|
|
| Now the Question with Cannabis is a Practical One |
|
Posted by FoM on July 06, 2001 at 17:31:35 PT Lead Article Source: Independent 
The debate about the legislation or decriminalisation of cannabis has moved at such a pace in recent weeks and months that it is no longer a question of if but when. Yet perhaps a more pertinent question is: how? Where would the drug be sold? Who could buy it? Who could sell it? These are practical, not philosophical, questions, and until they are properly addressed, the debate will take place in a vacuum. For its part, the Government, sadly, seems unable to confront the fact that change is in the air. Four years ago, our sister paper, The Independent on Sunday, launched a campaign that helped to break the stalemate and moved the debate on legalising cannabis on to the national agenda. That campaign is now bearing fruit. The creation of a Royal Commission could help to establish the parameters of a change in the law. The latest intervention by Peter Lilley, a beacon for the Tory right – and, more cautiously, by Michael Portillo – is a reminder that the Conservative Party is still capable of causing a stir for the right reasons. Ann Widdecombe's call for "zero tolerance" last year backfired when many of the Shadow Cabinet announced that they themselves had smoked cannabis. Mr Lilley's initiative, by contrast, is in the spirit of the times. The Government, meanwhile, shows its unwillingness to face the inevitability of change by failing even to provide a spokesman to discuss the issue. And yet, any politician who seeks to set his or her face against the trend will be remembered, in this regard, as a latter-day King Canute. The argument that cannabis is a "gateway drug" to harder and more dangerous drugs is still often heard – but is stupefyingly illogical. If a dodgy dealer offers both cannabis and heroin, cannabis may indeed be a gateway to worse things; but if the corner shop that offers cannabis also offers Kit-Kats, lager, and smoky-bacon flavoured crisps (or, as in Holland, coffee and cakes), then the gateway – though perhaps not ideal, in health terms – can hardly be seen as lethal. Despite what some dewy-eyed supporters of change might suggest, that does not mean that decriminalisation or legalisation of cannabis will reduce the overall drugs problem. Legalisation of cannabis will make the problems posed by other drugs neither better nor worse. Nor can health be seen as the key issue. As the Lancet magazine noted: "Moderate indulgence in cannabis has little ill effect on health, and decisions to ban or to legalise cannabis should be based on other considerations." Cannabis is less damaging to health than alcohol or tobacco – though the question of alleged positive benefits remains unclear; research published in the British Medical Journal this week suggests that benefits for pain relief may be overstated. Instead, the main argument in favour of legalising cannabis is dull – that there may be no good reason not to. By the same token, there is little reason to rush helter-skelter towards a change in the law. The Royal Commission would allow us to take the time to get things right – including questions about where the drug could be sold, as well as the importance of "drug-driving" testing. Mo Mowlam, formerly responsible for the Government's drug policy, now advocates reform; senior police officers are equally relaxed. The change introduced in Brixton this week, whereby possession of cannabis is no longer an arrestable offence (a classic British fudge) is only one of many changes yet to come. The question of "whether" is now almost obsolete. The Government must finally focus on the important how-where-and-when questions. What it cannot do is desperately and pointlessly look the other way. Complete Title: Change is in The Air, So Now the Question with Cannabis is a Practical One Source: Independent (UK) Related Articles: Tory Modernisers Move Towards Legalising Cannabis Lilley Calls For Soft Drug Legalisation Mowlam Says Legalisation of Cannabis Could Help Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
|
Comment #9 posted by Mad Scientist on July 07, 2001 at 13:42:43 PT:
|
| There is some hemp cultivation in the UK, the Home Office can grant licenses for cultivation but most of it is experimental, and the restrictions are still pretty strict. The company Hempcore were granted a license after the rules were relaxed in 1993. See the link below for details. UKCIA (The UK Cannabis Internet Activists) is a I think we will get a de facto decriminalisation However, I think legalisation will be harder to He thinks that even decriminalisation would [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #8 posted by FoM on July 07, 2001 at 09:16:25 PT |
| CannabisCrusader I know the Queen grows Hemp for her horses but as far as I know that's about it but I could be wrong. I saw a tv program where she has a few acres of Hemp to make bedding for her stable. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #7 posted by Lehder on July 07, 2001 at 09:08:04 PT |
http://www.lol.shareworld.com/zmag/zarticles.htm
[ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #6 posted by CannabisCrusader on July 07, 2001 at 09:03:10 PT:
|
| I know that the US had a long history of hemp use up until 1937. Does anyone know if the production of hemp is legal in Great Britian? If it isn't does anyone know when it became illegal and why. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #5 posted by kaptinemo on July 07, 2001 at 06:58:19 PT:
|
| I really don't want to take anyone's money. :) But one thing I've learned about this entire matter is that the tables can turn with lightning speed; back in the 1970's it looked like cannabis would be re-legalized here in the States. And look what happened. Some of that was our fault; we figured 'sense and sensibility' would reign, and that we could relax our guard, and not push for the final victory by leaning on the pols. Big mistake: the hysterical, control-freak 'parents movement' end-runned us by badgering ignorant pols and filling their ears with anti scheisse. And we were then doomed to 20 years of an ever increasingly fascist DrugWar. I hope that CNews readers in the UK will take this advice to heart: Don't let up on the pols for one second. Keep hammering away at them. Yes, and point out what a total balls-up cannabis prohibition has been here, where the 'authorities' have had nearly carte blanche (despite their peeing and moaning about Constitutional restraints) for 20 years to prosecute it to the fullest extent. With the pols very vocal support. And all we have to show for it is the world's highest incarceration rate, widespread mistrust of police to the point it's become part of the cultural matrix, scores of dead children (Waco was started because the BATF lied and said that a meth lab was on the premises) and our government about to jump in hip deep in somebody else's civil war. You gotta watch those pols with an eagle eye. (IMHO, Mr. Portillo's barely luke-warm, Jello-soft support for cannabis prohib repeal is an obvious desperation tactic designed to garner votes from people that the Tories wanted to draw-and-quarter 9 months ago. Do you honestly think this particular leopard will keep spraying stain remover on his pelt after he's elected?) But if Great Britain finally goes legal, the game will heat up over here, big time. It's going to be one Hell of a fight. Oh yes, I can hardly wait. Back in November of 1989 I remember being glued to a TV, watching day by day how the Berlin Wall was finally knocked down. Everybody was on the edge of their seats wondering what the big bad Soviets were going to do about it. Well, this feels just like that. Only in this case, the 'heavy' in the story is the big, bad US. If Uncle bows out on this, as the Sovs did in 1989, the game is over. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by Anonymous on July 07, 2001 at 05:22:20 PT |
| Excuse the scatalogical reference, but screw the U.S - British connection. Its takes backseat to the Canadian - British connection. Once Britian goes, Canada will soon follow (I actually thought Canada would go first, but perhaps they're too easily influenced by U.S. hegemony). Once Canada goes, its over in the U.S. for all practical purposes. But I still don't expect any change in U.S. marijuana law even after that happens. The lie is much too large to be admitted. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by dddd on July 06, 2001 at 22:09:35 PT |
| I'm glad I didnt take up the bet with Kap.Cops dont even carry guns in the UK,,and as far as I know,they dont do no knock SWAT raids like here in theland of the sorta free,,,,,,it's kinda like the tables have turned, and we might need to get aboard the Mayflower to escape repression and government tyranny here in the colonies... Strange days indeed,,,,most peculiar mama...
[ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by smileysmiles on July 06, 2001 at 21:40:28 PT |
| I'm from the uk. I'm stoned. I'm happy :) [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by Tim Stone on July 06, 2001 at 20:57:52 PT |
| Cannabis prohibition almost seems to be falling apart in Breat Britain before our internet eyes. The cops are decriminalizing pot use for a trial period in a hot-bed of crime inner-city London area, as a trial project. Much of the major media is coming out in favor of at least _some_ fundamental, once-and-for-all change in cannabis policy. Heck, even many mambers of the Conservative party have come out and admitted, yeah, they smoked pot in their younger years. The only thing blocking fundamental cannabis reform is - as usual - the ruling party, which in this case, is the Labor party, the so-called "liberals" (leaving aside the Liberal party, which may or may not be liberal, but which nobody takes much more seriously than the Monster Raving Loonie party). Britain is one of the U.S.'s most reliable allies in almost all things. If it comes to pass - as actually seems to be happening, shock my read-eyed soul - that public outcry for policy change actually causes the entrenched political interests to give up on cannabis prohibition, it will almost certainly mean that it is just a matter of time before the U.S. also is forced to change its cannabis policy. However, fearless predictions: The U.S. will only be dragged, kicking and screaming, to the international drug policy reform table. And, the U.S. prohibitionists will hold onto cannabis prohibition as long as they can. Only when it becomes an unavoidable choice between losing all of Prohibition or sacrificing cannabis prohibition to protect the rest of drug Prohibition will the prohibitionists finally toss pot-pro overboard in a vain attempt to save the wormy, rotten, leaky storm-tattered hulk of Prohibition. And that will only at best give the prohibitionists another few years of life. When cannabis prohibition goes, drug Prohibition eventually goes. When cannabis prohibition goes in Britain, it's all over for for pot-pro in the U.S., just a matter of time and body count. The always estimable kaptinemo placed a wager a little while back in these readings on the question, if crude memory serves, of which western country would formally can the international treaties and formally legalize cannabis. I think he may well have pegged it. Britain it may well be. Always two measures ahead of the choir, yet still in harmony, eh, keptinemo? :) Tim Stone [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |