cannabisnews.com: Hash On The High Street 





Hash On The High Street 
Posted by CN Staff on July 11, 2002 at 20:21:04 PT
By Peter Lilley 
Source: Guardian Unlimited
Before announcing his new policy on cannabis, David Blunkett should have remembered the old Yorkshire proverb: "Even though a horse has four legs it cannot go in two directions at once." Still less can home secretaries move drugs policy in a more liberal and a more penal direction simultaneously. Not surprisingly, in trying to do so he fell flat on his face and, far more serious, may have given us the worst of all worlds. 
He wants to reduce penalties on cannabis use and possession while increasing penalties for its sale. This will do nothing to discourage demand but continue to drive cannabis users into the arms of illegal gangs who also push heroin and cocaine. There are two coherent approaches to cannabis. One is the Swedish policy of rigorous prohibition. It has had some success but it involves mandatory punishment or treatment of users and operates in a society which is highly restrictive even of alcohol. The reaction when Ann Widdecombe proposed rather less draconian measures suggests that approach would not be accepted in this country. On the other hand there is the Dutch approach, which separates the supply of cannabis from that of hard drugs by allowing legal but regulated outlets for cannabis. The result has been a lower level of cannabis use than in the UK and far fewer people migrating on to hard drugs. Heroin addicts in Holland are an ageing group with few new recruits. Sadly Blunkett has opted for neither approach. Above all he has done nothing to separate the supply of cannabis from the people who push hard drugs. If anything, increasing the penalty on selling cannabis to a maximum of 14 years will mean that only the more hardened criminals - precisely those who handle hard drugs - will remain in the market. When I asked him in parliament how he proposed to stop driving cannabis users into the arms of hard drug pushers he simply ignored the question. The problem seems to be that he believed he could wrongfoot both the libertarians (by reclassifying) and the authoritarians (by announcing increased penalties). But drugs policy is far too serious an issue to play political games. We need clarity not confusion. Sadly he seems to have ignored the lessons of Brixton. Merely relaxing enforcement of the law on cannabis use has not worked. It has made the dealers bolder, and made it easier for them to push hard drugs. The starting point for reform must be that the present policy does not work. It has proved unenforcable. Over 40% of young people have defied the law and over a million people used cannabis last month despite fairly severe penalties. The number of people arrested for cannabis offences has quadrupled to nearly 100,000 a year, yet the police and courts enforce the law with diminishing enthusiasm. The law is indefensible in a society which allows the sale of alcohol and tobacco. But the attempt to enforce it results in a huge diversion of resources away from tackling hard drugs; it undermines respect for the law; it creates friction between police and ethnic minorities; it enriches the illegal gangs who are given a monopoly of supply; and above all it drives soft-drugs users into the arms of hard-drugs pushers. To tackle those problems requires clear thinking, not obfuscation. Sadly, Blunkett's attempt to have it both ways has just sown confusion. We are told it is less wrong than it used to be to buy cannabis, but more wrong to sell it. Users are told they will no longer be arrested for cannabis possession - but they may be prosecuted. Police are told they can no longer arrest, but then told yes they can if use threatens public order. Dealers will hope they can avoid prosecution just for possession if they are not actually caught in the act of selling. When I started looking at this issue, I imagined that there might be some half-way house: reducing penalties or relaxing enforcement. But on any rational analysis it was clear that they would not resolve the problems created by the present laws. As long as cannabis use, sale and cultivation are criminal offences, diminishing, or rarely enforcing, penalties on use will not restore respect for the law, release resources to tackle hard drugs, remove cannabis from enriching gangsterdom and, above all, will not separate cannabis users from the sources of hard drugs. The only solution is to license some legal outlets for the sale of cannabis. To be fair, reclassification may bring two modest benefits. It will make it clear that there is a marked distinction between cannabis and hard drugs. All too often the "war on drugs" wilfully confused hard and soft drugs. The result was that young people were more likely to dismiss warnings against hard drugs. More important, now cannabis possession is no longer an arrestable offence there should be no need to carry out all the 300,000 stop and searches for drugs. Only 12% of these ever found drugs, but they caused immense friction between police, the young and ethnic minorities in particular. No one pretends that it will be easy to move to a sensible policy on drugs. It will require courage as well as cunning. I always thought David Blunkett possessed both. If ever a government was in a position to take bold action, surely it is this one. It has an overwhelming parliamentary majority. Most of its MPs do, in their hearts, want to move towards legalisation of cannabis. Yet it is strangely reluctant to do what it knows is right if the focus groups and tabloids are not on their side. When John Major was struggling to survive with a majority of one he was derided as being "in office, not in power". Tony Blair has power but, lacking any purpose, seems strangely reluctant to use it to do what is right. Note: David Blunkett tried to wrongfoot libertarians and authoritarians with his drugs plan. But he's given us a muddle which won't work. Peter Lilley is Conservative MP for Hitchin and Harpenden and a former social security secretary. Special Report: Drugs in Britain: http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/0,2759,178206,00.htmlSource: Guardian Unlimited, The (UK)Author: Peter Lilley Published: Friday, July 12, 2002Copyright: 2002 Guardian Newspapers LimitedContact: comment guardian.co.uk Website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Related Articles:Cannabis and The Killer Class http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13365.shtmlBlunkett Opens Up Drugs Laws http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13363.shtmlCannabisNews Articles -- Cannabis - UKhttp://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=+cannabis+uk 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #1 posted by p4me on July 11, 2002 at 22:23:55 PT
excuse the repetition
I am sure the reformers have learned to live with redundancy since that is the keyston of prohibitionist tactics. I don't like prohibitionist anyway but sspecially that enclave up in those highest caves that will chant "The children, The children" until we truth them out of those caves. They chant with forked tongues. I copied the message of Nol Van Schaik at the DE messageboard once already and felt like it really belonged here also. I will use the great tactic I learned from the $400 million drug propaganda machine- be redundant. Nol writes:Sent to all press i could reach : Comment on the new UK cannabispolicy.Haarlem, the Netherlands, July 11, 2002.Blunkett’s Law supports organised crime !New Law creates monopoly for streetdealers.You do not have to be a professor to see that the announced change in Law on Cannabis will not have any effect on the decrease of crime in the UK. 
The intended goal of the reclassification of cannabis to Class C, was to get more PC’s available to fight organised crime, who have the trade in all drugs in a firm grip for decades, with all involved threats and dangers to society.Under the new Cannabislaw, wich will become active in July, 2003, you should no longer be arrested for smoking a joint, in the privacy of your home, but not with underaged children present. Yet, the penalty for possessing or using cannabis for social purposes, without a clear limited quantity, will be 2 years imprisonment, if the Police chooses to prosecute a potsmoker, with or without being arrested for it.
Blunkett & Co intend to go tougher on people that supply others with cannabis, the penalty for forfilling the UK’s demand for cannabis, is increased to a maximum of 14 years, or is it 10, that did not become quite clear.
Cannabiscafe’s or –shops will not be allowed under the new Law, as they are supposed to be suppliers of cannabis, and will be punished likewise : 10 – 14 years imprisonment for those who would !This implicates that the government has left no room for doubt, the distribution of cannabis will not be regulated through licensed outlets.
There is no special Law on growing cannabis, but they will probably be considered as suppliers of cannabis : 10 – 14 years imprisonment.
These penalties will stop a lot of entrepeneurs-to-be from carrying out their plans to open a cannabisshop in their area, and I can hardly blame them !Organised crime, the intended target of Blunkett’s efforts of the last 9 months or so, will not be impressed by the stiff cannabispenalties, wich will dissolve in the penalties they might get on being caught for trafficking and trading in Class A and B drugs as well.
I guess the gangs that are in the ABC trade for decades now, feel like Blunkett gave them some kind of Branche-protection, by ruling out any possible competition, growers and eventual cannabisshops. The potsmoker, who should benefit from Blunkett’s move, will still have to buy their low-grade cannabis from shady figures that are also involved in dealing Class A and B substances, from a different pocket.
Many cannabisgrowers will stop growing, enlarging the marketshare for organised crime, who will import more low grade soapbar-hash to pollute their customers.
The use of cannabis in general will increase, not because more people will start using it, but the present smokers will start using it more often, the threat of prosecution is taken of their mind. Another increase in business for organised crime, who will be very pleased with their monopoly on the UK drugmarket.Blunkett and all his commissions must have thought of this, I suppose, it will surely be part of some special tactics, if not, they messed up big time ! 
Governments made prohibition, prohibition made organised crime, now, a new form of prohibition is boosting organised crime…Besides this major flaw, there is another downside, the new Law will cause a lot of arrests of people that supply or grow cannabis, if the plan works out. Where is the government going to put all the growers and suppliers of cannabis that it intends to arrest, and lock up for years, the UK prisonsystem is a few days away from being on full capacity. This will cost a lot of money, more than the 50 million pounds saved by no longer prosecuting the personal use of cannabis.There can only be one conclusion, the upcoming change of Law will not have the intended effect, on the contrary, it benefits organised crime, and will cost the community more than ever before, it does seem to create a lot of jobs though, for prison wards…Coffeeshops, excluded in Blunkett’s scheme, however, would separate the trade in cannabis from the trade in Class A and B drugs, and would offer good quality cannabis, for a fair price, in a safe enviroment They would also employ staff , pay businessrates, rent, and all other duties involved, wich would make the money end back up in the UK society, without taking anything out of it. 
Instead of responding to the need of cannabisoutlets, the UK will have to start building more prisons, out of a budget that will not be able to cover it.The taxpayer looses, as usual.Nol van Schaik,
Softdrugssalesman.
With Colin Davies, co-founder of the Dutch Experience coffeeshop, Stockport, UK.
www.dutchexperience.org
www.globalhempmuseum.nl__________________
Come on, well payed politicians, is this a yes or a no ?
Can I smoke and can I grow ?
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment