and
sell cannabis, or if you use it in aggravated circumstances - in the
street, in a school playground or outside the school gate. But policy, as
we understand it, is for simple possession of cannabis to lead only to a
caution.
The Government is trying to be pragmatic about cannabis use. Millions use
it in moderation for pleasure and to stigmatise law-abiding citizens with a
criminal record is silly; cannabis use is here to stay. And yet the
Government, and most parents fear, with good reason, that further
liberalisation would lead to an explosion of use. Hence the retention of
the threat of arrest.
If this is too confusing for the public and the police, then the way
forward has to be towards full decriminalisation. To work, this must go
hand in hand with a vigorous education campaign on the dangers of drug
abuse but, as we report today, this key plank of government policy is set
to collapse through a funding shortfall.
There are important benefits to further liberalisation, including putting
the currently murky business under public scrutiny, where health risks and
product quality can be properly monitored. Some of the very strong cannabis
on the streets today bears little relation to the mild mood-altering stuff
used by yesterday's students.
It is essential that relaxation of the law is accompanied by greater
education about the long-term effects of use. Decriminalising a drug is not
a declaration that it is safe, as we know when we warn children against the
dangers of tobacco and alcohol. Cannabis may be a real danger to health.
But its use should not be a crime.
DANGEROUS MISTAKE TO DOWNGRADE CANNABIS, WARNS MP
The government's softly-softly approach to cannabis will leave young people
facing a mental-health time-bomb, a senior Scottish Labour MP warned last
night.
Bill Tynan, normally a loyal back-bencher, turned on ministers who have
failed to heed his cautions that downgrading cannabis from Class B to Class
C will produce a generation of drug abusers.
He said their decision meant that cannabis was now ranked by teenagers
alongside cigarettes and alcohol - and many believed it was no longer illegal.
Mr Tynan said: "Without doubt reclassification has sent mixed messages
about the dangers of cannabis, and despite information to the contrary,
many young people believe that cannabis is now legal, just like cigarettes
and alcohol.
"But research has shown cannabis smoke to be more dangerous than tobacco
smoke. There is also large and growing evidence that cannabis is a major
contributory factor in the onset of mental-health problems ranging from
depression to schizophrenia."
Mr Tynan went on: "I believe that the reclassification of cannabis was a
dangerous mistake, and that history will confirm that view."
Mr Tynan was elected MP for Hamilton South in 1999, shortly after
Strathclyde's 100th drug death for the year was reported in his constituency.
He told The Scotsman yesterday: "The girl who died was the same age as my
daughter; it affected me enormously. So I was outraged when the government
gave MPs just 90 minutes to debate reclassification of cannabis, it wasn't
nearly enough time to explore all the issues. I am not going to let this go
because I firmly believe ministers have made a major mistake that will have
serious ramifications for the future."
Mr Tynan, who has voted against the government only three times in his
five-year parliamentary career, secured a prestigious debate on cannabis in
Westminster Hall this week.
He told MPs he had been contacted by many drugs experts from universities,
hospitals and the legal profession who were appalled at the decision
legally to downgrade cannabis.
Professor Griffith Edwards, who established the National Addiction Centre
at the Maudsley Hospital, said: "There is enough evidence now to make one
seriously worried about the possibility of cannabis producing long-term
impairment of brain function."
Mr Tynan said he was calling on the government to reopen the debate and
look again at the scientific evidence against downgrading the status of
cannabis.
He said: "I am not convinced the government will reverse their mistaken
decision to reclassify cannabis, but they should look at all the evidence."
Caroline Flint, the Home Office minister, said the new status of cannabis
was giving police more scope to tackle hard drugs.
She said, however, that the situation was under constant monitoring.
CANNABIS LAW SET FOR RETHINK
Foreign secretary Jack Straw said he had "learned a lot" from his audience with a group of Warwickshire residents yesterday.
Mr Straw spent an hour talking to a group of 60 people about issues such as anti-social behaviour and ID cards.
He also gave a strong hint the government may rethink its decision to downgrade cannabis.
People were invited to the session at Warwickshire College's Trident Centre, in Whitnash, after filling in questionnaires sent by Warwick and Leamington MP James Plaskitt about issues they were most concerned about.
Mr Straw said: "I have heard some fairly broad opinions from the seven tables and I have learned a lot.
"In my role as home secretary and then David Blunkett after me, we strengthened powers of the police and the courts to deal with trouble-makers, including the introduction of anti-social behaviour orders.
"These are now used to a great extent."
Mr Straw also gave a strong indication that cannabis may be reclassified as a class B drug following its controversial downgrading to class C.
He said: "It was done for good reasons but we may need to think if we have to review it in light of experience."
Audience members said Mr Straw's visit was a worthwhile exercise.
Sarah Miller, aged 36, of College Park, Leamington, said: "We let him know that anti-social behaviour and drugs are a big problem in Leamington.
"Kids are bored because youth clubs are shutting down. I think there should also be random drug testing in schools.
"It was exciting to think that something might change because of what we said."
CANNABIS DANGERS PROMPT REVIEW OF 'SOFT' LAW
THE Government is to review its decision to downgrade cannabis after mounting scientific evidence that the drug could be more harmful than thought.
Charles Clarke ordered the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs last night to review its conclusion that high cannabis use was not associated with health problems.
The councils findings were the basis for a Home Office decision to downgrade cannabis from a Class B drug to Class C from January 2004, which meant that possession was no longer an arrestable offence.
In a letter to Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, the council chairman, the Home Secretary noted that two recent studies had linked cannabis with increased mental health problems.
One, by Professor Jim van Os, of Maastricht University, in 2004, concluded:
Cannabis use moderately increases the risk of psychotic symptoms in young people but has a much stronger effect in those with . . . predisposition for psychosis.
The study of 2,437 people aged between 14 and 24 found that half of those who were psychologically vulnerable and smoked cannabis developed psychotic symptoms over a four-year period. This was twice the rate among those who did not use cannabis.
In his letter, Mr Clarke implies that the findings have emerged since cannabis was reclassified. The two studies that he refers to are new, but both authors have been publishing similar findings for several years.
The second study is by Professor David Fergusson, of the University of Otago, who collected data over 25 years on a group of 1,055 people born in 1977. At the ages of 18, 21 and 25 they were questioned about their use of cannabis.
He concluded that, even when all possible confounding factors were taken into account, there was a clear increase in rates of psychotic symptoms after the start of regular use, with daily users of cannabis having rates over 150 per cent those of non-users.
In the journal Addiction, Professor Fergusson wrote: These findings add to a growing body of evidence from different sources, all of which suggest that heavy use of cannabis may lead to increased risk of psychotic symptoms.
The advisory council has resisted pleas from the medical profession to reconsider its opinion in the light of such research. But Mr Clarke said that he could no longer ignore the evidence.
He also asked the council to examine Dutch proposals for a higher classification of strong variants of cannabis, known as skunk. The Home Office said that the council would be expected to start a review at its meeting on May 19 and to report by early 2006.
Mr Clarkes decision was broadly welcomed last night, although some commentators questioned the timing in the run-up to a general election.Professor Robin Murray, a consultant psychiatrist at the Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College London, said: Anybody who knows anything about this subject will be pleased.
The councils original decision was based on research conducted in 2001, but there have been six studies since then showing a clear link between prolonged cannabis use and psychosis. The problem with the earlier report was that the council took evidence from psychiatrists who knew about addiction, but not psychiatrists, who know about psychosis.
David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, described the review as a humiliating recognition of the failure of a central plank of Labours drugs policy.
He added: The latest psychological evidence shows that cannabis is a serious threat to the health of young people and a gateway to harder drugs.
But Brian Paddick, Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metroplitan Police, architect of the experiment that led to reclassification, was sceptical about giving stronger cannabis a higher classification.
It would be difficult to ask operational police officers to make a decision on the street as to what sort of cannabis a person had on them, he said.Edited by: Alfa
CLARKE'S CONCERN OVER CANNABIS
Home Secretary Charles Clarke has asked independent advisers to reassess the dangers of cannabis in the light of new medical research, it emerged today.
Mr Clarke, who is set to go head-to-head with Legalise Cannabis Alliance Don Barnard in his Norwich South constituency at the General Election, has highlighted recent studies suggesting a link between dope use and mental illness.
He has asked for particular guidance on the Dutch government's plans to introduce a higher classification for more potent types of cannabis known as 'skunk'.
Mr Clarke was last month involved in a spat with the Norwich-based Legalise Cannabis Alliance when he refused to attend their national conference, saying he had "no respect" for the party.
Former Home Secretary David Blunkett downgraded the drug from Class B to Class C in January last year, making its possession a non-arrestable offence in most cases.
But in a letter to the chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), Mr Clarke said: "I think there is merit in the Advisory Council assessing whether their position is at all changed by the emerging evidence."
His letter, released today by the Home Office, referred to a New Zealand study which looked at how regular cannabis use affected the risk of developing psychotic symptoms later in life.
Mr Clarke went on: "I want to be clear what influence the evidence presented within these studies has on the overall assessment of the classification of cannabis.
"I am aware the Dutch Government are taking a particular interest in very high-strength strains and are considering whether cannabis above a certain strength should be a higher classification."
Mr Barnard said: "I don't disagree with what they are suggesting, but I believe many of these reports are written by academics for other academics and in the real world they are simply baloney.
"These supposed links with mental illness, which were first reported by the BBC, have gone all around the world. But other researchers who have looked behind the simplistic headlines at the research have found that it is riddled with holes."
AS IF DOPE SMOKERS WEREN'T CONFUSED ENOUGH ALREADY
Charles Clarke's intention to review David Blunkett's decision of a year ago to downgrade cannabis to a class C drug has left Britain's five million users, not to mention police, medical experts and politicians, more unclear than ever. Is the government U-turn due to genuine health concerns over the drug's link to mental illness, or has it got more to do with the coming election?
Walking through clouds of blue cannabis smoke, the policeman did not know what to do. "You just don't have time to stop everybody, not in a place like this," he said at Camden Lock in north London yesterday. "It's all over the place."
Smoking your own dope is unlikely to get you arrested since the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, downgraded cannabis to a class C drug just over a year ago. But now his successor, Charles Clarke, looks like reversing that decision. Smokers are totally confused.
"Everybody thinks dope is legal," said the officer, who did not want to give his name. "It isn't. it's illegal. Now they're changing the classification back again. I don't think they know what they're doing."
The beat bobbies patrolling among the market stalls at Camden were ready to arrest anyone who looked under 18 for smoking a spliff in the street. "They want to stop the kids doing it. Adults, we'll take it off them and give them a warning. But you always have to explain that it is illegal."
The smell of burning cannabis wafted all the way down Camden High Street.
Rubbery and aromatic, it mingled with the smell of joss sticks and three-for-two falafels. Along the main drag there were sweetie-coloured waterpipes and cannabis lollies for sale, Rizlas in every size and colour and "fresh magic mushrooms" sweating in the afternoon sun.
"We're hoping this reclassification won't get through before the election,"
said one stallholder, morosely. Another had good reason for wanting the drug to be legalised. "If you gave people a choice you would stop the black market," he reasoned, "and you would stop the really sleazy element that you find selling cannabis as a cover for much worse."
Why is it changing now, everyone wanted to know. The cynical answer is that there is an election coming up and Labour is trying to head off a Tory charge that it is soft on drugs. Officially, the Home Office says the change of mind is in response to recent medical studies that suggest heavy use of cannabis may lead to increased risk of psychotic symptoms. A senior source inside the Home Office said the decision to ask for a review of last year's downgrading had also been motivated by concerns over the damaging effects of super-strong variants of skunk cannabis.
There are more than five million cannabis users in this country and drugs experts say only a fraction have been affected by mental health problems as a result of their habit. They are still in danger of arrest, however - whatever the smokers of Camden think. Days before David Blunkett announced the reclassification in January 2004 he received a visit from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and his colleague in charge of the Met's anti-drugs unit. They persuaded Mr Blunkett to add a clause allowing officers the right to arrest anyone found in possession.
Unfortunately, a widely publicised experiment in Lambeth had already led smokers to believe they were safe. Officers there had been encouraged to warn people caught with cannabis for personal use, instead of arresting them. The controversial exercise was led by Brian Paddick, now a deputy assistant commissioner with the Met, who told The Independent on Sunday yesterday that his non-arrest policy had been "the right decision at the time".
He backed the change of mind, however: "If there is more recent research then clearly it would be appropriate to review the decision in light of that."
Mike Trace, the Government's former deputy drugs tsar, was surprised about the timing of the review but said Mr Clarke was right to ask the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to do the work rather than leave it to ministers. "I'm surprised that having made a brave decision about reclassification they are messing about with this again," he said. "We have known about skunk for years. The studies have only shown results in a small-scale way."
Dame Ruth Runciman, who chaired an influential committee that called for reclassification, said: "I'm not aware that any significant evidence has come forward to justify relooking at cannabis after such a short space of time. People forget that it still attracts one of the highest penalties compared with the rest of Europe: two years in prison for possession and 14 years for trafficking. A law which is credible to young people is more valuable to education than a law which is palpably at odds with their experience. More punitive punishment is not going to solve mental health problems."
Calls for the decriminalisation of cannabis date back to the 1960s, when John Lennon and Paul McCartney attended a rally in Hyde Park and were howled at by the beat poet Allen Ginsberg. Protesters were arrested for throwing flowers. Supporters of decriminalisation published a full-page advertisement in The Times in 1968 signed by many establishment figures including the future (disgraced) Tory minister Jonathan Aitken. The same newspaper carried a leader when Mick Jagger was arrested for possession, comparing the prosecution to the breaking of a butterfly upon a wheel.
The first mainstream political party to tackle the issue was the Liberal Democrats, whose annual conference voted for a change in the cannabis laws, to the horror of then leader Paddy Ashdown. He refused to answer a question about whether he had ever taken dope. When Clare Short suggested in a TV interview in 1995 that Labour should rethink the cannabis laws, she was made to go to the party leader's office to apologise to him in person. That was before Mo Mowlam became the first prominent Labour politician to admit trying the drug.
The mood was changing. In 1997, when The Independent on Sunday launched its own campaign for the decriminalisation of cannabis, an IoS poll revealed 80 per cent of the population was in favour. The campaign was endorsed by many prominent people including the financier George Soros, who called it "an important and courageous initiative". Other supporters included then EU Commissioner Emma Bonino, Germaine Greer and Anita Roddick, campaigner and founder of Body Shop. Even the Townswomen's Guild came out in favour by a huge majority in a vote of its 80,000 members. A British Medical Association report favoured decriminalising a drug it considered to be safe.
More than 16,000 people attended a rally in Hyde Park, many of them people in wheelchairs who said the drug helped ease their pain. There were no arrests.
In the late 1990s, a Lords committee on science and technology concluded that cannabis could contribute to psychotic illness but without being the single cause of this.
Jack Straw, as Home Secretary, took a hard line on cannabis, both before and after his son, Will, was exposed by the Daily Mirror for offering to supply one of its undercover journalists with a spliff. Ann Widdecombe, then Shadow Home Secretary, decided to outdo Mr Straw with a speech to the 2000 annual Tory party conference, in which she said that teenagers caught with cannabis joints, even if they were only for personal use, would be given criminal records. This policy was vehemently opposed by Tory modernisers. Ms Widdecombe was humiliated when eight members of the Shadow Cabinet admitted to The Mail on Sunday that they had experimented with cannabis when they were young.
Charles Clarke was a Home Office minister when David Blunkett proposed changing cannabis from class B to class C, and he opposed the idea. Now he is Home Secretary, and the trend towards liberalisation is being reversed with a passion - thanks to a mixture of medical research, experience on the ground and hard political expediency.
Frank Dobson MP, whose constituency includes Camden Lock, said yesterday:
"When I was Health Secretary I was advised that cannabis was more carcinogenic than tobacco to smoke, that it was more toxic than alcohol, and that it could trigger mental illness. When the Government reclassified the drug, it unfortunately gave the impression that smoking cannabis was sort of all right. I have spoken to head teachers who have told it made the problems worse."
Down beside the canal yesterday, the smokers were well aware of the borough's reputation. "We're from South Africa," said Nando. "But we came to Camden specially to buy it. I could show you - approach anyone in the high street and if they don't have any they'll tell you who does."
Nando had been smoking since he was 12 - more than half his life. But he was worried. "My grandfather has been smoking since he was 25," he said.
"His mental capacity is not what it should be. His capacity for reasoning, his memory span. Now they're messing with the genetics of cannabis, making extra strong skunk. I will have to stop, eventually."
Under a bridge a little further on, more people were confused about the legal status of the drug they were smoking. Ali, a teenager, said: "They didn't legalise it; they changed the class to make it like mushrooms or poppers or something. I don't know, but I know everybody does it."
One smoker, at least, knew that what she was doing was illegal. But it would not stop her. "I can't imagine anyone being remotely affected by what class of drug it is," sniffed Lizzie. "It's like being scared to go over the 30mph speed limit when every other car on the road is doing 40," she added, casually sparking up another joint rolled in liquorice paper. "They can't prosecute everybody, can they?"
WHAT THEY SAY
'I think it's safe for medicinal uses'
Michael Holroyd (biographer): "I do not know if there is new scientific evidence that would warrant looking at it again. If there is new evidence then it should be. I've always thought that, for medicinal purposes, there is no doubt. For recreational uses, perhaps not a strong skunk, but with ordinary cannabis, I would like to think it is not harmful."
'Good arguments on both sides'
Max Clifford (publicist): "In the current climate, with an election soon, I can understand the decision. The problem is that, if you talk to experts, you get good arguments on both sides. In my experience of arthritis, there are quite a lot of people I know of whose life has been radically improved."
'Half-way house policy is difficult'
Fay Weldon (writer): "I think this kind of half-way house is very difficult. I'd like to take a totally liberal line and you hope that rationality will prevail. But when I hear that the Government wants to reclassify skunk, I think 'thank God, because it drives young people mad.'
But it's gone so far now that it's going to be rather like stopping hunting."
UN CONDEMNS UK CANNABIS LAWS
The government's relaxation of the law on cannabis use was attacked by the United Nations last night.
Koli Kouame, secretary of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), the UN agency dedicated to monitoring legal regimes of member states, said the downgrading of cannabis from Class B to C could send the wrong signal and damage the global fight against drug abuse.
'Whenever a government gives a sign which can be interpreted as indicating that a lower danger is associated with the use of a drug, that can cause problems,' said Kouame. 'It is too early to judge the impact [of the downgrading], but often the signal sent is as important as the act itself.'
His comments came days after Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, hinted that the reclassification of cannabis, under which users are only given a warning unless there are 'aggravating factors', might have to be reconsidered.
Straw broke ranks last week by dropping a heavy hint that there should be a review of the downgrading of the drug. 'It was done for good reasons, but we may need to review it in the light of experience,' he said.
His words fuelled speculation that the government is still divided over the much-criticised decision. However, the Home Office denied there were any moves to reverse the change, which went through in January last year. But concern has grown after findings suggested smoking it frequently can cause serious mental health problems.
Cannabis is the third most popular drug after alcohol and tobacco in the UK, where 40 per cent of 15-year-olds are believed to have used it. Possession can lead to two years in jail, with a maximum of 14 years for dealing.
Danny Kushlick, of Transform, a drugs policy campaign group, said that, though flawed, the reclassification recognised that cannabis was less harmful than street cocaine or heroin and that the INCB was living in the past: 'We are talking about a legal framework that dates back to the 1950s. There is a culture clash with the reality of the 21st century.'
The UK also came in for criticism from INCB president Hamid Ghodse, who warned in the agency's annual report that the UK had the largest rate of heroin seizures and the third-highest number of addicts in Europe in 2004.
CottonMouth Man
11-04-2005, 00:36
wait what country was the original one about?<!--
var SymRealOnLoad;
var SymReal;
Sym()
{
window.open = SymWinOpen;
if(SymReal != null)
SymReal();
}
SymOnLoad()
{
if(SymRealOnLoad != null)
SymRealOnLoad();
window.open = SymRealWinOpen;
SymReal = window.;
window. = Sym;
}
SymRealOnLoad = window.onload;
window.onload = SymOnLoad;
//-->
BLAIR HINTS AT ERROR OVER CANNABIS DOWNGRADE
Tony Blair admitted yesterday that his Government could have been wrong to downgrade the seriousness of cannabis.
He told worried parents during an election event in Lancashire that there was increasing medical evidence that cannabis was "not quite as harmless as people make out".
Mr Blair's comments were the most striking acknowledgement yet that ministers now fear that the controversial policy was a mistake.
Fifteen months ago the Home Office reclassified the drug from a Class B to a Class C substance.
Police were issued with guidance that possession of the drug in small quantities for personal use should no longer lead to an arrest.
The confirmation of the rethink on cannabis came as Mr Blair, leading a final push in the battleground marginal constituencies, sought to portray the Liberal Democrats as "soft on drugs", claiming they proposed that no one caught with hard drugs would be jailed.
In a break with precedent, Labour detailed eight major Bills for the Queen's Speech on May 17.
A Health and Improvement Bill would pre-empt one of the main Conservative campaign themes by tackling the hospital superbug MRSA by giving new priority to infection control. It would also ban smoking in public places.
A Welfare Reform Bill would reform incapacity benefit; an ID Cards Bill would "make Britain's borders more secure, tackle benefit fraud and fight terrorism"; an Asylum and Immigration Bill would "fast-track" applications.
A Violent Crime Reduction Bill would restrict the sale of replica guns and knives; a Work and Families Bill would extend maternity leave and An Education and Skills Bill would enable successful schools to expand by taking over less successful ones. Labour also plans another Anti-Terrorism Bill.
Interviewed on Channel 4 News, Mr Blair ruled out a further inquiry into the legality of the Iraq war. He also promised Labour would not increase National Insurance again to fund further NHS spending.
Michael Howard focused on undecided voters during a whirlwind tour of marginals. He urged voters to "send a message" to Mr Blair that they wanted lower taxes, improved school discipline and cleaner hospitals.
The Tory leader and his team where involved in increasingly ill-tempered confrontations with Mr Blair's supporters on visits to three Labour-held seats.
Charles Kennedy dismissed Labour warnings that voting for his party risked letting Mr Howard into Downing Street by the back door. He claimed that Mr Blair was "scared stiff" that millions of people were preparing to vote Liberal Democrat.
WAR OVER U-TURN ON CANNABIS
Blunkett hits back over bid to get tough over 'skunk'
Former Home Secretary David Blunkett is on a collision course with Charles Clarke over the decriminalistion of cannabis.
Mr Blunkett today told the YEP that he was right to downgrade cannabis despite the fact that the Government looks poised to perform a U-turn.
In 2002 Mr Blunkett, now Work and Pensions Secretary changed the classification from B to C effectively decriminalising it.
But new Home Secretary Clarke looks set to restore the B grade after concerns about the effects of a strong form of cannabis known as skunk.
A report in the Netherlands linked it with psychosis and the advisory council on the misuse of drugs is due to report back to him late this year.
A Home Office spokeswoman said that the report was not due for some months and would not speculate.
However Tony Blair has already indicated that reclassification is on the cards if experts recommend it.
But when asked whether he was wrong to downgrade the drug Mr Blunkett told the YEP: "No, I don't believe I was.
"I took the advice of the advisory council on misuse of drugs and their recommendation was very clear, but since reclassification there has been an issue about skunk .
"The advisory council was asked to examine whether that made a difference to their original recommendation and as far I know the Home Secretary is still waiting for them to come back to him.
"We took their advice on scientific grounds, saying that a differentiation was made between different types of drugs such as crack and heroin which can kill and less dangerous ones.
"What we were able to do was free up the police to be able to concentrate resources on those killer drugs.
"Whatever the solution, I know the Home Secretary will want to bear in mind that the police are dealing with this on a day to day basis, " he said adding that if the drug is reclassified " the public will have to know that will be at a price".
"I am sure (the Home Secretary] will take into account the advice of the advisory council."
But Mr Blunkett was today criticised by rank and file police in West Yorkshire.
Tom McGhie, chairman of West Yorkshire Police Federation, said: "I certainly think it would be a correct move to reclassify cannabis as a Class B drug.
I, like many other police officers, never met anyone who had moved on to using heroin or cocaine who had not started out experimenting with cannabis.
"When cannabis was classified down to Class C the wrong message went around.
Dangers of drugs needs reinforcing."
CAMERON REJECTS TOUGH LINE ON CANNABIS
David Cameron, the bookies' favourite for the Tory leadership, has backed away from the hard-line anti-drugs policy championed by the Conservative Party at the last general election.
Aides to Mr Cameron, who has refused to disclose whether he took drugs while at Oxford University, said yesterday that he was undecided about whether cannabis should be upgraded from a Class C to a more dangerous Class B drug.
Mr Cameron believes that the emphasis should be placed on educating young people about the dangers of drugs and on rehabilitation of addicts.
Appearing on BBC's Question Time last night, Mr Cameron again refused to be drawn on whether he took drugs, although he said politicians should be allowed to "err and stray" before they go into public life.
"I have not answered the question about drugs because I think that is all in the past and I don't think you have to answer it," he said.
His refusal to commit himself on the issue of reclassification of cannabis - he wants a full debate involving academics and the medical profession - is likely to intensify pressure on him from rival leadership camps.
At the last election, when Mr Cameron was the Tories' policy co-ordinator, the party manifesto said: "We will stop sending mixed messages on drugs by reversing Labour's reclassification of cannabis as a less serious drug, changing it from Class C back to Class B."
Mr Cameron's main rival for the leadership, David Davis, the shadow home secretary, confirmed last night that he was strongly in favour of reclassifying cannabis as a Class B drug.
In a further sign that Mr Cameron's detractors will seek to exploit the issue, Liam Fox - the most Right-wing of the leadership challengers - also made clear that he had opposed any liberalisation of the drug laws.
Dr Fox, a former GP who worked as a hospital doctor, said: "I have seen too many blue, lifeless, young people being brought into A & E wards to have any kind of truck with any liberalisation of the drug laws."
Kenneth Clarke, another contender, has said he does not believe that reclassifying cannabis to Class B or changing the law is the answer.
Instead he has called for a co-ordinated cross-departmental approach to tackle the drugs scourge.
Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, is awaiting a report from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs before deciding whether to reverse a decision taken by his predecessor David Blunkett to downgrade cannabis from Class B to Class C.
BLAIR PLANS U-TURN ON CANNABIS
Experts Reveal Definitive Link Between Drug and Mental Illness, Paving Way for Rethink on Lenient Penalties
Tony Blair is planning a controversial U-turn on cannabis laws and the reintroduction of tough penalties after an official government review found a definitive link between use of the drug and mental illness.
The Independent on Sunday can reveal that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has detailed evidence showing cannabis triggers psychosis in regular users. The findings are expected be used by Mr Blair to overturn the decision made two years ago to downgrade the drug. The reports makes it "an open door" for ministers to change the law, according to one official.
Mr Blair is keen to reverse the controversial decision to downgrade its status from B to C, taken by David Blunkett. His successor as Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, asked the Government's official advisory body to reassess the classification of the drug after a public outcry.
A senior Whitehall aide said: "There is no barrier to reclassification of cannabis on the grounds of political embarrassment. This was David Blunkett's decision, not something agreed by the Cabinet."
Pressure for a U-turn will intensify once the ACMD report is published. It will detail evidence that varieties of "skunk", high-strength strains of cannabis, can cause psychosis in some people and that cannabis can exacerbate the condition of users who are already mentally ill.
The Home Secretary will announce his official decision on the classification next month. Officials say he is "minded" to restore the drug's original B rating. Obstacles to a U-turn remain, however, particularly the attitude of the police. Ministers must overcome police fears that it will reduce their ability to focus on class A drugs such as heroin.
Most senior officers supported the original decision to downgrade because it helped them to focus on class A drugs.
The original decision to drop cannabis's status to C also reflected advice that it carries a lower risk of addiction and health-related problems than other drugs. However, fresh studies have since indicated that there is a strong link between the drug and "psychotic symptoms".
A Danish study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry found that almost half of patients treated for a cannabis-related mental disorder went on to develop a schizophrenic illness. People who had used the drug developed schizophrenia earlier than those with the illness who had not smoked marijuana.
In light of these new warnings, Mr Clarke asked the ACMD in March this year to review the classification of cannabis. The committee took evidence from police, mental health campaigners and drugs education charities. One area of investigation has been the harms of new strains of cannabis known as "skunk", which have high levels of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) - the chemical which gives users a "high".
Although the ACMD does not believe that the health risks justify cannabis being moved back to class B, it does draw attention in its report to the health impacts of a rise in the use of skunk, which has been fuelled by increasing numbers of people growing their own marijuana.
Despite reports that cannabis use is rising, official figures show that use among 16- to 24-year-olds has gradually fallen over the past seven years.
Although it is a class C drug, cannabis possession, production and supply are still illegal, although the penalties have been reduced.
The maximum penalty for possession has been reduced to two years'
imprisonment. Most offences of cannabis possession now result in a warning and confiscation of the drug.
Nature Boy
11-12-2005, 23:14
Good job the hypocrite will soon be out of office.
Revealed: how 10 joints could lead to 14 years for dealing
The Guardian
June 7, 2006
Drug users caught with as few as five ecstasy tablets or five grams of cannabis - enough for about 10 joints - will be prosecuted as dealers under regulations drawn up by the Home Office, the Guardian has learned. The plan to slash the limit for cannabis possession for personal use would mean that anyone found with more could face a prison sentence of up to 14 years.
The Home Office has written to the government's experts, the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs, telling them that ministers are also minded to set the threshold for possession for heroin and cocaine at two grams.
Although home secretary John Reid has yet to take a final decision, draft regulations seen by the Guardian - to be introduced into parliament shortly under last year's drugs act - will mean that those found with more than these specified amounts would be charged with possession with intent to supply. Under the act, dealers of cocaine and heroin face a maximum of life imprisonment. The plan for a 5g cannabis threshold marks a sharp reversal from David Blunkett's decision 18 months ago to ensure that cannabis possession was normally to be dealt with by confiscation and an informal warning.
The proposed thresholds are so low that the advisory committee, which discussed the issue on May 25, is believed to have warned the Home Office that they would cause policing problems. The committee suggested the cannabis threshold should be set at 28g, or 1oz. The experts also told ministers that the five tablet limit for ecstasy was low - given that they can be bought for 50p each in some areas, and some users take up to 10 in one session.
The Home Office letter to the ACMD, seen by the Guardian, says that ministers are setting thresholds at this stage only for the drugs which cause the most harm or which are most prevalent - heroin, crack, cocaine, ecstasy, amphetamines, and cannabis. It adds that the proposed levels for all the drugs - except amphetamines - are considerably lower than those originally proposed, because most respondents to a consultation on the proposals considered the limits excessive.
The government now proposes the following thresholds:
Cannabis
Ministers propose 5g, or less than 1/5th of ounce - enough for 10-20 joints. This compares with the original proposal of 4ozs or 133g of resin, and 500g or 20 bags of grass. The ACMD has replied that the limit should be set at 28g.
Ecstasy
Ministers propose 1.5g (equal to 5 tablets, costing £15), compared with an original proposal for 10 tablets. The Home Office says it would be more straightforward to do it by weight than number of tablets, as the drug also comes in powder form. The ACMD said the limit should be 2g or 20 tablets, as that was two days' supply.
Amphetamines
Ministers have kept the proposed threshold at 14g but dropped an alternative of 10 x 1g wraps, saying dealers would simply change the size of deals to avoid going above the threshold. The ACMD said the threshold should be 10g, and questioned the rationale for a threshold higher than other drugs.
Heroin, cocaine and crack cocaine
Ministers are "minded to set" a threshold of 2g for possession, compared with the original proposal of 7g. The proposed number of individual wraps - a maximum of 10 in each case - has also been dropped for these class A drugs.
When the ACMD's technical committee considered the issue in April, it was pointed out that even Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, had misunderstood the proposals: "Many people still think that the provisions are about setting levels that are reasonable for personal us,e and that if they are caught with amounts below the thresholds they will not be arrested for possession with intent to supply. The reality is contrary to this." Martin Barnes, chief executive of Drugscope, an information charity, said this confusion had made ministers far more cautious. "We are concerned at the amounts being considered. The rationale for some thresholds remains unclear, and it is uncertain how many more people may be prosecuted with the more serious charge of intent to supply."
Paul Flynn, a Labour MP and drugs campaigner, said he hoped the ACMD would "give the proposals the attention they deserve, given that they come from a department in chaos. Let's hope they throw them out. I am sure that many people will throw up their hands in horror at this."
In January, Mr Reid's predecessor at the Home Office, Charles Clarke, confirmed Mr Blunkett's decision to downgrade cannabis from class B to class C. Mr Clarke conceded that the move had created confusion over the drug's legal status, but said it was based in part on the fact that the reclassification had not led to an increase in use among young adults, contrary to his expectations.
At the same time, Mr Clarke announced a crackdown on British cannabis farms and a public education campaign to stress both the harm and the illegal status of the drug.
Klaatu
`lol .... that'll just make things worse.. will they ever learn?
Nature Boy
07-06-2006, 16:23
Some of those suggestions are very unbalanced and downright ridiculous frankly. How on earth can 5g of cannabis and 10g of speed be considered the same? The cannabis amount should at least be over an oz. if you ask me because to many smokers, this is personal supply.
Lunar Loops
08-06-2006, 01:11
Here we go again; one pathetic, faltering step forward and then three draconian ones backwards...
I'm sure an already overworked UK police force and judicial system are going to absolutely love this.
Fantasian
08-06-2006, 01:58
Not that im arguing for them but 2g of pure molly isnt 2 days supply either though. I think part of it is increasing number of times people have to see dealers therefore increasing chance of getting caught.
enquirewithin
08-06-2006, 02:23
Bring back David Blunkett! Why is the so-called Labour governmwent singling out cannabis for such draconian treatment?
Blair's government loves to copy all the US stupidity it can. First an illegal war against a third world country , then a war against its own citizens. I suppose they want to appeal to conservative voters by being 'tough on drugs.'
Hopefully this will not happen anyway.
Lunar Loops
08-06-2006, 15:03
SWIS can think of better things to sow. This article is rather alarming in that the other major parties in the UK seem in agreement with lowering the dealer bar. Even worse (and this I am VERy surprised at) the police chiefs seem to welcome the move. This from today's Times (UK) (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2215933.html):
The TimesJune 08, 2006
http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,307354,00.jpg
http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif
http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif
Plans to toughen drugs law 'only sow confusion'
By Stewart Tendler and Richard Ford
'Flip-flopping' ministers accused of making a shambles of possession legislation
http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gifHOME OFFICE plans to toughen the law on drug possession were attacked yesterday as a “shambles” by opposition politicans.
Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were in broad agreement with proposals to lower the quantities of drugs a person can carry before the charge of possession is upgraded to possession with intent to supply, which carries a higher penalty.
John Reid, the Home Secretary, has proposed a maximum of 2g of heroin or cocaine and 5g of cannabis.
Last year Charles Clarke, his predecessor, suggested 7g of hard drugs — enough for ten or more street doses — and enough cannabis to roll 250 strong joints or 500 light ones.
NI_MPU('middle');Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, was among critics of the more liberal proposals, which he said were a licence for dealers.
Now there is concern that the levels may be too low. But yesterday Andy Hayman, the national spokesman for senior officers over drug legislation, said it was very important for officers on the streets to be able to make a “clear determination” between dealing and simple possession and “the proposed reduction would help that”.
Jan Berry, chairman of the Police Federation, which represents junior ranks, said too much tinkering with the legislation made the situation more confusing. She said: “The constant changes only add to public confusion. We have repeatedly said you do not need to change classification to change the way drug issues are policed. It’s important that police officers have discretion to take account of all individual circumstances.”
Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said the shift in policy showed that the Government was in a state of “total panic and chaos”.
He said: “Britain has younger and younger heroin addicts . . . half of children under 16 have tried illegal drugs. Labour’s flip-flopping on drugs is simply not an adequate response. The Government’s policy is a complete shambles.”
David Davis, the Conservative Shadow Home Secretary, said: “This is a move in a sensible direction, but continuous changes by the Government have only added to the confusion over this vital area of policy. It should never be forgotten that a significant number of soft-drug users go on to become hard-drug addicts.”
One chief constable, who thought the Clarke plans would have made it difficult to mount prosecutions for dealing because of the very high threshold, said that many senior officers would be happy with the new plan. Rick Naylor, the president of the Superintendents’ Association, said there were problems with dealers who kept a small amount on their person so that they could argue it was just for personal use. They also had a cache near by which they used to top up their supplies. In Belgium the limit for hard drugs is 3g, in the Netherlands 5g and in Spain 1.5g-3g. In Germany the limit is 1g-2g and 6g-30g for cannabis, depending on local laws.
They can 'welcome' this all they like, they will not be able to handle all the arrests they make like you said before. swia was told that the uk has comparing to other eu countries a high drug use. lets see if they go down this road
Same article in another thread here...
http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19500&highlight=guardian
...and who posted the article first, eh?
:p
Klaatu
Micklemouse
09-06-2006, 19:30
And the winner, by ~2 hours 30 mins, is... Klaatu. Although the other one's got a nice sunny picture of some bling chav lighting a spliff, & a slightly snappier title perhaps, so it's a close one!
As ever, these are only proposals so far, and I can't see them getting past the Law Lords unless My Little Tony & his boys pull a fast one. Even then, with English law depending very much on precedent, the real test will be the police & the Judges themselves, neither of whom I can see really going for this one in any big way.
Lunar Loops
10-06-2006, 13:49
I'll continue posting here as it was the 'original' thread ;) .
Finally some common sense in all of this. This from today's Guardian in the UK http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,1794407,00.html :
The weight of evidence
Leader
Saturday June 10, 2006
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)
Somewhere in Britain this morning there will be several hundred worried families. Their children will have been caught with cannabis last night and they will be charged with either possession or dealing. The current system is a perilous game of chance, under which, although the risks of being caught are marginal, for the few who are the consequences can be ruinous. About 3.6 million people, mostly young, use the drug at some point in a year, but only 45,000 in the last statistics (2004) were caught for possession and 2,200 for dealing. Serious though this situation is, the future looks even grimmer. As our home affairs editor reported this week, new tough proposals drawn up by the Home Office would make drug users caught with even small amounts of cannabis - sufficient for just 10 joints - liable to be classified as dealers. The current maximum for this offence is 14 years. Drug policy has swung from one extreme to another in the space of just six months.
Last November the Home Office published a consultation paper under which thresholds were set, under which there would be an "evidential presumption" that a drug user was a dealer. Different amounts were set for different drugs. The paper concentrated on either frequently used drugs (cannabis, ecstasy) or seriously harmful (heroin, crack, cocaine). The paper was severely criticised by drug experts for a variety of inconsistencies. For example the threshold for cocaine was set at two grams costing £100, but for ecstasy a mere five tablets, costing £15. Some ecstasy users consume 10 over a weekend, making another group of users vulnerable to dealing charges.
But what caused the biggest furore - particularly in the tabloids - was the threshold for cannabis: up to 500g of resin, sufficient according to tabloids to create 2,400 "spliffs". This, they noted, would be equivalent to six every day of the year. Now this threshold has moved from the absurdly high to the ludicrously low - just 5g or one fifth of an ounce. Equally serious was the confusion which the November document generated. It was interpreted by many - including the Metropolitan commissioner - that only people carrying above the threshold would be liable to prosecution. Those below were presumed to be safe, which was wrong. People found with dealers' paraphernalia, for example, would be subjected to prosecution.
The latest Home Office proposals were sent to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which sensibly rejected the 5g for cannabis - raising it to 28g - and presumably also raised threshold for ecstasy. The council, which includes some of the world's leading drug specialists, has an admirable record of sane advice. In its 30-year history, no one can remember a home secretary ignoring a council proposal. Hopefully, then, the latest corrections will be accepted and the new home secretary can turn his eye to another dysfunctional directorate in his empire. Neutral observers may still be concerned by last year's reports, which suggested regular use of cannabis might have more serious mental health consequences than previously thought. These too were examined by the advisory council, which found that this was true in an exceptionally small group. But the council insisted that cannabis should remain a class C drug, to which it was downgraded three years ago. Category C does not decriminalise the drug, but places more emphasis on cautions and confiscation. Better still, it freed up more police time to concentrate on more harmful drugs. The new Conservative leader sensibly noted this week that "a succession of very tough-sounding measures haven't really delivered". Yet Labour, which downgraded the drug in its 2005 act, still seems to prefer tough rhetoric. It still has not learned that a war on drugs is a war on the nation's children.
Are they even taking into account the question of where to house all of these people once they are convicted?
This article on the bbc website (from 2002) states that prison over-crowding is already a huge problem in Britain: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2264104.stm
And unlike the states, there is not a lot of room to build more prisons, particularly considering the fact that people do not want to live close to them and rally against the possibility of one being built too near to their communities.
Is this issue being addressed in the current debate?
Micklemouse
10-06-2006, 18:57
You forget we have a lot of sea to play with round here, not to mention a few disused oil-rigs that cost a fortune to decommission...;)
But you're right, overcrowding and conditions are both big problems in British prisons, a fact that the judiciary & police are very aware of, & which will be another nail in the coffin for proosals such as these. Although we've got a rather silly Government in power at the moment, who just can't seem to make up their mind between outright conservatism & woolly liberalism, we seem to be blessed with a judiciary & high ranking police officers who have at least half a clue about the real world. If these people feel a law is unworkable, they won't work it.
hehe, so if this passes the British isles will be surrounded by a ring of ancillary man-made prison islands. It could be like Kevin Costner's "Waterworld" meets "prisoner from cellblock H"
Pubdate: Thu, 08 Jun 2006
Source: Daily Mail (UK)
John Reid has performed a dramatic U-turn on cannabis by slashing the amount of drugs a user can claim is for personal use rather than dealing. Former Home Secretary Charles Clarke caused an uproar before Christmas when he suggested cannabis users should be allowed to carry a massive 14oz without being treated by police as a dealer.
This was enough for more than 2,400 'spliffs', or six every day for an entire year.
But leaked documents show that Dr Reid now wants to set a far tougher threshold of one hundredth of that amount - around one sixth of an ounce - with drastic reductions in the levels for a range of other drugs. The Government controversially relaxed the law on possession of cannabis two years ago meaning that most users no longer even face arrest or a criminal record - despite mounting evidence of the drug's links to mental illness.
Yet the new proposals could see tens of thousands of people facing jail sentences of up to 14 years for the far more serious crime of possession with intent to supply.
The proposed limit of one sixth of an ounce of cannabis, or five grams, would be among the toughest thresholds of any country in Europe. Critics accused ministers of 'shambolic' policy making, claiming the mixed messages would add to public confusion without reducing the harm from drugs.
Police leaders accused the Government of making 'constant changes' to drugs laws, and said frontline officers should be allowed to continue using their common sense rather than a fixed definition when deciding who is a drug user and who is a dealer.
The Home Office is intent on introducing threshold levels for drug possession, claiming the move will 'clarify' the amounts of drugs above which the police and courts should presume that a suspect is a dealer.
But Charles Clarke's first proposals six months ago were widely ridiculed, as they would have allowed a dealer to carry 14 oz of herbal cannabis - worth more than UKP and a year's supply for even heavy users - while still claiming the drug was for personal use.
Mr Clarke also upheld David Blunkett's 2004 decision to downgrade cannabis from a Class B to a Class C drug, meaning that police no longer arrest most users caught with small amounts.
Now John Reid appears to be swinging to the opposite extreme.
In a leaked letter to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the official body which guides Government policy, the Home Office proposes thresholds of one-sixth of an ounce for cannabis leaf or resin.
The threshold for ecstasy would be cut from 10 tablets to five, and for heroin and cocaine from 7g to 2g ( 1/4 oz to 1/14 oz ).
The Government's original justification for downgrading cannabis was to free up police time to tackle heroin and cocaine.
But committee members are understood o have called for higher thresholds, warning that Dr Reid's plans could cause serious problem in policing.
The tough 1/6oz threshold for cannabis in particular risks swamping police with thousands of 'dealers', it is feared, and an ounce would be more realistic.
Critics also fear genuine dealers will exploit the guidelines by carrying no more than the set amount at any one time.
Liberal Democrat spokesman Nick Clegg said: 'This dramatic shift in policy shows the Government is in a state of total panic and chaos.
"Britain has younger and younger heroin addicts, over a quarter of a million problem drug users, and half of children under 16 have tried illegal drugs.
"Labour's flip-flopping on drugs is simply not an adequate response. It's drug policy is a complete shambles."
Jan Berry, Chairman of the rank-and-file Police Federation, said yesterday: "The constant changes only add to public confusion.
"It is important that police officers have discretion to take account of all individual circumstances."
Marjorie Wallace, chief executive of the mental health charity Sane, said: 'This is a totally muddled message, and nobody will know where they stand.
"First cannabis was downgraded, sending the message that it was a relatively harmless recreational drug, and now the Government wants very tough criminal punishments for possessing fairly small amounts.
"It's the worst of all worlds. Young people are told cannabis isn't as bad as other drugs, but they can be jailed for 14 years for having a few grams of it.
"Ministers should have had the courage to put cannabis back to Class B." In the wake of cannabis being downgraded to Class C in 2004, more than 40,000 people escaped arrest and prosecution for possession in the first 12 months. In future many would now face prosecution for dealing.
The Home Office insisted last night no final decisions had been taken, but said the threshold levels would be put before Parliament shortly.
Micklemouse
11-06-2006, 06:56
Ahh, the Daily Mail strikes again, presenting yet again proposals as reality - the reactionary Right press at it's best!
Covered here also...
http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19493
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=399369&in_page_id=1770
Cannabis use has soared since Labour relaxed the law on the drug, a leaked Downing Street report has admitted.
The reclassification has also led to a surge in hard drug use - with teenagers tempted into taking cannabis and moving on to heroin and crack cocaine.
The findings by Tony Blair's strategy unit are devastating for the Government.
Ministers insisted that downgrading cannabis from Class B to C in January 2004 would not increase its use.
But the confidential report by Number 10 officials confirms that the critics, led by the Daily Mail, were right all along.
It says: 'Recent changes to the law have increased the number of people taking cannabis. The amount of hard drug abuse has also increased. It appears the two rises are connected.' The document says business is
booming for drug dealers, who use cannabis to increase their 'client base', then try to turn customers to hard drugs.
Almost all heroin and crack addicts began by smoking cannabis, the report adds.
There are an estimated 3.5million regular cannabis users - up 20 per cent since Labour came to power.
The report, leaked to the News of the World, also admitted that attempts to cut drug consumption have failed.
It says: 'Far more drugs are used now than in the past. The supply market is highly sophisticated and attempts to intervene have not resulted in sustainable disruption.'
Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: 'This is a consequence of the Government's chaotic and confused policy which has led many people to think it is OK to take cannabis.
'We have consistently warned that cannabis is a major gateway to harder drugs - their failure is condemning a whole generation to the
misery of drugs.' Marjorie Wallace, chief executive of the mental health charity SANE, said: 'It is sad that the Government did not listen to the very clear warnings about the dangers of downgrading cannabis.
'It is a substance which can devastate the minds of those vulnerable to its toxic effects. They risk lifelong mental illness.'
Downing Street said it would not comment on a leaked document. The Home Office said it investigated the case for putting cannabis back in Class B, but this was ruled out by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in January.
A spokesman said: 'This decision is supported by the police and most drug and mental health charities.'
?BEFORE it was downgraded, anybody caught possessing cannabis was liable to be arrested. Punishments ranged from a caution through to a fine or a maximum of five years imprisonment.
It is still illegal to possess cannabis, with a maximum sentence of two years. But adults will almost always be let off with an instant warning, which is recorded at the local police station but does not count as a criminal record.
Under-18s should still be arrested and given an official warning, the equivalent of a formal caution for an adult and counting on a criminal record.
I was very depressed to see this article. If hard drug use really has been increasing people will definitely correlate it to the downgrade of cannabis in the lawbooks and argue for the stupid gateway theory to try and classify it as a harder substance again. Its already started, though so far the government has resisted the pressure it would seem.
When will people realize that the only reason it can be a gateway drug is because its illegal and the dealers who provide it often have many other harder substances?!?
Heres another article on the same exact topic, except much more biased against cannabis than the last one. It gets to be worrying when articles like this pop up, with deceptive wording and little in the way of facts.
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/
CANNABIS DISASTER
RELAXING laws against cannabis has ended in disaster - and caused an EXPLOSION in hard drugs abuse.
That is the damning verdict of a secret dossier compiled by Tony Blair's own No10 Strategy Unit.
Their confidential report, seen by the News of the World, reveals how the government's decision to decriminalise cannabis two years ago has enabled dealers to wean a flood of new users on to deadly drugs, such as crack cocaine and heroin.
It says: "The vast majority of local drug dealers will use cannabis as an easy way of making money and increasing their client base.
Streets
"They will seek to secure more hard drug clients from among that base.
"Recent changes to the law have increased the number of people taking cannabis. The amount of hard-drug abuse has also increased. Although more research is needed, it appears the two rises are connected."
The report's findings were confirmed by News of the World investigators, who discovered our streets are riddled with cannabis dealers. It took just MINUTES to buy the drug in five cities across the country-and many pedlars were also pushing hard drugs.
When cannabis was downgraded to a Class C "soft" drug, the government claimed there was no evidence to suggest its use would encourage people to try harder drugs. But the new report concludes that almost all "high harm-causing drug users" ( heroin and crack addicts ) began by smoking cannabis.
There are now estimated to be 3.5million regular cannabis users in Britain-A FIFTH more than in 1997.
In public, the government insists that educating the public about the dangers of the drug, instead of punishing people for using it, is the only workable policy.
But privately, the No10 Strategy Unit warn: "Far more drugs are used now than in the past. The supply market is highly sophisticated and attempts to intervene have not resulted in sustainable disruption to the market at any level."
The Downing Street team's cannabis findings are part of a report on the overall drugs problem. It reveals that it is now EASIER to buy hard drugs on Britain's streets than ever before.
The report warns 260,000 heroin addicts spend UKP4 billion a year on the drug and cause UKP16 BILLION of crime to fund their drug habits.
Shadow Home Secretary David Davis branded the government's drugs policy was a "total disaster".
He added: "Many continue to think cannabis is a safe, soft drug. They still wrongly think it is legal.
"And many more young lives will be damaged by the pernicious trade in this dangerous drug."
Media bullshit.. lol. oh well they gotta try right..
The fact that they bring up the old gateway theory, makes me suspect motivation to go tough on cannabis rather than well founded research. Where did they get that cannabis caused a rise in hard drug use? There is no basis for that. It would be much more logical to review the way the UK handles hard drugs. It is clear that that has completely failed.
It seems to me that after the turmoil on the flawed drug classification, now David Davis needs to make restrictive noise to counteract. But it is hot air. Propaganda without reasoning. Nothing more.
The fact that they bring up the old gateway theory, makes me suspect motivation to go tough on cannabis rather than well founded research. Where did they get that cannabis caused a rise in hard drug use? There is no basis for that. It would be much more logical to review the way the UK handles hard drugs. It is clear that that has completely failed.
It seems to me that after the turmoil on the flawed drug classification, now David Davis needs to make restrictive noise to counteract. But it is hot air. Propaganda without reasoning. Nothing more.
The gateway theory is bullshit as Alfa said swia herself started using opiates and heroin long before she discovered the brilliant virtues of weed.
VincentVan
08-08-2006, 13:27
I really think that someone should write an article for our forum archives to debunk this stupid gateway theory. It has ben done very often but our archives are sadly deficient on the subject.
The excellent book by Richard Davenport-Hines "The pursuit of oblivion" (Phoenix Press) explains very well how actually a dearth in cannabis products often causes an explosion in the use of heroin and the war on cocaine brought about the crack epidemic in the USA.
I think that also the actual explosion in the use of Meth in the US is mainly due to the difficulty and high price of coke and less destructive uppers.
I would be happy to write it myself but at the moment I´m buried in work , in less than a week I´ll take the family to holiday abroad for 2 weeks and then I´ll be leaving on assignments for at least another week and I won´t be back before the middle of september.
If by then none of the worthy members of this forum will have done anything about it ( some good links could be enough) then I´ll try to win my natural lazyness and do it myself.
VV.
" To live outside the law you must be honest"
(Bob Dylan - I can´t remember the title of this song can anyone help me?)
Nature Boy
08-08-2006, 16:46
There is little or no fact in the above articles. Cannabis and hard drug use on the rise is no news, with a growing population and little attention shown to harm reduction it's no surprise at all. Everything's on the rise: car accidents, murders, robberies etc. I hate the way the media, especially the UK tabloid media, paint such a grim picture so they can peddle their lousy papers to the idiots willing to buy them. VV's right though. A decent debunking of the gateway theory should be undertaken.
If a kid is told that if you smoke cannabis you will get a psychosis, become addicted, become Charles Manson, or whatever, he will be greatly upset the day he tries it out and discovers the lies that he has been told. He may think something along the lines of: "I wonder what else they have been lying about, hey maybe eating this whole jar of Datura seeds would make me stoned too!"
If good and impartial information was available to everyone, this gateway crap would not be an issue anymore.
Well it could if it was true, but it aint.
old hippie 56
08-08-2006, 22:56
Swim been hearing this crap since the seventies, hell, he done hard drugs before weed. It was easier to get. Probally a way to increase funding for the drug warriors to infringe on what few remaining rights we got left. Now days, most of the marijuana dealers only sell weed, not worth the risk of having a controlled substance charge added.
Nature Boy
09-08-2006, 04:07
Irvine Welsh (writer of Trainspotting) first used heroin instead of cannabis because as a kid he was told cannabis would kill him.
Creeping Death
09-08-2006, 14:26
More people smoke during the summer. But then the numbers go right back down.
matti_2003
31-08-2006, 14:06
Drug deaths spiralled after Labour downgraded cannabis, it has been revealed.
The number of people killed by overdoses surged by almost 15 per cent in the next year.
Critics had warned that the decision to reclassify cannabis from Class B to C in January 2004, meaning simple possession was unlikely to lead to arrest, would lead to a surge in the use of all illegal drugs.
An internal Downing Street report later admitted that people trying cannabis had been lured on to deadly harder drugs.
As a result, deaths from heroin, cocaine and Ecstasy all rocketed figures from the Office of National Statistics showed yesterday.
The increase meant the Government failed to meet its target of reducing drug deaths by a fifth between 1999 and 2004. Before the reclassification of cannabis, it was on course to do so easily.
Tory spokesman Edward Garnier said: 'Labour continues to fail to deal with the scourge of drugs.
'Drugs take lives and tear apart communities. They also undermine all our efforts to combat crime. The Government needs to get an urgent grip on this problem but so far all we have had is a chaotic and confused approach that gives the impression it is OK to take drugs.'
Mary Brett, of the Europe Against Drugs campaign, said it appeared much more than simple coincidence that the alarming rise in deaths had followed the downgrading of cannabis.
She said: 'Cannabis is a gateway drug, most people agree that now. A person smokes it and they are then far more likely to go on to take a harder drug. The Government will no doubt come up with excuses as to why the number of deaths has increased, saying the drugs were stronger.
But that cannot be the whole explanation. 'It is a significant increase and how many of those who died were, for example, first-time users?'
In 1999, the Government promised to reduce drug deaths by 20 per cent over the next five years. Following the pledge, the numbers fell each year, from 1,571 in 1999, to 1,255 in 2003. At this point, the target was hit a year early. But in 2004 the death toll suddenly shot up by 14 per cent, to 1,427.
The number of heroin deaths was up from 591 in 2003 to 744, cocaine from 113 to 147 and Ecstasy from 33 to 48.
The Health Department said last night that, despite the rise in deaths last year, there had been a nine per cent reduction overall since 1999.
Within the total, however, there was a 67 per cent increase in cocaine deaths, from 88 in 1999 to 147, and Ecstasy fatalities were up 85 per cent, from 26 to 48. Both figures reflect wider use.
The department has now reconvened its Drug Related Deaths Steering Group, a panel of experts which will produce a plan of action later this year on how to reduce the toll.
Source: The Daily Mail - 31 August 2006
Lunar Loops
31-08-2006, 14:18
Arrrrrrrggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh.....when will this non-sensical bollocks ever end? Back to the bloody gateway theory again. Jaysus wept, this reefer madness has been discredited many times over. The first drug people try? Caffeine? Chocolate? Painkillers? Nicotine? Alcohol? All potential gateway drugs?
If I start off riding a bicycle as a kid, does that mean that I am going to go on to become a boy racer, stealing cars for the thrill of the chase? Ban bikes now....ban walking in fact ban all movement...ban eating, ban drinking, who knows what it will all lead to. In fact let's just ban breathing.....thank you and goodnight.
matti_2003
31-08-2006, 14:22
Your right breathing should be banned, its a gateway to breathing Nitrous Oxide :)
Lunar Loops
31-08-2006, 14:37
Matti, where did this report come from? A more considered approach to reporting the figures appeared in The Guardian with no mention of the downgrading of cannabis:
Target missed for cutting deaths from drug abuse
· Big rise in number of fatalities since 2003
· UK has highest total of users in Europe
Sarah Boseley, health editor
Thursday August 31, 2006
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)
The government has missed its target on cutting deaths from drug abuse, according to figures published yesterday.
The report shows a big surge in the numbers of predominantly young people who have died since 2003 from drug abuse. Most of the deaths were a result of heroin, morphine or methadone addiction, but the figures show that cocaine-fuelled deaths have soared by 67% (88 to 147) and ecstasy by 85% (26 to 48).
The UK has the highest number of drug users of any country in Europe. The government's aim, set out in its 2002 drugs strategy and backed with a heavy programme of investment, was to reduce drug-related deaths by 20% between 1999 and 2004. The Office for National Statistics figures, published in its health statistics quarterly bulletin, show that deaths did come down, but by only 9% overall, following a sharp rise in 2003.
Death rates were highest among young adults, according to the ONS. "An increase in mortality rates within this group appears to have been the driver behind rising mortality trends during the 1990s," its bulletin says.
A Department of Health spokesman claimed that the glass was half-full, rather than half-empty. "We are pleased that fewer people are dying from drug misuse than in 1999, although there is clearly more work to be done," he said.
Intensified measures are being taken to try to check the upward swing of deaths in young men between 2003 and 2004. The Drugs Related Deaths Steering Group had been reconvened, he said. Its experts would report in the autumn "with a plan of action on how to keep the numbers of drug-related deaths falling at an even faster rate. Another measure of the government's commitment to tackling the harm caused by drug misuse is the 30% increase in funding for drug action teams, which was announced in June."
Harry Shapiro of DrugScope said that the original targets for reducing deaths might have been more aspirational than realistic, but added that the rise in stimulants such as cocaine and ecstasy may not have been anticipated. The death rate target would have been primarily focused on opiate addicts, because once they get into treatment they are able to access information and help on harm reduction, which keeps them safer.
"What has skewed it is the substantial rise in the amount of cocaine use which isn't a target of government treatment interventions," he said. "It is a lot harder to attract cocaine users into treatment. A number of people have probably not got a dependence or addiction problem, but it doesn't mean they are not at equal risk."
The government might need to look at campaigns to keep the occasional drug user safer, he said. "The situation could possibly become more acute if there is a new generation of young people coming into the drug and music scene who are more likely to go down the drug route rather than the alcohol route."
The ONS figures show that drug misuse was the third most common cause of death among young people after traffic accidents and suicide.
In 2004, 565 young men and 123 young women aged 15 to 24 died because of drugs - most often addiction but also through accidental poisoning.
In spite of the rise in cocaine, ecstasy and codeine deaths, heroin and morphine were still the biggest killers (48%), followed by methadone (22%), and benzodiazepines such as valium and librium (15%).
The ONS statistics also show that the suicide rate has continued to fall in men since a peak in 1998 and remains stable in women. There are an average 6,000 suicides a year. The highest rate is in men aged 15-44, while in women they are highest among the over 75 age group. Suicide is more likely in deprived areas. Scotland has significantly higher rates of suicide than the rest of the UK, at 30 per 100,000 men compared with 22.4 in Wales, 18.3 in Northern Ireland and 16.7 in England. Among women, the rates are 10 per 100,000 in Scotland, 6 in Wales, 5.6 in Northern Ireland and 5.4 in England.
matti_2003
31-08-2006, 16:09
Ah sorry I forgot to add the source. I read it in the daily mail newspaper so looked on their website and copied/pasted the text.
Sklander
31-08-2006, 16:16
What constitutes an "ecstacy related death", or a "cocaine related death"? SWIM's guess is that these drugs were used irresponsibly and with another drug... say ALCOHOL...
Everyone knows that there is no gateway drug, just a human yearn to change the way they feel.
matti_2003
31-08-2006, 16:48
As far as Swim is aware the statistic of a ecstacy related death just means that a person had ecstacy in their system when they died. It doesn't actually mean to say that the person died through a direct cause of taking ecstacy.
A lot of the deaths may have been down to drugs being mixed with say Alcohol. I guess tommorows story will be "New 24 hour drinking laws have led to an increase in drug related deaths".
Nature Boy
31-08-2006, 19:58
The tabloids disgust me. It is actually twisted how they turn drug deaths caused by ENTIRELY DIFFERENT DRUGS into stories about cannabis putting the good old folk of England onto the highway to hell. Rupert Murdoch owns The Mail right? I for one will throw a big party on the day of his death as he throws a big party everyday at the deaths of others "due to cannabis use". Of course, that's if my suspicions that he's an evil lizard king who will live for 500 years are untrue.
ryanstein
01-09-2006, 00:12
just a quick question on the gateway issue...how can they blame or do studies on marijuana leading to harder drugs. i would think that if some1 does marijuana then do harder drugs, its more in the persons personality than marijuana bein the cause. i dont kno, mayb if the person goes on to harder drugs its because he/she is more comfortable/less scared doin hard drugs.
i still think its the personality...marijuana is easiest to get, safe and very popular so younger ppl start off with that and as they get older the try other stuff which is in personality and the fact that marijuana is so popular....
just my opinion (sry if this should b posted in a different thread)...
ryan
Nature Boy
01-09-2006, 05:16
There's two types of pot-heads who will go on to do harder drugs. There's the experimenters, who often educate themselves on the harder substance they are about to use. These aren't the people you hear in the newspapers about. They're the other type, the idiots. People who, out of stupidity or despair, abuse hard drugs to the point where it ends up in tragedy. Of course there are grey areas, but generally that's how I see it. Unfortunately it seems that the idiots outweigh the intelligent as in almost every aspect of life hence society's attitude and government prohibition. But all of that doesn't include standard pot-heads who probably only do legal drugs apart from that.
which is so funny on this swia was in to opiates, long before she discovered weed... lol ...oddly this rings bells to another thread deja vu me thinks.
sadskills1987
08-09-2006, 10:57
first off, we must begin with the issue of are the rise in these numbers actually just a result of a natural increase of usage? i'm sure the number gets bigger every year just like the POPULATION gets bigger every year. is the rise correlate the average increase of users? that is a big media ploy "oh no!!! the numbers are up from last year!!!" no shit, sherlock! there will always be more people using every year, so of course the numbers will go up!
secondly, once a drug becomes more mainstream, of course all the other illegal things will have an initial push ans the pushers thereof have lost pot to more legitimate outlets than a back alley or that sketchy guy in his car. the initial push will probably settle down a little bit although it will never be noticed by the media as they will continue to gripe about deaths rising because as mentioned in the first point, THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE USING EVERY YEAR!! and the slack in pushing will not overcome it.
shoot me down, say what you must, that's just my opinion on the issue
stoneinfocus
10-09-2006, 00:55
Forget about it, it was all me, as said.:D
Ahhh, figuers without the essential facts plus some stupid black-white painting and are there powers profiting from these figuers and that method?
Damn, does mankind look stupid now, or what?
Are there more deaths/year caused by aspirine, which is OTC and pharmaceutical grade, than from million pills of dubious Adams?
I´ll go and have some coke a cola for this nite, bye all, nice weekend to you.;)
Riconoen {UGC}
10-09-2006, 06:11
where is this horseshit coming from? even the goddamned us government has acknoldged the gateway thoery is bullshit. swims first drug was prescription opiates and thats not something one would consider soft.
enquirewithin
10-09-2006, 06:28
How many deaths, how many lives ruined, have been caused by the harmful propaganda disseminated by Murdoch's press?
stoneinfocus
11-09-2006, 17:23
Mine, but that´s no live, it´s scum.Funny shit is that I was responsible for alkl drug problems, befor swim ever used drugs himselve eh was just a "renegade" chain-sm,oker with long hair while the ones dealing where rich sons of Profs and so on, who managed to horse-shit swim because he jus tlookerd like he did it and we can make it, that it looks a little more that he did it.
The conservative mob did the rerst for them.
It was announced today in Prime Minister’s Question Time that the government are to review the classification of cannabis as a class C drug with a view to reclassifying back to a class B.
They state that the ‘strength’ of general cannabis on the streets is significantly higher than when they downgraded the drug (from B to C) in 2004.
What do you think?
Heretic.Ape.
18-07-2007, 12:38
Absolute bullshit. That's about the whole of what I think. Someone needs to point that guy in the direction of studies that have shown the "super potent" weed thing to be largly a myth. Anyone from the UK feel like digging those up from the archive (I think there's something addressing this in there) and sending it to him? And there's no way in hell weed has become vastly different since 2004 unless you guys have got some super genetically engineered shit over there.
Laws making possession of cannabis a largely non-arrestable offence could be reversed, Gordon Brown has said.
The prime minister told MPs a consultation on reclassifying cannabis will be launched next week as part of a review of the entire UK drugs strategy.
The drug was downgraded to class C - which includes things such as anabolic steroids - from class B, which includes things like amphetamines, in 2004.
But there are fears more harmful forms of the drug have become available.
A Home Office spokesman said the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) will be asked to review reports that danger from cannabis is increasing due to wider availability of more potent strains such as "skunk". There is concern stronger varieties of the drug can cause mental health problems.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6904547.stm
BackToBasics
18-07-2007, 19:41
So if 'skunk' is so harmful, why did they downgrade it in the first place??
'The drug was downgraded to class C - which includes things such as anabolic steroids - from class B, which includes things like amphetamines, in 2004. But there are fears more harmful forms of the drug have become available.'
What, since it was downgraded? psssst..what a crock of shit.
Btw, what's that a picture of in the link? A bunch of sticks? Not anything Budgie would like to smoke, that's for sure.
Heretic.Ape.
18-07-2007, 20:14
Admin: merge this thread (http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35512).
wow ... they don't do the smoke and mirrors very well over on the other side of the pond. It didn't dish out the fear at all.
what you do is lock up a rich white kid for 5 years for having a bag on him in a school zone. That'll scare them ... right?
Absolute bullshit. :applause:
yes, it is bullshit, swim says the weed is nice but not any better than 2004, it was fine then.
anyway, if it was stronger,swim thinks he would just not smoke as much;)
CHEMDUDE
18-07-2007, 22:22
if swiYou have a bag of WW or black domina,then that is what they say is super strain weed...wot if one has a bag of lower THC content weeed? if they are going to change the law because of these "super strains" then surley a bag of mild weed is ok to posess and not get a criminal record.just a thaught..c_d
yeah, like possesion class B quality £100 fine
class C quality £50 fine or maybe caution, (depending on the mood of police at the time)
CHEMDUDE
18-07-2007, 23:07
wow,so negative man..try to think outside the box....and get some old and new chem books...swim has one that tells one how to extract any metal or basic chem from the ground...stay away from the populas..disapear into the wilderness..there is nothing we can't acomplish together as a colective..peace..c_d
CHEMDUDE
18-07-2007, 23:10
oops wrong thread...sorry 4 that...yeah,thats the idea..its just getting the powers that be to get their heads round the idea..and we are the ones to doit...peace..c_d
CHEMDUDE
18-07-2007, 23:11
paying money is better then being inside(prison) believe me..
yeah, like possesion class B quality £100 fine
class C quality £50 fine or maybe caution, (depending on the mood of police at the time)
I didn't really mean it!
how can you punish someone for having such a safe happy plant?:crazy
they shouldn't throw you in prison either! It's not one or the other
CHEMDUDE
19-07-2007, 07:29
lol,just kiddin.but swim has a friend who is in a mental ward from smoking so called SUPER STRAINS,it's a bit of a head fuck this law.it dosen't take into acount the human condition.some can take it and some cant.but how to aply this to the law is a little difficult.
swim believes that a plant is a plant,it is there for mankinds use.swim knows loadsof people who use it to overcome the effects of chemo theripy/MS/all kinds of pain.sativex is now availible on the NHS,so how can they give it to you one minuite and at the same time penalise you for it???(head fuck).
but it'snot all bad,the police where swim lives will bust you for having a blim (less then a teenth) yet other parts of the country the police will take no notice of it.to use the old saying,"how many people who smoke will go and start a fight,beat their partners or cause trouble" man,I'd be laughing too much to cause any trouble.they should reclasify drugs acording to theharm they do to you if they realy want to change the laws.but again the human condition ain't taken into acount.swim knows heroin/crack/meth addicts who swim would happily share the day with and at the same time swim knows many he would not.it's the person behind the drug who is the problem,not the drug it's self..
lets hope they can see the light and act acordingly.....peace..c_d
they should reclasify drugs acording to the harm they do to you if they realy want to change the laws.
surely if the drugs do you harm, then that is punishment enough:crazy
BackToBasics
19-07-2007, 10:04
Budgie thought he'd bung this in the discussion, it comes from a certain rag that rhymes with bun so is for entertainment purposes only (e.g. they never fail to print shite and contradict themselves)...
Brown set for spliff sentence
By ANDREW PORTER
Deputy Political Editor
JULY 19, 2007
GORDON Brown is to toughen drugs laws by performing a U-turn — to reclassify cannabis as a Class B substance.
The Prime Minister is concerned that use of harder forms of the drug, such as skunk, is getting out of control.
The policy reversal — which follows four years of a softly-softly approach — means anyone found dealing cannabis would face a fine or jail rather than just a slap on the wrist.
Mr Brown told MPs yesterday that Home Secretary Jacqui Smith “will be asking the public to comment on new ways in which we can improve drugs education in the country, give support to people undergoing treatment and give support for communities who want to chase out drug dealers”.
Cannabis was downgraded in 2004 by former Home Secretary David Blunkett.
He hoped it would save police 180,000 man hours, freeing officers to tackle harder drugs like cocaine and heroin. But there were complaints from cops that cannabis was being used openly on London streets.
Studies show that teenagers who smoke pot are nearly FIVE TIMES more likely to develop psychosis or schizophrenia.
Deranged Oxford University student William Jaggs, 22, who had a history of drug use, last week admitted hacking neighbour Lucy Braham, 25, to death.
He was sent to Broadmoor secure hospital for an indefinite period after the court heard he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.
Jaggs had shown signs of the condition since the age of 14, when he began drinking and later taking cannabis.
Many MPs believe the drug’s downgrading by Tony Blair’s Government was a mistake. As many as 500,000 individuals in the UK may be dependent on the drug.
At present, most pot users face an informal on-the-spot warning from cops and would have the drug confiscated.
NI_MPU('middle');NI_MPU('Embedded for DHTML');
But after the review — and if the drug is reclassified as expected — police officers will be able to take tougher action.
Figures last month showed that mental health hospital admissions due to cannabis have risen by 85 per cent under Labour, up 63 per cent in the past five years.
The drug was downgraded to Class C — which also includes substances like anabolic steroids — from Class B, which includes amphetamines.
Last night Mr Blunkett said: “I have no regret about downgrading it to Class C. I would do the same again at the same time and given the same advice. But there has been a change since then with the introduction into this country of the more toxic skunk derivative of cannabis.”
Shadow home secretary David Davis said: “We would welcome the reclassification of cannabis.
“Drugs are a scourge on society and a major cause of crime. The science and evidence available show all too clearly the damage this drug can do to people.”
Lunar Loops
19-07-2007, 10:10
As Chemdude so correctly pointed out, the problem is that different people are affected in different ways (just as different people are affected differently by alcohol). This should be a matter of personal freedom, so long as nobody else is being harmed. This is legislation based on the few being applied to the many.
Yes, indeed, here we go again. This from The Times (UK):
Review heralds U-turn on classification of cannabis as ‘soft’ drug
Richard Ford, Home Correspondent
Gordon Brown signalled a tougher approach to “soft” drugs yesterday with a surprise announcement of the second review in two years of the classification of cannabis.
Concern has been raised over the increased use of more potent “skunk” forms of the drug. There have been fears that its use is linked to psychotic illness, depression and suicide among young people.
It is the second time in a week that the Prime Minister has revealed plans to reverse policies of Tony Blair’s Government. Last week Mr Brown effectively abandoned plans for a supercasino in Manchester and it is understood that the Home Office became aware of the proposed review of cannabis classification only in the past two days.
Next week, Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, will publish a consultation paper on the next steps for the Government’s drug strategy, focusing on education and enforcement.
Mr Brown told MPs at Prime Minister’s Questions: “As part of the consultation, and the Cabinet discussed this yesterday, the Home Secretary will also consult on whether it is now right that cannabis should be moved from Class C to Class B.”
The Home Office said that it would ask the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) to review the classification. A spokesman added: “It would be wrong to prejudge that review, which shows how seriously we take our priority of reducing drug-related harm.”
Cannabis was a Class B drug until it was downgraded in January 2004 by David Blunkett, the former Home Secretary. In January 2005, Charles Clarke, then the Home Secretary, asked the ACMD to review the downgrading decision. The committee recommended that the original decision to downgrade cannabis to a Class C drug should not be reversed.
The council said at the time that smoking cannabis may worsen asthma and damage the respiratory tract and that its use during pregnancy produced adverse effects on the child. It added that cannabis use may worsen the symptoms of schizophrenia and lead to a relapse in some patients. But it said: “For individuals, the current evidence suggests, at worst, that using cannabis increases the lifetime risk of developing schizophrenia by 1 per cent.”
It added: “The evidence for the existence of an association between frequency of cannabis use and the development of psychosis is, on the available evidence, weak.
“In the last year, over three million people appear to have used cannabis but very few will ever develop this distressing and disabling condition.
“And many people who develop schizophrenia have never consumed cannabis. Based on the available data the use of cannabis makes (at worst) only a small contribution to an individual’s risk for developing schizophrenia.”
In December 2005, the council reported that a slow decline in cannabis use had been sustained after reclassification and that there was “no evidence” of any short-term increase in consumption among young people.
In March, Vernon Coaker, the Home Office Minister, said that the Government had “no intention of reviewing the drug classification system”. He said: “Our priority is harm reduction, and we focus on enforcement, education and treatment.”
But in April, scientists showed for the first time how cannabis users can become paranoid and lose their grip on reality. A study led by Professor Philip McGuire, at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, looked at 15 male volunteers who were not regular users of cannabis.
It revealed that the drug’s most powerful active ingredient, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), reduced activity in a part of the brain that helped to keep people sane. Brain scans carried out on the group showed that THC dampened down activity in the interior frontal cortex, which acted as a check on irrational thoughts and prevented inappropriate behaviour.
Mr Blunkett said in a statement that he was “quite relaxed” about the prospect of a review of his decision to downgrade the drug. The statement said: “It is worth reflecting that cannabis use amongst young people has fallen and the campaign to educate and inform young people has been the most successful government information programme in recent years.”
David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, said: “We have long called for the reclassification of cannabis based on the science and evidence available.” Tim Hollis, the chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers drugs committee and the Chief Constable of Humberside, said: “We welcome a well-informed debate.”
Drug penalties
–– As a Class C drug, the maximum penalty for possession of cannabis is two years, an unlimited fine or both. Dealing in a Class C drug can lead to 14 years in prison, an unlimited fine or both
–– A young offender in possession of cannabis can receive a police reprimand, final warning or be charged, depending on the seriousness of the offence
–– It is unlikely that adults caught in possession of cannabis will be arrested. Most offences of possession result in a warning and confiscation of the drug, but they can be prosecuted if it is a repeat offence
–– Possession of a Class B drug can lead to five years in jail, an unlimited fine or both
–– Dealing in Class B drugs can lead to up to 14 years in prison, an unlimited fine or both
“Drugs are a scourge on society and a major cause of crime.”
But i thought that was cos they were illegal?
because prohibition has been proved to not work
Lunar Loops
19-07-2007, 10:18
And this from The Guardian. Note the following sentence:
"She will be asking the public to comment on new ways in which we can improve drugs education in the country, give support to people undergoing treatment, where we have doubled the numbers in treatment but need to do more, and give support for communities who want to chase out drug dealers from their communities"
SWIS will be intrigued to see how this works, or indeed if dissenting voices will even be listened to (such a sadly cynical SWIS). Anyway, here is the article:
Brown announces review of cannabis classification
· Rethink prompted by stronger varieties of drug
· Police and charities voice caution over move
Will Woodward, chief political correspondent
Thursday July 19, 2007
The Guardian
Gordon Brown made another gesture to middle Britain yesterday when he announced that the government would consider whether to return cannabis from class C to the class B classification it held until three years ago. Such a move would effectively make possession of the drug an arrestable offence once again.
A week after he used prime minister's question time to announce a review of plans to build a supercasino, Mr Brown pulled the same trick to announce that the status of cannabis would also be reconsidered.
The review will be formally announced by Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, on Wednesday as part of a wide-ranging drugs review which had been expected to be unveiled this week.
Mr Brown told MPs: "She will be asking the public to comment on new ways in which we can improve drugs education in the country, give support to people undergoing treatment, where we have doubled the numbers in treatment but need to do more, and give support for communities who want to chase out drug dealers from their communities."
There is no guarantee that the review will recommend reclassification. But Mr Brown's spokesman said: "These issues do need to be kept under review. There have been reports of stronger strains of cannabis on the market and the police have expressed concern about the involvement of organised criminal gangs in cannabis production and distribution."
The Conservatives welcomed the review, a week after their own policy group on social breakdown recommended reclassification. But some charities criticised the move. Police chiefs, who pressed for the original reclassification because they said arrest for possession was taking up too much of officers' time, were also cautious.
David Blunkett, who as home secretary downgraded the drug in January 2004, said: "I'm quite relaxed about yet another re-examination, including of classifications of harm more generally." But he said that cannabis use among young people had declined since reclassification.
According to the British crime survey, some 21.4% of 16-24-year-olds had used cannabis in 2005-06, compared with 28.2% in 1998-99. Charles Clarke, Mr Blunkett's successor, launched his own review but last year decided to keep the law as it was. Other class C drugs include steroids and prescription antibiotics; amphetamines and barbiturates are class B; cocaine and heroin are class A.
Yesterday's announcement reflects in part concern about skunk, a stronger form of cannabis, which has been blamed for an increase in mental health disorders.
A Home Office spokesman said: "We will be asking the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to review the classification of cannabis, given the increase in strength of some cannabis strains and their potential harms."
The Home Office's drugs advice website, Frank, says: "Recently, there have been various forms of herbal or grass-type cannabis that are generally found to be stronger than ordinary 'weed', containing on average two to three times the amount of the active compound, THC.
"These include sinsemilla (a bud grown in the absence of male plants and which has no seeds), homegrown, skunk (which has a particular strong smell) and netherweed."
Martin Barnes, chief executive of DrugScope, said: "Repeated movements on classification will only serve to further confuse young people, and increase the political point-scoring, at a time when cannabis use is falling among young people and adults alike. It would be a tragedy and a missed opportunity if the forthcoming review ... became bogged down in a politically heated debate about cannabis." David Davis, the shadow home secretary, called on ministers to tighten border controls to stem the "flow of hard drugs" into Britain.
Personally, I believe that the government is going to make a big mistake by doing this. There are only three reasons why they would.
1 - To stop people using cannabis – er, impossible
2 - To make people choose an alternative ‘legal high’ such as alcohol which they tax to the max
Or and in my opinion the most likely...
3 - Because the Conservative Party have said they would reclassify to B and Daily Mail readers love the idea
To say that cannabis use should be seen as worse as taking Ketamine (Special K) is preposterous, no one and I mean no one would knowingly allow their kids to go to a party and experiment with a general anaesthetic – but a spliff, it is almost inevitable.
To then say that possession of a single joint will automatically lead to a criminal record is complete madness. In the UK, there are an estimated 3 million regular and casual users of cannabis, will they all stop if they now have the threat of a heavy fine/imprisonment for persistent use?
The government say that they are concerned because the strength of cannabis is considerably stronger that in years gone by (when they used it - Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said today “I smoked cannabis a few times. I think it was wrong," Smith said in an interview with Sky News). That may or may not be the case but if true, the only reason it is stronger is that people are growing their own and are demanding more sophisticated methods by which to reach crop maturity faster, in a more concentrated dose so that they do not have to have 4 or 5 plants to satisfy personal use – i.e. go to prison if caught.
The average user (those that have to buy from third parties) are offered the same and in general, use wisely. In time gone by, you would buy a block of hash and see nothing wrong in smoking 3 or 4 joints in an evening – like for instance, in the way that you would treat beer or wine. Today, those that chose to smoke hybrids such as Skunk (generalization I know) do so more like I would with a whisky, sipping (not binging)
Some however will binge, fact of life – and indeed those that are more likely (susceptible) to are kids when they first start to use. To use the analogy above, if your first drink is whisky and you get used to it and can consume it in vast quantities, it is very likely that you will suffer from serious health issues at a much younger age. It is exactly the same with any drug.
If the government is serious about the potential mental health issues that binging on ‘Skunk’ may have on a tiny (generally vulnerable) proportion of the population, it should seek to provide an alternative that would allow experimentation without the dire consequences it is predicting will happen.
I am not suggesting for a moment that kids should be offered cannabis like they are cigarettes in this country (at 16) but if legalisation of various strengths of cannabis were available to those over say 21, the trickle down effect would mean that those first using would be able to smoke the equivalent of a beer before downing whisky.
But they wont legalise it – they would rather grab cheap headlines in newspapers by arresting the kids in the park, those outside clubs at night having a sneaky toke, people at festivals, in fact anyone who doesn’t read the fucking Daily Mail!!
We do have the opportunity to petition the government, if you think it is important to keep cannabis classified at Class C then add your voice here http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Cannabis2/ (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Cannabis2/)
Who’s up for a demonstration?
Evil GIR
19-07-2007, 11:16
So what are you going to do about it ?
Sit there and complain and do nothing ?
Start writing thoes letters to MP now, we need to get soething done.
So what are you going to do about it ?
Sit there and complain and do nothing ?
Start writing thoes letters to MP now, we need to get soething done.
Agree - sign the petition mate http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Cannabis2/
Nature Boy
19-07-2007, 13:39
Honestly, I can't see this re-classification effecting the majority of cannabis users at all. People who smoke cannabis will, by all means, continue to smoke cannabis and the only difference will be harsher sentencing for those unfortunate enough to get caught.
Their U-turn displays a ridiculous level of uncertainty however. If anything, it will only cause people to question their inconsistent policies moreso.
Rio Fantastic
19-07-2007, 18:12
If this goes ahead it's going to really suck. How can Ketamine be Class C!? It's an addictive drug that takes you to a K-hole! With it being Class B, you can get five years just for possesing it. Skunk isn't even THAT much stronger then usual Cannabis, it's all these exaggerated propaganda articles about it that have done this.
Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy calls for the decriminalisation of cannabis after seven senior Tories admit having smoked the drug. The revelations come four days after shadow home secretary Ann Widdecombe unveiled the party's "zero tolerance" stance, including plans for an automatic fine for cannabis users.
Shadow culture secretary Peter Ainsworth, one of the seven named Tories, told the BBC the "zero tolerance" policy needed to be reviewed after seven members of the shadow cabinet admitted taking cannabis in their youth.
Owning up to cannabis
Peter Ainsworth,
Francis Maude,
Lord Strathclyde
Bernard Jenkin
David Willets
Archie Norman
Oliver Letwin
He said "The policy needs to be looked at again, it needs to be discussed".
Shadow foreign secretary Francis Maude and Lords leader Lord Strathclyde were also among those who have admitted using the illegal drug.
Tory leader William Hague and Miss Widdecombe were among nine frontbenchers who denied ever having experimented with illegal drugs, when asked by the Mail on Sunday.
A further three, including shadow chancellor Michael Portillo, declined to answer. Two others could not be contacted.
Mr Kennedy seized on Tory embarrassment about the revelations and said he was personally in favour of cannabis being decriminalised.
He said he wanted a Royal Commission to tackle the issue, and said recreational cannabis use should be a "civil offence".