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.
ok the prohibitionists win , no change , more lies ,seems as the prohibition stance is mathematically proven to not work and as its had 40 years to prove itself at a currant cost of £110 billion per year with a success rate of 1%, i guess im overlooking the true unbiased random control group science in my quest for a better understanding of where it all went wrong ,i hear what the prohibitionists say ,its just i cannot find the any real science to back up their stance , google dr tashkin for the lung damage report and cannabis science for the first reports of cured cancer using nontoxic methods , i stick with my cards and i say, an evidence based regulated system will and can do more to reduce all drug related harm for less cost in a fraction of the time , Einstein done the maths so please show me why he was wrong without lies or plain ignorance through playing dumb, show me some good facts from good unbiased random control group peer reviewed science , because if you haven’t noticed prohibition has failed over and over and over again , lets ask the royal commission on what they think , lets not forget that cannabis ended up in class B because it was not regulated when it was class C , so now the policy dictates the grades of the misuse of drugs act list rather than the list setting the policy regulation , how wrong is that ! lets rename it the dictation of drugs grading to match policy act list!
its plain stupid and cannot go on making a mock of the system
“With all this hot air about “sending the wrong message to teenagers,” I can’t help but wonder how, exactly, nauseating displays of political cowardice, legislation based on superstition, and favoring hysteria over rationality is seen as “sending the right message to teens.”
What is your goal here, United Kingdom? Raising a generation of logic-crippled reactionaries who wouldn’t know rationality if it bit them on their wholesomely drug-free asses?”
http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2010/07/tempest_in_a_teapot_in_uk_after_official_calls_for.php
This article still makes me giggle.
Dear Lord Norton.
Thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to add to the debate.
Why is it that somebody prescribed medical cannabis in the Netherlands can come here and bring with them their own supply of herbal cannabis and not be prosecuted under the Schengen Agreement whereas someone with the same or similar symptoms who is residing in the UK, is liable to having their front doors kicked down, carted off down the police cells, either charged or ask to accept a caution and risk imprisonment.
Why is the UK government affording non UK residence special treatment.
I and my wife suffer with chronic aches and pains and cannabis is the most effective treatment for our condition.
Many Thanks.
respectfully
L. Catt Esq.
Lord Norton
May I point you to this very informative documentary I found this evening, on the impact cannabis has on human health. I hope it helps.
http://marijuanamovie.org/
Dear Jake,
Sorry I couldn’t get back to you earlier – rather busy.
Much of what you say has merit and you make points with which I can readily agree.
As a former magistrate I know well that the law can often be unfair, but this is a product of democracy whereby the group makes laws for the majority rather than for the individual.
For many years I saw the best answer as legalisation of all addictive substances based on licensing – similar to what we do with alcohol but (I thought) much better.
I was so enthusiastic I wrote it all up and showed it to a wide circle of acquaintances interested in such subjects, including users, non-users, boozers and teetotalers, etc., etc., and, would you believe, for everyone who agreed there was another who didn’t.
For everyone who thought a particular part was good, another wanted to change it, and had I taken up any of the advice, comment or criticism, I would have had a new scheme for each person consulted.
There are at least three problems with laws:
Those who make them,
Those who have to apply them, and,
Those who break them.
And they are all different groups of individuals.
So we inevitably come back to the majority and – of greater concern – to those who can influence and even control the majority.
Oh. Did I mention that we don’t live in a perfect world – because there are so many different ideas about what perfect means, and what I have personally come to is that we should be free to do what we like, as long as what we do does not stop someone else from doing what he likes, and, if someone does get hurt or falls down, let’s dust them off and help get them back on their feet as best as possible.
Probably the greatest reward in life is what you get back when you extend genuine help to another. But be careful. For those who have ever been conned – “help” is viewed as a possible forthcoming “betrayal”.
Kenneth Eckersley,
CEO Addiction Recovery Training Services
a not-for-profit community support operation.
@writingrongs
I’m glad that you have explored both sides of the issue and at least recognise that what we have doesn’t work. However, it is a sorry state of affairs that in a democracy we are scared of enacting sensible and pragmatic legislation due to who shouts loudest.
Drugs are, or have been made into, a contentious issue in the last 100 years – we never got to grow up around them in an environment of sensible use, instead if you didn’t want Alcohol, Tobacco or Caffeine you had to learn about drugs from the ‘street’.. this anti-establishment method of partaking has done no one good overall.
There has always been ‘drugs’, we even seem pre-wired to accept psychotropic chemicals in our brains (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00024.x/abstract). There will always be ‘drugs’, and as long as there is there will be people who oppose the use of them on numerous grounds – but a lot of that opposition comes from fear of the unknown. But absent harm to others, why shouldn’t we be allowed to explore our minds in different ways? If we don’t have sovereignty over our own minds then we are not really ‘free’…
When it comes to actually ‘controlling’ drugs we will never have a perfect system, some people will always tend towards addiction (and there’s ample ‘legal’ ways to do this now – alcohol, prescription drugs, gambling etc.). The majority are able to use responsibly but are punished for the minority. Once we can accept that ‘perfection’ is unattainable we can work towards enacting policy that has the most overall benefit to society and users. I personally believe that this can be fulfilled by legalisation with strict regulation. Transform propose a very thorough and well-thought out idea of what this could look like (http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blueprint%20download.htm) and I advise you read their suggestions. But fundamentally they promote legal regulation, introduced under the precautionary principle with lots of scope for improving as we learn more under the new system. It would not be a free-for-all or promote drug use, merely accept the reality that drugs are here and here to stay, and that we deal with it in an mature and adult way to minimise their risks instead of the anti-science and sensationalism that surrounds the ‘debate’ now.
Ridiculously strong cider is becoming the drink of choice for youth.
The interesting thing about cider is that it, being a British drink, the best fruit to make an alcohol drink with,in these islands, it has very few regulations about its production or sale.
Cider may be sold without regulation at all. It may even be moved for marketing purposes from place to place entirely uncontrolled.
There is certainly a Customs and Excise definition of the distinction between Cider and spirits made from it.
Let us not forget that the process of purification in alcoholic drinks, such as wine and cider, is effected by the creation of alcohol, from sugar and yeast.
There are any number of microbes and nematodes which would do damage to the human metabolism, if not purified by the creation of alcohol from sugar and yeast, during fermentation.
The simplest procedure of hygiene in a hospital uses … alcohol to cleanse.
The laws regarding distillation changed a couple of years ago in favour of the farmer who wants to produce bio-fuels and the ‘Still’ is no longer a banned item. It never was,for personal use, but even less so now.
Who could possibly know which discreet private person had made or was using his own still?
Again my comment about excise duty, stands.
The only purpose in keeping strict checks on the business of spirits production is for the purpose of raising excise duty.
Regular spirits intake by young Russians does them far more harm thru liver cirrhosis than
some of the imported drugs that we have been discussing here.
I have not noticed that there is any Ibiza clubbing effect on young Brits who drink similar quantities. Perhaps that is just holiday “fun”.
Watching the Panorama program last evening
http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/default.stm
I could see there is no logic to the Government program(?).
20% of the UK population still smoke that’s some 12 million plus. By raising taxation on the product they are forcing addicts to look to the fake market to buy. These fakes are dangerous, containing in a packet of 20 cigarettes the equivalent poisons of 600 and some that shouldn’t be there.
31% of smokers are aged 20-24 proving campaigns are not working in our young.Infact smoking in the young is rising.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=313
Education and other efforts have failed to completely eradicate smoking. Yet Government seem determined to drive people to the counterfeiters by raising prices.
From all this we have to evidence it isn’t about health as more people will die due to the fakes. Governments use taxation to justify, they say the extra tax will go to health, as with car taxation we know this untrue as the amounts collected from car/fuel tax is not fed back to roads or infrastructure. People are tired of being lied to about taxation issues.
It is doubtful we will eradicate smoking, especially as there appears an increase. We will not eradicate drugs either so what exactly are Government concerns on the issues ? Is it just they want to appear to placate certain lobby groups ?
Policing during the coming years of cuts will be hit, the laws won’t stop coming but reductions in services are called for all around. The drug problem and the cigarette Counterfeit problem will only get worse. Education appears not to work completely.
Legalisation or decriminalisation will not in my opinion solve the criminality involved. Fake drugs have even been found in the NHS.
A new strategy is needed but is beyond me and appears beyond Government which is why at the least a Royal Commission is necessary.The very best we can hope for is to minimise the problems involved, we can never eradicate.
We have to find a new way to deal with takers of drugs rather than criminalisation which is disproportionate given that a percentage of our politicians are guilty but didn’t get caught.
We also have to find a way to talk to an upcoming capitalist Country, namely China, to stem the counterfeits. At some point we may well have to cut off our nose to spite our face in this matter. In order to aid trade and capitalism our Customs & Excise are put under enormous pressure and can only fail. Government is complicit in all this and needs to set out a clear plan for the future.
What we have isn’t working and no matter which side of the fence you sit you would have to agree it needs revisiting.
“We have to find a new way to deal with takers of drugs rather than criminalisation which is disproportionate given that a percentage of our politicians are guilty but didn’t get caught.”
I thought you were coming round to our way of thinking for a moment there.
Drug users aren’t a problem. Billions of people use drugs everyday. Whether they’re on prescription, sold legally or illegally. The issue surrounds abuse and addiction. How can we effectively treat problem users?
The answer is not to throw everyone in prison who gets caught using something which someone else may have had a problem with. Addiction is more than just craving a drug. It has deeper roots in the human psyche and is influenced more by the environment in which we live than the drugs available to us.
I found “Rat Park” to be quite an enlightening documentary. I couldn’t find a transcript of it anywhere, but I did find this piece by Rat Park’s author:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/presentation-e/alexender-e.htm
In my view, and I live close to two channel ports, a detailed examination of the effect of Customs and Excise regulations on a legalised trade in imported illegal drugs, should be investigated before embarking on any procedure of legislation.
Not merely what effect it has on the consumer. It is consumerism which is a principle cause of the crazes for different drugs, the gullible public.
Lord Norton,
I am the leader of the Legalise Cannabis Alliance, Britain’s longest established cannabis campaigning group. Our top priority is to permit as matter of urgency and compassion the prescription of medicinal cannabis by doctors.
With the new understanding of the endocannabinoid system and its vital importance to all aspects of human physiology, the power of cannabis as medicine is self-evident. Extraordinary results are achieved in multiple sclerosis, neuropathic pain, Crohn’s, cancer, ADHD and many other conditions. Meanwhile the British government continues with what can only be described as its inane response that “there are no medicinal benefits in cannabis”. It is not just a stupid policy. It is cruel. Hundreds of thousands of British citizens are denied access to the medicine that could relieve their pain and suffering. Meanwhile, in virtually every other country in Europe except France, in Israel and in 15 US states, cannabis is being used as medicine and achieving wonderful results.
Those denied their medicine in Britain are humiliated that European patients can bring medicinal cannabis into Britain and use it under the protection of the Schengen Agreement. This is a cruel and unusual punishment for the crime of being resident in Britain.
There are many, many things wrong with Britain’s current drug policy but none is more offensive, contrary to science, justice and humanity than the prohibition of medicinal cannabis.
I don’t wish there to be a great emphasis on cannabis, that in that in itself can look overbearing and ends up becoming detrimental to the points when viewed by the cynical; but, having been involved in this subject for some time now I fear that there is great societal fallout that is being fuelled by the feral cannabis industry. As it stands, it is really only the two major parties in the houses that do not wish to address cannabis.
Peter Lilley has long been a battler for a serious look at cannabis policy – his report:
http://www.peterlilley.co.uk/article.aspx?id=12&ref=805&hl=Common+Sense+on+Cannabis
The Beckely Foundation make a conservative estimate that there are 165million cannabis users worldwide. Is it truly the goal of current law to lock that number up? Of course, many countries now have a progressive policy, and the E.U have granted full rights to all EU states to conduct cannabis policy to how they is seen fit:
http://www.drugtext.org/articles/3715-cannabis-european-union-will-not-block-eu-member-states.html
On the wider issues of prohibition, there is some logic to current law given that it has been instilled into us all. Thinking laterally though, if we are to assume that all drug use – whether it is alcohol or heroin – is a health issue; what other area of public health policy is governed by judicial measures? The UK faces an obesity crisis, are we to imply that harsher penalties are needed? I of course am being glib to make the point that an individual’s health problem should be treated with the full onus on health and not punitive. We have an early 20th century ethic that still governs us and it is tragically outdated and inhumane. The list of supporters, and their credentials, is vast:
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/MediaNews_Reform_supporters.htm
And yet parliament still will not even discuss or debate, let alone explore alternatives. We have had a full regression in the UK. I would like careful consideration to be given to a full independent body on drug policy and move away from government control given past legacies.
I would lastly like to underline the point that not all drug use is problematic. Inevitably, prohibition is the catalyst and not the drug users but the points become blurred when viewed through media speculation.
I think the Royal Commission is necessary because government have fettered their discretion to international treaties and conventions and have also made it very clear they are not in the least bit interested in examining new models for regulating drug users. I do not think that the current policy is in any way consistent with the MODA objects and principles and it based upon errors of law. These errors mean that govt is incapable of administering the law properly. Irrespective of whethe rone agrees with policy or not, it’s irrelevant if the decsion maker does not understand the law they are acting under. There are two key errors of law, firstly the govt has abandoned jurisdiction over the vast majority of drug misusers in the UK by falsely declaring them to be using ‘legal drugs’ – a term that means nothing in law or even language and then fails to distinguish between peaceful use and the misuse of controlled drugs, even though the MODA is only interested in ameliorating social harm casuse dby misuse (of any drug).
I think the Royal Commission is necessary because government have fettered their discretion to international treaties and conventions and have also made it very clear they are not in the least bit interested in examining new models for regulating drug users. I do not think that the current policy is in any way consistent with the MODA objects and principles and it based upon errors of law. These errors mean that govt is incapable of administering the law properly. Irrespective of whethe rone agrees with policy or not, it’s irrelevant if the decsion maker does not understand the law they are acting under. There are two key errors of law, firstly the govt has abandoned jurisdiction over the vast majority of drug misusers in the UK by falsely declaring them to be using ‘legal drugs’ – a term that means nothing in law or even language and then fails to distinguish between peaceful use and the misuse of controlled drugs, even though the MODA is only interested in ameliorating social harm casuse dby misuse (of any drug). See drugequality.org
do everything in your power to legalise cannabis.
“in the eyes of society i should be in jail,
just for the choice of herbs i inhail!”
alcohol is problem , weed is not!
I have no doubt that the commercial production of Poppy seeds has to be done with a licence.
One farmer near here grew about 50 acres of Papaver vulgaris, the purple variety, and I learn that ALL poppies have a modicum of Morphine derivative which may be extracted.
There is a variety of ways of extracting it, the one being the time honoured one of splitting the seed heads at a certain time of ripeness to obtain the white juice.
However the collection of the seed and decortication of them, to extract the oil in exactly the same way as rape seed, or sunflower seed, or olive seeds(stones) would also have the effect of producing a viable substance for manufacture as morphine or heroin. Poppy oil derivative known as morphine/heroin.
I grow several species of Papaver in my own garden, including the Californian poppy, which flowers throughout the summer, but I am not planning to do anything but enjoy the flowers.
I trust Tom above who has been charged with possession of seven cannabis plants in his garden, will mention that in his own defense.
Poppies are not banned, and much stronger than cannabis, in the derived form!
Interesting, GH;
one wonders about the Welsh poppy, with its tallish stem and plain yellow petals, something like a very tall yellow pansy, growing wild in the British Isles not just in Wales I believe;
would it too have the poppy-property of making for morphine/cocaine ?
By the By, I am not contemplating using the know-how you published for any selfish or ulterior motive – such as making-a- biological-weapon-off-the-internet.
——
0209W09Mar11.JSDM.
And so we come ultimately to the tobacco criminals screened on BBc Panorama.
The question put is one of losses to Customs and excise due to COUNTERFEITING of tobacco products.
If you say “so what if they are counterfeiting… Bully for them!” the instant reply by a slick reporter is that there is arsenic; there is lead.. and so on and so forth.. in the “counterfeited” product.
It really should not be the concern of the state as to what the logo is on the front of a ciggie packet, any more than it should be whether a pair of jeans has a trade mark which causes the price paid by the consumer to be out of all proportion to the value of the item.
If you then take the example of illegal narcotics and legally used ones ie by state “health services”, the implication is that the only pure narcotic is the narcotic used by the state to suppress for example a belligerent mental patient.
If only that were so!
Brand names are about elitism, exclusivity; what I have got is better than what you have got because I paid more for it!
That need be of no concern to the state in the case of private enterprise, since the higher the price paid, the more VAT is raised!
In the case of illegal narcotics/drugs, which command a high price, again the higher the price obtained on the street, the more the state loses in VAT, quite apart from the excise duty on the imported product!
The successful narcotics* trader has to establish a tax loss business, a money laundry, to “lose” his profits by the technicality of declared CASH, which he is unable to declare as profits from Drug dealing! It would be surprising if he could!!!!
* I hope I have got the right word to cover all illegal drugs there. They do all have that effect.
Raise the issue of how much money would be saved in the long-term if we legally-regulated all drugs Please
In the short-term, this government should take on rapidly engaging more injectors into supervised heroin-providing clinics and /or establish safer injection rooms to reduce the amount of street illegal drugs use that harms us all
So many writers/contributors here have said things that I might also have written, so let me not repeat them.
Illegal drugs entered my life personally, and later professionally (as counsellor and latterly campaigner) 38 years ago. Until my daughter was born (2007) I spent decades trying to organise drug-dependent people around AIDS/blood borne disease (BBD) prevention and improvement of drug services generally, and then I became a dedicated drug policy reformer.
One saddening aspect of this discussion is that it seems so hard to maturely debate as we are human and this is a very emotive issue: so totally understandable one might say. MOST of us come to this discussion as HUMAN Beings that have had profound experiences, which have led us to x or y position.
Still others are saying Please Look at the evidence-base but in the end, we all hold fixed positions and are unlikely to change them for love nor money, no matter which bits of evidence we read… Each of us has objective information, which we articulately express, but I know as a social scientist that we can skew research to prove our points. No, I’m not saying all social researchers are unethical but i know that for every one piece of scientific evidence supporting Harm Reduction, there MAYBE another which equally supports abstinence-based recovery programs.
However we cannot deny the example & encouraging message that has come from Portugal in the last decade.
I hate to be pessimistic, (particularly now as the Mother of a child, where both Guardians have been chemically-dependent) but having written about drug policy in an MSc dissertation, campaigned around it devotedly for over a decade and been personally profoundly affected by the legislation for several decades, I’ve concluded that any changes in a reforming direction will happen very slowly UNLESS we end up with so many drug-dependent people to ‘treat’ that the financial burden of locking us up and/or treating us is seen for what it is: a huge drain on tax-payers money (for one) and therefore stopped.
I am not for a moment suggesting that people will stop becoming drug-dependent once the drugs are legally-regulated BUT I am saying that the amount of crime that we would feel compelled to commit would be reduced drastically, and that the long-term impact of criminalising hundreds of thousands of young (or old) drug users would Thankfully be curtailed. And Both of these would improve the economies of so many countries….perhaps NOW would be a great time to consider this, given the increasing numbers of economies around the world which are collapsing…
Dear Lord Norton, thank you so much for raising this tomorrow but please let me make one clear statement: heroin Is a great pain-killer. People like to reduce pain be it physiological or emotional, and whether the drugs are legal or not, We Will find ways to get them into our bodies. HOWEVER, the damage that we then RELUCTANTLY do to Ourselves (mostly) and others could be HUGELY reduced If the legislation did not criminalise us in the first place.
I do not resent Some of those whom want to maintain the prohibition on drugs as I can hear that their biggest fear is that more of our fellow citizens would become chemically-dependent and therefore POSSIBLY lost in life. Frankly I share this fear Particularly as I am raising my lovely toddler in inner-city London, BUT here’s the question for me as Mum: if, God Forbid, she did choose to use heroin, would I prefer her to use a clean pure supply with sterilised needles or would I want her to put her life at risk with often-poisoned drugs, of unknown purity, quantity and quality (risking overdose)? OF COURSE Neither is my answer BUT these are real questions for some of us so it is with some urgency that I ask Lord Norton to place the evidence that does exist on the table at tomorrows discussion in the House of Ladies and Lords
THANK YOU
http://www.usersvoice.org.uk
We must begin making policies based on evidence alone, forget public opinion as it in the most part has been stained by misinformation, propaganda. We now have masses of data pointing to the medical benefits of cannabis, it’s myriad of useful pharmacology has been restricted for far too long, I lost my mother to cancer last year and wonder if she might just be with us still if it weren’t for the blinkered prohibitionist approach to drug policy.
There are millions of people in this country that regularly use cannabis and rightly so as the rest of society choose a far more toxic substance which is accepted, which makes the governments reduction of harm approach to cannabis a joke, considering there is no real data to substantiate any cannabis caused harm a fact which is far from true for alcohol.
I live a full life, own 2 homes, 2 businesses I am married, give to charities, I am an employer and have used cannabis for all of my adult life as an alternative to alcohol, while I have witnessed a number of deaths in my family directly related to alcohol abuse I haven’t been ill at all during my adult life. If I am caught enjoying a safer alternative to the socially accepted drug, I become a criminal. So, my options are drink and poison my body or be tee total! not much of a choice really.
I truly hope that Lord Norton can shine a little light on this dark subject during the debate and I applaud you for bringing this topic to the table. Thank You Sir.
It is worth pointing out that although bound by the UN single convention (1961) that should not be the key reason for not continuing the debate. Amendments can and have been made, but only to further punishment for suppliers or users. When a country i.e. Bolivia asked for an amendment to allow Coca chewing (not Cocaine) to bring it in line with UN resolutions on Indigenous Rights, our country, along with 16 others opposed it basically on the grounds that it would ‘weaken’ the “integrity” of the constitution. We are in a situation where even legitimate debate is censored because people are scared of the whole thing coming down.. that doesn’t make for good policy or sound like policy built on a solid foundation of evidence.
Even the previous head of the UNODC, Mr Costa, admitted that there have been “unintended consequences” (such as that blog image I linked to earlier) – http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2008/03/unodc-director-declares-international.html. To quote Transform:
““The drug control system has succeeded in containing the drugs problem to less than 5% of the adult population (aged 15-64) of the world. This refers to annual prevalence: those who have used drugs at least once in the year prior to the survey. Problem drug users are limited to less than one tenth of this already low percentage” p.3
Which means that he concedes that 90% use non-problematically.
“The ways in which the drug control system has been implemented have had several unintended consequences: the criminal black market, policy displacement, geographical displacement, substance displacement and the marginalization of users.” P.20”
UN drug policy also conflicts with UN Human Rights policy in a number of areas (http://www.ihra.net/files/2011/03/09/A.HRC_.16_.52_1.pdf) II, p.4 – “During the period from 19 December 2009 to 30 November 2010, the Special Rapporteur sent 64 letters of allegations of torture to 35 Governments, and 137 urgent appeals on behalf of persons who might be at risk of torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to 53 Governments.” The policy allows torture and other Human right violations to flourish.
Lord Norton, I once again commend you on raising this topic for debate, but to those that say we can’t do anything about it as we are ‘bound by international obligations’ I urge you to think about how these obligations damage our country and those less fortunate than ourselves and ask why, instead of blindly following, the UK can’t lead the way for once in reform internationally. Or at least allow a Royal Commission to independently bring reasoned alternatives and suggestions to the table…
Many thanks to all those who have so far contributed comments. I have tried to read then as they have come in as well as variously re-reading the whole string. I have found them invaluable and some of you may recognise some of your points in what I say this evening. Given that it is a Question for Short Debate (QSD), there is limited time – the debate lasts for a maximum of one hour. I have ten minutes in opening, so it is going to be quite a challenge dealing with it in that time, not least given all the material which readers have supplied. There are a total of ten speakers – high for a Question for Short debate – so other backbench speakers will only have about four minutes each before the Home Office minister, Baroness Neville-Jones, responds. At the moment, it is a case of watch this space.
Yes, butcombeman, I see that you have now descended to the level of personal abuse because your nonsensical and rabid defence of prohibition has gained no support.
Lord Norton clearly has your measure as do many other commenters and your offering of “The Kingpins Of Drug Legalisation” is the final destruction of your credibility.
Don’t you know when you’re beaten?
Of course he doesn’t he doesn’t have a clue what he’s saying!
Peter
There was no personal abuse. Certainly not by me, though someone I recall who found the argument difficult called me a “troll”. You call me “rabid”.
Well others will judge who is being personally abusive. A solid considered differrence of opinion is not personal abuse.
As to the posting of “The Kingpins of Drug Legalisation”.
I was specifically asked by his Lordship to post some history. (Though my preference is for him to have found the history himself).
I can fully appreciate that the history I pointed at, is deeply uncomfortable for you and maybe others here and very difficult to deal with. I can appreciate it contains materiel which you would rather keep hidden.
Presumably the reason you do not attempt to argue with it.
Most of it can be easily confirmed from plenty of other sources.
I do not want enything hidden butcombeman. i want to reveal the truth in the face of the liars, propagandists and scaremongers whose views you represent. Is it not now obvious to you how misguided you are?
What a wonderful occasion yesterday evening when we saw all men and women of good conscienece and integrity join together to condemn the disastrous and inane policy which our government is embarked upon.
Thank you Lord Norton for initiating this debate.
http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/house-of-lords-condemns-government-drug-policy/
Butcombeman, you accuse others of not responding to you but you yourself are guilty of the same thing.
I think Lord Norton was very succinct when he replied to your link, may I suggest you refer back to the good Lords post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
“In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion”
You’ve argued against several posters yet provided little or no evidence to support your arguments.
I have only 1 word for Baroness Neville-Jones’ response: Disgraceful!
Democracy is dead.
Lord Norton, I must commend you on the debate! I was unsurprised but still disappointed by Baroness’s Neville-Jones response and the toeing of party lines. I don’t think I need refute her statements here as they are obvious – other than the government reviewing their policy within a narrow range of variables it not really a ‘review’. Near unanimous agreement from everyone else encourages me that others at the higher levels too see the failings in current policy. What is the next step in this debate regarding an Impact Assessment or Royal Commission?
The government have already stated that criminalisation of users for possession of legal highs would have a negative and undesirable effect – so why do they still persist in criminalising cannabis users?
I don’t care if they crack down on dealers and commercial growers but someone growing a couple of plants for personal consumption should not have their front door smashed in and be treated like a terrorist.
The punishment & the amount of force used in the execution of the warrent should be proportional to the crime.
If caught growing cannabis you could get up to 5 years – you get less for carrying a knife in public.
Thank you Lord Norton for the debate, and thank you also to Baroness Meacher for a very notable presence.
I hope you, Lord Norton, can see first hand how unmovable this debate can come across. I speculate that something is not quite right when no mind or dialogue is given to alternatives.
Once more, it is heartening that there are some that have open minds in the houses. Thank you Lord Norton.
Yours, Jason Reed
It is understandable that Baroness Neville-Jones continues to toe the line and supports the governments strategy so far; she really has no choice if she doesn’t want to cause outrage and wishes to keep her job. As BlazingBudda says there is not a democractic approach on this subject.
Criminalising a large proportion of society for their private use of drugs is creating a large division within society that could almost be likened to the religious persecution between catholics and protestants in past times.
There is no need to provide anecdotes as this would go on and on. But it is very encouraging to see an informed debate in practice and I can only hope that this wisdom is picked up by government and that eventually the current stategy is re-thought and policy rewritten and maybe the media start telling the truth.
