SmokeyMacPot
New Member
Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, was urged today not to restore cannabis to Class B status after he criticised the decision by his predecessor, David Blunkett, to downgrade the drug.
In an interview with The Times, Mr Clarke said he was "very worried" about recent evidence suggesting a strong link between cannabis and mental illness. His remarks come just weeks before he must decide whether nor not to execute an embarrassing about-turn and reclassify the drug.
The Home Secretary has been studying a report by a special advisory group he set up to assess the latest medical evidence. Leaks of the report suggest that the committee says use of the drug is clearly linked to mental illness, but stops short of recommending reclassification.
Mr Clarke said there was an alarming lack of knowledge about the health dangers posed by cannabis among the general public. He also admitted that many people had been left confused by the law change.
Reacting to the Times interview, one of the advisory council members, Martin Barnes, today indicated his opposition to reversing the reclassification. He acknowledged that the evidence of the dangers of cannabis had "moved on" but he said Mr Blunkett’s move had lowered use of the drug.
"There has been some more recent research that does indicate that cannabis may cause mental health problems, whereas in the past it was accepted that it could potentially worsen existing mental health problems," he told BBC Radio 4’s The World at One programme:
"Since cannabis was reclassified there has been much more debate about the harms and actually some indication that the use of cannabis has started to decline. So on that basis I think it would be quite difficult to sort of explain why we have to move it back to B."
He was backed up by Dame Ruth Runciman, who chaired the Police Foundation report which first recommended the downgrading of cannabis. She said evidence suggested there had not been a significant increase in the use of the drug.
Dame Ruth said the downgrading was a sensible move but had been "very badly handled" creating a huge degree of public misunderstanding. "To re-reclassify is as ill-judged as it can be in my view," she said. "I think it will add greatly to the confusion."
The decision to downgrade cannabis to a Class C drug was widely reported but led to a perception that cannabis was no longer an illegal drug. The move was designed to allow police to focus on more serious substances.
Asked specifically if the confusion was a result of Mr Blunkett’s decision to downgrade the drug, Mr Clarke said: "Yes. People do not understand the impact of the consumption of cannabis well enough, and what the legal consequences of consuming cannabis are."
Over Christmas Mr Clarke read the report from a special advisory group he set up to assess the latest medical evidence, and will discuss its findings with colleagues this week before making a final decision.
Mr Clarke refused to confirm the report’s central thrust, but said he had already accepted a secondary recommendation, that ministers had to clear up the confusion in the public’s mind about the drug. "The thing that worries me most (about the downgrading of cannabis) is confusion among the punters about what the legal status of cannabis is."
"Whatever happens after this, let me reveal one recommendation of the advisory committee, which they make very, very strongly, which is a renewed commitment to public education about the potential affects of the consumption of cannabis, and the legal status of cannabis. That is well made, and I will accept it."
The drug was downgraded in in the hope that it would allow the police to focus on more serious drug abuse. Mr Clarke said it was significant how many advocates of the change had had second thoughts.
"I’m very struck by the advocacy of a number of people who have been proposers of the reclassification of cannabis that they were wrong," he said.
"I am also very worried about the most recent medical evidence on mental health. This is a very serious issue."
Asked if the downgrading of the drug had served any useful purpose, Mr Clarke paused before responding: "I think it gives it a steer to the citizen on more serious drug consumption."
Although an about-turn would be embarrassing, it may cause Labour fewer problems in the long run. Mr Clarke will champion curbs on antisocial behaviour this year, which strategists say is undermined by a soft approach to cannabis.
Source: Times Online (UK)
Author: Rosemary Bennett of The Times
Published: January 05, 2006
Copyright: 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd.
Contact: debate@thetimes.co.uk
Website: The Times & The Sunday Times
In an interview with The Times, Mr Clarke said he was "very worried" about recent evidence suggesting a strong link between cannabis and mental illness. His remarks come just weeks before he must decide whether nor not to execute an embarrassing about-turn and reclassify the drug.
The Home Secretary has been studying a report by a special advisory group he set up to assess the latest medical evidence. Leaks of the report suggest that the committee says use of the drug is clearly linked to mental illness, but stops short of recommending reclassification.
Mr Clarke said there was an alarming lack of knowledge about the health dangers posed by cannabis among the general public. He also admitted that many people had been left confused by the law change.
Reacting to the Times interview, one of the advisory council members, Martin Barnes, today indicated his opposition to reversing the reclassification. He acknowledged that the evidence of the dangers of cannabis had "moved on" but he said Mr Blunkett’s move had lowered use of the drug.
"There has been some more recent research that does indicate that cannabis may cause mental health problems, whereas in the past it was accepted that it could potentially worsen existing mental health problems," he told BBC Radio 4’s The World at One programme:
"Since cannabis was reclassified there has been much more debate about the harms and actually some indication that the use of cannabis has started to decline. So on that basis I think it would be quite difficult to sort of explain why we have to move it back to B."
He was backed up by Dame Ruth Runciman, who chaired the Police Foundation report which first recommended the downgrading of cannabis. She said evidence suggested there had not been a significant increase in the use of the drug.
Dame Ruth said the downgrading was a sensible move but had been "very badly handled" creating a huge degree of public misunderstanding. "To re-reclassify is as ill-judged as it can be in my view," she said. "I think it will add greatly to the confusion."
The decision to downgrade cannabis to a Class C drug was widely reported but led to a perception that cannabis was no longer an illegal drug. The move was designed to allow police to focus on more serious substances.
Asked specifically if the confusion was a result of Mr Blunkett’s decision to downgrade the drug, Mr Clarke said: "Yes. People do not understand the impact of the consumption of cannabis well enough, and what the legal consequences of consuming cannabis are."
Over Christmas Mr Clarke read the report from a special advisory group he set up to assess the latest medical evidence, and will discuss its findings with colleagues this week before making a final decision.
Mr Clarke refused to confirm the report’s central thrust, but said he had already accepted a secondary recommendation, that ministers had to clear up the confusion in the public’s mind about the drug. "The thing that worries me most (about the downgrading of cannabis) is confusion among the punters about what the legal status of cannabis is."
"Whatever happens after this, let me reveal one recommendation of the advisory committee, which they make very, very strongly, which is a renewed commitment to public education about the potential affects of the consumption of cannabis, and the legal status of cannabis. That is well made, and I will accept it."
The drug was downgraded in in the hope that it would allow the police to focus on more serious drug abuse. Mr Clarke said it was significant how many advocates of the change had had second thoughts.
"I’m very struck by the advocacy of a number of people who have been proposers of the reclassification of cannabis that they were wrong," he said.
"I am also very worried about the most recent medical evidence on mental health. This is a very serious issue."
Asked if the downgrading of the drug had served any useful purpose, Mr Clarke paused before responding: "I think it gives it a steer to the citizen on more serious drug consumption."
Although an about-turn would be embarrassing, it may cause Labour fewer problems in the long run. Mr Clarke will champion curbs on antisocial behaviour this year, which strategists say is undermined by a soft approach to cannabis.
Source: Times Online (UK)
Author: Rosemary Bennett of The Times
Published: January 05, 2006
Copyright: 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd.
Contact: debate@thetimes.co.uk
Website: The Times & The Sunday Times
