|
|
| Ex-Envoy To Colombia Says Legalise Drugs |
|
Posted by FoM on July 03, 2001 at 19:44:21 PT By Owen Bowcott Source: Guardian Unlimited 
Britain's former ambassador to Colombia, who has witnessed at close quarters the spiralling cost of the war against cocaine and been at the heart of international initiatives to counter trafficking, yesterday called for legalisation of drugs. Sir Keith Morris, who served in Bogota from 1990-94, argues in a Guardian article that the drugs war "is unwinnable, costly and counter-productive". He urges an end to prohibition and the establishment of a controlled, legal framework in which drug sales would be taxed for the common good. The founder chairman of the British and Colombian chamber of commerce, he maintains contacts with Latin America, where governments have for years urged the west to help their drug-distorted economies by reducing the demand for illicit drugs. He has also been privy to senior UK government thinking. While in Bogota he hosted visits from then home secretaries Kenneth Clarke and Michael Howard, and the then prime minister John Major. Sir Keith's comments coincide with signs of a possible softening in official policy on drugs and a flurry of debate on the issue since the election. Last Sunday, Mo Mowlam, the former cabinet office minister who visited Colombia several times as the minister heading the war against drugs, urged decriminalisation of cannabis. "This government believes in 'what works': drugs prohibition does not work," Sir Keith, 66 and now retired, said yesterday. "I'm encouraged that the government has started to relax the regime for cannabis. "Now the principle of prohibition has in practice been abandoned, I hope the government will start a serious examination of the best way of controlling drug use within a legal framework. It will not be easy. Hard drugs users may have to register with GPs and get their drugs on prescription. "Some soft drugs might be sold under a regime like that used for alcohol and tobacco and, as Mo Mowlam has proposed for cannabis, they would be tested for purity and taxed. "The revenue would go to medical research and greatly improve education and treatment. There will be costs, probably, initially at least, greater use and addiction and problems quite unforeseen. But the benefits to life, health and liberty of drug users and the life, health and property of the whole population would be immense." Sir Keith admits advocating legalisation has been personally difficult "because it means saying to those with whom I worked and to the relatives of those who died that this was an unnecessary war". By coincidence, the police in Brixton, south London, chose this week to announce they will simply warn those caught in possession of small quantities of cannabis. In effect, they have turned their attention to more serious crimes. In her column in the Sunday Mirror, Ms Mowlam wrote: "From my time of being concerned with the government's drug policy I have come to the conclusion that we must decriminalise cannabis. The trade needs to be legalised so it can be sensibly regulated. "We could then have a tested product, which would be safer; outlets where other more dangerous drugs were not also available and it could be taxed." Any income, she suggested, would pay for improved treatment of addicts. Since Ms Mowlam retired from parliament at the election, responsibility for government drug strategies has passed from the cabinet office to the Home Office. Arguments for legalisation have more commonly come from the libertarian wing of the Conservative party. Last year, for example, the former Tory treasury minister, Philip Oppenheim, similarly warned "criminalising drugs hands massive profits to organised crime". Drugs are dangerous, he conceded, but "legalisation looks like the lesser evil". Source: Guardian Unlimited, The (UK) Special Report: Drugs in Britain Colombia Drug War News CannabisNews Articles - UK Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
|
Comment #3 posted by Dan B on July 04, 2001 at 16:41:40 PT:
|
| . . . in a country that has yet to pay reparations to people who were enslaved here four over 400 years, I hardly think that the United States will ever hold a war crimes tribunal for drug warriors. Frankly, I'd be thankful just to set the prisoners free and give freedom to America. You remember freedom, right? That's that "silly" concept we fought for 225 years ago today, the concept that was supposed to have made America a better place to live than the rest of the world, the concept that failed time after time when those of European decent clobbered everyone with a darker shade of melanin in order to advance their own selfish agendas, the concept that remains elusive today because powerful people tenuously claim moral superiority as a justification for the most immoral degradations of their fellow human beings, the