cannabisnews.com: Cannabis Laws Eased in Drug Policy Shakeup 










  Cannabis Laws Eased in Drug Policy Shakeup 

Posted by FoM on October 23, 2001 at 22:55:55 PT
By Alan Travis, Home Affairs Editor  
Source: Guardian Unlimited 

Britain's 30-year-old cannabis laws, the most stringent in Europe, are to be relaxed by next spring under plans announced yesterday by the home secretary, David Blunkett. Cannabis - which is tried by more than 40% of British schoolchildren - is to be downgraded from a class B to a class C drug. The police will lose the power to arrest the 90,000 people a year who are currently charged with possession offences. 
Alongside the reform of the 1971 cannabis laws, Mr Blunkett announced a new emphasis on reducing the harm caused by hard drugs, including guidance encouraging doctors to prescribe heroin as part of a programme to get more hardcore addicts into treatment and away from dealers. The home secretary also gave his firmest indication yet that he will license the medical use of cannabis to treat multiple sclerosis and other illnesses when research trials, which are currently in their third phase, are completed. But the shake-up of the drug laws, designed to win back credibility with the young, stops short of the decriminalisation or legalisation of cannabis. Mr Blunkett's decision to reclassify it as a class C drug means that it remains illegal but the maximum penalties of two years for possession and five years for possession with intent to supply will be much lower than the current penalties of five and 14 years. The police will no longer have the power to arrest anyone in the street for cannabis possession and prosecutions will be carried out by court summons. This is likely to mean that prosecution will prove the exception rather than the rule for simple possession. The reforms are expected to come into effect in the spring, after they have been considered by the advisory council on the misuse of drugs. This group of experts first recommended the change as long ago as 1981. Ministers will implement the change by an order in council after a debate in parliament. It is also in line with the recommendation of the Police Foundation inquiry into drugs, which was dismissed by ministers when it was published last year. But Mr Blunkett yesterday rejected the inquiry's recommendations to downgrade ecstasy and LSD from their class A status. The home secretary told MPs yesterday that the changes would not detract from the simple message that all drugs were harmful but it would make a clearer distinction between cannabis and class A drugs such as heroin and cocaine. "Cannabis would remain a controlled drug and using it a criminal offence," he said. "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. "In spite of focusing on hard drugs, the majority of police time is currently spent on handling cannabis offences. It is time for an honest and commonsense approach focusing effectively on drugs that cause the most harm." Mr Blunkett said the six-month experiment in Brixton under which the police did not charge those found with cannabis was proving a success, with the two to three hours usually spent on processing such convictions in the past now spent targeting more serious crimes. Suspicion of cannabis possession will no longer be grounds for police stop and search, a Home Office spokesman said. Offenders could be dealt with on the spot with an informal warning, cautioned or reported for summons. Chris Sanders of the Cannabis Coalition welcomed the move to reclassify cannabis, describing it as a small step to progress, and Paul Flynn, the Labour MP who has campaigned for legalisation, called it the most important announcement in 30 years of drug policy. "We have the harshest drug policies in Europe," he said. "This is the first time we have seen a government prepared to say they are not working." The police also welcomed the change. Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan police commissioner, said: "Reclassification could reduce the time spent by officers dealing with such offenders, enabling them to concentrate on tackling more serious crimes such as street robbery which has increased in London in recent months." But the former shadow home secretary Ann Widdecombe, who caused embarrassment for the Tory party when she proposed much tougher cannabis laws, said that the changes were in danger of becoming a "dealers' charter" as they could escape prosecution by claiming a large amount in their possession was for their personal use. Source: Guardian Unlimited, The (UK)Author: Alan Travis, Home Affairs Editor Published: Wednesday, October 24, 2001Copyright: 2001 Guardian Newspapers LimitedContact: letters guardian.co.ukWebsite: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Related Articles:Government Takes Relaxed View of Cannabis http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11162.shtmlCannabis Proposal is Widely Welcomed http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11161.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #10 posted by Tim Stone on October 24, 2001 at 17:30:04 PT
The Art of the Possible
So has politics been described. Blunkett seems to be trying to split semantic political hairs here by effectively decriminalizing cannabis, while still wearing the political fig leaf claim that, well, technically, he isn't really decriminalizing cannabis. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and can't be arrested for possession nor searched solely on suspicion of possessionb like a duck, it's a duck. And by any other name would smell as sweet!Back in the latter 70s, it really looked for a while like U.S. national decrim and eventual re-legalization was pretty much a done thing. Then there was the Reagan Reaction starting in the early 80s and it all got torn out of our grasp and flushed down the terlet in favor of several more decades of insane prohibition. In hindsight, a major mistake reformers made back then was to vastly underestimate the grassroots strength of the suburban parents' anti-pot movement, starting in Atlanta. I'm very curious what some of the oldtimers here might be thinking: When decrim happens this time - elsewhere to start with, then finally even here in the U.S. - will it be snatched away from us again, just like in the early 80s? Or will it stick this time? Is the reform movement entrenched enough, both worldwide and in the U.S. to stave off the inevitable reactionary counterattacks? What do you think?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by null on October 24, 2001 at 09:17:26 PT
hills
I think Sam Adams makes a good point about the change in U.S. leverage power. I made a similar comment in response to another article. Uncle can't throw his wieght to shutdown MJ legalisation in other countries now.4Q - Wait until after Nov 7th or so to head for the hills. They may just turn out to be Canadian hills. ;) Let's hope they legalize or at the minimum decriminalize MJ at the national level after their debate. Maybe you can get a place near Steve Kubby. Maybe we all can!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by qqqq on October 24, 2001 at 09:11:30 PT
Sam Adams,,,
I like your positive outlook......darkest before the dawn,The message of hope is a nice thing
The 4Q says"Wake Up...things are looking f*cked!...all we can do is hide!"
but 4D sez,"Now hang on there 4Q!!..there's always hope....what else have we got?"
and 4Q says;"you go ahead pretend everything's OK!,,,,,,I'm thinkin' of headin for the hills...."
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #7 posted by Sam Adams on October 24, 2001 at 08:06:46 PT

