cannabisnews.com: MPs Vote To Downgrade Cannabis MPs Vote To Downgrade Cannabis Posted by CN Staff on October 29, 2003 at 09:51:20 PT By Matthew Tempest and Agencies Source: Guardian Unlimited UK The reclassification of cannabis from class B to class C was backed by 316 votes to 160, a majority of 156, despite Conservative warnings that it would lead more young people into hard drugs. The downgrading of cannabis is now scheduled to go ahead on January 29.Junior home office minister Caroline Flint said the change was part of an "honest and credible" strategy to tackle the scourge of drugs, denying it was tantamount to legalising the drug or would increase cannabis use. Under the switch, cannabis will be ranked alongside bodybuilding steroids and some anti-depressants. Possession of cannabis will no longer be an arrestable offence in most cases, although police will retain the power to arrest users in certain aggravated situations - such as when the drug is smoked outside schools. The home secretary, David Blunkett, has said the change in the law is necessary to enable police to spend more time tackling class A drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine which cause the most harm and trigger far more crime. Ms Flint told MPs: "This Labour government is absolutely right to focus on the most dangerous drugs, to intervene most vigorously in the most damaged communities and to seek to break the link between addiction and the crime that feeds it. "And to reduce harm that drugs cause by addressing the chaotic lifestyles of those users who are harming themselves and harming others." Educating young people about the dangers of drugs, preventing drug misuse, combating the dealers and treating addicts were key elements of the strategy, she said. Criticising the change, the shadow home secretary, Oliver Letwin, said the government's drugs policy was now in a "dreadful muddle". He called it a half-way measure aimed at short-term popularity rather than a coherent adoption of either the decriminalisation philosophy of the Netherlands or the more prohibitive stance of Sweden.With most Tories absent from the Commons in order to attend the vote on Iain Duncan Smith's leadership, there were barely any MPs in the chamber, with those present complaining that only one and a half hours were allowed for debate.Ms Flint told MPs it was important to have an "honest discussion" with children about drugs. "They can see for themselves the different effects of drugs, and therefore if we are not having honest discussion they will not listen," she said. "This is not about legalisation, it's about having to have a mature discussion about drugs, about the relative harms." She went on: "The right strategy we must use is what works. We must be honest and credible and rely on science, not prejudice." The treatment of all drugs as equally harmful and dangerous "lacked credibility" with young people. "Individual police forces have developed disparate policies on the policing of cannabis possession based on their own view of the relative seriousness of the offence, leading to inconsistency and a lack of proper political accountability." Ms Flint said that by upping penalties for dealing hard drugs to 14 years while at the same time reclassifying cannabis the government would be sending a "very strong message" to dealers. Reclassification would provide police with an opportunity to put in place a "consistently and properly thought-out" approach to drugs and allow them to redeploy officers to tackle hard drugs. But the powers of arrest in place for cannabis would not apply to other class Cs such as tranquillisers or anabolic steroids. "The policing regime will ensure that action is properly taken by police against someone who is causing a problem or needs help whilst avoiding needlessly charging large numbers of young people," she said. In a series of interventions from the back benches, MPs set out both sides of the argument for downgrading cannabis. Labour's Martin Salter said the government would be doing young people a "grave disservice" by allowing them to think that all drugs were the same. Fellow Labour MP David Cairns said heroin was "far more damaging, far more pernicious and far more destructive of communities" than cannabis. And Tory John Bercow asked the minister to consider legalising cannabis as "it must be desirable to break the link between the soft drug user and the hard drug pusher". But Tory Graham Brady claimed that cannabis was 10 or 15 times stronger than 20 years ago and that it was "perverse" to propose downgrading the drug. Labour's John Robertson warned that the message going out to young people was that cannabis was no longer as dangerous as it was before. Tory Ann Winterton insisted that "sophisticated measures do not wash" when trying to get the drug prevention message across. And fellow Tory Angela Watkinson warned that downgrading cannabis would lead to an increase in use of the drug and act as a "gateway" to harder drug use. Note: MPs today backed the downgrading of cannabis as ministers denied the move amounted to legalisation of the drug. Special Report: Drugs in Britain: http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/0,2759,178206,00.htmlSource: Guardian Unlimited, The (UK)Author: Matthew Tempest and AgenciesPublished: Wednesday, October 29, 2003Copyright: 2003 Guardian Newspapers LimitedContact: letters guardian.co.ukWebsite: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Related Articles:MPs Set for Cannabis Clash http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17688.shtmlCannabis Reform Takes Step Closer http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17687.shtmlUK Govt Downgrades Cannabis http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13359.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #18 posted by FoM on November 01, 2003 at 17:46:59 PT Two Different Type Articles From The UK Cannabis Use Causes 'Hundreds of Deaths a Year', Coroner Warns By Julie Henry, Education CorrespondentNovember 2, 2003Britain's most senior coroner is warning that hundreds of young people are dying in accidents caused by their prolonged use of cannabis.Hamish Turner, the president of the Coroners' Society, said that the drug, which is often portrayed as harmless, has increasingly been behind deaths that have been recorded as accidents or suicides.In the past year, he estimated that cannabis was a significant contributory factor in about 10 per cent of the 100 cases that he had dealt with in south Devon, where he works.Conversations with his colleagues led him to believe that the scale of the problem elsewhere in the country was equally bad. "Cannabis is as dangerous as any other drug and people must understand that it kills," said Mr Turner."From my long experience I can say that it is a very dangerous substance. Increasingly it is mentioned not only as the first drug taken by people who overdose, but also in suicides and accidental deaths."It is an awful waste of young lives. People are trying the drug at a very young age. Many go on to harder drugs and I am dealing with more and more heroin overdoses. People can also suffer severe consequences from the cannabis alone, however.Complete Article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/11/02/npot02.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/11/02/ixhome.html'Dagga' Brings Riches To New Drug Barons South African cannabis now dominates illegal trade Tony Thompson, Crime CorrespondentSunday November 2, 2003The Observer A new generation of young British drug barons are becoming overnight millionaires by importing high-quality cannabis direct from South Africa.The gangs are taking advantage of the rock-bottom price of the South African product - known locally as dagga - to enjoy profit margins as high as 4,000 per cent and police are warning that those behind the trade could become richer and more powerful than those trafficking cocaine and heroin. Cannabis from South Africa and neighbouring countries is some of the most potent in the world and now accounts for the vast majority of seizures in the UK. Complete Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,2763,1076004,00.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by Richard Lake on October 30, 2003 at 11:29:43 PT: UK Commons Debate and Vote on Cannabis on line Thanks to the UK Cannabis Internet Activists http://www.ukcia.org the cannabis debate is on line at:http://www.ukcia.org/library/hoc291003/debate.htmland how the MPs voted at:http://www.ukcia.org/library/hoc291003/mpsvote.htmlFrom which we MAP posted the debate starting at:http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1691.a04.htmland the vote at:http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1692.a02.htmlListen to the debate (except for a little of the introduction we missed) in low bandwidth RealAudio at this link http://drugpolicycentral.com/real/audio/ukdebate.rmRichard Lake, Sr. Editor, DrugNews, www.mapinc.org www.drugnews.org [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by FoM on October 29, 2003 at 17:53:26 PT About Reclassfying Cannabis in the UK I know that decriminalization isn't really a benefit. People will want to grow their own and avoid dealing with an illegal market and very high prices. We know that will be the only way to solve the problems that revolve around cannabis laws. The advantage is that by reclassifying Cannabis it shows that reefer madness isn't true. That Cannabis doesn't cause the harm that people have been told it does. It is closing the gap between propaganda and the truth about Cannabis. It's not a big step but it is a step in the right direction. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by WolfgangWylde on October 29, 2003 at 16:09:13 PT Its a bait and switch.... ...just like the proposed Canadian "decrim". Letting off users while increasing penalties to draconian levels for cultivation and dealing is just another version of the U.S. model. With increased penalties for dealing and cultivation (no doubt to soon include asset forfeiture), the Drug War machine in these countries will be able to feed itself just as it does in the U.S. This is not a win. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this is happening with the undercover approval of the U.S. [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by Virgil on October 29, 2003 at 14:40:36 PT Analysis from UK420 messageboard The big thing in the UK, like hear, is the people are sick of the laws and the political pressure is not going to tolerate ignoring MMJ or tough sentences that penalize the public treasury to carry on the injustice. Everything that follows is a comment made by Eddie who saw the debate on television and is one page 3 at http://www.uk420.com/boards/index.php?s=9a4d5437fa1629d4151cb0754cd5e08e&showtopic=16972&st=30Yup I agree, not quality but not shit.I watched whilst accepting that Ms Flint is lumbered with the political decisions made by the Home office. But there were some real 'new' comments from our leaders.1 Shadow Home Secretary accused the Gov't of pandering towards legalisation of cannabis on the grounds that 'that is what the public have indicated they want' - never heard anyone except Lib Dems ever say that in formal statement before.2 Ms Flint answered a question on medical use by saying that the subject was being looked at, note that she didn't say that the medical trials were in hand, and that police guidelines would reflect the results of the study. The different way of saying it makes me think that there are guidelines coming out soon about police response to medical use, even if the CPS are not to be told its not in the public interest.3 Shadow Home Secretary made it clear that there is a choice between Sweden's attitudes and full legalisation, whilst arguing that the current policy is a mes (and I agree). But he took pains to make it clear that the way he supported the Swedish approach was a 'personal' choice, and he chose not to say that failure to support legalisation was not a party policy, just his personal feeling. He even went on to say that he fully understood the legalisation argument and that it was being well made by colleagues on both sides of the house.4 Ms Flint nailed the comment that cannabis was twenty times as strong. She quoted the data published on uk420 last week from Shug about most weed is similar to the 60's, with honorable exceptions for home grow. She even defended against the possibility of greater moves towards the 'naughty criminal suppiers' by saying that almost half the uk market was home grow. (I have been trying to work out how to argue for a 'Queen's Award to Industry' for home growers considering how much they save on the national balance of payments.5 No one in the House so much as mentioned the United Nations or our committments - perhaps the pressure is receding.6 The range of MPs arguing for moves towards legalisation were spread across the country and across political parties. Goddam it, the argument is totally respectable, how long before a party latches onto the fact that it can court popularity. What odds on it becoming a matter for the general election.7 Citizen. Firstly there ain't going to be any guidelines about what constitutes personal posession or growing levels. It has always been the case that anyone found in posession of the weed has been questioned to establish whether the possession was for personal use or supply. I have agreed to 'possesion' prosecutions of large quantities in the past when colleagues have arrested a peep in possesion of a great big quantity if there is no evidence of supply. If there is no evidence of surveillence or of dealing to named individuals then it requires possession of an amount sufficiently large that a jury would be sure that it was for supply rather than for personal use - there has never been any level set.The reason police fought against setting an amount was simple, there are times when it is clear from the evidence that supply is the name of the game but, if the amount were below any set notification, then it provides a defence, a defence provided by police themselves.I posted my observations about what I noticed in the debate because they are all indicators of where policy is going. We have the Home Office almost praising growers as keeping peeps away from dealers, how long before that is reflected in Home Office and police guidance. We have indicators that guidance will be coming out about medi use, and there have been many accusations over the years that medi use is the 'trojan horse' of legalisation. Perhaps you noticed the absence from the Commons of some of the major players in both parties, including the Home Secretary. I suspect the anti legalisation speeches will be very limited in the near future.Finally, and I've said it before, simply ask yourself what the average police officer will do in posession cases when even a caution needs loads of paperwork and the end product will still only be a caution. It will take a year to work out practical street policy, as opposed to ACPO guidance, but watch it evolve.Yes, I do think it will evolve differently in different areas but, as soon as this is clear and the appeal court start to look at the Human Rights Act, stronger guidance, and even a change in legislation, will appear.I've quite enjoyed today.Regards Eddie [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by FoM on October 29, 2003 at 14:07:28 PT i420 England! [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by i420 on October 29, 2003 at 14:04:29 PT Question.. Which country was this???? [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by Richard Paul Zuckerm on October 29, 2003 at 13:40:14 PT: THE OTHER DRUG CARTEL Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch recently issued his report entitled "Follow the Money. The Pharmaceutical Industry: The Other Drug Cartel", which describes the pharmaceutical industry's undue influence over the legislative process at both the State and Federal levels, in the United States. www.ag.state.mn.us/My concern is that lawmakers are ignorning the value of medical Cannabis and Ibogaine, www.cure-not-war.org, so they can make huge profits for the drug companies who finance their campaigns.If my understanding is correct, New Jersey Governor McGreevey recently issued an Executive Order which takes a first step in implementing conflict of interest ethics for lawmakers who may want to vote for legislation which favor their personal business interests.What about The Other Drug Cartel?Richard Paul Zuckerman, Box 159, Metuchen, New Jersey, 08840-0159, richardzuckerman2002 yahoo.com, (Cell telephone number)(908) 403-6990. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by byrd on October 29, 2003 at 12:59:14 PT From another article QUOTE FROM ARTICLE "But Lesley King-Lewis, chief executive of Action on Addiction, said the move would increase cannabis use.She said: "As many as one in 10 cannabis users become addicted. Cannabis use is associated with cancers of the mouth, tongue, throat, oesophagus and lung and reductions in fertility as well as with mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and depression." "My, my let me count lies and spin. Hmm 1 in 10 cannabis users become addicted. Well, 1 in 10 become addicted to alcohol, 1 in 10 become addicted to sex, 1 in 10 become addicted to video games. According to everything I've read on addiction says that 1 in 10 people are addicted to something - so that statement goes right out the window.The rest of the quote I don't think I have to comment on to all of you fine *thinking* people on this board :) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3223385.stm [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by rchandar on October 29, 2003 at 11:17:53 PT: MPs vote to downgrade cannabis i believe this is a good beginning, beginning step.here's why: under the previous law, POSSESSION was punished in Crown Court with a maximum jail sentence of 7 YEARS. that is just unacceptable. why should the grower only get 5 years, and the 17-year old kid who tried it once get 7? now, i personally am against the increase in cultivation penalties to 14 years, but i don't think that will go without some modification in the years to come. but at least the casual or part-time user is protected in this scheme, at least on paper. --rchandar [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by FoM on October 29, 2003 at 11:01:28 PT BBC Article MPs Vote To Downgrade Cannabis: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17692.shtml [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Virgil on October 29, 2003 at 10:47:41 PT Penalties for cultivation and supply increase The penalties for supply used to be 5 years for class C but they will go up to 14 years with this measure. It is not much of a victory at all and it took 2 years to get this garbage passed.There is a three-page thread on this at UK420- http://www.uk420.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=16972&st=0 [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by FoM on October 29, 2003 at 10:34:30 PT Question What will this downgrading do for those who grow their own Cannabis in the UK? [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Virgil on October 29, 2003 at 10:28:41 PT There has been two years of semi-debate With most Tories absent from the Commons in order to attend the vote on Iain Duncan Smith's leadership, there were barely any MPs in the chamber, with those present complaining that only one and a half hours were allowed for debate.How goofy can you get. The downgrade announcement by Blunkett is over two years old. I remember reading about it at the old DutchExperience website before the BBC copy was released. This was no sneaky thing like Congress does here like attatching a lunatic Rave Act to an Amber Alert Bill. Besides that the British had there own study just like the Canadian Senate Report and the LaDain and LaGuardia and Shey Commission and it said the same thing- quit inflicting an unneccessary harm on people with criminal penalties in regards to cannabis. I will try to find a link to that latter tonight.The ones upset by only an hour and a half of debate are the ones silenced from voicing the call for freedom and reason. What the hell is an upside down person doing complaining about limiting debate. How long does it take to say "Marijuana is a dangerous drug" and who is calling for the repetition of the lie anyway? Article on Cnews dated 10-24-2001 on downgrade [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by FoM on October 29, 2003 at 10:18:13 PT Related News Article from The BBC MPs Vote To Downgrade Cannabis Cannabis users will generally no longer be arrested for possession.Wednesday, October 29, 2003MPs have backed a move to downgrade cannabis, putting it in the same group as tranquilisers and steroids. The reclassification of the drug from Class B to Class C was supported by a majority of 156, despite Tory warnings it would lead more young people into harder drug use. Complete Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3223385.stm [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by MikeEEEEE on October 29, 2003 at 10:12:03 PT Prohibition Death Note Prohibition can't last as a result of this. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Sam Adams on October 29, 2003 at 10:03:02 PT Yeah! At least there are 316 government officials SOMEWHERE who aren't afraid of Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft and Walters. Now let's hope they go all the way within a few years. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by FoM on October 29, 2003 at 09:54:22 PT Good News I hope this helps Canada to see the need to make positive changes. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment