cannabisnews.com: Plan To Seize Drug Homes Halted Plan To Seize Drug Homes Halted Posted by CN Staff on June 22, 2003 at 16:45:22 PT Blunkett Reportedly Pushed for Extension of Power Source: BBC News Plans to seize the homes of cannabis users considered a "serious nuisance" have been dropped despite a push from Home Secretary David Blunkett. Health and housing ministers reportedly warned against plans to extend powers under the anti-social behaviour bill to close down premises associated with class A hard drugs to include class B and C drugs. They said extending the powers would divert attention from tackling hard drugs and cause problems for councils who would have to house the people made homeless, according to the Sunday Times. A Home Office spokeswoman said: "It was explored, it was looked at and it was decided not to, having consulted with the police, drugs charities and ministerial colleagues". Blunkett 'convinced' But a leaked letter from Mr Blunkett to Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, obtained by the paper suggested that as recently as 4 June the home secretary wanted to press ahead with the plan. It would see police being given the power to close and seal premises associated with such drugs for up to three months. Mr Blunkett told Mr Prescott, the chairman of the Cabinet domestic affairs committee, he was "minded" to strengthen the powers in the bill "to include all classes of illegal drugs". "This would ensure that where such premises are associated with serious nuisance related to class B or C drugs they could be effectively controlled using these powers," he reportedly wrote. "I have become convinced that such an extension also offers an appropriate additional control to premises used for illegal drug supply, such as `cannabis cafes'." Source: BBC News (UK Web) Published: Sunday, June 22, 2003Copyright: 2003 BBC Contact: newsonline bbc.co.ukWebsite: http://news.bbc.co.uk/ Related Articles & Web Site:Drugs Uncovered: Observer Special http://freedomtoexhale.com/dc.htmCannabis Policy Goes Up In Smoke http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16671.shtmlThinktank Urges Leniency for Cannabis Growers http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15962.shtmlResearchers Call for Softer Pot Cultivation Lawshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15957.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #2 posted by 312 on June 22, 2003 at 21:41:24 PT More Government stall tactics Remember they announced that they 'might' do this in october 2001.afterburner: "How are medical cannabis patients and spiritual partakers to obtain their cannabis if 'cannabis cafes' are targetted?"A Home Office spokeswoman said: "It was explored, it was looked at and it was decided not to, having consulted with the police, drugs charities and ministerial colleagues". I think they dropped the idea, which is lucky, although another article I read today seemed to contradict this one. They pushed something similar through in Australia, so they could start targeting the cannabis cafes there, which they did (I remember reading one about a Karma cafe in King's Cross (not the one in London)).Here's a helpful comment someone called 'Eddie' wrote on the UK420 forums:The position where the Home Office has declined to change the legislation and 'legalise' cannabis, leaving discretion in the hands of each police officer, has come about by Gov't trying to find an easy way out and simply re-classify cannabis to C.Now, astonishing enough, that's not what you (UK420) want according to numerous posts and it's far from what the police service wants. The job of Gov't is to govern and, as A.L. states, make the laws and get police to enforce the laws and not the compromises. It's not the police's job to decide on a whim whether to prosecute or not. Over the last year nothing had come out of policing to clarify the situation (see lots of earlier posts) because it is impossible to clarify - it's a projected mess due to the intended fudge by the Home Office.One of the outcomes of next month's ACPO debate will be to confront Gov't and tell them that policing cannot support that fudge and insist that the law is clear one way or another. The Newspaper reporting of the 'Metropolitan' position against the rest of the country is far from the situation, it's much more complex than that. There has been a load of internal debate trying to come up with some form of documentation that could support the fudge of re-classification but, although the home Office may prefer a 'third way', policing can't figure out how to implement it.That should not come as a surprise to anyone on these boards as it has been pointed out a number of times that such discretion should not be in the hands of each and every policeman. Additionally there have been a host of postings indicating that the 'fudge' fails to provide the clear move to either legalisation or de-criminalisation that is the aim of most members of UK420. At this moment all the police service is doing is to hand the ball back to Government without a solution of a way forward by the route of re-classification.I can't tell you how the Home Office will react but I'm quite supportive of giving them the problem back again. In view of the previous comments of the Home Sec and the Home Office any move that fails to move cannabis down the scale would be a real U turn.If I can remind you that the re-classification fudge came when Mr Blunkett was to give evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee when everyone was examining the 'Human Rights' legislation in respect of 'individual rights and privacy'. He cannot choose to do nothing since the Appeal Court is heading for rulings in respect of cannabis, reflecting a host of committee reports from last year. The current debate about a 'supreme court and Lord Chancellor' is all about the effects on our court system from the Human Rights Act, and in particular the lack of authority of Government to pass prohibitive legislation when neither the security of the country or the health of the nation justify it.This is not a simple set back to cannabis deregulation but a step forward in making a clear decision.Regards EddieP.S. I'm quite comfortable with this move and it's hardly unexpected. What is going to have a very real effect on my life and my knowedge across the whole range of current affairs is our loss of Bongme's efforts. I, for one, will really miss the opportunity to have all the day's reports fed to me on a plate by his efforts. I can understand his need for a break but I have really appreciated what he has achieved through this last period. Thanks Bongme. Your posting times indicate a 24 hour on-line lifestyle - enjoy the rest! Thanks again.Double regards EddieAdditional comment by dhc:Thanks for the analysis Eddie, you make a lot of sense as always. However, I'm not as optimistic as you. Politicians are untrustworthy. U-turns are common. I fear ACPO's action could be seized upon by the Government as police objection to change and thus could be used as support for making no change at all. Or maybe I'm just a bit despondent today. The proposal to seize houses (now dropped if I understand correctly) would only be enforced where places were a "serious nuisance"; so we’d have some defence. Also as you say, the appeals court may soon enshrine the right to possess cannabis under Article 8 of the ECHR (or at least the right not to be searched for it). Who knows, maybe there will be a real backlash to these plans. Maybe smokers will now feel so aggrieved they’ll start properly campaigning for change. Politicians are vote-whores. We have to show them cannabis legalisation would be a popular move. And we can’t do that until we all start asking for it. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by afterburner on June 22, 2003 at 21:01:35 PT: Blunkett: Two-Faced. Home Secretary David Blunkett, while taking laudable action by down-scheduling cannabis, fails the supply litmus paper test. How are medical cannabis patients and spiritual partakers to obtain their cannabis if 'cannabis cafes' are targetted? Personal cultivation has been mentioned, but some patients are too sick to grow their own supply. The persecution of Biz Ivol for selflessly sharing effective cannabis medicine with other sufferers does not speak well of current practice and compassion in the United Kingdom.Canada should have such Health and housing ministers. The recent forfeiture and restraint of houses in British Columbia involved in illegal grow-ops is just another DEA-style prohibitionist tactic to avoid taking legitimate Canadian government action to provide a Safe Access Now for medical cannabis patients. Re-legalize, as Ontario has done, regulate and tax. If Canadian Health Minister Anne McLellan was willing to stand up for medical cannabis patients, instead of trying to exterminate them by inaction, then she might be accused of actually honouring the responsibilities of her portfolio.Are you ready to listen yet, government ministers, or do we have to make a bigger noise?ego destruction leads to ego transcendence, healing the nations. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment