My Question for Short Debate, ‘To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to establishing a Royal Commission on the law governing drug use and possession’, has been scheduled for next Wednesday (9 March). It takes place for one hour, starting at about 7.30 p.m. Readers are very welcome to suggest points I should cover.
Thanks. My acquaintance who I may mention since he had a conviction for class 2 cocaine
carrying in about 1998, and who trades even today in the misfortune of cocaine, even attempting to me, and heroine addicts who arrive at his illegal travellers’ site in the forest nearing their last breath, is a vivid example of the way drug dealing is deeply enmeshed in the lives of a great number of people, particularly the 20% of under 21s who are said to have sampled cocaine to no ill effect(???)).
The truth is that the police are indifferent to cocaine traders, saying it is customs and excise matter, and use them as an ear piece to the criminal world and are sometimes involved with them more deeply than that.
In the case of the travellers’ site, there is a CHIS (Covert Human Information Source)who provides information to the police, who are pleased to turn a blind eye to the misdeed of cocaine and drug trading for the sake of easier convictions for theft, shop lifting and so forth that the CHIs offers to them, knowing full well that his partner in crime is a cocaine and class 2 drugs dealer.
This said individual, who discovering that I am teetotaller, of many years standing,suggested that I should be given something more effective, and since I was averse to any toxins damaging my lungs or sinuses(by sniffing, serious damage)should be given something more effective intravenously, which “does no damage at all”. I am averse to the taking of poisons of any sort.
My opinion is, and unlike the CHIS contact in the police, a confirmed JW (Jehovah’s Witness, and a corrupt copper if ever there was one) that the very first intrusion in to the human body, that the NHS requires a signature for,the syringe, is the very first that one should not permit…..
Possible heroine addicts beware!!
Having enquired of a Dean surgeon about this he then demonstrated to me how the syringe should be entered in to the body in EXACTLY the same place EVERY time, in case there became a proliferation of scars which disfigured the wrist, and identified the sufferer as a user!
No damage Dean surgeon! In deed?????
I am in favour of rigorous implementation of existing law with regard to Cocaine, which is, I believe a class 2 drug.
The only campaign viable to a dedicated campaigner who is not a hypocrite about them, is 19thC style Methodist Pledging and Teetotalism.
It is possible that the Russian definition of alcohol does not include Beer, and in my own
case has to include Cider, since my own brew sometimes insists on fermenting, but it is in truth, however drunk people think they get on it, very nearly non-alcoholic in any way, and a liberal supply of Vitamin C at a dark time of the year!
The very sad case of a 16 year old in this area,(say Devon)a few years ago who went to a Pop festival, neophyte in every way, and seduced by the fun and pleasure of cocaine, mis spent her proceeding years, which would have otherwise been well used in going to commercial art college, but now languishes with a swollen nose and dissolved internal nasal membranes, and in possession of a little sachet of the stuff for any buyer who comes in to the café where she does service.
A delightfully pretty girl, turned in a matter of three years from one with great potential to lead a happy life, into one, whose life is dominated by drug addiction and the non-knowledge of the philosophical problems attendant upon it, which are in themselves difficult to set forth clearly.
The noble lord Norton is wise to draw attention to the issues concerned, and to move the Question for next week.
Cocaine destroyed the civilizations of the Incas and Aztecs. We do not want it to destroy ours.
“Cocaine destroyed the civilizations of the Incas and Aztecs. We do not want it to destroy ours.”
This is absolutely hilarious!
Chewing coca leaves helped them deal with altitude-sickness and farm in areas which they were previously unable to reach. I think you’ll find it was the invading Europeans which practically ended their civilisations.
Not to mention the Aztecs didn’t even have access to cocaine; its use was confined to the Andean region of America until, long after the Spanish conquest, plantations were set up in other countries.
The Aztecs did have access to psilocybin mushroom and mescaline-containing peyote, but I think even a cursory glance at a history book will tell you that the Aztecs and Incas both had powerful, wealthy empires that were still expanding, right up to the point when a combination of introduced European diseases and superior Spanish military hardware overwhelmed them.
On the other hand, we might both be responding to a troll here, that comment is possibly too wacky to have been genuinely meant.
“…Cocaine, which is, I believe a class 2 drug.”
The UK has not used a numbered drug class system for several years. Cocaine is class A, for which possession and supply penalties are highest.
“I am in favour of rigorous implementation of existing law with regard to cocaine.
The only campaign viable to a dedicated campaigner who is not a hypocrite about them, is 19thC style Methodist Pledging and Teetotalism.”
Thing is, we’ve tried prohibition. We’ve tried getting everyone to abstain. It doesn’t work for sex education, it didn’t work for alcohol and it isn’t working for other drugs. The prohibition of alcohol in america lead to ruthless organised crime, and fortunately the government repealed it. today’s drug prohibition is no different, there are huge organised crime rings who thrive on drugs money, unaffected by varied levels of prohibition enforcement.
There is a comparatively miniscule business surrounding the alcohol industry because it is regulated by the government.
Lord Norton, I commend you on suggesting such a sensible topic for debate. I was part of a large comment section a while back and glad that you have taken on board points rather than dismiss them out of prejudice.
I think there are several points that should be considered.
– Within the context of the Misuse of Drugs act (MoDA) (that complies with the UN Single Convention 1961) it does not mandate criminalisation of possession or use of ‘drugs’, but serious debate has never taken place regarding alternatives such as decriminalisation or legalisation with regulation, instead the government pander to scare stories in the media to appear ‘tough’.
– To ask if criminalising users actually benefits them in the long and short-term, and if it benefits society as a whole. Prison has been shown to increase rates of recidivism for certain groups and a criminal record can be more damaging than the drugs themselves. In addition it costs a huge amount, around £45k per year per inmate. Of course some people belong there to protect the public, but when using drugs, absent harm to others, why are we spending this much on ineffective measures?!
– To ask if the government thinks that relative harms of current drugs, licit and illicit, are accurate. Alcohol and Tobacco kill thousands each year, Cannabis has never killed anyone, but is a class B drug – do these types of classifications work? Kids find it easier to get hold of Cannabis as ID is never asked for. The ‘messages’ the government send don’t work.
– The best way to prevent drug use? Via rational education or via criminalisation. Studies show that increasing punishment does not effect levels of drug use but increases violence associated with controlling the black-markets as profits increase.
– The best way to reduce the harm to users and society for harmful drug use (addiction)? Does it help to continuously lock up people who are addicted? Why not provide addicts with drugs on the NHS so they can come into contact with health services to try stop abuse drugs. That will hugely reduce acquisitive crime, burden on the CPS, prisons and cost to the taxpayer overall.
– Ask, if presented with new evidence, would the government consider it, sweep it under the carpet or say they don’t ‘believe’ it is the right choice.
– To ascertain if a small increase in drug use if use and possession were no longer criminalised would be a bad thing, both in terms of harm to the user and society as the drugs would be cleaner and safer.
– To ask why people consume psychoactive compounds? Humans have done this since civilisation began, it is only in the last 100 years that we have said that Alcohol, Tobacco and Caffeine are ‘ok’ but all others are bad, evil or unacceptable. Why is this? Why does a government try suppress this instinct in Humans in light of the consequences – would it not be better to try reduce the harm to the users via education and access to cleaner drugs and help for those that need it rather than police knocking down their doors?
– Lastly, why has an impact assessment never been done in regards to current drug policy to compare it to alternatives? It is estimated that the prohibition policy costs ~£17.8bn a year (direct and indirect costs), drugs are purer and more available than when this policy was enacted, we have more addicts/harmful drug use, more crime and only between 1-10% of drugs are stopped from reaching their target market. Why has this never been looked at? If any other policy was only 1% effective it would be destroyed in the media and government… David Cameron actually suggested “as a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into drug misuse in 2002, David Cameron voted in favour of a recommendation that “the Government initiates a discussion within the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways – including the possibility of legalisation and regulation – to tackle the global drugs dilemma”. What new evidence came to light to cause him to change his mind magically when he got in power?
Lord Norton, I thank you for your time, effort and consideration in this urgent matter.
Jake: Excellent material. Many thanks.
Glad to help! Quick question – Will a transcript of the debate be available or made available? Or if the debate will be able to be viewed on the BBC Parliament channel?
Jake: Yes, it will be published in Hansard the following day and you can follow it live on BBC Democracy Live:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/default.stm
It will also be broadcast later on the BBC Parliament Channel.
I am somewhat agnostic on the issue and while my gut instinct is towards decriminalisation on some drugs, I lack the in depth medical knowledge to be sure of my opinions.
However, if a medical body says X is safe (or at least, comparable to other legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco) or indeed, unsafe, and a Government Minister decides to ignore that advice, they should be required to lay out exactly why they disagree with the advice and which medical aspects they have problems with.
While I agree that the decision about what should be decriminalised must remain with the elected politicians, I have found they have a worrying tendency to ignore expert advice for what seems to be political reasons or pandering to the tabloids.
When dealing with medical issues of this nature, I think politicians need to be compelled to explain in detail why they think they are right and the experts are wrong.
At least then we can understand the political thinking behind the decision.
IanVisits: Many thanks. I am not taking stance on what the policy must be but rather that we must address it taking into account the scientific evidence. I agree with you as to the need not to ignore expert advice and that we need a proper, essentially a mature, debate.
Lord Norton
The implication of your last sentence is that you believe that expert advice HAS been ingnored and that the debate that has gone on so vigorously for 15 years or more has not been “mature”.
I must say for someone who claims not to be taking a stance on what policy should be, you seem to slip very easily, by accident or design I do not know, into the language and false memes of the legalisation lobby.
Calls for “mature” debate are absolutely typical of the legalisation lobby who have made no real headway with their arguments, especially in the UK. It is a planted meme used all the time to imply that the matter has not REALLY been discussed properly.
Very far from the truth. There have been numerous parliamentary committees, one even contained a fresh faced David Cameron. (I note though that he has gone on record to acknowledge that the Home Affairs Select Committee of which he was a member, got their view on cannabis wrong). An interesting admission and an eminent change of position. So might a Royal Commission get things wrong.
As to expert evidence being ignored, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is the main advisory body to government. It is simple historical fact, do not take my word for it, check it out yourself, that most advice from the ACMD is accepted by government.
The usual case that people who sound like you, point to, is the reclassification of cannabis debate.
Even there believe it or not, most reccomendations were accepted. On the classification issue itself, so misrepresented by some who have now left the ACMD, the ACMD was itself not unanimous.
It was in effect a marginal call with HMG being cautious and receiving conflicting pressure from the National Director of Mental Health Professor Appleby.
The ACMD is “Advisory” and it is set up by statute to keep the subject of drugs under continual review.
To suggest that there has not been mature debate is very wide of the mark. It is the standard line put out by those heavily financed people who want more debate because they have not got their own way yet. Do not fall for it.
butcombeman: I am quite content to identify problems with both sides of the arument is they appear flawed. I am familiar with the reports and the literature – I have been ploughing through them – but that does not equate to a sustained or engsged debate. I am aware that the recommendations of the advisory council are generally accepted. I have not said otherwise. Of course a Royal Commission could get things wrong – any body can – but it can draw together and assess the evidence in a transpararent manner.
It is difficult to imagine why anyone who has done much basic research should say there has not been a “sustained or engaged debate”. Or even that the debate has not been “transparent”. The debate has in fact RAGED, not just in the UK but in every country, especially the anglophone countries. It has to take place because of the of the heavy finance put into promoting legalisation. Soros and the others want something for their money.
It is enthusiastically carried on everywhere in the broadcast media, the online media and in the dead tree press.
Maybe you only come to this debate late but I assure you it is all out there.
Can I suggest you use a Google alert for the phrase . You should also try doing some boolean searches using similar terms and variants in relation to various named drugs.
butcombeman: I fear the problem is one of concepts. There is a mass of material and lots of argument. You appear to confuse much of this with sustained and informed debate. Your own contributions highlight the point. You rarely offer any empirical evidence but rely primarily on assertion.
butcombeman. Where do you get your claim that the re-legalisation movement are well funded please supply/share this information. again I ask for details of the reports to back up your health claims.
http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/cw_recent/legalization.html
Is broadly accurate on the international history. If the subject interests you you will be able to get collateral for much of what it says from other sources.
In the UK (apart from Soros) some of the funding has come from the Esme Fairburn Foundation and the Countess of Wemyss (Amanda Neidpath). Her husband is allegedly more wealthy than HM The Queen.
Esme Fairburn part funds the single issue drugs legalisation group “Transform” (Others here have provided a link to their website).
Esme Fairburn also fund UKDPC, less overt than Transform but a major player in forming influencing public opinion and Chaired by Baroness Runciman. She has a long history of arguing for liberalisation, especially of cannabis.
Amanda Neidpath founded and funds the “Beckley Foundation”. A noisy pro legalisation/liberalisation proselytysing organisation.
Last year she funded a book “Cannabis. Moving beyond stalemate” or some such similar title. She hawked this book around the world seeking to influence. An expensive business but according to reports she has practically unlimited funds.
She is personally famous for (in her youth) having drilled a hole in her own head. It is said somewhere on the internet she once stood for parliament on a banner of trepanning for all. There are pictures of her and a film of her drilling the hole, available.
Soros has had an effect in the UK. Our one time “Deputy Drug Czar” was Mike Trace (also connected historically with Beckley).
Mike Trace had to resign in disgrace from his new post at the UN when he was exposed as being a “fifth columnist” for the Open Society Institute, a Soros funded organisation.
Soros has also funded pro legalisation, international meetings at Wilton Park the Foreign Office Think Tank. The first of these was attended by Ethan Nadelman of the US Drug Policy Alliance (Soros funded). Nadelman argues for legalisation of everything.
The various pro legalisation groups feed of each other and cross refer to each others papers, thus a paper on Portugal by the pro liberalisation Cato institute was jumped on by fellow travellers around the world.
Even medical journals are not immune from infiltration, even if their readers do not agree.
Editorials are more vulnerable to manipulation than academic papers. Thus the British Medical Journal (Editor Fiona Godlee) has supported the legalisation ideas of Transform.
The Lancet has a chequered history of swinging both ways on cannabis.
Professor Nutt, in 2006, produced an editorial in the Journal of Psychopharmacollogy (Editor D Nutt) suggesting production of a chemical substitute for alcohol, Professor Robin Room (a co author of the Beckley book on cannabis mentioned above, came in later saying (in terms) inventing the substance was not the problem, the problem was the classification system.
Nutt has spent considerable time since then trying to get the classification system changed.
Professor Nutt certainly at one time held very substantial investments in a pharmaceutical company.
He is also associated with the Beckley Foundation.
His tiny group that he started after being sacked from the ACMD, has received substantial city funding.
I should firstly like to thank you, Lord Norton, for bringing this up. My experience in drugs and drug policy spans 36 years, I have only ever been a Cannabis user, I do not use Alcohol, Tobacco or any other drug, prescription or otherwise. I also work within the NHS and recently found myself under arrest after being charged with production of Cannabis and Possession with intent to supply. Last Sunday I was formally charged with production and possession.
Are you aware that the production charge is classed as a trafficking offence? Are you aware of the possible consequences arising from the guidelines recently set by the CPS? Draconian, to say the least. I had 8 plants, with no element of supply how can I be charged with a trafficking offence? I understand the term “production” and even admit it could be appropriate, under the current law. I feel that a distinction needs to be made between commercial supply and none commercial, personal use growers because there are some small scale, personal growers that are losing their house, job and life, for a few plants for personal use, this is making an unjust law even worse.
I think the Drug Equality Alliance has it right, the Misuse of Drugs Act is being maladministered. If you read the 2006 white paper that came from the MoDA review we can clearly see that the use of “Historical and Cultural precedent” is all it comes down to, how can that be?
The only way forward has to be evidenced based and not ideological, as it appears it is now. As a country we have gone backwards, not forwards.
Tom; most interesting post.
I have only ever been a Cannabis user, I do not use Alcohol, Tobacco or any other drug, prescription or otherwise. I also work within the NHS
Who is the criminal, the surgeon who commits professional negligence and malpractice on a patient using anaesthetic poisons, to achieve his aim, or the Cannabis user who grows 7 plants in his garden?
The user or the surgeon?
Ask the solicitor in this local town, about the surgeons. He has any number of cases on his files. Ask yourself about the cannabis.
I understand that all Papaver has narcotic
substances in it. I understand, and I am an amateur mycologist, that “magic Mushrooms” have hallucinogenic properties. Both of these grow wild and in profusion.
NO! NO! NO! the state is not in the least bit concerned with the individual user. (lock him up by all means)
The state wants TAX, and the one traditional way of getting it is from CUSTOMS & EXCISE!
If only those international traffickers paid
their duties! Some of them do, in time to serve.
The foolish game of little sachets secretively proffered in public places, or plants grown in the garden, or the loft, is just that; a foolish game.
You’re not paying Tax on that! If you were down at the pub you would be, or buying alcohol spirits at the off licence…. you would be!
The state is about Statistics.
Sign the pledge! Avoid VAT on alcohol!
The high financial cost of trafficking is surely met by the end user in the long run?
Sign the pledge! Avoid high taxation and penal taxation on ALL DRUGS AND POISONS!
Now let’s talk about garden herbs.
Tom probably has a problem with the use or misuse of drugs and poisons in the NHS, and is wondering about supply chains.
Wonder no more! Grow parsley! It is very good for the gums!
Stop funding junkies .
No more taxes to the debt junkies in government. They only go and spend it on themselves.
When they get caught they investigate themselves and make it a state secret.
Even the UN is short of a practical-philosophy and programme for Individual-Human-Development.
That is quite contrastingly-distinct from their hugely-funded and glossily-propagated Aggregate-Human-Development programmes and Index where by “human development” is scored by Longevity x Knowledge x Wealth (you have to be old, lettered, and a near-millionaire before you can even set foot on the UN-ladder of human-development);
so Britain is by no means alone in not having an Individual-Human-Development composite-model, for every individual in every level and age-bracket of citizen.
Neither is there anything like sufficient prescription of non-pharmacological, and ‘natural’ treatment and management programmes for patients.
Well over 90% of medical-drugs do nothing whatsoever to cure the didease they are prescribed for, they only alleviate pain and/or mask symptoms:
and it is glaringly so that extra-medicational drugs (non-prescribed-and-controlled ‘street’ drugs) not only do nothing to cure unwellness but majorly compound and exacerbate unwellnesses, and often singularly cause them, as well as diminishing the current maintenance of existing states of health, and preventing the long-term building of wellness(es).
Likewise (consequently and subsequently really) there is insufficient regulation and integration of drug-using and drug-carrying into ‘natural’ as distinct from ‘artificial’ lifestyle-models, for individual-human-development, for healthy-life-fulfilment, call it what you will.
I think this street-drugs issue is a cart-before-the-horse one,
just as I think the recognition of human needs & affordable-hows should be pre-ceding human-rights (namely rights to satisfy those needs using those agreed affordable-hows), and should not, cuckoo’s-egg-like, pre-empt and replace it]
and just as debating should not replace public-comprehension stages nor any discussion-stage.
Governments still ‘permissively’ over-allow smoking for instance, for the revenue it provides, into the Treasury from which in turn parliamentarians and civil-servants get paid as much as 30% more than the open-employment-market would ever pay them, for doing the same work.
————
If you want both a healthier and ‘cleverer’ British population you have to minimise artificiality, and maximise ‘non-pharmacological’ naturality.
2947W020111.JSDM
I have grave concerns. My two elder daughters both of whom are into the rave, dubstep, dance scene do not, afaik, take any form of drug except alcohol. However all the young men and some girls they mix with do, it is prevelent. During the past few months they appear to have become easier to obtain.
With the possible loss of 10,000 police officers and cuts to other necessary authorities I am concerned the problem will escalate further.
I tend to lean more toward prohibition than legalisation but can see at present there are many problems and the battle is not being won. Drug deaths are increasing, from 2008 at 1,952 to 2,182 in 2009.
http://www.sgul.ac.uk/media/latest-news/drug-related-deaths-in-the-uk-continue-to-rise
I firmly disagree with people that say it’s my body I should be able to take what I wish. It does affect a miriad of others not just themselves.
However I have to balance this with legalised drugs such as tobacco and alcohol. Alcohol deaths in 2009 were 8,664.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1091
There is however a large difference in the fact that a teenager taking alcohol is unlikey to die from it’s effects straight away.
“The annual cost of alcohol-related crime and public disorder has been estimated at £7.3bn, the cost to employers has been put at £6.4bn.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3537257.stm
Because of the kits available to grow marijuana, younger 12-13 year olds are starting on this road earlier. Hydroponics enables growers easily to home grow.
http://growingmarijuanaindoors.com/
Legal drugs, herbal highs, are also easier to get hold of now it appears everytime one is outlawed a clever chemist alters the recipe to something new which is legal.
http://www.herbalhighs.com/
The Government of Great Britain is bound by the UN Convention but this convention appears to be either underfunded, and that problem will grow in the current climate, or we need to look at independent advice on a way forward.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to look a drug user in the eye, being a prohibitionist, whilst Government condones cheap alcohol and alcohol related crime/illness. Not to mention tobacco.
Some of the pro-drug lobby may mention the fact that America is behind the prohibition, this may or may not be so. It is a fact however that American tobacco whilst being outcast in it’s own realm has picked up and is pushing further profits in the middle east and third world countries, which is being allowed by the US government.
A Royal Commission at this present time is I feel a necessity rather than something we’d like. I should like the Commission to take into consideration all drugs which would include alcohol and tobacco.
I am as concerned with the amount of alcohol my daughters consume as I am the amount of times they are offered drugs.
Carl.H: Many thanks. You make some very pertinent points and I tend to share your views regarding alcohol. I am not opposed to a broad study of drugs, including tobacco and alcohol.
“There is however a large difference in the fact that a teenager taking alcohol is unlikey to die from it’s effects straight away.”
This comment simply highlights the ignorance that drug prohibition has created over the past 40 years.
Alcohol poisoning kills around 500 under-18’s every year. It’s far more toxic than most of the “controlled” drugs and has degenerative effects on several vital organs.
End prohibition and the inherent ignorance that comes with it.
Please supply a link verifying the 500 deaths. nearest I can find:
The alcopops generation are drinking themselves to death, latest figures show.
Drink-related deaths among 15 to 34-year-olds have increased by almost 60 per cent since 1991. The Office for National Statistics (ONS), which published the figures yesterday, said 198 men and 89 women in this age group died from alcohol poisoning or cirrhosis of the liver in 2004
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/big-rise-in-number-of-young-people-killed-by-heavy-drinking-437506.html
I can’t find the article from which I obtained that statistic.
However, it is possible for anyone to die from consuming a bottle of vodka (about £9 from the local supermarket) and it’s difficult to even get a hit off any banned substance for that amount of money. Making it much easier for a young person to die from alcohol consumption than any other recreational substance.
The Therapeutic Ratio of cannabis (ED50:LD50) is 1:40000. The Therapeutic Ratio of alcohol is 1:10. Cannabis is one of the least toxic therapeutically active substances known to man.
“I firmly disagree with people that say it’s my body I should be able to take what I wish. It does affect a miriad of others not just themselves.”
Out of interest, Carl.H: who should get to tell us what we can’t do to ourselves? The Police? Politicians? People like you? Or, more sensibly, experts in this particular field?
I’m quite familiar with this topic so I’ll offer some quick points that I hope may be of use.
– This month is, appropriately, the 50th anniversary of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.
– May will see the 40th anniversary of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, yet to see an impact assessment.
– Police/judiciary/prison cuts.
– July sees the 10th anniversary of Portugal’s decriminalisation policy which has worked well. (see http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/07/21/bjc.azq038.abstract)
– The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health recently submitted his report in favour of decriminalisation, and looking into legal regulation of some drugs.
– LibDem policy has long been to establish this kind of commission
– I’ve been told that, for various reasons, an impact assessment is a better framework for this than a royal commission
– Perhaps this could be legislated through an amendment to the Police etc. Bill? 😉
– High profile calls for change/reviews in the last year have come from Bob Ainsworth, David Nutt, Nicholas Green, Ian Gilmore, the BMJ, former Spanish & Latin American Presidents, the Vienna Declaration, Tim Hollis, Roger Pertwee etc….
– Even the Sci/Tech Committee said that the classification system isn’t fit for purpose.
A review, in my mind, could cover: the classification system, the exclusion of alcohol and tobacco, the aims of drug policy, ways of measuring success, financial costs, unintended consequences (locally and internationally), ‘liberty’ (and the certain harms of criminal records / prison), comparison to other areas of life (fizzy drinks? horse riding?), evidence from around the world and detailed (quantitative?) consideration of other large-scale policy options. In short, the efficacy, cost-effectiveness and side-effects of supply reduction, harm reduction, medical/social treatment, deterrence and education.
If in some areas there is no evidence to review, then a commission should recommend ways to rectify this, so we can be assured that taxpayers’ money is not going to schemes that could be un- or even counterproductive. (And if the cost of the review itself is raised, I’d say that – if pushed to this extreme – an anonymous donation scheme could certainly cover this)
Best of luck! I’d hope that a look into the evidence on what works and into cost-effectiveness could be supported by all!
@adam: Many thanks indeed. This is extremely helpful. I was planning to draw on the fact that this is a useful year, in term of anniversaries, to pursue the issue.
I have to put on the record that my previous post above re Tom should be italicized. The quote is Tom’s quote. —Twm O’r Nant!
Are you aware that the production charge is classed as a trafficking offence?
There must be so many money laundries about on every high street which are there to make contrived coffee bar losses on huge trafficked drug profits, that Tom’s charge can only be dealt with as a trafficking charge.
The same principle does apply after all, that the State cannot get it hands upon the trafficked drugs profits, except by seizing the product.
If it gets the street, the profits are made, and it must be very disappointing to other
tax payers to see huge losses and huge NON-taxable profits not being taxed!
It must be ahuge incentive to others not to pay their taxes, to evade them in such a way.
MY noble Lord Norton! THAT is the nub of the matter. TAXATION!
As if the state is concerned with Health! the old argument of tax on tobacco, being far, far more concerned with the tax than the ill health caused to its users!!!!!
Can I suggest having a look around the following web pages –
http://drugequality.org/
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blueprint%20download.htm
http://ukcia.org/wordpress/?p=657
http://www.drugscience.org.uk/
Many thanks for asking for information, knowledge is the answer and it is a sign of maturity to request and search for it prior to acting.
Highest regards.
Phil: Many thanks for these links – much appreciated.
I have smoked cannabis for nearly 20 years with no ill effects other than occasional apathy whilst stoned. I have a degree in biochemistry and a masters degree in toxicology so I consider myself qualified to read, understand and make a judgement on the health risks based on the available scientific literature. Broadly speaking I am happy that cannabis is effectively ‘safe’ and that any harm I am doing to myself is likely to come from tobacco which I occasionally smoke with it.
There is too much mis-information surrounding cannabis that is taken as fact by both the media and politicians. Namely:
– cannabis causes schizophrenia. Actually, no link has ever been proven. Rather a higher proportion of schizophrenics have smoked cannabis than ‘normal’ people. Does this mean cannabis causes it, or that people with mental issues are more likely to turn to drugs as a coping mechanism? I would suggest the latter. Other studies claim you double the chance of developing psychosis (which itself is ill-defined) – but even if this is the case, the risk is still very very small – >99% of the population need never worry about it.
– cannabis is much stronger than it used to be. Again, not really true. There has definitely been a shift to UK-grown herbal cannabis which is typically stronger than the imported resin of the 90s, but then the latter is mainly unknown possibly toxic adulterants anyway! Even if herbal cannabis is stronger than it used to be, this ultimately means you need smoke less of it = less inhaled carcinogens which can only be a good thing. I mean who goes to the pub and drinks pints of vodka rather than lager?
– ‘skunk’ is some genetically modified super weed that is somehow worse than the good old hippy weed that politicians smoked when they were at university etc. Well skunk is basically just good old selective breeding at work, just like humans have practised with food crops for centuries. The pressure of unregulated commercial growing does mean that crops tend to be harvested as early as possible leading to higher THC:CBD ratios, there is some evidence to suggest that CBD counters some of the negative effects (anxiety/paranoia etc) some users experience with high THC cannabis. But then if you have to buy cannabis form criminal gangs rather than a licensed supplier with strictly determined levels of THC/CBD there isn’t much we can do here.
The whole prohibition thing is ultimately just a laughable excuse for a policy, well it would be if people weren’t criminalised because of it. Regardless of whether the proportion of cannabis users go up or down a bit each year, or whatever the classification, millions of people still smoke it in the UK. In 20 years I have never had so much as a caution or anything confiscated etc, I couldn’t care less what arbitrary letter the government assigns it. So what does the current policy achieve?
– money in the hands of criminal gangs
– adulterants added to cannabis to make it weight more (glass, hairspray etc)
– criminalising users for doing something that harms no-one else
– limits medical use & research
– a load of hysteria and no rational debate
Good luck anyway, I very much doubt anything will change in the foreseeable future but you never know.
I suppose my first question would be why are we still following the failed policy of prohibition but, despite all evidence, it seems drugs available to anyone of any age on any street corner means prohibition is working.
So, I would ask why the government sacks scientists for explaining to the public how bad our drugs policy is when drugs policy is meant to be science based?
Why is cannabis still a schedule one drug when the government are allowing it to be prescribed as a tincture, Sativex?
Finally I’d ask why the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister think anyone should obey a law they have admitted to ignoring?
On a personal note I might also be tempted to ask if the UK government will support the private spiritual use of cannabis under HR law as the Italian Government has?
Hope there was something useful amongst those.
Paul Fatnhill
You ask:
“Why is cannabis still a schedule one drug when the government are allowing it to be prescribed as a tincture, Sativex?”
Many even most maybe, of the proscribed drugs have medicinal uses when used in the treatment of illness by a clinician.
In the UK diamorphine is legal & used in the treatment of pain.
There is no contradiction. Agree with it or not, the law is proscribing the sale & use of some substances for what is called “recreational purposes”.
Use is irrelevant in substance classification. A substance either has medical benefits or it does not.
The contradiction lies in Sativex being classified as having medical value, while a cannabis tincture produced by anyone else is not.
Either can be used recreationally if desired, that is not the point. The point is that a generic cannabis tincture and Sativex are classified differently while being pharmacologically identical.
Butcombeman:
The MODA says nothing about ‘recreational’ purposes, ‘legitimate’ purposes, ‘medical’ or ‘scientific’ reasons.
It is solely about *outcomes*, i.e. limiting the *social harms* occasioned by the *misuse* of *harmful drugs*. This is to be done by first designating harmful drugs as controlled, and then *either* restricting their availability *or* making the arrangements for their supply according to which protects society the best per evidence. Period. That is the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Similar concepts you repeat such as ‘legal’ drugs, and ‘illegal’ drugs, are also absent from the Act because they do not exists except in the minds of politicians. The *words* make the law. The law contains none of the nomenclature you blithely use.
First, construe the law. I suggest the very first act of any commission should be to compare the actual MODA with government policy. The truth will then out as to what the law mandates.
Hint: the law is *not* a reflection of Government policy.
E Stratton, if my understanding is correct, I was, in actual fact, following the MODA, there was no social harm, there was no misuse or abuse.
My use of Cannabis has always been appropriate, my ten year old son didn’t even know his father smoked Cannabis, until N. Wales police knocked on my door.
Now the children in our primary school know what the word Cannabis means, and the children in the secondary school as well. Probably not helped by N. Wales police leaving plants on the pavement on a main road, despite my protestations.
In every other way I am a law abiding individual who has helped the community many many times.
I would like to know how the government is going to handle the downgrade of Sativex to schedule 4 from schedule 1.
If Cannabis has no medicinal value then how can Sativex be considered legitimate? It is, after all, a tincture, complete with both THC and CBD compounds, as well as the other 400 odd constituent compounds that is in Cannabis.
Sadly Tom they’ve made their mind up.
They use the word “believe” quite often in justifying it aswell. They “believe” sativex has medicinal value whereas Cannabis does not.
http://public.blu.livefilestore.com/y1py15m5LFGlGoRwS3kIFSPDsdNbcC5ynIQh4b_ND9AkqmB5eC8O2ZE1FX8LeUB_ahn0pAsSoZelRi_F_UOhBy8Pw/sativex1%20%281%29.jpg?psid=1
The English MPs have to remember aswell that English laws are also enforced in Northern Ireland, because of prohibition here the goverment have put millions upon millions of pounds into the hands of terrorist groups here ,namley the IRA . Its got that bad here aswell that most people cannot even get real cannabis as it is all being contaminated to add weight to make more money causing even more health problems than cannabis its self . I contacted my local MP here to find out why there was no ads on tv or in news papers telling people about the dangers of contaminated cannabis / soap bar . He was given a list of the deadly chemicals that have been found in this contaminated cannabis . And his reply was ” As a devout christian i belive cannabis to be dangerous ,addictive and destroys familys and i would never agree to the legalisation of cannabis for any reason ” I did not mention making cannabis legal once in the email i sent him , i just asked where the education was that the goverment has been talking about and i got ignored and sent a pre wrote response that did not answer my questions . How does being a devout christian have anyting to do with drug laws ? That is the kind of thinking we are up against in NI but i belive its worse in England where MPs dont even respond . When the IRA sell cannabis where do you think part of that cash goes ? Ill tell you , buying bullets, guns and parts for bombs to kill innocent people and the PSNI . Its about time our goverment in England take into account Northern Ireland when deciding drug laws as there are factors here they do not consider because they do not have terrorist groups like the IRA in strong numbers in England . It just seems strange to me how MPs seem to agree with criminals and terrorists where cannabis is concerned , that it should remain illegal gifting control to them . The goverment will say cannabis is a controlled drug , how is it controlled when its in the hands of criminals and terrorists . David Nutt stood up and told the truth and for his efforts he was publicly humiliated and sacked from his job as head of the ACMD because MPs didnt agree with him . That was a disgrace, he is owed a formal public apology from our MPs and should be offered his position back as head of the ACMD as an MP is not qualified to say he is right or wrong , thats why he was employed in the first place.And does David Cameron even know what cannabis is as i dont think he does from the way he talks about it and the propaganda ,inaccurate facts and the way he insists on scaring people into not using cannabis, when he talks about cannabis from what he says it makes him sound like he got his information on the subject of a 5 year old child !! Everybody knows children shouldnt be able to get any drugs but under the current drug laws it is now easier for a child to get cannabis than tobacco or alcohol as they need ID for the legal drugs . What photographic ID does a drug dealer ask for ? He is not looking to see your photo he just wants to see the queens face on the paper you are holding . I can remember David Cameron saying years ago that our drug laws had failed to protect us and they needed to be looked at and changed . What happened when he took power ? NOTHING . I think he is more interrested in pleasing big business in the UK than helping the people he is employed to protect . Our drug laws should be based on proven facts , scientific evidence / advice , an from information that has been realised from other nations that have delt with drugs in different manners . And how does the schengen agreement work aswell ? From the information i recived of the home office it more or less says that if a British citzen and say a Dutch citzen where standing beside each other in the UK possesing or smoking cannabis the police will arrest the British citzen and if the Dutch citzen produces his/ her percription from their GP in their home country and some other documents from the British goverment they will walk free while the UK citzen will probably end up with a criminal record. Is this not a case of British citzens becoming second class citzens in our own country ? Our whole drug policy is an out dated disgrace and England is the laughing stock of the developed world for its leaders back word views on the way they handle drugs . Our MPs need to get with the times or leave office as they have wasted billions of pounds and have nothing to show for it .
A lot of people seem confused by terms.
Decriminalisation means simply the removal of CRIMINAL LAW sanctions for use, it would not necessarily mean OTHER forms of sanctions against use, including fines or other NON CRIMINAL SANCTIONS. It might even not exclude compulsory treatment.
Decriminalisation is not legalisation, it does not mean that production and sale would be legal.
Legalisation means, in most discussion, something like the tobacco/alcohol model which has brought such personal & social harm to the world.
Both decriminalisation and legalisation would further the aims of the well financed drug legalisation lobby. Both to a greater or lesser degree would continue the process of normalising drug use, which has been going on in the UK since the late 50s/early 60s and which is a deep cultural issue (like tobacco & alcohol use).
Those who call for a Royal Commission do so in my experience, because they cannot get their way at the ballot box (drug legalisers do very badly at elections), they are usually, almost invariably, well disposed to decriminalisation and legalisation. Decriminalisation being seen by these people as a small step towards legalisation.
They hope to succeed with a Royal Commission by stuffing the assembly with their sympathisers, by providing the secretariat and by using the enormous wealth of the legalisation lobby (George Soros finances it worldwide) to overwhelm objections and flood the evidence process.
What a Royal Commission would NOT do, would be to consider the views of the silent majority of parents, grandparents, partners, employers and friends, of those in danger from drugs use and who do not believe that further normalisation of damaging drugs use (including the legal drugs) would be good for society.
A Royal Commission would be an expensive waste of money and energy. Much better spent investing in prevention of drug use (including the legal drugs) and treating addicts properly to help them free of addiction.
There have been liberalisation efforts elsewhere in the world, Alaska and Sweden come to mind, maybe others. In both places public opinion swung massively against what those places experienced.
The Netherlands has for years had a “toleration” policy in respect of cannabis, currently the Dutch are asking questions about that and reducing the “coffeee shop” outlets.
The manifest harm to young people from cannabis is troubling them just as it has been troubling in the UK.
The Netherlands toleration policy led to that country becoming an entrepot state for drug traficking and manufacturing, with at one stage the highest drugs related murder rate and the highest amount of serious drugs realted crime in Europe.
Overall in terms of TOTAL personal and social harm in the UK,that from cannabis is only exceeded by alcohol & tobacco. It is simply an issue of prevalence.
Taking any steps at all that might increase prevalence is full of great risk. Anything that makes, or is danger of making, the drug using culture worse, will cause great harm.
Plainly, on the history, there is ample scope for more use of any currently illegal drug. How much more can/should, society tolerate?
As things are, thousands suffer intellectual impairment and mental trouble, even diagnosable mental illness from cannabis. The prisons are full of those said to be mentally ill, cannabis and other drugs and alcohol use, playing a large part.
Be careful what you wish for.
butcombeman: The adavantage of a Royal Commission would be that it could actually put the sort of unsubstantiated claims you make to the test. I am conscious I speak only for myself and would never claim to be able to speak for ‘the silent majority’, or for the people or for all right-minded people, mainly because this is a formula typically used by someone wanting to bolster arguments for which they are not able to mobilise empirical support. I have not been able to find evidence for your comparative points and your points about a Royal Commission prejudge the situation.
Lord Norton & Jake
There is nothing really contentious in anything I said, it is just part of the history. It is simple fact of the history that the legalisation lobby worldwide is THE most well financed international lobby in history. It is easily established by a moments Googling and from authouritative sources.
The issue of Soros funding the World wide legalisation effort is out there. He does not deny it. He even writes about it in “Soros on Soros”.
In the UK there are other substantial funders, the Esmee Fairburn Foundation and Amanda Neidpath (Countess Wemyss) with a few other wealthy individuals are at the heart of it. Again, uncontroversial, matters of public record. Neidpath advertises the fact, and it is in the EF accounts.
Incidentally, the answer to the question of Royal Commission is not much
butcombeman: ‘It is just part of history.’ You have not presented any history.
Your debate comes near.
In addition to the various parliamentary groups that have looked at drugs, you should also look at the Police Foundation Review of a few years ago (Often called the Runciman Review).
There are aspects of it that I would not agree with and the committee was selecetd and largly packed with people favourably disposed to liberalisation. (Jenkins, Nutt, even Runciman herself, are examples).
To suggest as you appear to, that there has been no “mature” debate is utterly wide of the mark. I am remain absolutely perplexed as to why any sensible person after a few minutes of research, could say that.
Agree with the Runciman Review or not, are these people not “sensible”? Did they not set about their task “seriously”? Were the witnesses and those who spoke the the HASC and other groups not serious and sensible?
Have the ACMD, with their regular changes of membership, not considered the matters seriously-over many years?
I can predict the response you will get from government, as can you if you have done your basic research.
They will say that the standing statutory committee of the ACMD does the job.
As well for the pot apologist here to remember, the ACMD, even with their hero Professor Nutt as a member, did not give cannabis a clean bill of health.
I have not presented MUCH history. I have presented some.
I WANT you, desperately, to do DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. I want you to NOT ADOPT THE LANGUAGE OF THE LEGALISATION lobby. I want you, in short, to think for yourself.
I want you to think about OUTCOMES, I want YOU to think about where society is headed should, all drug use, legal and illegal, increase in volume.
I want you tho think about what the net benefits of your Royal Commision might be and what the disdvantages might be.
I want you to do effective research YOURSELF, not to rely on others, even me.
I want you to recognise the powerful persausion that has been operated against you by the legalisation lobby and whose messages you have adopted.
I want you to take your position as a legislator very seriously indeed.
butcombeman: You are merely continuing the same approach, adding nothing of your own to the debate, but proceeding on the basis that because you have reached conclusions from your own research that others engaging in research will necessarily reach the same conclusions. I am not in favour of legalisation or leaving things as they are. I am in favour of reviewing a situation that is demonstrably problematic.
LOrd Norton
(and Peter Reynolds who challenges what I say)
I suggest you both read this, especially you Lord Norton:
http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/cw_recent/legalization.html
It is broadly accurate, it details the history, it explains what is really going on.
Peter Reynolds must know this surely? He has been involved in his argument for 30 years or so. The fact that he attempts to supress and deny this information is deeply sinister.
butcombeman: I have read the link. I now appreciate why you refer to what is on the Internet but tend not to supply links.
@butcomberman
There are several issues of your comment that I would like to discuss.
– “the enormous wealth of the legalisation lobby” and “stuffing the assembly with their sympathisers”. First, although George Soros is in favour of legalisation of possession/use/production etc. I don’t know where you get that he has been flooding the pro-reform group with money. For prop19 in the states he gave $1m late in the campaign, similar levels were raised by the Alcohol industry for the ‘No’ campaign. If anyone in this debate has “enormous wealth” it is the government and the agencies they fund through tax pounds to ‘fight drugs’.
– “consider the views of the silent majority of parents, grandparents…”. Firstly, if the evidence says that their views are wrong and actually causing more harm, objectively, would you support their views or the evidence? This is an emotive issue which unfortunately emotion, opinions and belief constantly override the best science and fact. Also, “those in danger from drug use”.. i.e. children, only need to produce money to get drugs, unlike A&T which you need ID. The drugs they do get can be cut with anything as the government believes that allowing criminals to adulterate the substances is a form of ‘control’ and even boast at how much more dangerous they make drug taking as a sign of success! That is wrong. If a child bought Alcohol that had glass shards in it, you bet there would be an investigation, prosecutions for the brewer, seller etc. Put glass beads to add weight in Cannabis and that is ‘success’..
– The Netherlands toleration policy is a half measure, and with all half measures there will always be problems. For more considered approaches just look at Portugal, who after 10 years of decriminalising possession and use of ALL drugs have lowered rates of addiction and blood borne infections and increased rates of recovery. But even this is a half measure, and there is room for improvement – at least they furthered the debate and now lead Europe in this issue whilst we lag behind with draconian policies, and for the record, their policy enjoys public support.
– You can die from an Alcohol or Tobacco or even a Caffeine overdose but it is nearly impossible to overdose on Cannabis, that is why there have never been any fatalities cause directly by the substance itself. Liver damage from alcohol, lung cancer from tobacco etc. are also the silent killers. Cannabis does not have to be smoked (it can be eaten) and in that case there is no evidence that shows it causes damage in the same way as A&T, in fact research shows that it even prevents some cancers. So it is not only down to prevelance that A&T cause more harm.
– Why does an increase in “prevalence” equate to a bad thing in your eyes. If people were taking cleaner drugs in accurate quantatites there would be less harm, some people would shift away fom alcohol and tobacco reducing the harms there. The people who will expereince problems with drugs have easy access to Alochol and prescription drugs, plus a lot of the times, even easier access to ‘illegal’ ones, but instead of wasting billions of pounds finding them, putting them through the courts and then jailing them, we could send them straight to medical care (at a lower cost) where they could seek help. You must accept that Humans like to alter their consciousness with chemicals, have done since before civilisation began and will do until it ends. There has never been a ‘drug-free world’ and NEVER will be. We have to accept this to be able to move on.
– “better spent investing in prevention of drug use”. Currently, prohibition costs us taxpayers around £17.8bn a year. Now that is money WASTED that could be spent on education, prevention and treatment. Prohibition has not worked in eliminating these drugs, reducing their use or the harms they cause. Do you not think it is at least acceptable that we even consider alternatives at the cost of a commission or impact assessment??
I am careful what I wish for and I wish for a sane and adult approach to drugs, one where we don’t put money in the hands of gangsters so they can put dirty drugs in the hands of our children…
My son aged 21, reading law at the University of Birmingham lived with my wife and I at home with his siblings. He was a passenger in a car that was stopped by the police and was found to have some cannabis in his pocket.
He was cautioned by the police. My wife and I knew nothing about this.
Six months later he was found dead in his student lodgings from an overdose of heroin.
I think that if the police had told my wife and I about his caution, or if he had been prosecuted, he might be alive today.
Please look at the web site of the National Drug Prevention Alliance, http://www.drugprevent.org.uk
which I think has a very sane approach to “the law governing drug use and possession”
G Davies: I was sorry to hear about your loss but I regret I fail to follow the line of argument. The most powerful weapon against drugs is education. The law appears to make little difference to someone determined to take drugs. The challenge is to rid them of the desire.
A terrible tragedy G Davies.
Lord Norton
The line of argument is that drugs damage and kill people. The argument is on all fours with my earlier remarks about normalisation of use and the drugs culture.
This has been going on a long time and has got much worse in the last 15 years, precisely the period during which the legalisation lobby has been so active and well financed.
Of course correlation does not amount to causation but it would be very difficult not to conclude that when important people at the center of public life and when Newspapers like the Independent on Sunday argue for legalisation (since retracted-they also admit to getting it wrong) that this sort of discussion does not have some effect on the views of impresssionable teenagers and the prevailing using culture.
You say the most powerful weapon is education, there is some truth in that but simply telling youngsters drugs are harmful is plainly not enough so your suggestion is simplistic in the extreme.
Teaching young people facts about drugs cannot prevail against a culture dominated by use and discussion about use and about legalisation (for cannabis or evn anythingh and evrything). If it did, no one would smoke tobacco. No one would drink alcohol to excess.
You say that the law seems to make little difference, presumably you have evidence? It certainly used to have more effect than it currently does. Ask yourself why.
As for your, “the challenge is to rid them of the desire”, well yes maybe, the best way is to make drugs uncool, to affect the culture around use.
Plainly, since the culture has indisputably got much worse in the last 15 years to the point that even fairly adult individuals will put so called “plant food” or “bath salts” into their body in search of their kicks, we have some way to go. Why are people doing that now when they did not do it 20 years ago?
Would your “Royal Commission” with the inevitable strident lobbying from the legalisation lobby, affect the culture for better, or for worse?
Have you thought through what you are trying to do?
A rebuttable presumption of law is that every sane man intends the consequences of his actions.
Lord Norton
Another point I neglected to mention in nrealtion to G Davies’ tragic tale.
Although some argue for “decriminalisation” (and I have explained what that means in another post), the involvement of the Criminal Justice system in getting addicts into treatment for the first time should not be ignored.
Even in the 60s, many addicts first got seen by ANY clinician in relation to their drug use, because they had fallen into the CJ system by being picked up by the Police, even from the gutter.
Portugal often gets misrepresented. Addicts fall into the CJ system and get taken to a Police Station thence to a treatment panel.
That can happen in the UK through a drug court system. It is important to understand that if drugs were decriminalised in the UK the Police would have no powers to arrest.
It is a sad fact of life that the CJ system and particularly the Police, ends up picking up the pieces. There would be greater hazards if it was removed.
UK law is differrent to Portugal. No one can be compelled to attend a Police Station here except by arrest.
The involvement of the CJ system in catching addicts and getting them to treatment is therefore highly desireable.
@butcombeman
” Why are people doing that now when they did not do it 20 years ago?”. Actually, 20 years ago people were still taking drugs, drug taking is not a new Human experience (which you seem to acknowledge in a later comment). What changed is that the law criminalised one drug so people who wanted a similar effect turned to another drug. Criminalise MDMA and people go back to Cocaine. Cocaine purity goes down and people take Mephedrone. Criminalise Mephedrone and people take another, thats criminalised and another pops up. Can you not see that the underlying factor here is that people want to take drugs, and they actually want to do so in the safest manner possible. That is why when Mephedrone hadn’t yet been criminalised you could get it at 99.9% purity, Cocaine use dropped. People aren’t all stupid and will take the safer route if it is provided.
All criminalising this behaviour does is push more and more dangerous and untested compounds into the hands of people who want to use drugs and away from drugs that have proven levels of safe use.
You seem to accept that people use drugs, but instead of taking a pragmatic view on how to make this safe as possible and reduce the number of users through education, think that putting this whole industry in the hands of gangsters is the best solution??
Do you think that any society (or the world) would ever be able to completely get rid of ‘drugs’? If the answer is ‘no’ you have to accept the most compassionate view towards users. This doesn’t necessarily mean legalisation (With regulation) but prohibition has demonstratably failed! We should at least discuss an alternative!! What are you afraid of a RC saying if you are right?
One more thing – Regarding normalisation, I advise reading Transform’s Blueprint for regulation http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blueprint%20download.htm so see what a regulated market would look like. Note, no advertising, no flashy packaging, just boring medical-type containers. That would do little to normalise drug use, unlike the £800m the Alcohol industry spends, and is allowed to do so under law, on advertising… each year! Currently illicit drugs have such a bad name just because of their status it would be a lot harder to ‘noramlise’ them (without advertising/packaging as mentioned), even if their use/production were legal. We should concentrate on de-normalising the worst two, Alochol and Tobacco…
Rid them of the desire, hmmm. If I choose to take Cannabis, as opposed to Alcohol, who are you to deny me that right?
I agree education is essential, if you look at the government efforts over the last four decades is it any wonder the youth ignore them? They have been so far off the mark when it comes to facts.
The fact is Cannabis is available, you will not get rid of it, accept that and then go forward and do the only thing that any person in their right mind would, control it properly, instead of tightening up and punishing people even more.
For growing 8 plants I may well lose my job and my house, how can that be seen as ‘right’ by anyone?
I have had the older generation in my village tell me how intrinsically wrong what we are going through is, they feel the law is wrong, that from people in their 60’s, I think that says a lot.
The government is morally bankrupt.
I am glad this discussion is taking place but I place no expectations on it whatsoever.
Tom
Society only functions because individuals obey rules/taboos and laws designed in the wider interests of the whole community.
You are of course as free to argue for the freedom to use cannabis personally as I am to argue against you having that right in the wider health interstes of a healthy society.
Choosing to break the rules and laws you disagree with is a decidely selfish act.
Just like the motorist who drives at 100 mph, it may not damage him but it may damage someone else.
If you cannot do the time, do not do the crime.
butcombeman, I resent you telling me I am selfish, you have no right to say that as you have no idea what the background is with me, I have a clean license, I have committed no other crimes in my life. I had a back injury from a parachute accident, [2nd Parachute Regiment].
How many tours of duty have you done may I ask? [4 N.I. and 1 in Belize]
Lost any members of family whilst on active serving duty? [my cousin at Warren point, 1979].
You, with all due respect, are the type that thinks he can preach and use failed ideology on others.
Although I would also fight for your right to say what you think.
How exactly does smoking home grown cannabis in your own home harm others?
Your analogy is simple but incredibly flawed, driving at 100mph clearly carries a risk of harming others. Personally ingesting cannabis grown properly at home does not. Do not attempt to conflate all illegal actions.
We’d agree that drug education is critical, but not sufficient, to help prevent harms that are associated with drug use.
What you might find interesting is that according to research published by the Department for Education over 60% of schools choose to teach drug education once or less a year. (http://bit.ly/gTdWcj)
You may also have seen that Graham Allen in his recent review of early intervention found that schools are all too often developing their own curricula rather than using programmes that have an evidence base. (http://bit.ly/haCt19)
But can this be a surprise when, during a period (2008 to 2010)in which the overall budget for delivering the drug strategy rose by 2%, the amount spent on education fell by over 25%. (http://bit.ly/f8dPPg)
Andrew
One of the odd things I established through research, is that some messages being put out by County Drug Advisors are equivocal about drug use, the message being that use is inevitable. Plainly untrue.
Of course many of those advisors nowadays will have used and abused drugs themselves.
This message I find troubling not just because it is untrue but because culture is created or affected by such messages. Such messages normalise use.
I would argue that changing the culture is partly about expectations built into the messages.
I’d be interested in seeing that research. As you say drug use is not the norm, most young people don’t use drugs, and we need to be clear about what the norms are.
Looking at the evidence from national surveys (http://bit.ly/ezaa3V) most young people don’t take that message from the school drug education they do experience. Over 90% of young people who can recall having drug education in the last year report that drug education helped them think about the risks associated with drug taking, and nearly 80% say it helped them avoid taking drugs.
My worry is that less than 60% can recall having those lessons.
Andrew Brown: That’s extremely helpful. Many thanks.
Lord Norton,
Thank you once more for your impartial work on this subject. Many points have been covered so I’ll keep this as succinct as possible.
– The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (MoDA1971) is currently being misinterpreted by the present and consecutive Governments. The Misuse of Drugs Act is mandated to be evidence based, and under constant scientific review. In recent years & events, science has been wilfully disengaged from the debate. We are now governed on opinion based policy.
If you read the MoDA1971, you’ll notice that it is A) a control on human action and NOT the drugs themselves. B) The first thing you’ll read in the MoDA1971 is the clause to regulate drugs supply; (under Section 1) –
“(2) (a) for restricting the availability of such drugs or supervising the arrangements for their supply.” – We have had enough evidence to at least debate the actions of arrangement of supply, but no dialogue is ever granted. The MoDA1971 is not a tool for prohibition, and it is not a subject dealing in “legal and illegal drugs”, this is where the discussion breaks down.
– With regards to cannabis specifically, the MoDA1971 clause to regulate it’s supply has substantial evidence to confirm current policy has failed catastrophically and perpetuates the compounded problem. A summary of cannabis:
– It gifts an estimated £6billion on profits to organised crime, arms dealers, human traffickers. This is bread and butter money now, and a fairly safe source of revenue for hard-line criminality. The police have no way of tackling this issue and many senior officers have spoken on how futile cannabis and current law is.
– Children are readily getting hold of cannabis; in some cases dealing in cannabis. This is an outright reflection of how bad the current situation is, the law has fully lost control.
-Quality control, cannabis is now harmful at street level due to hastily harvested cannabis with incorrect balance of cannabinoids, hard drugs cut in, glass, metal, etc etc. This is a result of prohibition.
Lastly, a brief mention of medicinal cannabis use.
– The Government have denied medicinal cannabis use in the UK saying “it is of no medical value and harmful.” This directly conflicts with what the Prime Minister has recently stated in his online interview. Mr Cameron said that it was for science to determine medical policy. I have the Home Office letters to confirm this is sincerely not the case and that the Government have decided policy. To spare you the logistics, the Government’s message of “no medical value & harms” is distorting the point and negates to mention the harms of prohibition over the pure and safer source.
My point; why have “legal high” users been decriminalised under the new laws of judicial reprisal – the Government stating that “criminalising young people has no societal benefit” – and yet long term disabled and sick are still facing prosecution. Not to mention, the families of medicinal users who also face law’s reprisal.
I can pre-empt the answers that you’ll receive to all of my points Lord Norton unfortunately, I would even hazard a guess to which Lords will say what. I digress, forgive me.
Lord Norton, to conclude:
Please read this letter –
http://homegrownoutlaw.blogspot.com/2011/02/pm-mp.html
Please view the BBC piece that I was in from 1.20mins in and until Professor Nutt speaks:
http://homegrownoutlaw.blogspot.com/2011/02/excuse-my-narcissism.html
And a video on cannabis law and how affecting it is on all society:
http://homegrownoutlaw.blogspot.com/2010/11/cannabis-law-doesnt-effect-you-sure.html
Thank you very much Lord Norton. If I can add anything else or be of assistance I’ll only be too pleased.
Yours respectfully, Jason.
Other studies claim you double the chance of developing psychosis (which itself is ill-defined) – but even if this is the case, the risk is still very very small – >99% of the population need never worry about it.
======================
I’ve seen first hand psychosis caused by over use of cannabis by one person. Pretty severe.
However, I’ve known lots of cannabis users with no problems.
Other drugs, such as heroin etc, I’ve known people who’ve killed themselves as a result of taking.
Personally, I would rather people didn’t take drugs,but its their choice.
You didnt see first hand psychosis caused by Cannabis. You seen first hand the development of psychosis. Hos do you know that cannabis was the direct cause of psychosis and not a predisposition to the condition that would have otherwise developed.
Correlation does not prove causation.
LB
“Correlation does not prove causation”.
Yes one of the pot-head memes and standard lines of argument. You may have noticed I used it here before you. Maybe not.
The first intimation that tobacco caused lung cancer was around 1929, forty to fifty years later, even when it was plain to any educated person that there was a link with lung and other cancers, smokers and ex smokers were still in a state of denial.
Some still are, standard line (as they cough in the morning) “it never did me any harm”. We have all met them.
The link between cannabis and mental illness was thoroughly spelt out in the 1997 World Health Organisation, paper on cannabis, since that date, the evidence has only increased.
There are close parrallels with the denials about tobacco.
The question that is hardly researched or discussed, is the case of cannabis and the unborn child.
Alcohol certainly has an effect on the foetus, it is highly probable that cannnabis does. After all cannabis is psychoactive and it crosses the placenta. Just WHY would it not affect the devloping brain if it affects the teenage brain. Indeed why would the effects not be even more dangerous?
I conclude pushing for further normalisation of cannabis is highly risky and unwise.
@butcombeman
You have an extraordinary,delusional confidence in your assertions when so many of them are fundamentally wrong.
The idea that the anti-prohibition movement is well funded is nonsense. Soros may have donated $1 Million to Proposition 19 but, on cananbis alone, every year many millions go into studies that set out to prove it dangerous while hardly anything is invested into its medicinal benefits.
Cannabis is a psychoactive substance so it would be surprising if it did not have an effect on the brain. Most research on the cannabis/psychosis myth simply proves that it produces “incidence psychosis”, in other words transient symptoms which scientists may define as psychotic but which areexactly teh effects sought by thoss who use it. In other words, cannabis gets you stoned.
Putting cannabis “research” into perspective: http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/putting-cannabis-research-into-perspective/
Peter
You seem to have been having your own personal “war for cannabis” for a very long time. I am obliged to you for the link elsewhere to the recent Cameron video, I had not yet looked at that, in my in tray.
My point stands about Cameron being among a long line of people who have changed their mind on cannabis, especially in the last few years as much more has become known.
Rosie Boycott the original author of the Independent On Sunday legalise cannabis campaign is one such. The Independent on Sunday has itself changed it’s policy and said it got it wrong. Les Iversen who seems to be something of a hero to some here, seems also to have changed his view and has been dismissive of his friend Professor Nutt.
The toxicity of cannabis is not now in doubt (though when you started camapigning it was maybe not so clear). Cameron was correct.
A moments googling found me this:
Chronic toxicology of cannabis.
Reece AS.
Medical School, University of Queensland, Highgate Hill, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug worldwide. As societies reconsider the legal status of cannabis, policy makers and clinicians require sound knowledge of the acute and chronic effects of cannabis. This review focuses on the latter.
METHODS: A systematic review of Medline, PubMed, PsychInfo, and Google Scholar using the search terms “cannabis,” “marijuana,” “marihuana,” “toxicity,” “complications,” and “mechanisms” identified 5,198 papers. This list was screened by hand, and papers describing mechanisms and those published in more recent years were chosen preferentially for inclusion in this review.
FINDINGS: There is evidence of psychiatric, respiratory, cardiovascular, and bone toxicity associated with chronic cannabis use. Cannabis has now been implicated in the etiology of many major long-term psychiatric conditions including depression, anxiety, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and an amotivational state. Respiratory conditions linked with cannabis include reduced lung density, lung cysts, and chronic bronchitis. Cannabis has been linked in a dose-dependent manner with elevated rates of myocardial infarction and cardiac arrythmias. It is known to affect bone metabolism and also has teratogenic effects on the developing brain following perinatal exposure. Cannabis has been linked to cancers at eight sites, including children after in utero maternal exposure, and multiple molecular pathways to oncogenesis exist.
CONCLUSION: Chronic cannabis use is associated with psychiatric, respiratory, cardiovascular, and bone effects. It also has oncogenic, teratogenic, and mutagenic effects all of which depend upon dose and duration of use.
PMID: 19586351 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
**************************
As cannabis use has increased, the teratogenic effects have worried me most. There could be a time bomb here.
@Butcombeman
Maybe the toxicity of cannabis is quite the LD value it was once thought. What you have to way up is the relative toxicity. The relative harms etc.
Frankly there are millions or regular cannabis users in britain toaay if the link to psychosis were that strong we’d all walking around talking to walls.
The FACT of the matter is. We all pay tax, all have jobs and are all contributing to society. So why are we punished in such an extreme way. Esp those that choose to cultivate plants. 14yrs for a single plant. Is that realistic? What is the social and finacial benefit to the state for doing that. it costs 10’s of thousands per annum to keep these non violent citizens locked up who would otherwise be valued members of the community.
Its just wrong. Lets regulate it, tax it and start making some money from it. instead of wasting billions losing a “war” on some citizens
The comparisons you draw with tobacco are flawed. Research into the dangers of tobacco took this long in part due to the scientific progress which was needed in those fifty years to prove the dangers. We have those 50 years of advancement now and still these harms you speak of have not been proven.
Tobacco and cannabis are completely distinct substances and making such comparisons is at best infantile and at worst grossly irresponsible.
It seems an inevitable consequence that as soon as we relinquish control of any drug we actually make them more dangerous. I remember James Brokenshaw proudly declaring that cocaine seizures had risen in the last year and that cocaine purity in some instances was less than 5%. What he failed to mention was that some of the remaining 95% was made up of some pretty dangerous substances some linked to Cancer.Therefore as a direct consequence of Government action the drug had become more dangerous for users.
Drug policy seems to be the only Government policy that has not been put under an impact assessment review. This is not surprising as I would suggest that Politicians know that Drug Policy is not based on science or even an attempt at reducing harm (as evidenced by the affect on cocaine) but on some sort of idealogical belief that some drug use is morally wrong and others not. How else can one explain the acceptance of alcohol in our society yet users of say cannabis a fr less ahrmfulk drug are discriminated against and criminalised. This madness must stop it costs us billions each year to enforce these morals and we increase the harm to our citizens by persuing it
Drugs and their where abouts are not my forte. However, it sprang to mind that surely somewhere on this planet of ours there has to be a country that doesn’t have this problem. And couldn’t we find out from them why they don’t and we do?.
If that is not a possibility why is it we can’t find out, with all our scientific know how, why our population has such a longing to be out of their tree a good deal of the time. To the point where they are willing to allow themselves to go mad from use, or, kill themselves in the process.
Suicide by slow death.
The US drug rate is even higher than ours. Now, could it be associated with rampant capitalism? Or, some other jarring Western penchant?
From what I have read on heroine, it used to be given by a daily prescription freely. And the count for addicts at the time was around three hundred and steady. As soon as that was taken away, the drug habit became rampant. Could that be because dealers and those who make hundreds of millions from it had an interest once it was no longer freely available.
Additionally, since our involvement in Afghanistan, the amount of heroine has risen dramatically. Co-incidence. I don’t think so. Someone is making a lot of money and who is it?
Maude
You say:
“From what I have read on heroine, it used to be given by a daily prescription freely. And the count for addicts at the time was around three hundred and steady. As soon as that was taken away, the drug habit became rampant. Could that be because dealers and those who make hundreds of millions from it had an interest once it was no longer freely available”.
There is a widespread misunderstanding about what you describe. This was the “British System” allowing prescriptions by any Doctor to registered addicts. It has existed in one from or another since the the 1920s Rolleston Committee.
The system was much curtailed at the end of the 60s because of corrupt overprescribing by some Doctors feeding into the criminal market.
Henceforward and currently, Doctors have to have a special licence. Of those that have the licence, there is not a great deal of enthusiasm for sustained prescribing.
The number of REGISTERED addicts at the end of the 60s was higher than you describe but it is important to understand that REGISTERED addicts did not represent the only users.
A moments thought will tell you that first time users did not tend to go Doctors and ask for heroin.
There was a parallel criminal market.
Now you link the (partial) abandonment of the British System to the substatial rise in addiction and heroin addiction of the 70s and later. There is no evidence at all that
the two events are really linked.
The heroin of the 60s was provided by ethnic Chinese. Number 3 and Number 4 Chinese heroin.
In the 70s a new supply arose from Iran with many Iranians coming to London around the time of the fall of the Shah. Iran had (and still has) a huge heroin/opiate addiction problem.
The Iranian emigrants brought their heroin and introduced a generation brought up on smoking pot to smoking heroin. The Iranians mixed more easily with the British population and transferred their habit. Some brought heroin just to move assets to Britain.
To the 60s and early 70s generation of Brits who had smoked pot, smoking heroin was non threatening, far easier to contemplate than sticking a needle in the body, a new wave of addicts arose from this hedomism and an era of poly substance abuse was born.
Dear Lord Norton,
The failure of drugs policy in the UK is directly attributable to the failure to recognise that substance addiction of all types is not a physical illness subject to medical “treatment”.
Knowing full well the effect which drugs can have on a person’s life, the decision or agreement by an individual to use an addictive substance is taken in the hope that such a substance can provide a solution for some current situation viewed as a problem.
Not just to handle pain, insomnia or anxiety, but also relationships, lack of friends and personal considerations, etc. It matters only that the individual (and perhaps no one else) sees his or her situation as a problem, and doesn’t recognise that in deciding to use drugs, he or she is also handing the decision-making in their lives to the drug and its suppliers.
Eighty percent of established users seek abstinence, and this is achieved, NOT by trying to TREAT their solution, but by TRAINING them in self-help techniques which enable them to regain their own decision-making ability and control over their own lives.
Whilst “treatment” claims to succeed in only 3 to 25% of cases, do-it-for-yourself TRAINING enables 60 to 84% of addicts to achieve a lasting return to the natural state of relaxed abstinence into which 99% of the population is born.
More than 169 addiction recovery training centres (including prison units) in 43 countries have for 45 years been increasingly providing these results, but this methodology has been resisted in the U.K. by the nationwide power of the DoH and NHS who, although they do not cure addiction themselves, nevertheless go on fostering the appearance of doing so by insisting on commissioning rehabilitation from psycho-medical “treatment” providers.
A VALID QUESTION IS THEREFORE:
“As the present monopoly of rehabilitation services by the DoH, NHS and NTA can in no way be justified by their appalling paucity of results over the last 60 years, is it not high time for the government to withdraw financial support from that area and instead start funding the TRAINING of addicted individuals in do-it-for-yourself techniques for their personal withdrawal and lasting recovery, especially as there is more than adequate proof – albeit suppressed by health sector vested interests – that such self-help training is clearly the key to salvaging the major part of the addicted population”
It should also be noted that any Royal Commission comprised of so-called experts in psychiatry, pharmacology, neurology and medicine is merely going to reflect the failing status quo of the last 6 decades and thus again push for medical treatment and so-called “harm reduction” and “habit management” as “the continuing answer to drugs.
I trust this helps, and remain, yours sincerely,
Kenneth Eckersley, C.E.O Addiction Recovery Training Services, a not-for-profit community support organisation. (01342) 810151.
writingrongs: Many thanks for that.
Maude – if you want to see a country where drug use is low and where the majority of youth regard using as losing visit Sweden.
To say that only 1% of users get into problematic use is short sighted. It is still a minority of people who use drugs – 1% of a small number of users is a small number – but if drugs are legalised that 1%
will be much larger. Looking only at the problems the user experiences is unbalanced -there are knock on effects to family and friends which cannot be easily measured in economic terms or in misery. The good Lord must ensure he spends time talking to parents of drug users as well as so-called experts with entrenched pro-legalisation opinions. Spend some time with those who have fought the illness of addiction via 12-step fellowships – these are the real experts. AdaptableAnn
Ann Stoker: But how do you stop them becoming addicts in the first place?
Lord Norton
“How do you stop them becoming addicts”|?
You take steps to change the culture, you do not aggravate the drug using culture.
Drug use , legal or illegal will always be with us. Plainly, on the history, it does not have to be as bad as it is now, in respect of legal or ilegal drugs.
In the UK tobacco use is down through a cultural change which has been reinforced by use of laws.
Those who promote legalisation and normalisation of all possible substances that humans might conceivably want to put into their bodies, (as what they say is a sensible measure), are guilty of affecting the culture simply because there is an imprssionable group of 12 year olds along every year.
It is this promotion of drugs that is at the heart of changes in the using culture and the astonishing lowering of “age of first use” that has taken place.
Note though that tobacco use is UP elsewhere.
The local culture affecting tobacco and alcohol harms worldwide is part of the evidence base for my arguments.
In the last round I produced evidence to state tobacco use in the young in the uk was up. That still stands.
Tobacco use has not changed so much through culture but through price and taxation. It is a difficult one to measure as a lot is now illegally imported, some has been proven not the genuine article and dangerous. The same can be said for alcohol.
By raising prices Government then have to deal with illegality. The same will occur in cases if the Government choose to supply drugs which through legality will not be available 24/7 as dealers are. Dealers would still buy legal and mix with other substances for profit purposes. We can see this done in a legitimate sense in things like Mars bars whose recipe was changed to maximise profits. Dealers are only working on business practice. The same was done in China with dog food where it was mixed with a cheaper poison resulting in lots of Anerican dogs suffering and dying.
I have yet to see a proposal that will enable safe supply at lower prices than dealers where it will not be corrupted or stolen by said dealers.
I would not be happy with a situation as happens with alcohol that a younger child will be able to say to an addict of legal age, get me 4 tabs of e and an eighth.
From a policing perspective at present the concept of arresting 13-16 olds smoking weed is wasteful as they have not the resources though they know where and when this is happening. Nor is it worthwhile as the punishment is far less than the time and effort put into the offence.
If not legalised then the consequences of drug taking in terms of law have to rise. However jailing drug users does not appear to work either as it appears readily available in prison.
Carl
You say:
“Tobacco use has not changed so much through culture but through price and taxation”.
The evidence is surely against you. Tobacco use in ABC1s (those who can most easily afford it) is way down. Plain fact, a lower %age of educated people smoke than less well educated people.
Of course I agree cost is an influencing factor and does cause many to give up their adiction. I doubt cost has much influence on young people starting smoking.
The growth of resistance to tobacco smoking in well educated people, is one of the reasons the tobacco companies are targetting less well educated people in third world countries.
butcombeman: I am all for changing the culture, which is my basic point. The law so far has not achieved that. Should we therefore consider alternatives? If the alternatives are worse or no better than the existing situation, then we may need to stick with the status quo. But we should at least look at the alternatives, not least what has been tried elsewhere, including Portgual.
I was led to believe you did not have an opinion or a destination?
Portugal has supposedly decriminalised but a rosy picture has been presented based on one flawed study by the Cato institute.
You will be able to find that. If you look hard you will find other arguments about Portugal.
If the objective is to reduce the harm from drugs, decriminalisation offers the UK nothing we cannot achieve under the present regime. Although the heavy criminal penalties remain in our legislation they are hardly applied. A caution for many incidences of use being the order of the day.
I am really intrigued by your position on a Royal Commission, intrigued as to what are your drivers.
I accept that you come only recently to the debate and that you are still researching but the fact that you have so readily adopted the memes and arguments of the legalisation lobby troubles me.
I would have expected someone, especially a legislator, arguing for a Royal Commission to have done their research already.
Elsewhere you crticise me for offering assertions, well some of what I say IS I agree, assertions, but you will be able to tell that I know this subject intimately. I am just a historian telling you something about the history.
I get a little bored with keep explaining all this to those who come late to it and think in a sudden rush to the head that they can cut through all the difficulty on this complex policy area where others have failed.
I did not set out to persuade you of anything other than that your calls for a Royal Commission might do more harm than good and would waste resources.
I rarely find an open mind. You claimed to have one but that is not so. Otherwise you would not be arguing for MATURE DEBATE as if there had not been one-for years.
Some things I have said require a moments thought and common sense to appreciate. The reason I am not prepared to engage in a detailed argument with you now, is that I perceived (it turns out correctly) your mind was already made up before you posted here.
You want an answer about a Royal Commission and you intend to get one. I wanted to flush you from cover, I appear to have done that.
I also think you need to do your own research, you will not accept it from me. I am trying to point out to you that you have already dropped into and adopted the legalisation arguments, mantras and memes.
Despite your saying you do not have solutions, you have already been convinced and when pushed, have dropped into solution mode.
I do not mean any disrespect. Your position is typical. This is one of the most complex social problems facing society. There ARE no easy answers and the money behind the legalisation lobby skews the arguments and affects even very intelligent people, just as it is designed to do.
I shall watch your short debate with interest.
butcombeman: “but you will be able to tell that I know this subject intimately.” Er, no, because you provide little evidence to that effect. Simply telling people to research a subject is not evidence of knowledge of a subject, as if googling a subject will provide great enlightenment.
“Some things I have said require a moments thought and common sense to appreciate.” Why? You primarily make claims which do not add greatly to the sum of human knowledge. There are other contributors to this string who have provided more reasoned argument and more empirical support for their claims.
@Ann: Your point is taken and yes, it is a complex and very difficult situation for those who are caught up in it.
What is it then about the Swedish lifestyle that seems to discourage the need for drugs? Should it be adopted by the UK? Can it be adopted by the UK or is it down to genetics of the Swedish people not being of the addictive persuasion?
Has anyone made a study of this? Or, are too many people making a living off of this predicament and therefore not being willing to shine some alternative light on it?.
All of these claims and counter claims, by either side, are irrelevant.
Cannabis use is rife in this country, fact. It is here no matter what the law or government say.
The fact that people are being turned into criminals is wrong and morally bankrupt.
It should be treated as a health issue, like the more dangerous drugs, Alcohol & Tobacco are.
Cannabis use IS treated as a public health issue. It was the public (largely mental) health problem that swayed the argument about cannabis classification.
It was the National Director of Mental Health and other academics like Professor Murray, who swung the argument
“How do you stop people becoming addicts in the first place?”
Please see the prevention research in this charity’s submission to the Drug Strategy at:
http://www.addictiontoday.org/files/drug-strategy-consultation-2010-arf-response.pdf
For some facts about the dangers of legalisation (consolidated by more recent research), go to:
http://www.addictiontoday.org/addictiontoday/2008/05/cannabis-the-fa.html
pit@mac.com
People are not made into criminals by the law. They choose to be criminals by deciding to break the law.
It isn’t the law which makes a thief, a rapist, a speeding driver or a murderer into a criminal, it is the decision of the individual to do something known to be illegal which makes him or her into a criminal.
Using addictive substances is a criminal act for very sound reasons, including the danger of injury to both the user and others.
Drug usage does not start off as a health issue. It starts because an individual hopes that a known addictive substance will provide a solution to a situation he considers to be a problem.
After a period of time, continuous or increasing usage can make it into a health problem for which an addict then needs medical attention. But getting off any addictive substance has been proved by the NHS’s failed attempts over the last 60 years as NOT a subject for the application of medical “treatment”.
Getting off can only be achieved by an addict being TRAINED to change his original decision to use and thus regain control over his life.
Recovery is a do-it-for-yourself activity because life is. Getting on to drugs in the first place was also a do-it-for-yourself decision.
C.E.O. Addiction Recovery Training Services.
@writingrongs
So misguided, let me quote Martin Luther King Jr. for you regarding ‘law’:
“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”
Just becuase something is ‘law’ doesn’t mean it is the best or correct way of dealing with something. Drug use itself is different to theft, rape or murder as there is no victim other than yourself (and if you commit any of those aformentioned crimes whilst under the influence the law will still convict you!).
The majority of people who use drugs, any drugs – yes including Alochol and Tobacco, do so without problems. But I guess a system which pealises, criminalises and degrades the most vulnerable in our society is the best for ensuring the bottom line is maximised for the CEO’s of recovery services companies…
Lord Norton, I must first commend you on having the courage to raise this issue when so many of the commons display nought but cowardice towards it. This is why the issue should be dealt with by an independent body, away from the popularity contest that comes around every few years.
Secondly, I believe it’s time to make Britain Great again by leading the way towards the end of the futile, American-led, War on Drugs. They showed the world that alcohol prohibition didn’t work and they’ve proved prohibition of other drugs doesn’t work either. Yet we still throw billions of pounds at it every year.
The only problems with drugs are abuse and addiction. Criminalisation of all users doesn’t prevent either of these problems and creates many more problems for people who wouldn’t normally be affected by the drugs alone.
We’ve seen too many innocent victims in this war against people. If we could adopt a sensible, evidence-based drug policy; the whole world would be a better place for it.
We have systems in place with which to control two of the most dangerous drugs (although, I do think there needs to be more restrictions around pricing and promotion of alcohol); it’s time to bring all drugs in to line with those already regulated.
Finally, we need to see a more rounded educational policy towards drugs. Simply teaching abstinence is incredibly dangerous. If we practised this idea towards road safety: there’d be a lot of dead pedestrians out there. People need to be made aware of the potential harms involved so they can make their own decisions based on the facts and evidence.
When it comes to my health: I make informed, not enforced choices.
Good luck! I hope you put those cowards in their place
BB
You say:
“People need to be made aware of the potential harms involved so they can make their own decisions based on the facts and evidence”.
Can anyone NOT be aware of the potential for harm of all the drugs, legal or illegal?
Have some facts about drugs been hidden?
There has certaianly been some spinning FOR some drugs, especially cannabis. Thankfully that has largely been overcome now and the harms are better understood.
Your statement smacks of the plainly flawed (because it failed) educational policy of “informed choice”.
It is also plainly fact, that many people, especially the young, do not make sensible personal or social choices.
So just teaching people ABOUT drugs (or any other personal or sociual hazard eg unwanted pregnancy, STDs, or driving too fast,) is not enough.
The cost of these, the bad personal & social effects of drugs included, is carried, in our society, by us all. The harm from drugs is not just to the selfish user, it is also to those around the user, the parents, siblings, the employer, society.
If I am going to have to pay for the consequences of your thoughtless & selfish habit, I am certainly going to have a view about you doing it. Society is surely going to have a view on facilitating your habits trying to discourage them by various means or make you resonsible for the costs & consequences.
I think the following phrase applies to you:
Go get a clue before you knock what I do!
Seriously, you need to educate yourself before you try to teach others.
BB
Sorry. I was not meaning you were necessarily a drug user, my “you” was directed anyone at large who wants the freedom to personally use or do any illegal act without considering the responsibility to others affected.
I’ve read some of your other comments and I see you’re what is known as a ‘Troll’.
I’ve laid out the facts for Lord Norton and I hope he takes note of them. As for you: you need to throw off those blinkers and try looking at the bigger picture.
My final point is this:
Any policy which creates more problems than it set out to solve is a BAD policy. End of argument!
BB
You do not “end arguments” by refusing to engage.
You do not end arguments by accusing your opponents of being “trolls”.
One simple question, is more petrsonal & social total harm created in the world by (legal) tobacoo & alcohol or by the illegal drugs?
A honest answer now.
The problems with drugs are abuse and addiction. These are health issues.
The problems with drug prohibition are drug trafficking, human trafficking, drug dealers, gang related violence (gun & knife crime), criminal organisations making huge amounts of money from a worldwide market worth £300bn per year, and the creation of Narco-States such as Mexico and Afghanistan.
So, as you can see, drug prohibition has created far more problems than it set out to solve.
This makes it a bad policy.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41529757/ns/health-addictions/
“Alcohol causes nearly 4 percent of deaths worldwide, more than AIDS, tuberculosis or violence, the World Health Organization warned on Friday.”
“One simple question, is more petrsonal & social total harm created in the world by (legal) tobacoo & alcohol or by the illegal drugs?”
According to the government’s own harm index: Alcohol is the most harmful drug to the user and society as a whole.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)60192-X/fulltext
I know it is most likely too late but I would like to mention again the nature of the charge of production of Cannabis, as I alluded to in my first post. It is classed as a trafficking offence, how can this be right when the CPS are not progressing with an intent to supply charge.
This is catching a lot of small time, personal Cannabis growers and needs addressing because some people, NHS employees for example, could potentially lose everything because of it, this, surely, is not appropriate.
I would also like to say this board is really hard to catch up with comment etc but I am still grateful for having the chance to voice my concerns.
@butcombeman qoute “anyone at large who wants the freedom to personally use or do any illegal act without considering the responsibility to others affected.”
ok explain to me then how me growing a plant in my house effects people like yourself??. i grow it dry it and smoke it to myself whos getting harmed apart from myself of MY OWN choice?
quote butcombeman “If I am going to have to pay for the consequences of your thoughtless & selfish habit, I am certainly going to have a view about you doing it.”
im going to be blunt here, if the law said i CAN grow my own cannabis then your hard earned cash wouldnt be wasted looking for me and my few plants.
my last point if i grow my own,smoke my own wheres the victim ?”no victim no crime!” if i choose to inflict this on myself its MY prerogative to do so,not YOURS not the GOVERMENTS or anyone else who feels obliged to look after my welfare
@writingrongs, we are talking about Cannabis, are we not?
So, your position is just don’t do it, correct?
Well, with all due respect, I would say you need to wake up and smell the roses, drugs are in our society, they have a lot of adulterants that cause real harm. If the market was regulated that would not be a problem.
It wasn’t that long ago that it was “Illegal” to be Homosexual for goodness sake, just because something is illegal doesn’t make it wrong.
The fact is, with Cannabis, that government policy is based on nothing more than “Historical and cultural precedent”, see the 2006 white paper that came from the Misuse of Drugs review. Why do you think it took a 3 year FOI request and a high court judge to order it into the public domain?
The “just don’t do it” attitude is naive, at best.
Tom.
NO. My position is don’t break the law – which is there to protect both the user and the society.
That position does not arise from “historical and cultural precedent”, but from 45 years of getting addicts off their drugs and restoring them to a life which THEY consider better.
Some people can for a time get away with certain forms of cannabis usage, but not every spliff smoker can. When you’ve had to handle as many cannabis originated accidents, deaths and psychosis cases as we do, you find the roses stink.
In making your remarks about adulterants, please remember that cocaine cut 50% with talcum powder takes twice as long as the 100% pure cocaine to ruin your nose and your life.
This is why the wealthy – the public school educated princes of the City of London – who can afford the “best gear” so often become more quickly and more heavily addicted than those who can only afford a dilutted supply.
Or have you not yet recognised the part cannabis, booze and cocaine played in the so-called “credit-crunch” from which we all suffering today?
Ken Eckersley, C.E.O. ARTS.
writingrongs, try that same argument with Alcohol and tobacco, far more deaths attributable to those two than all the other so called illegal drugs combined.
Stop dwelling on just this group of drugs, look at the whole picture please, a person may recover from psychosis but not from death.
first of all thank you for addressing this very important subject that is so often over looked
“the most cynical and nieve are both fighting to keep prohibition thanks to prohibitin rewards be them corrupt or unknowing”
heres my view :-
regulate drug sales to an evidence based scale of harm and place all drugs on the act list including alcohol and tobacco , put age limits in place , tax and remove the market from the “Mr big ” criminals , separate the sale of soft and hard drugs to remove the dealers gateway effect and concentrate on weaning those off of hard drugs at their pace ,invest the tax on education , health and policing ! its very simple and proven to work unlike prohibition that costs £110 billion a year with an overall 1% success rate and uses its own side effects to implement more prohibition like the con man paradox , yes lets remove drugs from the hands of children and criminal control and lets not give the addicts of now, reasons to commit crimes to fund their habit and lets remove all future addicts from criminal control , turning off the flow of all future addicts of hard drugs . you see a regulated system will do more to reduce drug related harm than prohibition ever could for less, in a fraction of the time , even paying for its own success if managed in the right harm reduction way ,
so if we spend £110 billion a year on a system of regulation based on a scale of harm , where’s the evidence saying it wont work ,as there is plenty of evidence showing prohibition has never worked and is riddled with corruption , it looks to me like this money that’s not getting the job done is funding these con men and promoting more prohibition and they will do what ever they can to keep it that way (easy money for them ) , considering they have the marketing lobby power and money to do so too , not to forget they also have input to educate our young.
i would like to see introduction rates to harder drugs like heroin reduced by separating the sales of unregulated substances , like cannabis, that kids find easier to get than more damaging alcohol , regulated so people don’t end up getting sold harder drugs ,… as the police cuts come into play this is going to be a green light to that type of criminals that will sell to kids ,it is extremely frustrating , even more so when the so called government experts are almost all selected yes men now and have no clue of the what they are talking about when it comes to cutting overall drug related harm , is it no wonder politicians refuse to take part in any public debate , but they will soon tell us what we the “public wants” , poring good money into an already failed program is an ideal way to launder tax me thinks!
tax and remove the market from the “Mr big ” criminals
Impossible, criminality will find a way as it does with alcohol & tobacco. Cut the legal stuff with talc, produce it cheaper. Rob the supply chain. Corrupt the companies involved et al.
Carl
I have read a few of your posts. You seem to understand the issues.
The cry that legalisation of any currently illegal drug would remove organised crime from supply is regularly made. Your response is spot on.
Illegal supply can always undercut illegal supply. In the case of tobacco about 20 to 25% of of the supply in the UK has, in recent years, been smuggled counterfeit or both.
There is an even larger and obvious problem in respect of cannabis. There was a recent news figure of 7000 cannabis farms.
Legalisation would produce a larger market with even more opportunity for organised crime. Just why would criminality give up?
Toleration of user cannabis, in the Netherlands contributed to rampant criminality across supply and manufacture of other illegal drugs there and by Dutch organisers in other countries such as Poland, (though geographical position of the Netherlands and trading links also had a contributory effect).
If this is correct, legalisation “to remove criminality” is a silly myth promulgated by those engaged in the “War for Drugs”.
Tax as some suggest and the incentives for trafickers are even greater, control or license outlets, indulge in age discrimination or user licences, all would have an effect on promoting criminal opportunism.
Also as well to remember, the need and market for “something stronger” was what produced the home grow “skunk” (a term I do not like but broadly understood).
Something stronger, is typical of the youth market across both illegal drugs and alcohol, thus the fashion for high alcohol lagers and then ciders amongst young people.
The process with cannabis started in the US with Skunk Number 1 but was enthusiastically carried on in the Netherlands to produce the low CBD, high THC “Nederweit”strains, now grown widely, and which are so very damaging to the brain.
So any attempt by government to control and specify strength or other constituents of a legal cannabis supply would give yet further incentive to crime.
Legal sellers would demand protection from illegal sellers, a legal regimne would require control, supply to underage people would require control and enforcement. Maybe more than now. Legalisation for adults would produce a desireable (to kids) adult behaviour.
All of this should be very obvious to anyone with any intelligence. The fact that those engaged in the the “war for drugs” lie about it, confuse and prevaricate should tell us everything we need to know.
That’s a lot of idle speculation there, with nothing to back it up.
Why accuse those who wish for rational drugs policy of lying, while spouting the regular prohibitionist untruths yourself?
“Legalisation for adults would produce a desireable (to kids) adult behaviour.”
The old “think of the children” chestnut? Perhaps we should criminalise everything we don’t want our children to do – or can you accept that there are activities which should be legal for consenting, informed adults?
Even if counterfeiting rates with cannabis turned out to comparable to tobacco (and that’s a massive if with no basis WHATSOEVER) 20% is a massive reduction from 100% – go figure.
Do you dispute that an 80% reduction in criminal supply of a drug would reduce funding for organised crime? No one is saying that the black market would completely disappear 100%, at least not in earnest.
In the view of anyone sane however, a massive reduction is preferable to no reduction at all when it comes to funding for crime.
Let’s not ignore either the importance of safe access – those who rely on cannabis as a medicine can obtain it safely in confidence it is pure and unadulterated.
The possibility that some may choose to continue producing adulterated cannabis is no justification for allowing them to continue to control 100% of the supply.
after a quick google search/ butcombeman
the drinks industry i guess ?http://www.butcombe.com/
place alcohol and tobacco on the misuse of drugs act to reflect the reality of badly regulated and no regulated substances in comparison , lets not forget the act is a tool of regulation not prohibition
I have no connection with the drinks industry.
Dear Lord North,
I have MS, am intolerant to many prescription medicines and am shortly leaving the UK for California. There I will visit a Dr and be given a recommendation for cannabis to use during my stay. I could have gone to Holland and seen a Dr and been given a prescription for medicinal cannabis. All my medical professionals know I use cannabis and not one of them has a problem with it as they have seen how my symptoms have improved.
My question Lord North is what am I supposed to do once I return to the UK?
I would really like to see medicinal cannabis in its raw form made available as it is in Holland http://www.bedrocan.nl/
“Welcome to the website of Bedrocan BV Medicinal Cannabis. Since the first of March 2005 Bedrocan BV is the only company contracted by the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport for the growth and production of medicinal Cannabis. Cannabis Flos Bedrocan®, Bedrobinol® and Bediol® can be prescribed by doctors for both humans and animals.
On this site you can find information about the different aspects of Cannabis in general, and the medicinal Cannabis of Bedrocan BV in particular. You can also find several links to sites associated with our company and our product.”
Not everyone with MS can get or wants Sativex, as it contains unpleasant, unnecessary, and in the case of the peppermint oil banned under EU law, added extras –
• The active substances are cannabis extracts. Each millilitre (ml) contains 38-44 mg and 35-42 mg of two extracts (as soft extracts) from Cannabis sativa L., leaf and flower, corresponding to 27 mg/ml delta-9-tetra-hydrocannabinol (THC) and 25 mg/ml cannabidiol (CBD). Each 100 microlitre spray contains 2.7 mg THC and 2.5 mg CBD.
• The other ingredients are ethanol, propylene glycol and peppermint oil.
http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/par/documents/websiteresources/con084961.pdf
Please take some time to watch Prof Les Iversen in his excellent lecture, “Bringing Cannabis Back into the Medicine Cabinet” http://vimeo.com/19315276 . In it he shows how Sativex is made and makes the valid point that smoked (vaporised) cannabis is preferred by patients as they have much better control over dosage.
The following websites detail two publicly funded studies to investigate whether cannabis derivatives could play a role in slowing the progression of Multiple Sclerosis.
http://sites.pcmd.ac.uk/cnrg/cams.php
http://sites.pcmd.ac.uk/cnrg/cupid.php
The trials led by Professor John Zajicek, of Peninsula Medical School and Derriford Hospital, also found evidence to suggest that one particular part of cannabis, called THC, might slow the development of the disease.
Now Professor Zajicek is leading a new three year study, funded by a £2 million grant from the Medical Research Council, with support from the MS Society, the MS Trust, and Peninsula Medical School, to evaluate whether the compound could be used as a treatment to slow the progression of disability. £2 million grant from the Medical Research Council, with support from the MS Society, the MS Trust, and Peninsula Medical School, to evaluate whether the compound could be used as a treatment to slow the progression of disability.
I would like to see cannabis regulated, and taxed much like alcohol and cigarettes.
I look forward to the outcome of the debate.
Yours sincerely
(Reluctant) Medicinal Cannabis Refugee
Apologies Lord North my copy and paste are double in the last paragraph. Please ignore the second paste. Thank you.
You have my sympathy about your condition.
It would be quite extraordinary in my view if cannabis, which is a very complex plant, did not contain anything that might be useful as a medecine.
The UK has been quite far sighted in allowing the production and experimentation that led to Sativex which is licensed for your condition is it not.
One of the problems with cannabis as a medecine was created by the pro pot lobby itself. I think it was Keith Stroup of NORML in the US, who said that medical marijuana would be used as the trojan horse of the legalisation movement.
It should be fairly obvious that smoking raw cannabis (or anything) is not a safe delivery system for medication nor is the raw cannabis plant consistent.
Smoked cannabis is carcinogenic like tobacco. As typically smoked it is particularly relevant to cancer of the thoracic cavity. In the UK it is often even smoked WITH tobacco, a sort of double suicide wish.
Highjacking of the medical cannabis arguments by pot head lobbyists who just want their personal intoxication has certainly not helped people like you.
It does not have to be smoked, it can be vapourised, eaten or even drunk.
Studies even show that:
“Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn’t also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728.”
Les Iverson, current head of the ACMD even says that smoking is an effective method as it allows you to easily and readily control the dosage.
So, in light of evidence, would you like to retract you claim of Cannabis in its raw form is not safe? It can only be made SAFER and CONSISTENT by regulation – see Bedrocan in Holland as an example!! And how is withholding research for 40 years far sighted??
Oops! Lord Norton not Lord North, my apologies.
Dear Sir,
I have read most comments and see conflicts of a opinion with both prohibitionists and non-prohibitionists offering value to debate.
What has to be remembered is that the modern factual history on drugs is that it churns great quantities of money, is an instrument of power and keeps the military and homeland security busy. However it is now costing more to fight drugs and the assocciated terrorism that makes us more fearful than ever before. We can continue with the prohibitive and punative measures that are now in place until it is necessary to make change to them; currently these laws are generally ignored and are ineffective. This can go two ways; greater punitive measures to act as deterrent or a non-prohibitionist approach where control and regulation within a legal context can be applied.
Drug crops grow ‘every’ year and at all times of year in a controlled environment. Drugs will always have a greater demand than supply within prohibition. Someone will always take the place of another grower, processor, smuggler and dealer; there’s a living in it.
The social harms caused over the last 90 years of prohibition have only exacerbated an existing problem and made things worse for everybody.
Pragmatic and sensible change fully armed with education will make the country and the rest of the globe a better place.
For reference, “greater punitive measures” are practised elsewhere. Every year China and Iran execute hundreds (if not thousands, the data is guarded) of drug users, dealers and trafficers yet the problem is still there. In Cambodia they round up drug users and put them in forced labour camps where they are subject to many horrendous Human rights abuses (in fact, certain pro-prohibition agencies at the UN of all places helped draft the legislation that allows this to take place). So even with all these threats of death and torture the ‘problem’ still persists. We cannot punish our way out of this one, it is time to apply evidence and fact to this debate.
http://www.ihra.net/contents/809
http://www.ihra.net/contents/316
http://www.onlydemocracy4iran.com/2011/02/07/analysis-irans-execution-war-against-drug-trafficking/
http://www.ihra.net/contents/305
Jake,
YES. Martin Luther King was right, but you distort his logic to support your own viewpoint. If you have never met a victim of drug use, then you have never met an addict, or his family or someone injured in an accident caused by drug or alcohol use, or someone mugged to support drug use, etc.
BUT. You are right about many commercial rehabilitation provider’s bottom-lines. But they are not us.
In 45 years of helping addicts to get themselves off their habits, we have never made even a brass farthing. In fact, our running costs are paid out of my very ordinary pocket and the pockets of my colleagues.
CEO of Addiction Recovery Training Services (ARTS)
writingrongs
I commend you on your work to help the most vulnerable and apologise for making a generic claim about commercial rehab places. I don’t know anything about yours but there are those out there who do have a stake in maintaining prohibition (i.e. the prison guard lobby groups in the states pushing for harsher sentencing laws etc.), so it does happen.
However, I do believe the law is unjust because most people can consume drugs without it leading to the devestating consequences of addiction. That is why SO MANY people break it.
Albert Einstein on Alcohol prohibition:
“The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the Prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this.”
Your unfortunate but noble viewpoint only sees one side of drug use, one that is not the majority. Two-thirds of our population regularly use Alcohol but there aren’t 40 million addicts…
Let me ask you this – of those addicts, do those reliant on Alcohol have to steal as much as e.g. a Heroin or Cocaine addict? Are they arrested at the same level as those who use ‘illegal’ drugs? Are they imprisoned as often?
Criminalising behaviour that is harmful to the individual does not get rid of it or even address the problem (remember drugs aren’t illegal, it is the Human behaviour associated with them that is prohibited i.e. possession, production, supply). Do you not think that an addict who can get a pharaceutical-grade supply of Heroin for free would still use as much street Heroin? Is the best outcome abstinance or is stabilising someones addiction so they can pick up their life before coming free a good idea?
After 45 years of helping addicts do you not see the futility in adding a criminal record and/or jail time to those most vulnerable? Have the drugs ever gone away under prohibition? Have they become safer? Have we ever reduced the number of addicts? These are questions that should be asked of a policy, any policy, that has never delivered on ANY of its goals!!
Jake
You say:
“Do you not think that an addict who can get a pharaceutical-grade supply of Heroin for free would still use as much street Heroin? Is the best outcome abstinance or is stabilising someones addiction so they can pick up their life before coming free a good idea”?
One of the unfortunate aspects of the “British System” for supply of heroin to addicts was that many addicts were found to sell some of their legal supply and even to but street heroin. Thus the legal supply was fed in to the illegal market.
As to the best outcome being abstinence, yes it is and from the research done in Scotland, abstinence is what most addicts clearly claim to want and they want help from society to get there. Most of the treatment industry has not been listening to its customer base.
A sad fact of our treatment industry is that much of it has historically not been treatment at all, it has been maintenance heroin or more likely methadone.
“Parking” addicts on methadone and a pretence that this was proper treatment.
It was nothing of the sort it was social propblem prescribing. The costs rising annually and continously.
The figures for those becoming free of addiction under this nonsensical system run by the National Treatment Agency and Chief Excecutive Paul Hayes, was only 3%,a no more than accidental figure.
Hayes took some stick for it on the Radio 4 Today programme and rightly so, it was a national disgrace. Those addicts deserved better.
For treatment or other help in pursuit of abstinence to work, there has to be an expectation that abstinence is achievable and expected, built in. It is and it can be.
As to your “free” heroin. Nothing much in life is “free”. ”
So called “free” heroin has to be paid for by someone, as has the mechanism and clinicians that provide it.
When society pays for “free” heroin, the cost and the opportunity costs of the mechanism/resources to provide it, are taken out of the health budget for everyone else.
The answer is indeed taxation, and excise duty on imports.
It would certainly make more sense for tom, charged as a trafficker with 7 plants in his garden!
Drug Related Deaths 1994-96
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/xsdataset.asp?More=Y&vlnk=883&All=Y&B2.x=68&B2.y=20
Please note Methadone is by far the biggest killer and yet this is, afaik, a legally supplied drug in place of heroin. 26 deaths were attributed to cannibis.
I can only summise a legal supply in no way guarantees safety and that cannibis is by no means harmless.
Cannibis and psychosis
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article2148315.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6732005.stm
Hi Carl H, pleased to discuss with you again.
I don’t want to defend cannabis as a generic entity as the two of us have been over this before and it is actually inconsequential to the issue at hand. It is the harms of something that mean a stricter state control should be imparted. Just as alcohol in 1920’s America, leave it to street law to regulate the market and health fallout is the consequence.
The articles you cite are newspaper’s version of medical studies, please read at source as paper’s interpretation is misleading.
You’ll notice that in the actual source studies, that the risk of cannabis RELATED psychosis is negligible:
http://www.badscience.net/2007/07/blah-blah-cannabis-blah-blah-blah/
The base figure is to stop 800 new cases of cannabis related psychosis you need to stop 8.2million users. So basically, a 1 in 7750 risk.
Compare this with alcohol DIRECT link psychosis (Korsakoff’s Syndrom):
http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Wernicke-Korsakoff-Syndrome.htm
a 1 in 1000 risk. And yet, why do we not hear such warning stories from alcohol psychosis?
The point is, under prohibition, the rates of any health related fallout of cannabis will be exponentially greater than if we had a quality controlled and regulated supply.
The one thing we can all agree upon with absolute clarity with cannabis is that kids should not use it as the developing mind is susceptible to cannabis harms. So I ask, how is the law aiding this currently? To be frank, it’s not, cannabis is the drug of choice to children because they have easy and ready access. It is prevalent, and it is being pushed at their end of the market by hard-line criminals who want then to progress to harsher substances.
If the law has, and is, working, why have we such a problem with youth culture and cannabis? We have the strictest laws in Europe (other than Russia) and we have the highest rates of cannabis use amongst children.
Tragically, it’s not just cannabis that children are ingesting either, laced & contaminated cannabis makes up most of the street market now. Parents need be very concerned over this issue.
And as we’ve also discussed before, black-markets exist for everything, jeans, trainers etc. This is no reason to not act though. It’s going to be far easier to tackle a trickling black-market than it is an industry is now worth £6 billion to gangs, cartels and human traffickers.
I further ask, how is the law aiding the cannabis issue?
What’s your point here? We should ban everything that is potentially harmful to someone?
There’d be absolutely nothing left! Everything is in some way harmful to someone. Even other people!
Instead of banning everything that’s dangerous; we educate people on how to act with caution around them.
Simples
Blazing Buddhist, was that at me? If so, sorry if my post wasn’t clear, I fully agree with you that health education is the way to progress and not judicial. The collective results from countries who have adopted an educational approach show that this method does work.
Nope. That was aimed at Carl H.
@jasonreed
I actually agree with a lot of the points you’ve raised thus far.
I would add something though. Having spent a lot of time in the Netherlands; the kids over there will tell you that cannabis is boring because adults do it.
“We have succeeded in making pot boring”
http://judgejamesgray.blogspot.com/2010/10/lets-make-pot-boring-by-judge-jim-gray.html
There is such a thing as responsible use, why is it some people here appear to forget that there are millions of responsible Alcohol users in this country, which is a far more toxic drug than Cannabis, just as there are millions of responsible Cannabis users in this country.
If there is an underlying mental health issue it will surface no matter which drug an individual takes.
Some here need to go and read the MoDA properly, including the white paper from the 2006 review.
Why is it that Alcohol and Tobacco is not controlled through said Act?
For anybody who would like to know why the misuse of drugs act is being misapplied and people charged under it suffering from an abuse of process I suggest checking out http://drugequality.org/ for an overview of the act how it stands.
Phil, that is where I learnt of the “Historical and cultural precedent”.
Dear butcombeman,
Your sympathy is appreciated but I would ask you to please look closely at the website http://www.bedrocan.nl/english/the-use.html for Bedrocan and you will see that it is vaporized or drunk as tea and not smoked. Prof Iversen explains in his lecture about this. Vaporized cannabis is not carcinogenic as it is not burnt but heated without combustion. Unfortunately there is a great deal of misinformation about how medicinal cannabis is taken I hope this clears it up.
PS Lord Norton my apologies for calling you Lord North.
Medicinal Cannabis Refugee: Don’t worry you are not the first!
Carl
Yes.
I recall quite recently a figure of over 170 deaths associated with state prescribed methadone in one year in Scotland.
I notice a lot of arguments against legalising drugs, but none against the formation of an independent body to govern the matter.
An independent body would be able to make decisions without interference from misguided and ill-informed individuals, such as the current Prime Minister with his “Cannabis is toxic” rant.
Evidence-based policies would allow sensible drug policies to be adopted rather than banning everything that’s not alcohol or tobacco, regardless of the harms.
BB
You say:
“the current Prime Minister with his “Cannabis is toxic” rant”
The current Prime Minister (David Cameron) made no such remark. DC has said that the Home Affairs Select Committee of which he was a member got it’s conclusions on cannabis wrong.
You are no doubt thinking of deeply unwise comments made by Gordon Brown before the ACMD reported on cannabis (last time it did).
On the 25 February 2011 David Cameron appeared on Al Jazeera World View YouTube interview. You can watch the interview here – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9kz_bKYslg , the relevant part starts at about 10:45. This is a transcript of the interview –
“Al Jazeera: This was incidentally, the second most popular question because viewers would submit questions and then members of the public would vote.
Why is marijuana illegal when alcohol and tobacco are more addictive and dangerous to our health, but we manage to control them? Wouldn’t education about drugs from a younger age be better?
Cameron: Well there’s one bit of that question I agree with which I think education about drugs is vital and we should make sure that education programmes are there in our schools and we should make sure that they work. But I don’t really accept the rest of the question. I think if you actually look at the sort of marijuana that is on sale today, it is actually incredibly damaging, very, very toxic and leads to, in many cases, huge mental health problems. But I think the more fundamental reason for not making these drugs legal is that to make them legal would make them even more prevalent and would increase use levels even more than they are now. So I don’t think it is the right answer. I think a combination of education, also treatment programmes for drug addicts, I think those are the two most important planks of a proper anti-drug policy.
Al Jazeera: What about the argument that it could be used as medicinal properties? That was another question we actually had, a person saying it’s got proven medicinal properties. If used properly and regulated properly it could actually be quite helpful.
Cameron: That is a matter for the science and medical authorities to determine and they are free to make independent determinations about that. But the question here about whether illegal drugs should be made legal, my answer is no.”
Cameron came across as totally uninformed in that interview. Any user of cannabis would know that he is just plain lieing. This undermines any truth that the Government may say about drugs. The Governments stance on drugs really has no credibility and such pronouncements as Cameron made further undermine their position.
Just tell the truth please thats what we want to hear from our representative
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9kz_bKYslg 10m45s onwards:
“I think if you actually look at the sort of marijuana that is on sale today, it is actually incredibly damaging, very, very toxic and leads to, in many cases, huge mental health problems.”
Now that just plain lying…
He did in a recent interview on Al Jazeera TV.
http://www.youtube.com/worldview/?utm_source=GDN&utm_medium=oa&utm_campaign=oa
“Well there’s one bit of that question I agree with which I think education about drugs is vital and we should make sure that education programmes are there in our schools and we should make sure that they work. But I don’t really accept the rest of the question. I think if you actually look at the sort of marijuana that is on sale today, it is actually incredibly damaging, very, very toxic and leads to, in many cases, huge mental health problems. But I think the more fundamental reason for not making these drugs legal is that to make them legal would make them even more prevalent and would increase use levels even more than they are now. So I don’t think it is the right answer. I think a combination of education, also treatment programmes for drug addicts, I think those are the two most important planks of a proper anti-drug policy.”
butcombeman:
“BB You say: “the current Prime Minister with his “Cannabis is toxic” rant”
The current Prime Minister (David Cameron) made no such remark. DC has said that the Home Affairs Select Committee of which he was a member got it’s conclusions on cannabis wrong.
You are no doubt thinking of deeply unwise comments made by Gordon Brown before the ACMD reported on cannabis (last time it did)”.
Honestly Butcombeman, your response sometimes is astonishing, it’s almost as if you think you are the absolute authority on this issue, where is your humility never mind respect for others? It is as if you think someone would mention something that was false.
For your information the conversation BlazingBuddhist refers to is here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzMu2lzEdwE&feature=related
He can clearly be heard to say “Cannabis is toxic”.
Please do some research, as you often ask us to do, prior to preaching to us or at least ensure the “facts” you speak of actually are facts.
No Tom. You’re wrong. Cameron said just a few days ago that cannabis is “very, very toxic”.
See here:
http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/mr-cameron-its-you-who-needs-education-about-cannabis/
Peter, I was quoting butcombeman, which is the reason I posted his name first and then followed with his post in quotation marks, my answer :
Honestly Butcombeman, your response sometimes is astonishing, it’s almost as if you think you are the absolute authority on this issue, where is your humility never mind respect for others? It is as if you think someone would mention something that was false.
For your information the conversation BlazingBuddhist refers to is here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzMu2lzEdwE&feature=related
He can clearly be heard to say “Cannabis is toxic”.
Please do some research, as you often ask us to do, prior to preaching to us or at least ensure the “facts” you speak of actually are facts.
Please take the time to take note of punctuation etc, the importance of which has just been shown.
With respect
Tom.
so-called experts in psychiatry, pharmacology, neurology and medicine is merely going to reflect the failing status quo of the last 6 decades and thus again push for medical treatment and so-called “harm reduction” and “habit management” as “the continuing answer to drugs.
Ken Eckersely’s remarks are most interesting amongst some of the most well informed posts I have read on a message board in a very long time.
My own acquaintance with a dealer from whom i never ever bought anything except hi skills as a jobbinG gardener, are that he was interested in crime and therefore interested in Cannabis and illegal drug importation and sale on a small scale.
I did some research with Customs and excise to see if I could make an honest man out of him (can you change people?).
To legalise his tobacco and spirits importation all he has to d now is to buy stamps on line and affix them to his imported produce (since early 2010)> then no bonding is required.
If all imported drugs were legal by way of requiring boned warehouse status for all
Class drugs, and detailed inspection and quality control of them, it would at least be safer fro the cconusmer and he would know rather more what he is getting for his money.
Furthermore Health and Safety Exec regs are draconian already for things remote from Illegal drugs.
These draconian regs might well be used to ensure and to punish severely those who sell
diluted/contaminated products.
It would at least give the consumer some guarantee of what he is getting, and retribution against the seller.
Excise duty would be paid. Tax might be levied on the consumer product like regular ciggies and alcohol.
We are after all dealing with a problem of consumerism, and abuse of the consumer by big time market traders.
I do not exclude those big timers whom I quote above from Ken’s post. They are every bit as much retailers as the man on the street, but they do so with the law on their side.
Break the monopoly; protect the consumer, use health and safety regs with full and even greater force; charge duty and levy tax on all products.
Take it from there.
I am a teetotaller, but it would be a start on the way to methodical temperance for many more young people than it is in the yob cultures of today.
Overdose deaths of heroine are usually from contaminated products are they not?
I would like to know when some move is going to be made to legalize cannabis for medicinal use. Cannabis is well known to have solid benefits and produce better results than many prescription medicines for a wide variety of ailments – chronic pain being just one, but surely a very important one.
I came across an excellent paper the other day, a report of the Commons incorporating much of the predictably thorough research of the Science & Technology Committee. It can be found here.
The report and the research are getting rather elderly now (unlike the noble Lord Norton of course!) and although they have been discussed from time to time – I came across a debate in Hansard in 2004, and I am sure there are others, but nothing has been done.
Cannabis is legal for medicinal use in many European states and also in some 14 states in the US (a very puritanical place).
There is no good reason to prevent the benefits of this drug from being available to those in need. Indeed to my mind there seems no good reason to criminalize it at all.
It is not good enough to say that one cannot allow it for use until the unwanted psychoactive side effects are eliminated. There are unwanted side effects, psychoactive and otherwise, of many medications that are not prohibited. It smacks of simply not wanting to resile from a position once taken that a thing is banned, and so must remain forever banned. Too bad if some people take it purely for enjoyment, and even to excess. It is not the job of government to be the Fun Police! Most importantly, to prevent the medicinal benefits of cannabis coming into the lives of those in need is simply wrong.
Please ask some questions directed at this topic.
“Most importantly, to prevent the medicinal benefits of cannabis coming into the lives of those in need is simply wrong.”
I really hope compassion and common sense find their way into the minds of the people who can make this happen.
I also ask Lord Norton to please ask some questions directed at this topic.
“Possible heroine addicts beware!”
I think you mean heroin. It isn’t dangerous to become addicted to fictional female heroes of film and stage!
One of the main arguments used in defence of decriminalisation or legalisation is that of alcohol abuse.
I had asked way back at the beginning for alcohol to be included. No one can deny the costs of alcohol to the NHS, the Police and society in general is vast, yet it remains perfectly legitimate to consume in any quantity.
Duty on spirits is remarkable low in comparison to other harms and indeed less harmful substances. So low infact it maybe cheaper in future to run your car on vodka or scotch. Is this a sign of addiction not only from society but from government?
I do not defend alcohol, as an addict dry for more than two decades I recognise addiction signs better than most. Alcohol is more addictive than most think and does a lot of damage.
We have to decide on what basis we wish to progress and for a logical argument. If we are stating that harm and deaths are our basis for prohibition we have to include alcohol as well as tobacco. If we are stating the financial cost to the country alcohol would also need to be included.
We have to base any decision made on scientific and financial evidence and include all types of drugs.
The argument that even I make is that drugs even if legalised will be cut with other substances by criminal elements but this is true at present with both alcohol and tobacco. The problem increases as the prices rise mostly due to taxation.
In the case of alcohol, prohibition is unlikely, the best will be minimum pricing increasing Treasury coffers. This of course will lead to bootleg distillery’s and possible toxins being found in fake alcohol.
Factories and houses are being used at present, with the use of hydroponics, to produce large quantities of cannibis. Even the regular uses are becomming green fingered at home.
Education in itself is not enough, it does not stop the macho young rebel who fears little. Nor does the fact a number of our politicians have held their hands up to state they have smoked drugs – and look at me now.
The problem is not going to be eradicated, we must accept that as a starting point and decide our aim. Are we concerned with the health side,the financial side or both ?
Logically the possibility is that alcohol is more costly than cannibis in Policing, if one rules out the costs of raids on cannibis farm / dealers. In a health sense Ibelieve the two need a scientific comparison to decide. Cannibis smoking has been a regular occurence in our young since the 60’s, has psychosis increased in our society over that 50 years that can be directly attributed to it ?
Acceptability. Even if legal I would not accept someone to smoke cannibis in my home or take it in anyway. However if legitimised it would be extremely difficult to stop my children partaking and yes I do worry of their alcohol intake in the same fashion, though those of legal age are allowed to participate in it moderately in my home.
As a parent I worry of any type of drug which also includes vaccinations, pondering for many hours with my wife over HIB etc. A responsible social person will be worried about those around that may be doing harm to themselves. Prohibition is not a selfish act but a selfless one, it is a concern about you.
The issues are complex and intertwined. We know that humans especially addictive ones will always push further and harder, if this were not the case people would be satisfied with alcohol, or tea or tobacco. How far should society let people push ? If we accept legalisation of cannibis today, tomorrow we will be pushed for extasy etc.
In the case of drugs, looking logically, it is not a case of scientific evidence or a question of legal harm versus illegal but of societal acceptance. Drugs have been around a long time, cannibis taken by many in the 60’s and that generation have grown up to reject it’s use in the main.
If we are to criminalise people for smoking cannibis why is Jacquie Smith in the job she is ?
I did break the law… I was wrong… drugs are wrong.”
http://smokeweed.me/politicians-on-pot/
Boris Johnson probably sums it up when he says:
“I don’t want my kids to take drugs”.
@Carl. H
You make some interesting points, but I don’t agree with some of your conclusions.
Alcohol is a great example of what not to do with regulation. It has been shown that minimum unit pricing would reduce the level of use. However, as you reference to Tobacco, there will be an increase of illegal production (non-regulated). If priced sensibly (to deter use but not promote illicit production), it can have an overall positive effect. A black market will always be a problem, but you have to weigh this against the costs of having the whole industry in the black market, such as 1920’s USA. Financial and social costs follow prohibition wherever it goes, and surely the overall benefit to society with some illicit product is better to the whole thing being illicit along with the crime it brings due to the profits being far higher than anything under regulated taxation.
Another aspect you may have overlooked is the ‘normalisation’ of certain drug use. Cannabis, Ecstasy, Cocaine etc. are frowned upon – but used in moderation they can often be less damaging/harmful to the individual than Alcohol. We are in the process of de-normalising Tobacco with public health campaigns, alterations to the packaging etc. – and these cost far less than both prohibiting Tobacco would or by allowing rampant use. So there is something the government could do that would not only reduce use, de-normalise but also cost nothing.. and that is ban advertising of Alcohol. Every sports team/game has the mark of the Alcohol industry, all media rarely portrays it as a problem, even celebrates its use, politicians sip champagne to celebrate signing treaties or at high-powered dinners. This ties into what you were saying about acceptability.
I think the problem is education, people are ‘taught’ that drinking brand ‘X’ will get you money, girls, fun etc. through advertising (£800m a year in the UK alone). The government don’t want to hear that an industry they have many vested interests in should be reduced. Legal regulation, enacted sensibly, would not allow advertising or flashy packaging and help stem the normalisation to those with a predisposition to trying drugs in the first place.
So what to do – have an independent body that assesses the harms.. ok.. but then we don’t even listen to them??? Most politicians these days are more concerned with securing post-term non-exec or CEO status over what is best for the people. They don’t want to rock the boat on some of the tougher/real issues.
I don’t agree that prohibition is a selfless act, even if intentioned as one it absolutely cannot be enforced as one. If it were why would it give you a debilitating criminal record for the rest of your life? Why would it treat addicts as criminals? Why would it prevent research into medical uses of helpful chemicals?
I think you recognise the complexity of the issue, partially one of societal acceptance. But to progress we have to move beyond X is bad don’t do it or we’ll lock you up, Y is fine even if it kills you. That is why a Royal Commission would provide valuable science and data to be able to move forward.
p.s. Cannabis rates have gone up but Psychosis has not followed but I cannot find the study – maybe someone here can help?
Regarding Jacquie Smith it should have read past-tense as “was”.
Carl
I might disagreee with some of your points but in general you are correct.
We are where we are with tobacco and alcohol. Discrepancies in alcohol pricing get exploited by big business, thus they have moved kids from high price/high tax lager to high price/low tax cider to increase their profit. Helped along by mindless lobbying by the LibDems on behalf of the cider industry (and the Chilean apple juice exporters!).
Ridiculously strong cider is becoming the drink of choice for youth.
In relation to treatment of the other drugs we should learn from the tobacco/alcohol model as variously applied worldwide. THAT is our evidence base.
What we learn (particularly from alcohol law, as variously applied) is that it causes enormous personal & social harm.
Harm increases as culture changes around alcohol use.
Total Harm decreases substantially, where there are strong social, religious or other taboos and restrictions on use. it is THAT simple.
Because it is THAT simple and we have an evidence base, toleration, decriminalisation, legalisation, normalisation of ANY other drug is not likely to reduce total harm from them, exactly the contrary is likeley.
One does not need a Royal Commission to understand that. It may not suit big business & George Soros, but it is the patently obvious truth.
@butcombeman
You recognise the harm that e.g. Alcohol causes, but you do not seem to recognise the unintended consequences of prohibition, or more precisely, the huge profits it allows criminals to generate.
There are things we can do, as I mentioned above that would reduce use and acceptability of Alcohol use to the benefit of society, but look beyond individual/social harm caused by drug use. Use does not necessarily = harm!
Please, for a minute, just think about what prohibition does to other countries. Tell me if this ever happens on a day-to-day basis over the control of bootleg (i.e. untaxed or fake) Alcohol:
It doesn’t.. and why not? Because you can use lawyers instead of guns to resolve disputes. With the money saved from less policing required etc. we can go after the smaller level of bootleggers far more effectively.
The fact is that prohibiting drugs does not stop their use and whether it even reduces it is in question (or why do the Dutch enjoy a lower national average usage rate of Cannabis than we do?). It even makes any use less safe by not controlling dosage, purity etc.
Pragmatic policy, over time will sustain a low level of use (and said use will be safer) without crime and violence. So I urge you to think beyond ‘legalisation=higher use, higher use=more harm’ as models out there are proving this not to be the case (Holland, Portugal etc.) and think of the devastating poverty that drives the violence in producer countries to supply us our drugs… unless you have a solution to stop drugs being produced by the poor and consumed by the rich under the prohibition model?..
We know prohibition doesn’t work by any metric, and a Royal Commission will just prove that.. maybe that is why you are scared of one going ahead?
Lord Norton, apologies for including the link to that image/blog. I was trying to show the daily effect that prohibition has on ‘producer’ countries. Incidents like that happen every day – over 30,000 people have died in the Mexican ‘drug war’ over the last 4 years. Our troops are currently fighting against insurgents armed by profits generated from the high price they can sell Opium/Heroin for because it is prohibited.
I was just trying to point out that it is not only addicts and families of addicts in the UK who suffer at the hands of the current prohibition policy. We have to take responsibility for policies that effect others as well as ourselves…
One of the main arguments used in defence of decriminalisation or legalisation is that of alcohol abuse.
And also one of the main arguments to promote illegal drugs is the similarity to alcohol.
How do you justify not taking something which is a crime, if at the same time you drink alcohol and cigarettes?
Lord Norton, there is another side to this debate that has not been covered, as far as I am aware.
Hemp, making biofuel from Hemp could be very good for the U.K.
The current problem that is holding any further development is two fold.
Firstly, you need a license to grow Hemp.
Secondly, the only seed allowed to be used has to be certificated to prove it has less than 0.002%THC content. This low THC variant provides very low seed yield, which is where most of the fuel is derived from. It is not viable for a land owner to invest time and resources with current low THC variant yields.
Imagine a U.K. that was fuel self sufficient, as the current fuel crisis deepens this will become more and more relevant.
You’ve failed to mention that hemp is, at the very least Carbon Neutral. That is, it uses up more carbon dioxide while growing than it releases when burned.
The uses of hemp go far beyond just a carbon neutral biofuel:
An acre of hemp produces as much as four times more paper than an acre of trees.
It can be used to make fibres for clothes and insulation, biodegradable plastics, the seeds are also one of the most nutrient rich food supplements with which nature has provided us.
http://www.hempplastic.com/
http://www.sustainable.org.uk/library/video.html
http://www.energysavingsecrets.co.uk/natural-materials-for-insulation.html
BlazingBuddhist, I know how diverse the use can be of the Hemp plant. I wanted to point out one of the many uses that could be used to alleviate a very pressing problem in this country, a problem, that if it isn’t addressed, will swamp this country and take us all down, everything is delivered by road, fuel price increases directly correlate to food prices, which are already going up rapidly.
My point I was making is that the 0.002THC content variant that we are ‘allowed’ to use give very poor seed yield, so due to the MoDA being maladministered this country is being hamstrung. We could be completely self sufficient in fuel.
Thanks for the links.
The fact that hemp uses more carbon dioxide whilst growing than it releases when burned, should not be overlooked. Especially in view of the effect that greenhouse gasses have on warming the planet. The more “environmentally friendly” fuels and resources we can promote: the better.
Otherwise, I wholly agree with the points you’ve raised there.
Unfortunately, just as the alcohol industry is happy to see cannabis remain on the controlled substance list; petrochemical manufacturers, oil rich countries and cotton producing areas are probably happy to see hemp left on the sidelines, too.
Here’s a few useful links:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/addicted-to-dangerous-policy-drug-prohibition-has-not-worked/story-e6frg8y6-1225987428770
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/486fb0d8-7ca3-11de-a7bf-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1FuvNlzIJ
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/06/editorial-drugs-policy-latin-america
A couple of quotes:
Abraham Lincoln: “Prohibition… goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man’s appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes.”
Mark Twain:
“Prohibition only drives drunkenness behind doors and into dark places and does not cure or even diminish it.”
“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.” – Thomas Jefferson
I must confess to having lost faith in democracy after years of campaigning against prohibition. Hence my lack of ambition when joining in this debate.
In my experience, when anyone asks the government for a sensible debate on drugs: the response is simply to scoff at the idea then carry on with more of the same. They simply don’t want to hear the argument against their failed policy.
There is no feasible argument to carry on with prohibition. It’s done far more harm than good and it will continue to do harm until we seek an end to it.
I hope Lord Norton can help instigate the necessary changes.
Lord Norton, perhaps one of the biggest things that needs to be raised is the full and deliberate disengagement of science in drug policy.
Whatever your views on Professor Nutt, he simply did his job as a neuropharmacologist and head of the ACMD. The fact that the results of the ACMD conflicted with what government policy wanted to be, and the subsequent events that followed; it is shameful that we now have nearly fully absolved scientific influence in drug policy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/political-science/2010/dec/08/proposals-banning-drugs
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/political-science/2010/dec/06/1
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/political-science/2010/dec/07/scientists-drugs-advisory-council-acmd
The current ACMD, with the exception of Professor Les Iversen, is now a complete farce.
In any policy, evidence and science should not be an inconvenient truth. As said in comments above, the Prime Minister’s latest comments about drug policy in the YouTube/al jazeera interview are quite crass given that he is speaking from pure opinion.
I would implicitly ask that the Royal Commission dialogue focuses on a scientific involvement in drug policy given this actually the mandate of the MoDA1971.
“http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/paul-taylor/smoking-marijuana-wont-give-you-lung-cancer/article1930669/
Smoking marijuana won’t give you lung cancer
PAUL TAYLOR | Columnist profile | The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Mar. 04, 2011 4:21PM EST
Smoking marijuana doesn’t boost your chances of getting lung cancer, even if you’re a long-time, heavy dope user, according to a new study.
The U.S. researchers were surprised by their findings, presented this week at a conference of the American Thoracic Society in San Diego. They had expected the controversial weed would jack up cancer risk, just like smoking tobacco.
In fact, previous studies have shown that marijuana tar contains 50 per cent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to lung cancer, compared with tobacco, said lead researcher Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles. What’s more, marijuana smokers hold their breath about four times longer than tobacco consumers, allowing more time for the hazardous particles to deposit in the lungs.
Even so, the study of more than 2,000 people with different smoking habits found no link between dope smoking and lung, head or neck cancers.
Dr. Tashkin speculates that THC, a chemical in marijuana smoke, “may encourage aging cells to die earlier and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation.”
Despite the reassuring findings, Dr. Tashkin isn’t encouraging people to light up a joint. “I wouldn’t give any smoke substance a clean bill of health,” he told Bloomberg News. There is still reason to believe dope might contribute to other lung ailments such as bronchitis and respiratory infections.”