UK - U.K Government cannabis reply

[Twiglet]

Legalisecannabis - epetition reply

13 July 2007
We received a petition asking:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to legalise cannabis."
Details of Petition:
"Prohibition does not work. Any possible dangers the government believes to be involved in the use of cannabis can only increase the need for the government to take the control of it's supply away from criminals and regulate it as alcohol and tobacco are regulated. Add to this the proven medicinal uses of cannabis and it's religious use throughout the world, for which prohibition is illegal under human rights law, and legalisation can be the only logical way forward."

• Read the petition
• Petitions home page

Read the Government's response

Thank you for your petition seeking the legalisation of cannabis.
The Government has no intention of legalising cannabis. In response to the Home Affairs Committee report on The Government's Drugs Policy: Is It Working? in 2002, we stated that "We do not accept that legalisation and regulation is now, or will be in the future, an acceptable response to the presence of drugs" and that includes cannabis.
Whilst there is every sympathy for those with debilitating illnesses and chronic pain who are looking to alleviate their symptoms and who may not find adequate relief from existing medication. The Government's view that cannabis is and will remain a controlled, illicit drug for good reasons.
When recommending the reclassification of the drug from Class B to Class C under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs asked for it to be clearly understood that cannabis is unquestionably harmful. It has a number of acute and chronic health effects and prolonged use can induce dependence.
Most cannabis is smoked and smoking, in any form, is dangerous. Even the occasional use of cannabis can pose significant dangers for people with mental health problems, such as schizophrenia, and particular efforts need to be made to encourage abstinence in such individuals. The Government believes that it clearly makes sense, on health grounds, for cannabis to remain a controlled drug whose unauthorised production (including cultivation), supply and possession for whatever purpose are and will remain illegal.
The Government understands the reasons for your opposition to the prohibition of cannabis and your support for legalisation of the drug and control of its quality in a regulated way. However, we have concluded that the disadvantages of legalisation would outweigh the benefits.

Legalisation would run counter to the Government's health and education messages. Our message to all - and to young people in particular - is that all controlled drugs, including cannabis, are harmful and no one should take them. To legalise the possession of cannabis for personal consumption would send the wrong message to the majority of young people who do not take drugs on a regular basis, if at all, with the potential risk of increased drug use and abuse.
The Government's objective is to reduce the use of all illegal drugs - including cannabis - substantially, not to encourage increased consumption due to more ready access to increased supply. While our drugs laws cannot be expected to eliminate drug use, there is no doubt that they do help to limit use and deter experimentation.
Among other things, the prohibition on cannabis and many other drugs was introduced by UN Convention specifically for protecting public health and welfare. On the human rights front, it is widely agreed that the law has a function in protecting public health and welfare, including protecting people from the consequences of their own actions - compare, for example, speed limits, seat belts, safety and crash helmets, tobacco health warnings, etc. The Government must balance the rights of individuals on the one hand and the greater public health and welfare considerations on the other.
Whilst the Government has no intention of legalising the use of cannabis in its raw form for medicinal purposes, we have said that we would seek Parliament's agreement to make any necessary changes to the law to enable the prescription of cannabis-based medicine, for the purposes of relieving pain, but not before the granting of product approval from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
It would not be appropriate for the Government to circumvent or undermine the well-established process attached to the evaluation of the safety, quality and effectiveness of all prospectively prescribable products by the MHRA. It is a process, which is designed to protect public health. Doctors must be confident about what they prescribe. In order to protect public health, the Government faces difficulty in making any changes to the law unless and until we are satisfied that the benefits have been formally established by the statutorily recognised means. This position is supported by the British Medical Association.

[Nature Boy]

What a bullshit reply!! All they could vomit up was the old schizo routine and "all smoking is dangerous"? Alcohol and tobacco cover both those bases, substantially moreso as a matter of fact, so those excuses are not good enough.

It was interesting that they said: "To legalise the possession of cannabis for personal consumption would send the wrong message to the majority of young people who do not take drugs on a regular basis, if at all, with the potential risk of increased drug use and abuse."

Does that mean it's possible for mature people who take drugs on a regular basis to legally carry cannabis on them? Seeing as we're talking about majorities here, why not help out the growing minority of people who can actually use cannabis responsibly? Seems like the only fair option. There's way too much at stake considering all the supposed "terrorist funding" black market cannabis leads to.

[dr ACE]

how can any government justify the production and sale of Ethanol, also known as ethyl alcohol,with its posinous toxic effects on you nerve's system,brain,liver and general well being.which has no know medical uses and never will,the only legitimate use of alcohol is for a disinfectant or for use in extractions.swim thinks the only way to solve this stupid law problem with cannabis is simply for every smoker in the country/world to boycott these morons in charge by not buying ANY alcohol or tobacco and then see how smug they are about trying to carry on with this stupid attitude of misconception and deceit that cannabis is a 'drug' and alcohol/tobacco are not.

the only way to change the law is for people to stand up for what they believe in and fight these evil tyrants in charge of countries...

and alcohol has caused and will carry on to cause far more psychotic episodes and mental illnesses than cannabis has or ever will have!!, now why the hell dont they go on about that fact?? to much money at stake

[BackToBasics]

Budgie's so glad that the government are here to protect us from ourselves..what would we do without them? NOT.

Originally Posted by twiglet

While our drugs laws cannot be expected to eliminate drug use, there is no doubt that they do help to limit use and deter experimentation.

Budgie may be missing something here, but since when did it limit use and deter experimentation? Roughly about 2 million people smoke Cannabis in the UK which is quite a percentage of the population. Doesn't sound like limited use to Budgie.

Between 1972 and 1978, 11 US states decriminalised marijuana possession. Did the US bend under the weight of all those extra cannabis smokers? Well no, not really, it probably didn't change a thing. The people that smoked carried on smoking, and the people that didn't smoke, didn't. It's not going to change an opponents attitude to Cannabis just because it's been decriminalised.

Look at the Netherlands. They've got one of the lowest rates of drug use in the world.

[Alicia]

Well that was a nice steaming read of shit. if there using the hole danger harm aspect they must be stupidly blind to the damage alcohol and tobacco cause. how much they kill each year comparing to other substances alone.

Maybe tobacco should be illegal too. Since we all know the dangers it causes smoking wise, not to mention the addictive potential. Alcohol i dont need to even go there with the risks. Funny how these ones will kill you maybe so no pensions have to be paid, when there dying of cirrhosis and cancer.

They just dont want to be seen to changing there mind to deal with it, after preaching bullshit for years on end they cant be seen to change there opinions. Public would lose faith. same old same old. even the mental health thing is not there either. They have more people in with alcohol related depression alone then drug induced psychosis.

[dr ACE]

Originally Posted by Alicia

They just dont want to be seen to changing there mind to deal with it, after preaching bullshit for years on end they cant be seen to change there opinions. Public would lose faith. same old same old. even the mental health thing is not there either. They have more people in with alcohol related depression alone then drug induced psychosis.

Think you have hit the nail on its head right there,, they have a hard time admitting they are wrong-Pride. And cant just let the Real scientific facts speak for themselves. So they have to supress/hide the truth and keep on feeding the public steaming piles of pseudo-scientific-bullshit

[Purest]

Stinkin' Weasels...

The government know that alcohol is the most abused drug in the whole country, and they know just how many people chain smoke, yet they don't legalise a less harmful substance. Swim really feels that having a balance between legal and illegal drugs isn't the way forward, either ban all or allow all. Either way the ones who want to do drugs will still get hold of them, it makes no difference.

[Alicia]

Originally Posted by Purest

Either way the ones who want to do drugs will still get hold of them, it makes no difference.

just a shame it has to be associated with an illegal element, that they could tax if they considered it as an option.

[aerozeppelin123]

I sent this email a little while ago to the Home Office, mainly just to see how they would reply. It was the usual nonsensical bullshit as expected. Didn't even answer a lot of my questions. If anyone else has sent similar letters/emails it would be good to see them on here and how the government replied.


Dear Sir/Madam,

I am emailing concerning the government's recent announcements that it will
review the classification of cannabis, specifically whether it should be moved
back to Class B under the Misuse of Drugs Act. I would just like to say that I
feel this obscures the far more important issue of whether criminalising
cannabis is the most effective strategy at all. What I find most alarming is
the incredible importance the government places on which Class drugs are placed
in, despite there being zero evidence that increasing criminal penalties has
any effect on how many people use a drug, or indeed on the overall harm to
society that a drug causes.

As far as I am aware, there has never been any Home Office research into whether
there exists a deterrent effect of the current ABC classification system.
Indeed the evidence we have from the past four decades would suggest the exact
opposite - illegal drug use in the UK and worldwide has increased under
prohibition faster than at any other time in recorded history. I am sure you
will agree that evidence should be the basis of any government policy -
especially in an area as important as drug legislation - yet this is entirely
lacking from the government's current strategy.

Economically, the effects of prohibiting cannabis are disastrous. Criminals
enjoy total control over the market, and therefore the entirety of the profits
that ensue, while at the same time funds come out of public money to treat
patients with cannabis-related health problems. This means that criminal gangs
are financially supported while the NHS is drained of resources. Were cannabis
to be controlled on a legally regulated market, tax from its sales would most
likely equal or even exceed the cost to public health services, much in the
same way tobacco taxes cover the cost of tobacco-related health problems. I am
aware that the UK is bound by international treaties against the legalisation
of cannabis, however these laws should be challenged and justified, and revoked
by the UN if the evidence shows them to be ineffective.

There is also the issue of whether it is morally justifiable to treat cannabis
users as criminals. In my view, any consenting adult engaging in an act that
does not infringe upon the rights of others (cannabis use being a good example)
should not be liable for prosecution. I am not denying that cannabis can have
adverse effects - in some users there can be severely detrimental health
consequences - but how does this justify the criminalisation of its users
rather than treating the matter as a public health issue? Perhaps it would be
easier to understand if the government had an inherent problem with all
recreational drug use, but it clearly does not. Alcohol and tobacco (two drugs
which result in tens of thousands of deaths and hospitalisations each year) are
legally available for adults to use recreationally. Why is it that users of
these drugs are not criminalised as well? Sadly I feel it is that the enormous
tax revenue the government gains from these substances takes precedence over
the need to establish consistent and effective policy.


Any answers from the Home Office to the points I have raised would be very much
appreciated.

Yours faithfully,
Laurence Crouch

Switchboard 020 7035 4848 Fax: 020 7035 4745 Textphone: 020 7035 4742

E-mail: public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk

Mr Laurence Crouch

Reference: T3778/8 18 March 2008

Dear Mr Crouch,

Thank you for your e-mail of 19 February about the decision to review the classification of cannabis as a Class C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

The classification of cannabis is part of the Government's much broader drugs strategy which has a strong emphasis on prevention, treatment (both in the community and in the criminal justice system), education, information, advice and harm minimisation. This strategy has contributed to falls in recent years in drug use, including use of cannabis, drug related crime and drug related harm. But to tackle drugs in the most effective way the Government needs to monitor and review the ways in which [Author ID1: at Tue Jul 17 17:44:00 2007 ]it reduces the harm caused by illegal substances[Author ID1: at Tue Jul 17 17:44:00 2007 ] like cannabis.[Author ID1: at Tue Jul 17 17:44:00 2007 ]

The Government's objective is to reduce the use of all illegal drugs substantially and the consequent drain upon the health services that would result from increased consumption due to more ready access to increased supply. While our drugs laws cannot be expected to eliminate drug use, there is no doubt that they do help to limit use and deter experimentation.

Those who advocate legalisation suggest that this would reduce a range of harms associated with the illicit control and supply of drugs. But this view tends to take no account of the consequences of the significant increase in use that would follow legalisation; and only takes account of the acquisitive crime that feeds some drug habits, not the crimes committed under the influence of drugs or the drawbacks to a lawful, regulated market. Also, the legalisation of drugs would not eliminate the crime committed by organised career criminals. Such criminals would simply seek new sources of illicit revenue through crime.

A regulated market for drugs through controlled outlets (e.g. licensed pharmacies) would certainly provide the opportunity for tax revenue. But establishing the level of taxation would be difficult. Setting the price too high would open the door for the illegal markets, while setting it too low could feed that same market. Regulation also carries its own administrative and enforcement costs which can be substantial and are usually borne by the taxpayer, who needs to be persuaded that the tax is just. Unless drugs were freely available to everyone, it would not be possible to stop the illicit market operating at the margins of any regulated system, as alcohol and tobacco smuggling demonstrate.

Also, it is not clear how such increased access would reduce the incidence of drug taking, if at all. On the contrary, Government backing in the form of making controlled drugs readily available might exacerbate the problems and the temptations rather than reduce them. Meanwhile, unilateral action on this or any other Government's part would undoubtedly encourage unwanted drug tourism to the country concerned, not least from drug dealers, in the event that there was no similar move to legalise internationally.

The Home Secretary has asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which advises the Government on drug issues, to again assess the medical and social scientific basis of the classification of cannabis. This review is taking into account the fact that there are stronger forms of cannabis that may cause more harm.

The Government will consider carefully the Advisory Council[Author ID1: at Tue Jul 17 17:44:00 2007 ]'s findings, expected in late April, and will then make a decision about whether or not to bring a proposal to Parliament to reclassify the drug.

Yours sincerely,

M Raymond

Direct Communications Unit

Reputation Comments on this post:

well construed and good effort

[Alfa]

The obvious response can be found here.