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 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) Related Articles: Former Minister Attempts To Legalise Cannabis Spliffs Are Bad For You, It's Official CannabisNews Articles - UK Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
Comment #9 posted by The Offspring on July 20, 2001 at 06:43:00 PT |
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:
|
"Note: Cannabis debate will have no effect."
[ Post Comment ] |
Comment #7 posted by aocp on July 19, 2001 at 19:46:08 PT |
...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 [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #6 posted by MikeEEEEE on July 19, 2001 at 19:03:52 PT |
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 |
...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:
|
From Langston Hughes's poem: What happens to a dream deferred? 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 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:
|
"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."
Conspiracy? Nah, just business as usual... [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #1 posted by Pontifex on July 19, 2001 at 10:59:51 PT:
|
Sounding much like a cynical CannabisNews contributor, Nick Assinder points out the politically obvious. Blair's government requires impossible terms before Downing Street has made the prime minister's Until there is concrete evidence that cannabis is not So they won't touch the current laws until legalizers both Proving that cannabis is not harmful is logically And disproving the "gateway effect" is a catch-22, Make no mistake, some parliamentary backbenchers But then again, perhaps this is just the darkest light [ Post Comment ] |
Post Comment | |