PFlynn
New Member
What a shambles the reclassification of cannabis is — but maybe that's a good thing. From the start of classification, in the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act, cannabis was graded B, the intermediate level of classification that includes amphetamines and Ritalin, and attracts a maximum jail sentence of five years. Then in 2004, David Blunkett downgraded it to C, the lowest classification, with a maximum sentence of 2 years.
The reasons were many, and generally sound; the harm done by cannabis was judged to be far less than other class B drugs, many police claimed their time would be better spent dealing with more serious drugs, and much harm was done to society by the crime associated with prohibition. Although there was public anxiety that use would increase if the drug were downgraded, evidence from other countries suggested that the reverse was more likely and that use would fall. This proved right; use did fall.
Then what happened? In May 2008 Jacqui Smith announced that she wanted to reverse the decision and put cannabis back to Class B. She said she was concerned about the evidence linking cannabis smoking with schizophrenia, and with the increase in the supply of skunk and other strong forms of the drug.
There was indeed some evidence of a link with schizophrenia but the numbers of people affected are tiny, the risk small, and the reason for the correlation unknown (for example people who are genetically predisposed to schizophrenia may be more likely to smoke cannabis or to find it helpful). Some research even suggests that there is no link and that people diagnosed with "cannabis-induced psychosis" would have developed the symptoms anyway but blamed the drug. And interestingly, since the 1950s there has been a huge increase in cannabis smoking with no change in the rate of schizophrenia.
How should a government decide how best to act in the face of all these arguments? A very sensible option is to appoint an independent committee to examine the science, and to make recommendations. This is precisely what our government did, and in April 2008 the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, having examined masses of evidence and taken opinions from organisations of all kinds, reported back. They advised against the reclassification. So our prime minister, Gordon Brown, and his home secretary, Jacqui Smith, simply ignored them.
So as of yesterday cannabis is, once again, a Class B drug. Jacqui Smith says she wants to "protect the public", and the Home Office website proudly states that reclassification is part of the strategy for "protecting families and communities", when their own committee with their carefully weighed evidence, meticulously collected advice, and thoughtful recommendations, says it will do quite the opposite.
But the madness does not stop there. Instead of being reinstated on terms identical to those of other Class B drugs, cannabis is to have special treatment, with reprimands, warnings or charges for young people, and warning and confiscation for older users caught in possession, and on-the-spot fines to be introduced as soon as possible. The magistrates are confused and angered and say that on-the-spot fines are unacceptable.
How can any good come out of this shambles? My own view is that the safest and fairest thing to do with cannabis is to regulate and control it, to sell it in shops with proper pricing, packaging, warnings, and taxation, and to take the profits and control right away from criminals. This has to happen one day. We cannot go on with this system of prohibition that feeds crime and harms us all. Today's shambles, by showing that our government does not act for the benefit of its people, will not take the advice of experts, and cannot even create a stable and workable legal framework, may just bring the end of prohibition a little closer.
News Hawk: PFlynn - 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Guardian.co.uk
Author: Sue Blackmore
Copyright: 2009 Guardian.co.uk
Contact: Sue Blackmore | guardian.co.uk
Website: Sue Blackmore: The reclassification of cannabis is illogical and unworkable | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
The reasons were many, and generally sound; the harm done by cannabis was judged to be far less than other class B drugs, many police claimed their time would be better spent dealing with more serious drugs, and much harm was done to society by the crime associated with prohibition. Although there was public anxiety that use would increase if the drug were downgraded, evidence from other countries suggested that the reverse was more likely and that use would fall. This proved right; use did fall.
Then what happened? In May 2008 Jacqui Smith announced that she wanted to reverse the decision and put cannabis back to Class B. She said she was concerned about the evidence linking cannabis smoking with schizophrenia, and with the increase in the supply of skunk and other strong forms of the drug.
There was indeed some evidence of a link with schizophrenia but the numbers of people affected are tiny, the risk small, and the reason for the correlation unknown (for example people who are genetically predisposed to schizophrenia may be more likely to smoke cannabis or to find it helpful). Some research even suggests that there is no link and that people diagnosed with "cannabis-induced psychosis" would have developed the symptoms anyway but blamed the drug. And interestingly, since the 1950s there has been a huge increase in cannabis smoking with no change in the rate of schizophrenia.
How should a government decide how best to act in the face of all these arguments? A very sensible option is to appoint an independent committee to examine the science, and to make recommendations. This is precisely what our government did, and in April 2008 the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, having examined masses of evidence and taken opinions from organisations of all kinds, reported back. They advised against the reclassification. So our prime minister, Gordon Brown, and his home secretary, Jacqui Smith, simply ignored them.
So as of yesterday cannabis is, once again, a Class B drug. Jacqui Smith says she wants to "protect the public", and the Home Office website proudly states that reclassification is part of the strategy for "protecting families and communities", when their own committee with their carefully weighed evidence, meticulously collected advice, and thoughtful recommendations, says it will do quite the opposite.
But the madness does not stop there. Instead of being reinstated on terms identical to those of other Class B drugs, cannabis is to have special treatment, with reprimands, warnings or charges for young people, and warning and confiscation for older users caught in possession, and on-the-spot fines to be introduced as soon as possible. The magistrates are confused and angered and say that on-the-spot fines are unacceptable.
How can any good come out of this shambles? My own view is that the safest and fairest thing to do with cannabis is to regulate and control it, to sell it in shops with proper pricing, packaging, warnings, and taxation, and to take the profits and control right away from criminals. This has to happen one day. We cannot go on with this system of prohibition that feeds crime and harms us all. Today's shambles, by showing that our government does not act for the benefit of its people, will not take the advice of experts, and cannot even create a stable and workable legal framework, may just bring the end of prohibition a little closer.
News Hawk: PFlynn - 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Guardian.co.uk
Author: Sue Blackmore
Copyright: 2009 Guardian.co.uk
Contact: Sue Blackmore | guardian.co.uk
Website: Sue Blackmore: The reclassification of cannabis is illogical and unworkable | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
