cannabisnews.com: Drug Czar Attacks Cannabis Debate Drug Czar Attacks Cannabis Debate Posted by FoM on August 02, 2001 at 08:38:29 PT Seizures of Class A drugs have risen Source: BBC News Drug czar Keith Hellawell has launched a veiled attack on politicians and public figures saying they have undermined the "clarity" of the official stance on cannabis. The government's outgoing anti-drugs co-ordinator published his third and final annual report on Thursday. Seizures of hard drugs rose by 4% according to figures for 1999, the latest data available, and the number of people dealt with in Britain for supplying Class A drugs jumped more than 17%, according to the report. "We still have a lot to do - but the report shows what can be achieved when we work together to tackle the drugs problem, especially the problem of Class A drugs, the drugs which do most harm," said Mr Hellawell. But he told the BBC that the way the issue of legalisation or decriminalisation of drugs was discussed set a bad example to children. And he criticised those who had tried to elevate cannabis to the top of the drug control agenda when the more serious effects of Class A drugs were at the heart of policy. It was announced in June that 59-year-old Mr Hellawell was being sidelined with a move to a part-time advisory role, focusing on international aspects of drug policy. Drug trend His final report will still be scrutinised for any changes in the government's stand against the decriminalisation of cannabis. Mr Hellawell told BBC Breakfast: "We've got a trend with children being attracted to these substances. "Sometimes some of the debate which suggests we are going to change policy on some of these substances almost encourages them. "Clarity... about the stance on legalisation ought to be endorsed and ought to be supported by some people who don't. "I'm not saying it encourages them but it leaves the door open if people they admire and respect are saying this is an issue you shouldn't worry about." But he added: "Overall, drug use in this country seems to have plateau-ed." Minister's thanks Mr Hellawell was appointed as a US-style anti-drugs co-ordinator after the 1997 general election but has been sidelined since David Blunkett took over as home secretary. But Home Office minister Beverley Hughes gave a public vote of gratitude to Mr Hellawell. "I'd like to place firmly on the record the thanks of David Blunkett for the excellent work Keith Hellawell and his deputy Mike Trace have done over the last three years," she said. They had "played a vital role in setting the foundations for the future and driving forward progress to date", she added. Last month, Mr Blunkett hinted policy could eventually change on the legalisation of cannabis, calling for an "adult, intelligent" debate on the issue. He has already ordered police to concentrate on heroin and crack cocaine dealers rather than cannabis users. Licensed shops The debate on the UK's drug laws was heightened last week when the all-party Commons Home Affairs Select Committee announced it would hold an investigation into decriminalisation of hard and soft drugs this autumn. Police in Brixton, south London, have become the first in the UK to formally "turn a blind eye" to possession of small amounts of cannabis, and now deal with the crime by an official warning rather than arrest. Last month Mo Mowlam, the former head of the government's anti-drugs policy, called for cannabis to be legalised. Other high-profile public figures to have called for decriminalisation include former ambassador to Colombia Keith Morris, former chief inspector of prisons Sir David Ramsbotham and former chief constable of Gwent Francis Wilkinson. Senior Tory Peter Lilley also said cannabis should be sold in licensed shops, in the same way as tobacco or alcohol. Source: BBC News (UK Web)Published: Thursday, August 2, 2001Copyright: 2001 BBCWebsite: http://news.bbc.co.uk/Feedback: http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/Related Articles:Smoke Signal - Salon.comhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10500.shtmlSouth London Pot Smokers Are Hit With Warningshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10308.shtmlCannabisNews Articles - UKhttp://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=UK Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #4 posted by Lehder on August 02, 2001 at 22:53:38 PT DARE to debate. To protect children from drugs? No, to protect you, Asa, from prison for war crimes and treason. My sixteen-year-old niece, despite, DARE, despite the bullshit, says "Drugs should be legal. All drugs." She figured it out for herself, and she's explaining it to her thirteen-year-old sister. Would you care to debate them? I DARE you. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Dan Hillman on August 02, 2001 at 14:35:02 PT First they ignore you... ...then they laugh at you.......then they fight you.......then you win....Looks like we're at stage three. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by kaptinemo on August 02, 2001 at 09:29:02 PT: His Last Hurrah "It was announced in June that 59-year-old Mr Hellawell was being sidelined with a move to a part-time advisory role, focusing on international aspects of drug policy."Hmmmm. So, he's being given the boot. And he's feeling his oats about it. Awwwww, poor bay-bee. Pardon me while I spit.But this is really important. Because it is the first time I have seen an anti, any anti, (albeit, obliquely) admit their fear and horror of a real debate:...he told the BBC that the way the issue of legalisation or decriminalisation of drugs was discussed set a bad example to children. And he criticised those who had tried to elevate cannabis to the top of the drug control agenda when the more serious effects of Class A drugs were at the heart of policy.and"Sometimes some of the debate which suggests we are going to change policy on some of these substances almost encourages them. Clarity... about the stance on legalisation ought to be endorsed and ought to be supported by some people who don't. I'm not saying it encourages them but it leaves the door open if people they admire and respect are saying this is an issue you shouldn't worry about."Okay, let's see if I have this right: Mr Hellawell believes that debate, any debate, is harmful because of the effect this has on impressionable children. Thinking that by speaking about the matter, publicly, openly, in an adult fashion, will 'send the wrong message' to the little kiddies.So, by inference, Mr. Hellawell would prefer to have everyone - most especially reformers - '"Just say No!" to any dialogue at all.In other words, Mr. Hellawell would prefer to maintain the present status quo in which reformers are drowned out by anti propaganda machinery and excluded from public discourse. Machinery Mr. Hellawell and his cronies operate, at considerable profit to themselves. And will do their damndest to continue to continue to control.Exactly like old-style Soviet commissars, they prefer to be the originators of dictated press releases to cowed, silently nodding masses...not the justifiers of policy. Because the moment anyone begins to question them, they get indignant. Especially when those questions bring up doubt about the efficacy of the DrugWar; to do so is the equivalent of standing up and speaking heresy in church; how dare we challenge the Word of G0- uh, oops, I mean "older and wiser heads".Too late. Mr. Hellawell. The debate cat is out of the bag where you've tried to hide and strangle it for years. This particularly powerful djinn is not going back into the bottle by you merely snapping your fingers. The DrugWar is an inarguable mess, a botch, and the peple are tired of the failures being trumpeted as triumphs. The people want change...and are going to have it. And if that means it will be over your politically dead body, then so be it. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Sudaca on August 02, 2001 at 08:55:54 PT chicken or egg surely Mr. Halawell won't get away with his hints that its the open honest debate that is making young people interested in trying drugs. That's so much bullshit it's unbelievable. The right message to children should be shot out of the discussion. Its a stopgap, that catchphrase means nothing! Figure out what messages you wan't to send to children before you start using it as an excuse. Lying, initimidating, moral grandstanding, is all justifiable in order to remain in power; is that the message? [ Post Comment ] Post Comment