most unholy destruction of those who are different from themselves. It has been said on another posting, and I'll say it again here: true patriots are those who are willing to stand up against what America has become in the name of what it should be. Those who chant and sing about how great the country is, blindly bowing to the whims of the "ruling class," waving their flags and praying to God in thanks that we live in "the best country in the world" are not patriots, they are ignorant nationalists at best, fascist corrupters of the nation at worst. True patriots are willing to say the truth about the state of this country, including the drug war, and are willing to work to help reverse the horror of what is happening here--people like FoM, dddd, kaptinemo, aocp, observer, Dr. Ethan Russo, New Mexican, Jose Melendez, Robbie, jorma nash, and many others too numerous to mention (yes, you too Neil). So, to all the patriots out there, I am happy to be in your company. Let's remember our prisoners of war and use this day to change their plight. Dan B [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #2 posted by Jose Melendez on July 04, 2001 at 08:01:13 PT:
|
| NCJ Number: 187207 Title: Cannabis and the U.S. Controlled Substances Act Journal: Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics Volume: 1 Issue: 1 Dated: 2001 Pages: 95 To 109 Author: Jon Gettman Format: article Publication Date: 2001 Pages: 15 Type: Legislation/policy analysis Origin: United States Language: English Annotation: This analysis of marijuana regulation under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) concludes that marijuana lacks the high potential for abuse required for Schedule I or Schedule II status under the CSA and that the main policy issue is whether to criminalize people who use marijuana medically and not whether marijuana is the best medicine. Abstract: The scheduling of cannabis under the CSA has established legal precedents that determine how scientific findings affect its regulation. However, misunderstanding exists regarding the policy context for assessing marijuana's scheduling under the CSA. Three pervasive fallacies make it seem that marijuana prohibition is the only viable policy outcome. One fallacy is that any indication that marijuana has a potential for dependence justifies its placement in Schedule I. Another fallacy is that marijuana must remain in Schedule I if it has no accepted medical use and is restricted to Schedule II if it does. The third fallacy is that marijuana must remain in Schedule I unless it is proven to provide optimum results compared to other drugs. Recent findings that have established that marijuana lacks the high potential for abuse required for Schedule I or Schedule II status underlie a contemporary effort to reschedule cannabis. Scientific standards provide the best guide to drug control regardless of where they lead in terms of policy outcomes. The analysis concludes that contemporary scientific knowledge does not support the current placement of marijuana in Schedule I as a drug with the highest potential for abuse. 56 references (Author abstract modified) Main Terms: Drug laws Index Terms: Drug dependence ; Drug research ; Federal Code ; Marijuana ; Drug policies ; Drug regulation ; Drug legalization ; Decriminalization ; Drug effects ; Law reform [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by New Mexican on July 03, 2001 at 20:17:45 PT |
| O.K. folks...here's to your 4th of July, and as some have pointed out- what a contradiction- The Brits, our former oppressers' can celebrate the fact that we in the U.S. have diminished the horrors of the War for Independence, by outdoing them many times over. Yes, we can celebrate Englands triumph now, and thankfully, it's something for we Amerikans to be happy about! If they can stand up to Amerikas' brutal, criminal, jack-booted ways, then surely the rest will follow...Canada, Mexico, the rest of Europe, and then South America. Now I know why we've built so many prisons...for the politicians, cops, judges, drug testers, pharmaceuticals, pesticide manufacturers, timber exectutives, media whores, and all those who benefited from the drug war Gravy Train. This weeks' articles from Britain gives me hope and more reasons to get excited about the future of freedom for the world, but not necessarily the U.S. We seem headed for the 'bad apple' role now as the perps will fear retribution and reparations. Any ideas on how to cut to the quick and keep the ball rolling downhill? When decrim looked ineveitable in the 70's, 3 people were said to have turned it around and this is what we have 30 years later. We can't let it happen again, so let's make sure it doesn't. Keep pushing the envelope and 2 years from now, if not 1 year, we will truly have a Fourth of July to Celebrate! [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |