cannabisnews.com: Judge Rejects Human Rights Plea in Cannabis Case Judge Rejects Human Rights Plea in Cannabis Case Posted by FoM on July 13, 2001 at 19:54:06 PT By Tania Branigan, The Guardian Source: Guardian Unlimited A man was yesterday found guilty of cannabis possession at a London court after a failed attempt to have the case thrown out on the grounds that it infringed his right to private life under the Human Rights Act. Jerry Ham, 34, the former co-ordinator of a homelessness charity, argued that the amount he possessed - 1.75 grams, or less than a 16th of an ounce - was so small that prosecution amounted to a disproportionate and therefore unlawful response. His case was backed by Liberty, the human rights campaign group. The case reached court after Ham refused a caution from the City of London police following his arrest in June last year. Cautions can be seen by potential employers and can be raised in court should offenders face a charge of another occasion. Owen Davies QC, for Ham, argued that although in some cases it might be appropriate to prosecute individuals for cannabis possession, it was unjustified in Ham's case because he had committed such a "trivial" offence. "We say this is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut," he told Judge Geoffrey Rivlin, in pre-trial arguments at Southwark crown court. He argued that it criminalised "otherwise honest, law-abiding, responsible members of society". Ham has spent all his adult life working with homeless people, most recently at a charity he set up, GRouNDSWeLL. A search of his houseboat, Passion Du Jambon, moored in Walthamstow, revealed no further drugs, although he admitted he was a recreational user. He told the court he used cannabis only in the evenings to relax because of the stressful nature of his job. But Judge Rivlin ruled the case should go ahead, saying that courts could only stay trials in exceptional circumstances, where the defendant could not receive a fair trial or where it was integral to the public interest that the trial should not take place. To accept that it should be widened to take into account "proportionateness" under the Human Rights Act would be "very wide and dangerously vague". He said: "The restriction of his right to take drugs in the privacy of his own home is not an intrusion on his personal space or an affront to his personality." With a nod to the fact that the legalisation of cannabis has been mooted in recent weeks, he added: "No one would wish to stifle debate - nothing could be more healthy. "If the defendant and his supporters wish to secure a change in the law, it can be achieved and must be done by normal democratic means. Until there is a change in the law, judges must continue to uphold it." Ham was arrested in June last year while driving over London Bridge after a police officer spotted a torn Rizla packet through the window of his van. He gave up the cannabis immediately when challenged by the officer. He defended himself during the trial, pleading not guilty despite admitting possession, on the grounds that it should not be a crime. "Bad laws are the worst kind of tyranny," he told the court, comparing his prosecution with the trials of the suffragettes as they struggled for the right to vote. Despite a clear direction to convict Ham in the judge's summing up, the jury of seven men and five women took two and a half hours to reach a 10-2 majority verdict of guilty. Sentencing Ham to two years conditional discharge, the judge told the court: "We know the defendant is a man of good character. I give great weight to the immensely powerful mitigating factors about which I have heard. "He has worked tirelessly and selflessly on behalf of the community and has done wonderful work for homeless people in particular." During the trial Ham had produced a glowing character ref erence from Mo Mowlam MP. Outside the court, Ham, who plans to appeal, said he was disappointed by the verdict but was pleased to have brought the case this far. "I would love to think this case might encourage the government to reconsider its policies on drugs," he said. A spokesman for Liberty said: "A mile south of here he would have got a warning. Two miles west some of our most senior politicians are talking about changing this law. Yet here he has a conviction for a fractional offence and a completely victimless 'crime'." Complete Title: Judge Rejects Former Charity Worker's Human Rights Plea in Cannabis CaseSource: Guardian Unlimited, The (UK)Author: Tania Branigan, The Guardian Published: Saturday July 14, 2001Copyright: 2001 Guardian Newspapers LimitedContact: letters guardian.co.ukWebsite: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Related Articles:Special Report: Drugs in Britainhttp://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/drugs/CannabisNews Articles - UKhttp://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=UK Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #14 posted by lookinside on July 14, 2001 at 23:26:35 PT: had a good time... for those of you who haven't seen the san francisco bay areayet: i think the OCBC will be the focus of pilgrimagesomeday...jeff jones and company are doing god's work...theplace is unassuming...a small hemp store in front, whoseproceeds help support the OCBC...a neat but utilitarianclinic in back where sick folks line up to apply for thecoveted membership card...no pot is sold there...all thecompassionate dispensaries(sic)in the area accept that cardas proof of patient or caregiver status...my favorite part of going over there is going up telegraphavenue to berkeley...for those of us who remember that areain the late 60s, it brings back memories of tie dyed shirts,panama red, and a wonderful mix of people...the mix of people is still there...i heard at least 6languages i was unfamiliar with as we walked downtelegraph...the street vendors still sell tie dyed shirtsand all manner of crafts...if you like pipes, the head shopswill fill any need...(we priced a rather ornate, 3 foottall, hand painted, blown glass bong..$1549.00....dddd...you'd love the guy selling bumper stickers...wedidn't buy any as my more conservative(nearly all cops)neighbors might have become violent...i think nearlyeveryone here would spend a few minutes and maybe a fewbucks at his kiosk...we ate at a mexican restaurant that has the best food andworst chairs in berkeley...mark twain once said "the coldest winter i ever spent was asummer in san francisco"....it was 90 deg at home, 50 inoakland today...70 miles away...wear a coat over your tanktop... [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by mayan on July 14, 2001 at 15:55:45 PT Desperation!!! Dan H. is right. They are incredibly desperate & defensive. Everyone & their dog knows that the sacred herb mellows a person out. This bogus propaganda will certainly backfire. I hope they print more absurd articles to weaken their credibility even more. Quite comical actually! [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by FoM on July 14, 2001 at 13:45:01 PT lookinside Have a great day! It sure sounds like fun! See you when you get back. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by lookinside on July 14, 2001 at 13:37:52 PT: dan hillman... i don't think that photo has been retouched...the final budsin the fall, after the big branches are all removed willturn various colors..i've seen everything from red to sopurple they were almost black...the color in that photo ispretty common...going to oakland today to get some medicine and visit ourdaughter in berkeley...have a great day all! [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by FoM on July 14, 2001 at 12:24:16 PT Dan Hi Dan, I agree with you.It's really hard for me to post out and out propaganda over and over again. The article on violence and the picture of an addict shooting up turned me off. I don't mind articles that are argumentative but I think they went too far with that picture. I can't believe anything they say now. Reefer Madness is still at it and worse then ever. These are Doctors too. They should be ashamed of themselves.Here it is again.Psychiatrist Issues Cannabis Warninghttp://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1430000/1430866.stm [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by Dan Hillman on July 14, 2001 at 12:09:52 PT Desperation in UK propaganda forces The BBC piece to which FoM posted a link shows how desperate the UK propaganda machine is becoming. A story concerning the loosening of cannabis laws is accompanied by a photo of an apparent junkie shooting up. I'd say the blue-retouched photo of the buds will backfire, however, as most people, especially cannabis users, will find it beautiful.Pour it on, BBC! I'm enjoying the laugh. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Anonymous on July 14, 2001 at 08:05:56 PT And now, the rest of the story... The article quoted below was obviously printed in a pro-Prohibtion rag. They left out some facts. From the BBC online (emphasis is mine):CANNABIS LINKED TO VIOLENCE IN YOUNG MEN Young men who take cannabis are more violent, researchers suggest. Young men who take cannabis are five times as likely to be violent as those who do not take it, research has revealed. The drug is more usually associated with mellow moods. But the scientists who carried out the study told BBC News Online THE LINKE TO VIOLENCE WAS NOT DUE TO ANY EFFECTS OF THE DRUG -INSTEAD IF WAS BECAUSE USERS ARE INVOLVED IN THE ILLEGAL DRUG MARKET. New Zealand scientists have carried out the first study into the overlap between mental disorders and violence in young men. Almost 1,000 babies born between April 1972 and March 1973, in Dunedin, New Zealand were studied as they grew up. When they were studied at 21, 34% of the young men who had a cannabis habit had a conviction for violence or had committed violent behaviour in the previous year. The research was presented to the Royal College of Psychiatrists' annual meeting in London. Drug market Dr Louise Arseneault, from the Institute of Psychiatry in London, told BBC News Online: "The cannabis users had an earlier history of conduct disorders as adolescents. VIOLENCE WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR INVOVLEMENT IN THE DRUG MARKET." There was also a three-fold risk increase associated with men suffering from schizophrenia or dependent on alcohol. Of the total sample, 40% had mental disorders and were five times more likely to be violent than people without mental conditions. Dr Arseneault said: "There is a substantial minority of young adults with specific mental disorders who are responsible for a substantial proportion of violence in the community." She said people with at least one of the disorders constituted a fifth of the sample, but accounted for more than half the convictions for violence. "People with two of these disorders have an increased risk for violence eight to 18 times greater than that for people with no disorders," she added. Dr Arseneault added: "Not all mentally-ill individuals engage in violence. The link is limited to three groups - those dependent on alcohol, those dependent on cannabis, and adults with schizophrenia." [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by CorvallisEric on July 14, 2001 at 01:52:51 PT Arseneault's violence study This is apparantly a study that was published in the October 2000 Archives of General Psychiatry (published by the AMA). Naturally, the study abstract is very unlike the newspaper article.Consider the following quote from the abstract:... Among alcohol-dependent individuals, violence was best explained by substance use before the offense; among marijuana-dependent individuals, by a juvenile history of conduct disorder ...In other words, cause vs effect. Also, real science vs newspaper hackery. abstract of violence study [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by lookinside on July 13, 2001 at 23:27:03 PT: FoM... i wonder if that quack got a nice check from the U.S.government...the pic of the little blue buds was worth the clicktho...sights like that in my garden in early october weresome of the best moments of my life...thank you... [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by meanstreak on July 13, 2001 at 23:26:50 PT Bullocks Cannabis users are 5 times more likely to be violent???Bullocks I say.Bullocks, I think that is the English equivalent of the American term Bull F#$%ing # it.Lets just start making up scientific studies why don't we?Hmmm, lets see, since most of the violence committed during 73.6% of all drug raids is committed by the drug enforcement storm troopers. Our new statistical survey (based on only factual evidence) says that 3 out of 5 cops committing violent acts (in this case, violence meaning breaking a door and forcebably assualting someone with the intent of inhibiting free movement) must be taking cannabis a la refer madness style. It is the conclusion of this body that only partaking in the inhalation of cannabis could trigger this extreme show of force. The study concludes that officers not smoking pot would simply and politely ask the offenders to follow them to the station for booking and incarceration. Please note however; that this study was repeated in 481 countries with similiar results. All these facts are posted in the Psychiatric Journal of Medicinal Crap on page 420 if you care to check. Or would this type of comprhensive study be determined to be stooping as low as the Anti rhetoric/propaganda coming from Dr Louise Arseneault, from the Institute of Psychiatry in London. I mean after all, he is a Doctor right? Why would he lie or create erroneous data????Dr. Meanstreak, from the Institute of Closet Cannabis Use. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by FoM on July 13, 2001 at 22:51:20 PT Dan Hi Dan,The other day I saw this article. I didn't post it because it was really off base. I posted the link to the article. Credibilty was lost in my mind. Check out the picture. Psychiatrist Issues Cannabis Warninghttp://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1430000/1430866.stm [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Dan B on July 13, 2001 at 22:36:59 PT: Furthermore . . . . . . how can they separate the effects of cannabis from the effects of cannabis prohibition? How did they define a "violent history"? Where did they get their data? What statistical analyses were performed to arrive at this conclusion? This study was not published in a peer-reviewed journal--and there is no evidence in the article above that it will be--which begs the question, what did the researchers' peers think of the study as presented at the conference? Did any of those who used cannabis also use alcohol? What was the link between cannabis and violence when statistical analysis controlled for users of both alcohol and cannabis? Finally, does anyone else find it odd that the results of this "study" were released in a London conference just days after the recent political discourse on the legalization/decriminalization of not just cannabis, but all illegal drugs? [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Dan B on July 13, 2001 at 22:29:28 PT: Cannabis Causes Violence, My Gluteal Area! Does anyone else find it strange that in thirty years of drug-war-inspired "research" into the supposed harms associated with cannabis, this is the first study to show that it supposedly "causes violence"? I find it telling that absolutely nothing about the study (other than its suspect results) is even mentioned in passing. Why is it that every other study documenting connections between drug usage of any sort and violence has consistently revealed no link between any drug other than alcohol and violence? I sure would like to see the methods section of this study to see how these "researchers" rigged a study to arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion. I suspect that they used prisojn records to arrive at their conclusions, in which case everything here makes sense: alcohol users tend to get non-violent convictions for violent crimes because the courts routinely reduce charges after determining that alcohol intoxication is a "mitigating factor" in the actual violent crimes committed, but cannabis users tend to get essentially trumped-up violent crime convictions because of the violent and confusing nature of drug arrests. If a cannabis user fights back during a no-knock raid, for example, he or she will be charged with "assaulting an officer even though the officer never identified him or herself. Even given the above, I find this study's findings so outside the realm of possibility and so anomalous that unless the study's methods are published and shown to be flawless (extremely doubtful) and it is duplicated in various countries with the same results (even more unlikely), it can safely be placed where it belongs: in the dumpster or incinerator of your choice.Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by FoM on July 13, 2001 at 20:10:56 PT News Brief From The Independent UK Cannabis Users 'Five Times More Prone to Violence'Source: Independent (UK)Author: Lorna Duckworth, Social Affairs CorrespondentPublished: July, 13, 2001Copyright: 2001 Independent Newspapers (UK) Ltd.Contact: letters independent.co.ukWebsite: http://www.independent.co.uk/Young men who regularly take cannabis are five times more likely to be violent than those who avoid the drug, a study has suggested.Research showed users of the "chill out" drug were more prone to violence than youths who drank too much alcohol.One third of young men with a cannabis habit had a court conviction for violence by the age of 21, or had displayed violent behaviour in the past year, psychologists discovered after studying the behaviour of 961 young adults in Dunedin, New Zealand.The number of cannabis users with violent backgrounds by the age of 21 was five times higher than that of non-cannabis users. By comparison, young men who drank to excess were only three times more likely to have a violent record than abstainers.The results of the study were reported to the Royal College of Psychiatrists' annual meeting in London yesterday.Dr Louise Arseneault, from the Institute of Psychiatry in London, who led the study, said people with schizophrenia or a dependence on cannabis or alcohol had an increased potential for violence eight to 18 times greater than that of people with no disorders. CannabisNews Articles - UKhttp://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=UK What's New In Drug Policy Reform [ Post Comment ] Post Comment