cannabisnews.com: Blunkett Softens on Cannabis










  Blunkett Softens on Cannabis

Posted by FoM on October 23, 2001 at 15:23:42 PT
Breaking News Section 
Source: London Evening Standard  

Home Secretary David Blunkett today said possession of cannabis should no longer be an arrestable offence, heralding a massive shake-up of drugs policy. He proposed reclassifying the drug as "Class C", putting it in the same category as anti-depressants and steroids.Mr Blunkett denied the move was decriminalisation by another name and stressed the drug will remain illegal. But in practice, cannabis smokers will be unlikely to face any consequences if they are caught with small amounts of the drug.
If cannabis is re-graded as Class C, the maximum sentence for possession would be two years in Crown Courts or three months in magistrates courts.Only offences punishable with at least five years imprisonment are arrestable.Possession with intent to supply or supplying Class C drugs carry a five year maximum.Today's move is designed to free police time to concentrate on hard drugs like heroin and cocaine, removing the "policing anomaly" which means nearly seven out of 10 drug arrests are for a relatively harmless drug."Re-classification would be quite different from decriminalisation or legalisation," said Mr Blunkett."Cannabis would remain a controlled drug and using it a criminal offence."It would not detract from the simple message that all drugs are harmful and that no-one should take drugs."But it would make clearer the distinction between cannabis and Class A drugs like heroin and cocaine."Above all it would make sense to both those policing the system and those providing education and advice to prevent young people falling into addiction."Conceding that the law is lagging far behind public attitudes to cannabis, he added: "In spite of our focus on hard drugs, the majority of police time is currently spent on handling cannabis offences."It is time for an honest and common sense approach focusing effectively on drugs that cause most harm."Given this background, and the very clear difference between cannabis and Class A drugs, I want to consult the medical and scientific professionals on re-classifying cannabis from Class B to Class C."The police are believed to be concerned at the prospect of losing the power to arrest someone for possession but ministers are not proposing to take options which are open to them to retain it as an arrestable offence under its new Class C status."They will still have plenty of powers to stop people but possession of cannabis won't be one of them," said a Home Office spokesman.There will be discussions with senior police officers while the change is being considered by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.Mr Blunkett said he wants the ACMD to report back within three months and make a final decision on the proposals next spring.Mr Blunkett said the number of 16 to 19-year-olds using drugs in the last year fell but added: "We must all be concerned at the increasing numbers of young people using cocaine and the corrosive effects of cocaine and heroin on our communities."We need to warn young people that all drugs are dangerous, but Class A drugs such as heroin and cocaine are the most harmful."We will only be successful at delivering this message if our policy as a whole is balanced and credible."The Home Secretary said a campaign would be launched in December to spell out the dangers of drug taking and there would be an extra £1 million to fund a pilot project tackling regional drug traffickers.Mr Blunkett also said that if current clinical trials are successful he will change the law to allow the use of cannabis-based prescription drugs to combat conditions such as multiple sclerosis and arthritis.A group of key experts has been set up to develop an action plan to tackle the treatment of crack and cocaine, and with the Department of Health would be producing new guidance for heroin prescribing."This will work towards providing a bridge between those who are obtaining heroin illegally, often through criminal activity, and the methadone treatment prescribing."It would be under highly secure and strict procedures and would allow the transfer into treatment without the current risks that exist to heroin users," he said.In 1999, some 68% of the 120,000 drugs offences had been cannabis-related with each one taking officers two to three hours to process.Today's proposals would help "marry up reality with the law as it stands" but were not a move towards reclassification of harder drugs, said a Home Office official."The central issue is that heroin and cocaine are still the most damaging, and Class A drugs in general. At the moment that is somewhat blurred - it's about striking a balance," he said."The bottom line is all drugs are harmful. This is not a stepping stone nor a move towards the Dutch-style model or decriminalisation by another name."Two years in the slammer is still there as the ultimate sanction."Related Article: Cannabis Law Eased in Labour U-Turn Possession of cannabis will no longer be an arrestable offence under a massive shake-up of drugs policy signalled by Home Secretary David Blunkett.He proposes reclassifying the drug as "Class C", putting it in the same category as anti-depressants or steroids - a remarkable turnaround for Labour, who came to power in 1997 pledging "zero tolerance" on drugs.Mr Blunkett denied the move was decriminalisation, stressing cannabis will remain illegal, but said it would mean drugs laws "make more sense on the street".In practice, cannabis users will be unlikely to face any consequences if they are caught with small amounts of the drug.The Home Secretary said he will ask the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for scientific advice before going ahead - but the group first recommended reclassifying cannabis in 1979 and the move is no more than a rubber-stamping exercise.Mr Blunkett said if the ACMD reports back within three months, he could make a final decision on the proposals next spring."To have credible policy in treatment and harm minimisation and above all consistency in law enforcement and policing, we believe it is right to look at the re-categorisation of cannabis," said the Home Secretary."I shall therefore be putting to the ACMD a proposal that we should re-categorise cannabis to C rather than B, thereby allowing the police to concentrate their resources on Class A, in particular cocaine and heroin."When they are able to deal with people who are pushing drugs, it will lighten their load and make more sense on the streets than it does at the moment."He added: "Re-classification would be quite different from decriminalisation or legalisation. "Cannabis would remain a controlled drug and using it a criminal offence."Source: London Evening Standard (UK)Published: October 23, 2001Copyright: 2001 Associated Newspapers Ltd.Contact: letters standard.co.ukWebsite: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/Related Articles:Cannabis Campaigners Call for More Reform http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11155.shtmlQ & A: Cannabis Reclassificationhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11153.shtmlBlunkett Seeks Cannabis Law Change http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11152.shtml

END SNIP -->
Snipped
Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #31 posted by kaptinemo on October 25, 2001 at 07:24:49 PT:
One possible response
Long winded, I admit, but you might want to consider using some of it:Being a thorough person, I’ve chosen to address each of your concerns as stated in your letter. In doing so, I believe that a cogent understanding of our position can be made. 
Please tell us again, How will decriminalizing marijuana solve drug/crime problems? Most parents and teachers know intuitively that the way to stop bad behavior is to "nip it in the bud," i.e., stop little transgressions so that they don't grow into bigger ones.
 Marijuana is not a "soft" drug, it is an insidiously dangerous substance that causes or contributes to a myriad of health and social problems. A scientific study by the New York based Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse showed that those who use marijuana are 80 times more likely to use so-called "harder" drugs.First off, let us consider what is meant by a ‘soft drug’. A ‘soft drug’, like a ‘soft drink’ implies that any negative effects of its use upon the user are negligible…as opposed to a ‘hard drug’…such as ‘hard liquor’. The effects of cannabis upon the central nervous system have been massively documented over the last 30 years. At no time have any deleterious effects such as respiratory or cardiac failure caused by central nervous system depression – as occurs with alcohol poisoning – have been reported in doses which match normal human consumption. A curious fact: no human has ever died from a cannabis overdose. The same cannot be said of alcohol. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the effects of cannabis upon a human body are far from ‘insidiously dangerous’. Therefore, to use your terminology, cannabis is indeed a ‘soft drug’.As to ‘social and health problems’; since you do not elaborate, but merely imply that the problems caused by cannabis usage are too vast to enumerate, then let me ask you: do you refer to the spread of AIDS engendered by homosexual prison rape? This is the single greatest ‘health and social problem’ experienced by cannabis users who have been caught in the justice system. A ‘health and social problem’  you seem to tacitly support by maintaining cannabis prohibition.You mention a ‘scientific study’ made by the CASA. Yet you refuse to name it; why? Perhaps because its’ methodology was flawed? Perhaps because it did not survive peer review? Perhaps because it was partisan in nature, and it’s objectivity was questionable? If you are unwilling to provide the name of the study, we can only conclude that it suffers from the above mentioned problems. If you wish to use it as evidence to vindicate your claims, you need to provide its’ name. Otherwise, it qualifies as hearsay…and needless to say, that would not hold up under any rational review of the facts.Today, marijuana, which is much more potent than it was in the 60's and 70's, is a leading cause of drug-related emergency room episodes, needlessly impacting limited and costly medical resources. Another common misconception, borne of a misrepresentation of the facts. The facts in this matter are as follows:
•	Marijuana seized by the DEA in the 1970’s and provided to scientists for testing varied wildly in quantity and quality of THC.•	THC rapidly oxidizes into Cannabinol at room temperatures; presumably the police evidence lockers were not refrigerated. Thus reducing the chance of obtaining a baseline against which to gauge future tests•	Because of this wild variance, no definitive statements of any presumptive rise in potency can be supported without such qualifications as renders them useless at the start.As to the mention of cannabis ‘causing’ emergency room visitations, the only reason that this is brought up at all is because of the practice of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration in keeping track of emergency-room "mentions" of various drugs. The implication is that one can determine the damage done to society by illicit substances by how many times they may be mentioned by emergency room patients.Any careful review of this practice shows, however, some major flaws in this supposition. For example, if you smoked some marijuana, drank a fifth of scotch, suffered alcohol poisoning and needed to be admitted to hospital, that too would constitute a marijuana "mention." In short, it is intellectually dishonest to assume a causal relationship. It is under this basis of ‘mentions’ which you use as the basis of your statement. So you've decriminalized marijuana and hard drug use escalates exponentially, as do all the problems associated with drug use. Did I miss something here?Yes, you did; another erroneous assumption on your part. Please provide statistical data regarding the basis for your statement that hard drug use would ‘escalate exponentially’ as a result of cannabis legalization.Where's the big benefit? Are you really willing to risk subjecting that much of the population and its medical resources on such a subterfuge? Proposing such folly defies common sense. Another erroneous assumption, this time based upon the presupposition on your part that legal cannabis usage will cause an increased strain upon medical resources. Please provide us with the hard statistical data you used to arrive at such a conclusion.As to the not so subtle attempt at slander, we would caution you that the position which you are maintaining is itself predicated upon fanciful exaggerations concerning cannabis’s supposed deleterious effects referred to collectively as “Reefer Madness”. Exaggerations made by the United States Government. Which attempted to dissuade cannabis usage by engaging in outright lying about chimerical negative effects…such as inducing instant homicidal insanity. In short, real, verifiable ‘subterfuge’. Are you sure you want to point that particular finger?It has always been the intent of the drug law reform movement to bring to the public easily verifiable facts about cannabis usage shorn of the emotional histrionics which have plagued this issue in the past. Only by doing so can truly rational and beneficial national drugs policies be developed which protect our youth from contact with criminal elements, saves the otherwise wasted funds lost in pursuing the impossible goal of a drug free society (500 Billion in Federal, State and Local taxpayer dollars over the last 20 years, and illicit drugs are cheaper, more plentiful, and higher ‘quality’ than ever; does this sound like progress towards that goal to you?) and returns to Americans the traditional freedom of self-determination which the War on Drugs has continually encroached upon, with disastrous effects to all our civil liberties. It is unfortunate, however, that this matter has and no doubt will continue to be dealt with, not in the realm of reason and logic, but hysteria and falsehoods. All one need do to determine the source of such falsehoods is look at the government which has much to answer for in incarcerating normally law-abiding peaceable people for their choice of intoxicant… on the most specious and dishonest of arguments - while it permits known killers like tobacco and alcohol to be sold over-the-counter.And it is largely because of organizations like yours that this matter remains in this position. But thanks to the reform movement, that is changing. And will continue to change.Sincerely,
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #30 posted by freedom fighter on October 24, 2001 at 22:37:35 PT
Dan B
Thanks confirming my search.. will send you a note..thanks
ff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by freedom fighter on October 24, 2001 at 22:25:26 PT
Possible editor's response..
Editor's response:Decriminalizing marijunan will do two things. It will divide the marijuana with other "harder" drugs. Folks will no longer have to meet dealers who deal with all kinds of drugs. Secondly, we will no longer have to arrest 700,000 more folks next year. It will put less strain on resources we have now. It will free the law enforcement to work with real crime/terrorism problems. Since you mentioned parents and teachers, what better way to have the ability to regulate by having coffee shops such as it is in Holland? In Holland, children use less cannabis than it is in U.S.A.In answer to your second paragraph, our government claimed that there are 50-70 milion people who used cannabis at "one time or another", can you explain more about a "myriad of health and social problems"? Would there be far more addicts using "harder" drugs according to your "scientific study"?In answer to your third paragraph, it is a myth that cannabis is more potent than it was in past. Cannabis have been used by human beings for five thousand years. Alcohol is the leading cause of drug-related emergency room episodes.In answer to your fourth question, can you understand that if we decriminalize, less children would be able to get the cannabis? If we regulated, would people be able to associate with "harder" drugs? Biggest benefit would be greater respect for the law enforcement, adults who do use cannabis would not feel so criminalize and demonize anymore. We can regulate and tax cannabis use to support medical resources. Indeed, it would be possible that each Americans would be able to have insurance on Health even if one do or do not do cannabis. Added benefits would be our ability to start paying attention to serious crime such as terrorism. There were 700,000 arrested for possesion of cannabis last year. How many terrorists did we arrested last year? If we decriminalize and control, we can stop the fundings of terrorism/black markets. We like to think that because cannabis is illegal, that some would not try it. But, in reality, people do what they want to. For example, in Afghanistian, talibans made a law not permitting women using lipsticks. One would think that women would follow that law but in reality, it has an opposite effect. The Afghan women rebeled. They still buy lipsticks. The lipsticks are smuggled in. Some women were caught and got killed for it.Proposing that we keep on with the prohibiton is a folly that does defies common sense. Too many human beings have died from prohibition and it did not come from consuming the cannabis.Respectfully Yours
Editor(Maybe it is too simple or like if its bickering statement, or maybe it is enough to get the point across. I like to say that it is surprising that they bother send you a note. They must be quaking with fear now. Hope this helps)ff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by FoM on October 24, 2001 at 18:56:49 PT
Thanks ekim
You never know what could help. Thanks for the idea. For now I just want to write a nice email. I probably won't get it done at this rate even tonight but maybe in the morning. I spend so much time thinking and then not long writing. I'm weird. LOL!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by kaptinemo on October 24, 2001 at 18:38:23 PT:
Now that's an idea, Ekim!
Hmmm. I wonder if they can make berets out of it too...I know lots of Army troops royally pissed that they have to wear Chinese made berets - put together with de facto slave labor. And Bushie-Wushie hightails it to the Middle Kingdom to sit down to table with the Butchers of Tiananmen Square. God, what strange times we live in...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by ekim on October 24, 2001 at 17:45:45 PT:
we could send a flag to them FOM with China story
Friday, October 12, 2001Hemp US flags to be presented to Senator Hamilton and Rep. CooleyTim Castleman, Hemp US Flag/Fuel and Fiber CompanyOn the morning of October 30th, 2001, Hemp US Flags, sponsored by Fuel and Fiber Company, will be presented to Arizona State Senator Darden Hamilton and Arizona House Representative Dean Cooley.We are soliciting volunteers, organizations and funds to make this an event worthy of local and national media coverage. Please take this opportunity to get involved and help us out!If you wish to get involved in this event, please visit www.azhemp.org for more info, or call (602) 208-7000, or (916) 489-8601 for more details as soon as possible.Thanks,Tim Castleman
www.hempusflag.com
www.fuelandfiber.comCopyright © 2001, Tim Castleman, Hemp US Flag/Fuel and Fiber Company. All rights reserved.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by FoM on October 24, 2001 at 16:56:51 PT
kapt
What I found is a common denominator. We are Moms. I want to do my best to try to explain how I see the drug war from a Mom's eyes. I think it might help. I hope so. I haven't written anything yet. I'm thinking about what to say and not be judgmental in my comment. We need to find a door of communication not just bickering. I'll do my very best. Any advice is appreciated.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by kaptinemo on October 24, 2001 at 16:35:18 PT:
Yeah, they sure can hit hard...
But they have never been able to take the punishment they mete out to others. This kind of anti is actually the cream-puff sort (and a rancid one, at that) that thinks it can win an emotional argument by oh-so-glancingly mentioning unnamed studies and think by calling them scientific, can BS their way through.But not with the people you find here, they won't. Let us know if we can help. Thanksgiving is coming early, this year; I can just smell the roasting turkey. Mmmmmmm! ( CLICK! whirrrr! whirrrr!) 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by FoM on October 24, 2001 at 14:04:42 PT
Just a Comment
kapt and everyone, I just received a very nice but hard hitting email response from the one I sent last night. I will sit down this evening when I can really think and write back. She has very good points but I think I can help her to see a little differently. I hope I can. I pray I can. Wish me luck. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by kaptinemo on October 24, 2001 at 14:03:04 PT:
Well, I take back the 'voice of sweet reason' part
And strongly suggest you wash your hands, and not handle anything from these people without some prophylactic gloves.After all, rabies is transmissable.Okay, where to begin? Easy; at the beginning. Their 'studies'. (Rubbing hands together) Oh, boy, this is gonna be fun!"Marijuana is not a "soft" drug, it is an insidiously dangerous substance that causes or contributes to a myriad of health and social problems. A scientific study by the New York based Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse showed that those who use marijuana are 80 times more likely to use so-called "harder" drugs. First off, you might ask them the name of this 'study'. Given it's source, I can understand the author's reluctance to name it: the highly partisan and Federally funded CASA (Joe Califano's bunch, now seeking to get in on the groundfloor boondoggle of 'treatment' for 'marijuana addiction'). You might also ask them (after requesting the name of this mysteriously anonymous 'study') whether it was subjected to peer review...and by whom and where. Names, dates, and credentials, please...or they invalidate their entire dependence upon it. Failure to produce the requested information opens them to questions concerning their academic integrity. They said it was 'scientific', well let's see just how well it stood up to scientific scrutiny.Assuming, of course, it was ever published.Also, you might ask them if they have ever heard of the IoM study of 1999 where there was no evidence of validity to the 'gateway theory'."Today, marijuana, which is much more potent than it was in the 60's and 70's, is a leading cause of drug-related emergency room episodes, needlessly impacting limited and costly medical resources.Okay, here it is again:American Marijuana Potency:
Data Versus Conventional Wisdom (Unpublished speech
http://home.gci.net/~sncwarmgun/morgan1.htmlCannabis 1988 Old Drug, New Dangers The Potency Question
http://mir.drugtext.org/druglibrary/schaffer/hemp/general/potency.htmAnd here's something else, which is a great source of studies:http://www.angryharry.com/revealing4.htm#A%20few%20factsYou have to scroll down to get to the studies concerning cannabis. Lots o' meat, there  :)Oh, yes, they stepped in it good, my dear. Indeed they did.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #21 posted by FoM on October 24, 2001 at 13:25:09 PT

Here it is kapt!
To The EditorPlease tell us again, How will decriminalizing marijuana solve drug/crime problems? Most parents and teachers know intuitively that the way to stop bad behavior is to "nip it in the bud," i.e., stop little transgressions so that they don't grow into bigger ones. Marijuana is not a "soft" drug, it is an insidiously dangerous substance that causes or contributes to a myriad of health and social problems.  A scientific study by the New York based Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse showed that those who use marijuana are 80 times more likely to use so-called "harder" drugs. Today, marijuana, which is much more potent than it was in the 60's and 70's, is a leading cause of drug-related emergency room episodes, needlessly impacting limited and costly medical resources. So you've decriminalized marijuana and hard drug use escalates exponentially, as do all the problems associated with drug use. Did I miss something here? Where's the big benefit? Are you really willing to risk subjecting that much of the population and its medical resources on such a subterfuge? Proposing such folly defies common sense.

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #20 posted by kaptinemo on October 24, 2001 at 13:20:00 PT:

BTW, FoM
This letter you received sounds like it comes from an anti organization trying to disguise itself as another 'voice of sweet reason'. Perhaps if you posted some more of it, we might be able to do as Patrick has: provide some very hard hitting ammunition.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #19 posted by FoM on October 24, 2001 at 13:13:37 PT

kaptinemo
She didn't comment. She was told about Cannabis News and checked out the site and then read the comments on her last article she wrote. She was impressed with the intelligence of the comments and the overall quality of C News.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #18 posted by kaptinemo on October 24, 2001 at 13:05:35 PT:

Dammit! I missed Judy Mann...HERE?
I gotta stop by here more often. Could some kind soul point me to the posting where she showed up?
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #17 posted by FoM on October 24, 2001 at 12:30:10 PT

Hi CongressmanSuet 
Yes it is nice particularly since the news has been turned upside down since the WTC Tragedy. I knew about Judy Mann visiting here and she really paid us all a nice complement.
I didn't know if anyone else knew though so I didn't say anything.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #16 posted by Patrick on October 24, 2001 at 12:24:19 PT

Response to question posed in comment #14
Tell us again, How will decriminalizing marijuana solve drug/crime problems? Most parents and teachers know intuitively that the way to stop bad behavior is to "nip it in the bud," i.e., stop little transgressions so that they don't grow into bigger ones. May I suggest that read the following for the insight they seek:http://www.maximizingharm.com/chapter_1.htm
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #15 posted by CongressmanSuet on October 24, 2001 at 12:09:36 PT:

 A little....

 recognition is nice, huh FoM? Last week we had Judy Mann visit here, to see comments made about her last article. She was impressed, and applauded some of the insights the posters had regarding the "inner workings" of the Warshington Post. And now a contact with UK TV! This board IS beng read by more influential people than we ever dreamed of, and WILL have made a difference when all is said and done. Congrats, FoM, and everybody else for a job well done.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #14 posted by FoM on October 24, 2001 at 11:31:20 PT

I received a letter from......
NORTHWEST CENTER FOR HEALTH & SAFETY 
I responded last night and am hoping for a response back. First paragraph of email question.
Tell us again, How will decriminalizing marijuana solve drug/crime problems? Most parents and teachers know intuitively that the way to stop bad behavior is to "nip it in the bud," i.e., stop little transgressions so that 
they don't grow into bigger ones. 
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #13 posted by FoM on October 24, 2001 at 11:21:27 PT

Kapt, here's the email without the contact info
Potential TV Appearance

Dear Cannabis News, 

As Producer for Cactus TV, currently developing the new Richard & Judy programme for Channel 4 - I would be interested in talking to someone from the Cannabis news site for research into the story re: Reclassification of Cannabis.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #12 posted by Patrick on October 24, 2001 at 11:18:17 PT

FoM
I agree with kaptinemo. We can combine comments from cannabisnews and present an overview of our opinions. I would be happy to assist you as I am sure others here would be as the days and weeks progress. You can also simply inform them to read the comments posted. It is the Internet after all and folks in England can read our comments on this site as easily as we do. Cheers to England, Canada, and Jamaica for progress against the evil of prohibition!
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #11 posted by kaptinemo on October 24, 2001 at 11:09:08 PT:

Well, FoM
Actually their work is cut out for them...All they have to do is read the comments that have been made here on the matter. You can pick and choose. And, of course, you could refer them to the various authors to flesh things out. But this would be a great idea to not only get our side on this and other matters, but to gain some exposure for the various Reform outfits. 
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #10 posted by FoM on October 24, 2001 at 09:54:50 PT

Help!
Hi Everyone, I received a request for Cannabis News to comment on the reclassification of Cannabis in the UK. Does someone want to help me with this request that is from the UK? It is for Cactus TV. I don't know what that is but maybe one of you will. Thanks in advance.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #9 posted by FoM on October 24, 2001 at 09:49:59 PT

Hi Dan
Now I'll add your email to my address book. I know I have it on my other computer but not on my new one. 
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #8 posted by Dan B on October 24, 2001 at 09:27:10 PT

freedom fighter
If you're looking for this Dan's email address, it's DPButterworth aol.com.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #7 posted by freedom fighter on October 24, 2001 at 06:40:18 PT

