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.

[Alfa]

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.

[Alfa]

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."

[Alfa]

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

[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."

[Alfa]

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."

[Alfa]

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]

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;

//-->

[Alfa]

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.

[Alfa]

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."

[Alfa]

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.

[Alfa]

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]

Good job the hypocrite will soon be out of office.

[klaatu]

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

Reputation Comments on this post:

	good art ;)
	Nice find...if very depressing.
	distressing article!

[Alicia]

`lol .... that'll just make things worse.. will they ever learn?

[Nature Boy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...9-2215933.html):


The TimesJune 08, 2006



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

HOME 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.

[Alicia]

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

[Jatelka]

Same article in another thread here...

http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/sho...light=guardian

[klaatu]

...and who posted the article first, eh?



Klaatu

[Micklemouse]

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]

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/Stor...794407,00.html :

The weight of evidence

Leader
Saturday June 10, 2006
The Guardian

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.