|
Government 'cannabis cop-out'
|
With the recent news announcement which told of the Labour governments intentions to reclassify cannabis, comes the question of "on whose say-so" this law change is taking place?
According to Gordon Brown he wants to 'send a message' to the British youth and I think the Prime Minister, aided loyally by his Home Secretary and his Drugs Minister Vernon Coaker, (Both of whome admit to experimenting with cannabis), have succeeded in sending a message which the nation has received loud & clear.
But the message GB PLC received, wasn't necessarily a good one.
When the PM came to office in summer 07, he made some bold announcements to illustrate his intentions on becoming a good, tough Prime Minister and one who was prepared to tackle pressing social issues.
For instance he announced that the 24 hour alcohol licensing laws were at the top of his agenda. A fact which soon got lost in the melee which occured when 9 cabinet ministers admitted experimenting with cannabis and its fair to say with the benefit of hindsight, the writing was on the wall regarding cannabis law, from that point forth.
But did Gordon Brown change these laws himself, or was it in fact David Davies, the Conservative shadow Home Secretary, himself with one or two points to prove with a general election looming and the Conservative party so far ahead in the polls?
Mr Davies has taken every opportunity presented to him (lets face it there have a lot of opportunities), to have a swipe at the Labour party and its drug policies,and yet the fact of the matter is, the Conservative party bring nothing "new" to the table no matter what they may say.
They believe blindly, that the answer to the ubiquitous drugs issue, is harsher sentences, higher fines and more arrests and you really need to think about this at the general election if drugs - any drugs, play a part in your life, or that of a loved one.
One thing is for sure, Paul Dacre played a huge part in reclassifying cannabis.
"Paul who"?
Paul Dacre is the editor of the Daily Mail. The UK's version of the American news giant "Fox", both of which take absolutely every opportunity to carry an anti-cannabis story on their front pages and there's no doubt the Daily Mail has played its part in changing the legal status of cannabis, but here's the bit that throws me;
Paul Dacre is a good journalist and a respected editor, so why-oh-why do the Daily Mail continue to portray such a singularly one-sided story on the cannabis issue heaven only knows?
Would they "OK" a surprise drug testing session on all of their staff as according to national statistics some 1 in 5 UK residents will have experimented with illegal drugs, which includes 1 in 5 journalists, 1 in 5 politicans and 1 in 5 police officers.
Drugs are a massively important issue within the British Isles and we could really do with some even-handed balanced reporting so as to better educate young people who are perhaps contemplating experimenting with drugs for the first time.
Perhaps a series of random drug tests is whats needed to expose the hypocrisy which surrounds the British drugs debate. Testing politicians, police officers and the journalists who are so dead set against cannabis?
There would be a lot of red faces thats for sure.
A group who had nothing at all to do with changing the law, was the very group who advised the government they ought not to?
The ACMD convened in London on February 5th, amid a public relations maelstrom of negative publicity, spun up by the likes of
the Daily Mail and tory politician David Davies.
After the "public" forum took place the advisory council spent 8 weeks mulling over their decision before making an official announcement, which was as expected, that cannabis is perfectly situated as a class C drug.
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins who is a Professor of Clinical Pharmacology as well as chairman of the advisory council, said: “Changing the classification of cannabis is neithe
|
|
0 Comments
|
2 days ago
|
 |
|
|
|
Cannabis crackdown 'makes little difference'
|
08 May 2008
By MICHAEL HOWIE AND ROSS LYDALL
RESTORING cannabis to its former class B status will make "very little difference" to levels of consumption, one of Scotland's leading drug experts has warned.
Tom Wood, the chairman of the Scottish Association of Alcohol and Drug Teams, said the move, announced yesterday by the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, would fail to have much impact on consumption among young people.
The decision to upgrade the drug to class B was largely a result of growing evidence about the damage it can cause to mental health.
Mr Wood, head of Action on Alcohol and Drugs in Edinburgh, said: "It's time we had a long and hard look at what we're doing. The issue of cannabis misuse should be addressed from a health perspective, not a justice perspective. I can see it (reclassification] will make very little difference either to the use or patterns of consumption."