We are winning
There have been some depressing stories posted here lately, but I think we need to keep in mind the expression "it's always darkest before the dawn".  Sure, the feds are employing Orwellian tactics against sick people in California - but 10 years ago, there weren't any legitimate medical users to harass! More states will continue to pass medical laws each year.And no, England didn't go all the way, but they will. Rome wasn't built in a day, nor did it fall in one big collapse.  Canada will be following soon.Stepped up arrest efforts (the new 734,000 record this year) remind me of the way logging companies dramatically increase logging activities in forests that are about to be legally protected or sold - mine it for all it's worth while you can! The swine see the writing on the wall.The context for these changes is perfect. How can the US rail against it's very closest allies (Canada and England) for relaxing cannabis laws while we're in the middle of a controversial war and must depend on their support like never before? And sooner or later Joe Average Citizen will realize that if we stopped MJ arrests in the US, there would be enough police time left over to staff 2 or 3 cops on every domestic and international airline flight.The decade of the 00's is OUR time...each seeming step back that we take will make our VICTORY over repression that much sweeter.........
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #6 posted by dddd on October 24, 2001 at 06:13:24 PT

yup...Kap
..no word....they're still doing damage control,,,and word went out that no mention should be made,until they get the OK,from "weekend at Bernies"Cheney,,or Gilligan bush.......premature acknowledgement,may embellish undesired credibility,,,,,,,mums the word until we run it by the PR advisors ..........We dont want it to detract from the anthrax frenzy,or compromise Operation Ending Freedom,,,uhh,,I mean Enduring Freedumb.....quadra D
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by kaptinemo on October 24, 2001 at 05:40:07 PT:

And still no word from DEAWatch...
Friends, it's been at least 48 hours since the announcements. But still no word from DEAWatchhttp://members.aol.com/deawatch/daily.htmabout the developments in the UK. These are the people, mostly current or retired DEA types, who were so quick to try to twist the national tragedy of 9-11 to their benefit, i.e. calling drug users 'terrorist collaborators' in order to get more money by jumping on the anti-terror bandwagon.But not a word. Not one. Curious, isn't it, that they haven't said a thing? I expect their embarrassed silence will be mirrored by the Bush Too Administration, which desperately needs the illusion of unanimity in the latest actions against the Tali's. Pissing off the Brits by finger wagging and tut-tutting won't do. Never mind the calendar and the weatherman; this is going to be a surprsingly 'warmer' winter.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by dddd on October 24, 2001 at 05:26:08 PT

Proclamation
Right on Lehder!..I think you have defined my views perfectly....
.."Our fight will be unfinished until possession and cultivation of marijuana are recognized as personal rights, rights which must be
      respected by the law and by the press. And when these goals have been achieved, then it will be time not to party but to hold criminal
      trials of drug warriors so that people may understand the meanings of tolerance, truth and freedom.".. ......but I think,,that mayber I'd have a small,,quiet party after the goals had been achieved,,,and then,,as much as I like the idea of a Nuremburg style trial that would fill all of our new prisons with drug warriors,,,I think that it might be better to resist a retaliatory witch-hunt,and move ahead with other more important matters,which would achieve the same results,,,and that would be to have Zero Tolerance,against ANY politician,who has acted in any way that compromised the Constitution of The United States!....This would include politicians who had knowledge of such things,,,which would be covered under "Conspiracy to neglect the Constitution",,,and on and on.........The drug war,and its' proponents,,are a mere pebble,in the huge behemoth boulder that we are getting crushed by........I hate to say it,because it will probably make a bunch of bells,and whistles,and alerts,from the carnivorous echelons,that will notice the word,,,,,but I'm gonna say it anyway......It's time for REVOLUTION!!!!!....Come and get me,ya dirty rat-fink coppers!.......dddd
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by Lehder on October 24, 2001 at 04:52:09 PT

i'm with you, dddd,
as usual, and it's not enough. Freeing police from pissing around with pot smokers so they can deal with robberies, as noted in the article, makes sense and has been one of the reform arguments as well. But that attitude still disparages both marijuana and the smoker as undesirable social entities, and it's repressive, bigoted and propagandistic - it's archaic. Many of us want full legalization, a recognition of the truth that marijauana is beneficial to millions of people who smoke it for its benefits, not because they have a brain disease or a death wish. In short, RESPECT. And the right to grow one's own.A better attitude was voiced in the previous article, "Government Takes Relaxed View...."The former Tory cabinet minister, Peter Lilley, published a pamphlet saying the drugs laws were "indefensible" and calling for cannabis to be sold through licensed outlets.But this is a former cabinet minister, reminiscent of our great pot-smoking President Clinton who espoused legalization soon after leaving office, soon after having destroyed millions of people along the hypocritical road of his own personal advancement. More progressive and truthful attitudes are expressed in "Cannabis Proposal is Widely Welcomed", two articles prior to this,Sir John Mortimer, the barrister, playwright and author, also welcomed the move, but said: “I just think they should legalise it and get on with it. In all the criminal cases I have ever done, no violent crimes came as a result of someone smoking pot. It was usually huge quantities of drink. “Everyone uses it — captains of industry, middle-aged mothers, everyone. The idea that these people should have criminal records is absurd.” And the British reformed law as it stands, prescribing in principle and in plain text imprisonment for two or three years and crippling fines remains absurd. It allows every opportunity for the abuse of pot smokers by freedom-hating cultural warriors whose hypocrisies are allowed to still thrive in prohibitionist states. Our fight will be unfinished until possession and cultivation of marijuana are recognized as personal rights, rights which must be respected by the law and by the press. And when these goals have been achieved, then it will be time not to party but to hold criminal trials of drug warriors so that people may understand the meanings of tolerance, truth and freedom.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by dddd on October 24, 2001 at 01:01:14 PT

like I said
The "easing",of Cannabis laws is better than nothing,,,but in the US,,this "easing",ploy has already been used make it appear as if reform has begun,,or happened....The sad truth,is that just because they dont arrest you,,,they still give you a citation,,,and you have to go to court,,and you are still subject to all the stuff you would have been subject to if they had taken you to jail......This "easing",is not reform,,it is merely an adjustment to calm down the Sheeple,and make it appear that the powers that be are not so bad...dddd
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by CorvallisEric on October 24, 2001 at 00:48:20 PT

Poll on BBC
Sorry if this duplicates anyone.Should Cannabis laws be relaxed?
Yes
 72.57% 
No
 27.43%
627 Votes Cast
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment