|
|
| Downgrade Cannabis, Says Official Report |
|
Posted by FoM on March 14, 2002 at 10:11:39 PT By Phil Hazlewood, PA News Source: Independent UK 
Medical experts today urged the Governmen to reclassify cannabis in what would be the first relaxation of the British drugs laws for 30 years. In a Home Office–commissioned report, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) recommended that cannabis be reclassified from a class B narcotic to a class C. They said that although cannabis was still harmful, the current classification was "disproportionate" to its risks to health and to other drugs in the same category, such as amphetamines. The Home Office said a decision about whether to adopt the proposals would be made after consideration of a pilot project in Lambeth, south London, and a Home Affairs select committee inquiry into the drugs strategy. Both are expected to report within weeks. The charity DrugScope welcomed the ACMD report as a step towards a more "logical and pragmatic" drugs policy. But Paul Betts, the father of ecstasy victim Leah Betts and now a drugs awareness campaigner, said it was the start of the "slippery slope" towards decriminalisation. The report found that the use of cannabis, which has increased dramatically over the last 20 years, was not associated with major health problems and occasional use only rarely leads to significant problems in healthy people. Experts said the drug's harmful effects were "very substantially less" than those associated with similar use of other class B drugs. However, even occasional use can pose significant dangers for people with heart or circulation problems and for those with mental health disorders such as schizophrenia. But both groups are at much more significant risk from amphetamines, the report stated. The panel said it was not possible to say whether cannabis use led to dependence or a progression to harder drugs. But they said that despite posing fewer risks than alcohol or tobacco use, it was less harmful than other class B substances. The report stated: "The continuing juxtaposition of cannabis, with these more harmful Class B drugs, erroneously (and dangerously) suggests that their harmful effects are equivalent. "The Council therefore recommends the reclassification of all cannabis preparations, to Class C, under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act." Roger Howard, chief executive of DrugScope, said: "It is refreshing to have a Home Secretary who is at last willing to open up the debate on drugs and consider moving towards a more logical and pragmatic drugs policy. "Today the ACMD has provided the hard scientific evidence that backs up the move to reclassify cannabis and we hope the Home Secretary will quickly implement its advice." Mr Howard said he hoped the move would end the prosecution of people found with small amounts of cannabis and rejected claims that it would lead to an increase in drugs use. But Paul Betts said the Government had reneged on its promises to be hard on drugs. "This has just proved they are liars," he told PA News. "This is the start of the slippery slope. They are scared to say it's dangerous." Mr Betts accused the Government of softening their stance on the issue because of financial concerns. "Read between the lines. Why are they doing this? The only thing they're interested in is money. This is a tactical, money–saving exercise. "Eighty per cent of all crime is drug–related. If you take out half that equation, then you're not going to have people arrested, wasting police officers' time or going to court. "When it comes to releasing the crime figures in a few months' time, this is clearly to make the Government and the police look good." The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, commissioned the ACMD to carry out the study in October last year. The ACMD monitors the state of drugs use and misuse in the United Kingdom and was set up under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. The Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman said the Home Secretary had made clear he was "minded" to re–classify cannabis, but no decision had yet been taken. "There are no plans for de–criminalisation or legalisation," the spokesman stressed. Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith attacked plans to downgrade or decriminalise cannabis as an ill–thought out way to tackle a complex issue. Speaking during a visit to Langdon College, a specialist residential college in Salford, Mr Duncan Smith said: "Anybody who knows about the difficulties in communities, about young people who are trying drugs and moving on to harder drugs, knows it is far more complex than that." Source: Independent (UK) Related Articles & Web Site: Drugscope Cannabis is Given Health All Clear Medical Advisers Back Cannabis Reform Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
|
Comment #8 posted by kaptinemo on March 15, 2002 at 07:24:11 PT:
|
| many of you may be interested in viewing the Sheriff Bill Master's interview on C-SPAN yesterday. the link is still available. The entire Master's interview can be had by going here:
http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/ndrive/wj20020314.rm?start=2:01:16&end=2:32:06 You need RealPlayer to run it: http://www.real.com/welcome/postdl.html?src=rpdl [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #7 posted by bruce42 on March 14, 2002 at 17:27:02 PT |
| ...two words you have to consider are "they said". These two words are essential. They indicate that whatever comes after are strictly the author's words, but rather a summation or interperetation of the panel's study. The questions should be did the author chose the comment specifically to confuse the reader, to make an association with more harmful drugs, chose it because it was one of a few statements that cast any positive light, or was the comment simply an odd interperetational/typographic error. Considering the overall nature of the panel's report and the Independent, I would guess that this is just a confusing screw-up. I think overall the article was relatively neutral, and I don't think any implied negativity was the author's intent ... who knows? It wouldn't hurt to ask him, I guess. " "But they said that despite posing FEWER RISKS THAN ALCOHOL OR TOBACCO use, it was LESS HARMFUL than other class B substances." " [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #6 posted by cltrldmg on March 14, 2002 at 16:49:26 PT |
| You can't deny that there can be negative effects of long-term abuse, even if they are very mild. They're putting into context - obviously in an ideal world it's better not to ever take any drugs at all, but pointing out that relative to other drugs, cannabis is less harmful. But that doesn't automatically imply that it should be legal and freely availible. Anyway, it's not very important... " "But they said that despite posing FEWER RISKS THAN ALCOHOL OR TOBACCO use, it was LESS HARMFUL than other class B substances." " If you think about it that sentence doesn't make any logical sense. Maybe it was just typed out wrong? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #5 posted by BGreen on March 14, 2002 at 15:02:04 PT |
| I appreciate your opinion, but I'm not judging the paper, just the words in the article. If you read my post again, you'll notice I even pointed out some of the quotes I elaborated on. If you read the previous two articles posted by FOM, then reread this one, you'll notice a reporter who tried to interject his own prohibitionist viewpoint, regardless of the media outlet in which it was published. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by cltrldmg on March 14, 2002 at 11:54:48 PT |
| They're going to have to legalise. There are dozens of cannabis cafes all over the country just waiting for the class C announcements to open. You're wrong in saying trying to portray the author is a prohibitionist - the Independant is well known for being pro-cannabis and advocating decriminalisation. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by TroutMask on March 14, 2002 at 11:31:18 PT |
| It's getting close to time to invade UK, I guess. Then Canada. Then Australia, then Jamaica...then.... hmmm, something tells me this isn't going to work. ;-) -TM [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by BGreen on March 14, 2002 at 11:11:03 PT |
| "They said that although cannabis was still harmful, the current classification was "disproportionate" to its risks to health and to other drugs in the same category, such as amphetamines." "But they said that despite posing FEWER RISKS THAN ALCOHOL OR TOBACCO use, it was LESS HARMFUL than other class B substances." The author chose a comparison based on the adjectives "fewer" and "less." Both of the comparative statements are perfect reasons why cannabis should be COMPLETELY LEGALIZED IMMEDIATELY! It's the antithesis of the implied meaning the author was presenting. They can't just call it a harmless plant, it has to be bad, just not AS bad as meth. Gee, thanks for putting the prohibitionist spin on an otherwise beautiful occasion. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by MikeEEEEE on March 14, 2002 at 10:56:30 PT |
| "There are no plans for de–criminalisation or legalisation," the spokesman stressed.
Without full legalization there will still be problems. I believe England will be next piece in the wall to drop, any ideas whose next? I hope it's Canada. [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |