Anoter Stupid Goverment Reply to Cannabis

[Evil GIR]

Well recently I have been reading and seeing news reports that PISSES ME RIGHT FUCKING OFF, so I ahve started googling names and getting Email address, so here is a letter I sent to the Home Office. I think its kinda funny too that I have started to use Zim as my name, its funny when they say dear Zim.
So is there a news story that pisses you off ?


Then get of your ASS and get the addys of people involved and let em know.


Here is my letter :

To : public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk


Hi, Id just like to say that I am very disappointed in the government's decision to reclassify cannabis from a class C drug to a class B drug. I am even more so disappointed that the government has already made up its mind and is disregarding any scientific information that may appear in the review and is following there own none scientific personal moral view, meaning its illegal because they don't like it.

I was in contact with an MP who basically said he is against drugs because his X Girlfriend use to use MDMA. I don't think personal views should be in politics, the government is supposed to be there for the people.

I think at the very least the population of the uk should be allowed to vote on the matter and given fair none biased information on the subject.

But I seriously doubt the change in law is going to make any difference at all, I think people will still smoke cannabis even if it was a class A drug or you introduced the death penalty like some countries have.

I think that drugs should be a social issue and not a criminal one as if the government is there to protect society than why treat users as criminals and not
patients who may need help.

The prisons are full enough as it is to the point of giving serious offenders such as those who carry knifes, hardly ever go punished and even when a stabbing takes place they'd probably only be looking at 5 years.

I would give you references to scientific journals but I don't really think this is appropriate as I get the opinion that no matter what the science say the government will never budge on the idea.


Thanks for you time

Zim






Here is there Letter


Dear Zim,

Thank you for your e-mail of 09 January about the classification of cannabis and the decision to review its classification as a Class C drug.

The Government does not share your views about the harmfulness of cannabis. Its message to all and to young people in particular is that all illegal drugs, including cannabis, are harmful and that no one should take them.

The Government accepts that cannabis has a number of acute and chronic health effects and that prolonged use can induce dependence. Most cannabis is smoked and smoking, in any form, is dangerous. Even the occasional use of the drug 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 are and will remain illegal.

Cannabis was reclassified from Class B to Class C under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 on 29 January 2004. This is because the Government and Parliament accepted the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs advice that although cannabis is unquestionably harmful, its classification as a Class B drug was disproportionate in relation both to its inherent toxicity (harm) and to that of other substances, such as the amphetamines, which are Class B drugs.

In March 2005, Charles Clarke, then Home Secretary, asked the Advisory Council to reassess its position on the classification of cannabis. It was his concerns about the links and associations between taking cannabis and developing mental health problems and the claims of greater prevalence of increased strength cannabis (skunk) that prompted this request for further advice. Mr Clarke wanted to be clear whether all the relevant evidence from recent studies into these issues altered the Council overall assessment of the appropriate classification of cannabis as a Class C drug.

The Council completed its review in December 2005, reporting that cannabis is harmful and that its consumption can lead to a wide range of physical and psychological hazards. Nevertheless, the Council did not advise that the classification of cannabis-containing products should be changed on the basis of the results of recent research into their effects on the development of mental illness. The Council confirmed its view that, although cannabis is unquestionably harmful, that harmfulness does not equate to the harmfulness of Class B substances either at the level of the individual or of society.

In January 2006, Mr Clarke announced in Parliament that he had considered very carefully the advice which he had received from the Advisory Council before accepting, on behalf of the Government, the Council recommendation to keep the current classification of cannabis as a Class C drug.

The classification of cannabis is part of the Government's broader drug 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] [we need] to monitor and review the ways in which [it reduces] [we reduce] the harm caused by illegal substances like cannabis.

British Crime Survey data for 2006/07 show for 16-59s compared to 1998 that cannabis use in past year is down 20 per cent (10.3 per cent for 1998 and 8.2 per cent for 2006-07). For 16-24 year olds cannabis use has fallen by 26 per cent (28.2 per cent for 1998 and 20.9 per cent for 2006-07).

Though these statistics show that cannabis use has fallen significantly, there is real public concern about the potential mental health effects of cannabis use and, in particular, the use and availability of increased strengths of the drug, commonly known as skunk. In these circumstances, the Government is considering whether it is necessary to toughen the penalties relating to cannabis possession to complement its education and treatment programmes.

The Prime Minister announced on 18 July 2007 that, as part of the consultation to review its our drug strategy, the Government would also consider whether it is now right that cannabis should be moved from Class C back to Class B under the Misuse of Drugs Act.

The Home Secretary has asked the Advisory Council to again assess the medical and social scientific basis of the classification of cannabis. This review will take into account the fact that there are stronger forms of cannabis that may cause more harm.

The Government will consider carefully the Advisory Council findings, expected in April, before making a final decision that will be consistent with its aim of reducing the harm caused by drugs and ensuring that people and young people in particular are well aware of all the risks.


Yours sincerely,



Khaleed Edoo
Direct Communications Unit

[Nature Boy]

Prolonged use of anything can induce dependence. Seeing that cannabis is not physically addictive whereas tobacco and alcohol are, this point is completely irrelevant. The risks possessed by smoking are also irrelevant seeing as tobacco is smoked AND is legal. If the government is rigid in its desire to prevent people from smoking, all smokable tobacco should be banned and classified similarly to cannabis. Any other situation promotes a double standard.

The same applies to the argument regarding people who are vulnerable to cannabis in terms of their mental health. Alcohol use can potentially cause similar problems but this risk is minimal so that it should and does not apply to the general public, simply because government policy should reflect the majority and not the rare few. Any links between increasing THC levels in "skunk" is surely tied to cannabis' direct relationship with the criminal black market. Government regulated cannabis could be controlled in the same way that government regulated alcohol is physically a lot safer than illegally-made bathtub liquor. Any public concerns regarding cannabis strength should be ignored considering that this is only an opinion and not an actual reality. Pragmatic concerns considering the millions of pounds flooding the criminal black market should have more priority over any petty worries.

Drug prohibition has existed, and failed, for so long that the general public sometimes forgets how counter-productive a system it is. Prohibition is harmful in that not only it has failed to tackle the drug problem, it creates a black market monopoly that only makes the problem worse. Not only this, many people are so baffled by why governments continue with it that they lose faith in the entire current political framework.

So government asks itself, should we continue to stick with the status quo and allow a problem to manifest itself deeper into the communities of a nation, or should we attempt to curb this problem through pragmatism, financial control and reason. We now know that "JUST SAY NO" will never work. People have used psychoactive substances longer than any government has existed.