Thanks FoM
I'll do a search...:)ff
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #6 posted by null on October 23, 2001 at 23:26:06 PT

leverage
9/11 has changed to political balances of the world. No longer can the U.S. say "Support the War on Drugs or face sanctions." If they do that, the international community could very well say "We don't support military actions for your War on Terrorism." Suddenly the U.S. is going to have to start deciding which is more important: marijuana in the WoD or Terrorism.I believe Britain's move is going to embolden many other nations to proceed with decriminalization of MJ. Jamaica would surely love too. If the British experiment is successful (the Netherlands is a strong indicator that it will be) and does not provoke political retaliation from the U.S. rest assured other nations will follow. I pray that Canada will do so in their Nov 7th debates at the national level.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #5 posted by FoM on October 23, 2001 at 21:48:37 PT

freedom fighter
I thought I'd answer you here. I don't have Dan's e-mail address but it should be on one of his comments. I hope this helps.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #4 posted by freedom fighter on October 23, 2001 at 20:36:31 PT

Wanna bet?
Let's make a bet where this Associated Press news article will be publish in these following US newspapers..New York Times= page 30C five days later
Warshington Post= page 15b three days later
LaTimes= page 10 two days laterLet the freedom bells ring!
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #3 posted by bruce42 on October 23, 2001 at 16:52:18 PT

LOL!
I think they'd rather rub it in our faces! Really let us us have it for all of our boasting and flag waving. We thought we were soooo cool when we ran around threatening trade partners with our anti drug campaigns- "Just say no or we'll stop playing nice!" Now we're going to be last on the block- a bunch of stodgy old naysayers. I can see it now, the European Union holding social reform over our heads- "Fix your schools and prisons and adopt sensible drug policies, or we'll stop playing nice!" Of course, we'll probably end up shunning our allies in Europe with more anti drug economic threats. Maybe this war in Afghanistan will keep the real anti die hards at bay. Who knows? if anything, it should be interesting to see cannabis prohibitionists sqiurm, and maybe, just maybe make total asses of themselves.
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #2 posted by E_Johnson on October 23, 2001 at 16:08:33 PT

Let's recolonize
Think they'll have us back, after the way we've behaved?
[ Post Comment ]




 


Comment #1 posted by FoM on October 23, 2001 at 15:37:38 PT

News Brief from The Associated Press
Blunkett Wants Marijuana Downgraded

Source: Associated Press
Published: October 23, 2001 
Copyright: 2001 Associated Press Britain's marijuana laws should be relaxed to give police more time to battle harder drugs, the nation's top law enforcement official said Tuesday. Home Secretary David Blunkett said reclassifying marijuana, or cannabis, as a "Class C drug" - putting it in the same category as anabolic steroids - would not be the same as decriminalization or legalization. However, such a change means that those possessing marijuana would not be subject to arrest. "Cannabis would remain a controlled drug and using it a criminal offense ... but it would make clearer the distinction between cannabis and Class A drugs like heroin and cocaine," Blunkett told a House of Commons committee meeting. "It is time for an honest and common sense approach focusing effectively on drugs that cause most harm," he added. Blunkett's statement comes amid an intensifying political debate about marijuana. Senior figures from all three major political parties have now urged a review of cannabis laws. Police say seven out of 10 drug arrests are for marijuana and that processing a marijuana-related arrest creates several hours of police paperwork and usually ends with a small fine. Changing the marijuana laws would require approval by Parliament. The proposal will first be discussed with senior police officers and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, a Home Office spokesman said. A final decision is expected in the spring. Marijuana is currently a Class B drug, and possession carries a maximum penalty of five years in jail. Simple possession of a Class C drug carries a maximum sentence of two years, and British law states that only offenses punishable with at least five years imprisonment are subject to arrest. In lesser offenses, a police officer can only issue a warning or a court summons. Possession with intent to supply or supplying Class C drugs would still be an arrestable offense. One south London borough is effectively implementing the home secretary's proposal. Since July, Lambeth police have been giving only a verbal warning to anyone caught with a small amount of marijuana. 
[ Post Comment ]







  Post Comment