Ms Smith said she was reclassifying the drug because the cannabis market was now dominated by skunk – which constitutes 81 per cent of sales – rather than less potent hash or marijuana.
The drug was downgraded in 2004 by the then home secretary, David Blunkett, on the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs – the same organisation whose findings Ms Smith rejected yesterday.
Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, had earlier made clear his concern about super-strength cannabis.
Ms Smith told the Commons: "I want it to be clearly understood that this powerful form of cannabis is an illegal and harmful drug.
"There is a compelling case for us to act now, rather than risk the future health of young people."
But Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said the move would cut neither cannabis use nor crime.
He added: "Will she save public money by disbanding the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and establishing a new committee of tabloid newspaper editors, given that the biggest influence on her policy is the Daily Mail?"
The move, which will take effect early next year, increases from two to five years' jail the maximum punishment for possession, but leaves the penalty for supply at a fine or up to 14 years' jail.
In its report, the advisory council said that cannabis should remain in class C, because its harmfulness was closer to other drugs in that category, rather than those in class B.
It said there was a "probable, but weak, causal link between psychotic illness and cannabis use" and "only a minority" of young people using cannabis would develop a psychotic illness.
But the council said it was "still very concerned about the wide use of cannabis among young people" and added: "Although the number of users have decreased over the past few years, cannabis still poses a real threat to the health of those who use it."
Scotland's senior police officers said there would be "no change" to the way they tackle cannabis possession.
Willie McColl, the national drugs co-ordinator at the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency (SCDEA), said police would continue to report cases of possession to the procurator-fiscal. "Our approach to tackling drugs, including cannabis, has been consistent and this will continue," he said.
But he added the police would focus on tackling supply, in particular the growth of cannabis factories in recent years.
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Ca...
|
|
0 Comments
|
4 days ago
|
|
|
|
|
Cannabis reclassification 'mere electioneering'
|
Thursday, 08 May 2008 00:01
Cannabis is now a class B drug
Opposition is growing to the government's decision to reclassify cannabis as a class B drug.
Danny Kushlick of charitable thinktank Transform Drug Policy Foundation says the government's decision to reverse its January 2004 downgrading of cannabis to class C reflects the "political travesty" of current drug policy.
Home secretary Jacqui Smith told the Commons yesterday she was not willing to "wait and see" the extent of the drug's damage to individuals and society.
Mr Kushlick told inthenews.co.uk her decision proved the government flew in the face of scientific advice and that it was only paying "lip service" to experts in the field of drug prevention.
"For decades now, drug policy has been treated by senior politicians as political Viagra," he said.
"It's a way of showing how tough and hard they are and has been in no way about the developments that have affected public policy… Cameron and Brown have been spurring each other on to ever more facile prohibitionist nonsense and this is the result."
Mr Kushlick's thinktank Transform advocates legalisation of all drugs and is seeking a complete review of the entire Misuse of Drugs Act.
Other, more moderate, groups have joined Transform in opposing the government's cannabis U-turn.
Mental health charity Rethink pointed out the proportion of young people using cannabis has fallen since reclassification in January 2004.
It believes a "full-scale public education campaign" is needed on the issue instead of "wasting time and money" on reclassification.
Drug charity DrugScope's chief executive Martin Barnes said the clearest message given out by the reclassification was that "drugs policy can be driven as much by political considerations, media headlines and scare stories as by the evidence".
Even police officers appear uneasy at the decision. Police Federation chairman Jan Berry said: "We told the government that it was sending a confusing message when they decided to reclassify cannabis four years ago.
"They must now make sure they do not compound this confusion by their decision to re-classify it to a class B."
The Liberal Democrats have criticised the government for ignoring the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.
But the majority of MPs belong to parties which back the reclassification to class B, as shadow home secretary David Davis made clear yesterday.
He told the Commons the government's move was a "long-awaited U-turn" and said the move highlighted its "historically lax approach to drugs".End of story
http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/poli...
|
|
0 Comments
|
4 days ago
|
| |
|
