Cannabis News Marijuana Policy Project
  Don't Hold Your Breath on Cannabis
Posted by FoM on July 19, 2001 at 10:32:15 PT
By Nick Assinder, BBC News Political Correspondent 
Source: BBC News 

cannabis So a majority of Labour MPs who expressed a preference say they might, under certain circumstances, back moves to decriminalise cannabis. Their views were published as veteran left-winger David Winnick claimed the drug would be decriminalised by the end of this parliament.

And they come against a background of growing opposition to the continuing prohibition of the drug. Many police chiefs want to take the gangster element out of the drugs trade.

Even Michael Portillo suggested he was not wholly convinced of the continuing ban on the use of cannabis.

And, of course, there is the running debate over whether it should be allowed for medicinal use.

No Advantage

It is a live issue and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the public are far more relaxed about the use of cannabis than they may have been even a decade ago.

But there is absolutely no chance this government will give house room to moves towards decriminalisation, or even the creation of a Royal Commission.

There is no political advantage in it and there may be a significant downside.

Home Secretary David Blunkett was recently reported to be open minded over decriminalisation because he said he welcomed a debate on the issue.

His comments were misunderstood. He was simply trying to placate the pro-decriminalisation lobby while, at the same time, offering no promises.

The simple truth is that, irrespective of all the arguments, there is no way this government is going to allow itself to be sidetracked.

It has learned the lesson of the fox hunting fiasco and Section 28 debacle.

They may well have been worthy issues, but they bogged down the legislative programme and were, frankly, more trouble than they were worth.

Smack on the Wrist

Downing Street has made the prime minister's position crystal clear.

Until there is concrete evidence that cannabis is not harmful and is not a "gateway" drug there will be no changes to the current laws.

Individual police forces, like Lambeth, may decide to, in effect, ignore individual possession of the drug.

Frankly, nowadays, you have to be extremely unlucky - or living in a particularly hard-line police authority area - to receive anything other than a slap on the wrist for possessing a small amount of the drug.

Police forces are just too hard pressed to bother with small time dope users.

And this may, ultimately be the way forward - as it has been in many states in the US.

But, while the pro-cannabis lobby may be winning support left, right and centre, it should not runaway with the idea that this government is going to change tack.

Note: Cannabis debate will have no effect.

Source: BBC News (UK Web)
Author: Nick Assinder, BBC News Political Correspondent
Published: Thursday, July 19, 2001
Copyright: 2001 BBC
Website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/
Feedback: http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/

Related Articles:

Former Minister Attempts To Legalise Cannabis
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10345.shtml

Spliffs Are Bad For You, It's Official
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10340.shtml

CannabisNews Articles - UK
http://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=UK


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #9 posted by The Offspring on July 20, 2001 at 06:43:00 PT
Hahaha
Alcohol and Tobbacco are harmful drugs and I will call them "gateway" because they were for me. Cannabis will be legal soon. We have to keep on working towards our goal of Peace.

[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #8 posted by Jose Melendez on July 20, 2001 at 06:08:54 PT:

What says it all...
"Note: Cannabis debate will have no effect."


These are chilling words from BBC News Political Correspondent Nick Assinder. I wonder what he knows privately to make such a public statement, as if it were fact.


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #7 posted by aocp on July 19, 2001 at 19:46:08 PT
This says it all...
...There is no political advantage in it [legal
regulation, rather than leaving such regulation to
organized crime] and there may be a significant
downside.

What could this "downside" be? No more opportunity to
show some huevos and actually take the reins of
cannabis regulation from the criminals [a
responsible lot, if i could ever imagine one, you know?]
and show some social policy ingenuity to the world
through rigidly-enforced cannabis regulation.


[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #6 posted by MikeEEEEE on July 19, 2001 at 19:03:52 PT
Change?
But, while the pro-cannabis lobby may be winning support left, right and centre, it should not runaway with the idea that this government is going to change tack.

Note: Cannabis debate will have no effect.

Change is exactly what they're doing.



[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #5 posted by jAHn on July 19, 2001 at 15:50:42 PT
You know something funny?...
...did anyone read/watch that news story about that train exploding in a tunnel in Baltimore, MD, US?
Thick, FUNKY smoke seeped outta the tunnel and into the surrounding city/town. Residents were asked by the State Gub'n'ment to shut ALL windows and Stay inSIDE!!!

I wonder if citations were handed out by the "Officers" of the State, to the people who DisObeyed?

Probably not, considering the Low Availability of Pol-Folk.

I know this is cynical, but I wonder if anyone died as a result of, instantaneously, inhaling these Toxic Fumes?
hmmmmm... In this Cynical "War on Certain Substances", one can ONLY help by Wondering.


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on July 19, 2001 at 12:06:14 PT:

Beware of 'dreams deferred'
From Langston Hughes's poem:

What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore --
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over-- like a syrupy sweet? Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.

Or does it explode?

Not being there, and not hearing much on our news media about the matter, I am having to make some blind guesses. One of which is that the public over in the UK have had their expectations for change raised by the prospect of a real debate on the subject. But, if what we read here as postings from MAPinc are an accurate representation of the forcefulness of this expectation, the public there is behaving as if legalization was a 'done deal' - and they are, as usual, waiting for the pols to catch on...and catch up.

But what if the pols there don't? If, after all the increased interest and the sentiments that have been expressed in favor of legalization, the pols refuse to act upon it and follow through? What happens then?

They may yet learn the truth of the last line of Mr. Hughes's poem...as the US did during the 1960's. Maybe not as violently, but they will know in the end how dangerous it is to try to stop an idea whose time has come.

[ Post Comment ]

 
Comment #3 posted by observer on July 19, 2001 at 12:00:11 PT
I Say Old Chap
I looked once, twice, thrice ... But still, there was not one little mention of JAIL or INCARCERATION of drug users by government propagandist Nick Acinder. Do you suppose that's an accidental oversight? Nick Assender just happened to forget about mentioning JAIL or PRISON ... i.e. the whole point, the very bone of contention that the people have with governmental policy?

No. This is a calculated propaganda strategy. The JAILING of cannabis users shall not be mentioned. No. That shall be euphemised, instead. Rather than panicking the herd, the uncomprehending, unwashed masses, know BBC government propagandists, it is far better to attack "legalisation" or "decriminalisation". Avoid the issue of jailing people who take cannabis. Paint "decriminalisation" as unleashing horrors upon the land, and curses upon Our little Children.

Just, whatever is done: avoid mentioning PRISON or JAIL. No need to panic the herd.

And that is why it is up to you, good reformers, to not let these facile propaganda lackeys get away with it!

Please --

1) Notice when drug warriors avoid or euphemize the issue of imprisoning cannabis users.

2) Call them on this. Make the prohibitionists justify jail! Don't fall into the trap of justifying "legalization" or "decrim." etc.. No. Don't do that. Instead, put the drug warriors on the defensive. Rub their noses in the very issue they want you to forget: jailing cannabis users. The reason why they studiously avoid the isssue of jailing cannabis takers is the exact same reason you, as a reformer need to stress it. Bring it up. Stress it. Emphasize it. Make drug warriors defend jailing cannabis users. You make prohibitionists go on the defensive, instead of letting them put you on the defense.


[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #2 posted by Jose Melendez on July 19, 2001 at 11:35:29 PT:

concrete "evidence"
"Until there is concrete evidence that cannabis is not harmful and is not a "gateway" drug there will be no changes to the current laws."


From:

http://forests.org/ric/good_wood/alt_dy/bld_hemp.htm#anchor150167


"Instead of cement, Isochanvre combines its treated hurds with natural lime and water to create a lightweight mixture which can be poured into molds, like cement, to harden into walls, or applied with a trowel, with a grainy texture similar to cork."



"(French hemp manufacturers also make ropes, bags, textiles, paints, heating and lubricating oils, pharmaceutical products, animal food and abrasives from the sap, which is rich in silica.)"


OK, it's not exactly what Downing Street meant by "concrete"... :)


I could not find concrete evidence that Cannabis harms anyone's health, lots of stuff showing that tobacco is the real gateway...


Interestingly, I found out that I might have been proven correct about why tobacco health concerns may not be pursued by the same folks who decry Cannabis. Believe it or not, a study shows that premature deaths actually benefit government's bottom line:


From:

http://www.vny.com/cf/news/upidetail.cfm?QID=203299


"...a study commissioned by the nation's largest cigarette seller --
U.S. tobacco giant Philip Morris -- says the negative consequences of
smoking are more than outweighed by the economic benefits to the Prague
government.


The study conducted by the Arthur D. Little consulting agency said tobacco
taxes bolster Czech government coffers with more than $500 million a year.
What's more, the study said, premature deaths caused by smoking-related
illness reduce the government's pension and old-age housing expenses by
about $28 million a year.


The benefits outweigh the $400 million annual price tag for a variety of
smoking-related expenses, such as healthcare costs, worker sick days, lost
income taxes due to deaths, and fires started when smokers fall asleep in
bed. The cost includes the $2 million spent annually to treat babies born
with or who quickly develop smoking-related diseases because of smoking
parents.


"Based on up-to-date, reliable data and consideration of all relevant
contributing factors, the effect of smoking on the public finance budget ...
was positive, estimated at 5.8 billion Czech crowns ($148 million)," the
study said.

Conspiracy? Nah, just business as usual...



[ Post Comment ]
 
Comment #1 posted by Pontifex on July 19, 2001 at 10:59:51 PT:

Sobering dose of reality from the BBC
Sounding much like a cynical CannabisNews
contributor, Nick Assinder points out the politically
obvious.

Blair's government requires impossible terms before
legalization is discussed:

Downing Street has made the prime minister's
position crystal clear.

Until there is concrete evidence that cannabis is not
harmful and is not a "gateway" drug there will be no
changes to the current laws.

So they won't touch the current laws until legalizers both
prove a negative and escape a catch-22.

Proving that cannabis is not harmful is logically
impossible, because you never know if some loser is
going to have the world's first allergic reaction to
cannabis -- thus justifying its status as an illegal
narcotic.

And disproving the "gateway effect" is a catch-22,
because pot smokers will be exposed to harder drugs
as long as pot is illegal, but pot cannot be legalized
while pot smokers are being exposed to harder drugs
(therefore displaying the post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc
"gateway effect").

Make no mistake, some parliamentary backbenchers
may have figured out a way to score votes with this
issue, but those who are actually in power will
stonewall forever. They have too little to gain and too
much to lose.

But then again, perhaps this is just the darkest light
before the dawn?


[ Post Comment ]


  Post Comment
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on July 19, 2001 at 10:32:15