UK - Cannabis should be reclassified, Brown says

[Lunar Loops]

Link to story included as there is a link on the page for you to express your own view on the matter:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...annabis101.xml

Again no surprises here in this article from The Telegraph:

Cannabis should be reclassified, Brown says

By Robert Winnett, Deputy Political Editor

Last Updated: 2:19am BST 02/04/2008

Gordon Brown today gave his backing for cannabis to be reclassified as a more serious drug later this month in a move that will reverse its downgrading by his predecessor.

At his monthly press conference, the Prime Minister revealed his strong support for reclassifying cannabis as a "class B" rather than "class C" drug.

Cannabis was controversially downgraded by Tony Blair in a move which is thought to have encouraged greater use among the young.

After becoming Prime Minister last June, Mr Brown ordered a formal review into the classification of cannabis which is due to report later this month.

Today's comments from the Prime Minister suggest he will push ahead with reclassification regardless of what the review concludes.

He said: "I believe that if we are sending out a signal particularly to teenagers, and particularly those at the most vulnerable age, young teenagers, that we in any way find cannabis acceptable, given all that we now know about the changes in the way cannabis is being sold in this country, that is not the right thing to do.

"My personal view has been pretty well known for some time.
"Given the changing nature of the stock of cannabis that is coming into the country and greater damage that that appears to be doing to people who use it, there is a stronger case for sending out a signal that cannabis is not only illegal but it is unacceptable."

Class C drugs include steroids and some prescription anti-depressants.

Possession of them can lead to a two-year prison sentence, but in practice, charges are rarely brought against people found with small quantities of such drugs.

Class B includes more dangerous drugs such as amphetamines.

People found in possession of Class B drugs can face a five-year jail term and an unlimited fine.

[illume.]

swim thinks thats a bit harsh a penalty just for possesion. as for the unlimited fine revenue raising?

[Pondlife]

So it looks like Brown is going to go ahead regardless of what the ACMD say. The ACMD were angry back in January when Brown's intentions were leaked, as reported in this thread: http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45795

I wonder if we will see any protects or resignations from the ACMD as a result of this?

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by Pondlife

So it looks like Brown is going to go ahead regardless of what the ACMD say. The ACMD were angry back in January when Brown's intentions were leaked, as reported in this thread: http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45795

I wonder if we will see any protects or resignations from the ACMD as a result of this?

Hopefully the experts will ask themselves "Do I have a real input into drug policy, or am I just being used to cover up the total lack of scientific consultation on the issue?"

[Evil GIR]

My personal view has been pretty well known for some time.

That is exactly it, it his own dam personal view.
Something of which is not based on science or ethics, but rather his own private personal moral view, which i think should have no place for politics. He aint doing it for the greater good, hes just doing it becaue he dosent like it.

[anony]

Flame me if you must
but I feel cannabis is a really strong drug and I can understand them reclassifying it.
obviously, as a drug user, my friend, swim, says all drugs should be legal as it's upto YOU what you wish to do with your life.
but swim was a very heavy cannabis user for 6-12 months and it fucked swim up. Cannabis is a very strong drug.
The drug that needs reclassification is ecstasy.

[Panthers007]

I am sorry that Swim had difficulty with cannabis. This is generally indicative of an addictive (this can be refined) personality. For a variety of possible reasons. If it doesn't work for one, then they should avoid it.

But to lump all people as possible candidates for having a problematic relationship with something does not mean that people should be punished for what might - MIGHT - happen. This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Purest]

Unfortunately the problem is that the proles have been fed so many lies through the press about cannabis that Brown will not be ostracised by the masses if he does change the law. No matter what is published to prove that useage has gone down since the downgrade, or that the bulk of users will not be deterred by its status, there have been so many lies published and crimes attributed that the proles believe that it will make the country safer.

When heroin was legal in the 1970s there were 4,000 registered addicts in britain, its now a class A and there are 180,000 registered addicts. Figures like that make it pretty obvious that criminalising drugs actually does less for the population, unfortunately the proles and the law makers believe that illegality is actually a deterrant, if you criminalise everything, all you end up with is a nation of criminals.

[Expat98]

Originally Posted by Lunar Loops

Today's comments from the Prime Minister suggest he will push ahead with reclassification regardless of what the review concludes.

What is the process of reclassifying a drug in Britain? I would have thought that they have some agency more or less equivalent to the FDA or DEA in the U.S. and that there would have to be some (at least nominally) medical or scientific evidence/reasoning to support reclassifying a substance. But it sounds like the PM can classify drugs however he wants??

[aerozeppelin123]

The organisation that recommends the classification is the ACMD (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs), they submit what they think is the appropriate classification, but it is only a suggestion and the prime minister is not obliged to listen to them if he doesn't want to.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Thanks for the info

[Expat98]

Interesting that the PM can arbitrarily decide to classify drugs however he wants.

Here's another article that goes into the recommendations of the ACMD. From what I've read in this and other articles, it sounds like the previous reclassification to class C has had nothing but positive results. (This is probably precisely why they want to change it back to class B, since the positive results undermine the arguments for the War on Drugs. You can't have rationality interfering with politics you know.)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...lcohol.justice

Brown plans tougher line on cannabis against advice of own drug experts

· Fall in users since Blunkett declassified drug in 2004

· Study finds no evidence of link with schizophrenia

Alan Travis and James Randerson
The Guardian,
Friday April 4 2008

Gordon Brown intends to tighten the penalties for cannabis possession despite a clear recommendation by the government's own drug experts that it should remain a class C drug.

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs took its decision in private on Tuesday after presentations of research confirming the increased potency of most cannabis available on the street, but dispelling fears the drug has led to a growth in mental health problems.

Downing Street made it clear last night that the prime minister will press ahead with the reclassification of cannabis to a class B drug, with a maximum five-year prison sentence for possession, whatever the scientific advice from the experts when they deliver their report on April 28. Chief constables said they would back a decision to change the law.

Experts who attended the private meeting have confirmed to the Guardian that they have decided to recommend it remains a class C drug.

The advisory council was asked by the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, last July to look again at the legal classification of cannabis because of public concern over the impact on mental health of stronger forms of the drug known as skunk. She acknowledged cannabis use had fallen significantly since the decision was taken in 2004 by David Blunkett to relax the penalties on the drug by downgrading it.

The Guardian has learned that a Home Office research paper presented to the meeting on Tuesday confirms that a more potent homegrown herbal cannabis has overtaken imported Moroccan resin and now accounts for 85% of seizures by police from individuals on the street.

The Guardian understands that at the ACMD meeting, the 23 medical and drug experts heard a personal presentation on the possible mental health impacts of higher potency cannabis from psychologist Dr Martin Frisher, of Keele University pharmacy school. The presentation used unpublished data from a confidential report he has drawn up for the Home Office.

He and his colleague Professor Illana Crome, of Keele's academic psychiatry unit, used data from 183 GP practices across Britain between 1996 and 2005 to work out whether schizophrenia is on the rise, and whether it can be linked to the increase in cannabis use since the 1970s.

Their confidential paper found that between 1996 and 2005 there had been significant reductions in the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia. From 2000 onwards there were also significant reductions in the prevalence of psychoses.

The authors say this data is "not consistent with the hypothesis that increasing cannabis use in earlier decades is associated with increasing schizophrenia or psychoses from the mid-1990s onwards."

The research was designed to test the predictions of a previous study, published last year by Dr Matthew Hickman and colleagues at Bristol University, which suggested that changes in cannabis use since the 1970s would lead to expectations that the prevalence of schizophrenia cases would increase by 10% to 20% over the next few years. The results show that not only has there been no increase but the number of new cases has dropped.

Scientists stress that the vexed question of whether cannabis causes schizophrenia remains unclear. They currently think that 8% to 10% of patients who suffer schizophrenia-like illnesses would not have had the condition had they not used cannabis. These figures are debated and the role of genetic factors is still poorly understood.

Last night the Prime Minister's spokesman said the ACMD decision appeared to be based on a single presentation, and the committee had yet to reach any final conclusions. But he confirmed that the prime minister stood by his comments before the meeting on Tuesday that the government needed to send out a signal that cannabis use was not just illegal but also unacceptable.

Backstory

1970 Special class B category, halfway between "hard" and "soft" drugs, created for cannabis as a compromise between Labour home secretary James Callaghan, who believed it was as dangerous as heroin, and a "student faction" in cabinet who did not.

1978 Advisory council on misuse of drugs (ACMD) recommends downgrading cannabis from class B to class C to put it on a par with tranquillisers. Labour home secretary Merlyn Rees rejects advice.

2002 ACMD looks again at legal status of cannabis at request of home secretary David Blunkett, and again recommends downgrading it from B to C, saying it was less harmful than other class B drugs such as amphetamines.

2004 Blunkett downgrades cannabis. It is still illegal but police adopt a policy of "confiscate and warn". Maximum prison sentence for possession cut from five to two years.

2005 Charles Clarke asks ACMD to review evidence on effects of strong cannabis on mental health. The council decides to confirms its status as a class C drug but issues a reminder of its harmfulness.

2007 Home secretary Jacqui Smith requests further review amid anxiety about more potent strains and impact on mental health.

[Pondlife]

Originally Posted by Expat98

What is the process of reclassifying a drug in Britain? I would have thought that they have some agency more or less equivalent to the FDA or DEA in the U.S. and that there would have to be some (at least nominally) medical or scientific evidence/reasoning to support reclassifying a substance. But it sounds like the PM can classify drugs however he wants??

The scheduled substances are listed in parts I, II and III of Schedule 2 of The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. This schedule may be amended "by order", as detailed in this part of the act:

2) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make such amendments in Schedule 2 to this Act as may be requisite for the purpose of adding any substance or product to, or removing any substance or product from, any of Parts I to III of that Schedule, including amendments for securing that no substance or product is for the time being specified in a particular one of those Parts or for inserting any substance or product into any of those Parts in which no substance or product is for the time being specified.

This makes it fairly easy to schedule, remove or reclassify a substance in the UK because only an order (rather than new legislation) is required.