Whoever makes positive change and throws off this ridiculous prohibitionist stance will probably be eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize when considering the wide reaching harm and misery to humanity that prohibition has inadvertently created; as it far eclipses that actual harm individual drug use causes.
thank you lord Norton , i watched with great pride and a renewed spark of faith in the fight for truth and evidence based policy, but i cannot help wondering if corruption through prohibition has control of the policy , right now ,through well rewarded insiders , this point alone is one worth investigating ,starting with those rejecting any form of investigation would be a good place to start!
May I say how impressed I was with the good Lords output, I was heartened by what everyone said, right up until we got the minister.
Baroness Neville-Jones disgusted me, her reasoning is flawed, her ‘facts’ were flawed, her speech was flawed. Sorry Baroness Neville-Jones, I expect much better, you were clearly following instructions because you did not appear to be able to articulate anything.
If she is representing OUR Government then God save us, she does not represent this tax paying individual, or, I would imagine, several million others.
I would imagine the likes of Baroness Neville-Jones and Butcombeman think it right and proper I gain a drug trafficking conviction, a conviction that would lose me my job, my mortgage and my home. My children would be torn away from their friends, their school and their life really.
So my whole family would suffer.
I am absolutely disgusted at this Government.
“Never give in! Never give in! Never, never, never, never – in nothing great or small, large or petty. Never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense.”
~ Winston Churchill
butcombeman, your argument would have more weight if you gave details of the studies you expect people to take note of. Nobody is going to entertain am adult debate with someone who talks about studies nobody can read or check up on, you sound like a government minister regurgitation the some old garbage of discredited research with out having the decency to put the research up for scrutiny.
Phillip
I have not been seeking to have a full debate with his Lordhsip about drug policy, all I have sought to do is persuade him that his call for a Royal Commission was misplaced, might do more harm than good to the using culture and that, deliberately or accidentally he had lapsed in to the memes, phraseology and arguments, of the well financed legalisation lobby.
In response to his call for me to support my comments on the history and the finance, I have given him and you, a key document which is broadly correct and which he and you, can use as a base to check if my accounts of the history and finance are correct.
It is interesting that Peter Reynolds, probably the best informed commentator here, does not choose NOW to argue with the history.
The traditional way of arguing with the history incidentally, is to shout “conspiracy theory”. The trouble is, there is and has been, an ongoing sophisticated conspiracy to deceive well intentioned people like his Lordship.
He shows signs of irritation at my pointing this out. That is perhaps an understandable human reaction. Now he will have more time to consider and maturely reflect on how he may have been manipulated.
Some of the people, even their Lordships who spoke last night, are not bad or ill intentioned people, they are genuinely concerned but such is the intensity and sophistication with which the legalisation argument has been conducted, they get taken in.
There were some absolute errors of fact in some of the comments made last night by some of their Lordships.
I shall await the transcript before commenting further.
butcombeman: I fear you have not provided a key document. I am interested in serious, scholarly pieces in authoritative journals or similar.
I know where I’ve heard these sorts of arguments before! It was during the great climate debate where scientists used evidence to prove their point and big businesses fought against this evidence by provoking ignorance amongst the masses. This, unfortunately, is still evident today.
Just ask enough people about global warming and there’s still plenty of them who will argue it isn’t happening.
Many thanks for the comments on the debate. I was very pleased with the support I received from all parts of the House. It is rare to garner such consistent support and, indeed, for so many peers to take part in a one-hour Question for Short Debate (QSD). I thought the force of the argument was compelling. I was very disappointed, though I fear not surprised, by the minister’s response. There was no engagement with the argument. The response was very much couched within an acceptance of the existing law and, as with the ‘Drugs Strategy 2010’, there was no reflective element at all. The minister failed to address the points I raised.
Support for my argument was not confined to those taking part in the debate. Various peers saw me afterwards to say they agreed with me. Suffice to say they were not confined to backbench peers. I shall be in discussions as to how to take the case forward. A debate such as this was very much a way of getting the issue aired and part of a process. I will be considering whether we may be able to push for what Lord Stevenson was suggesting and that is a parliamentary inquiry.
I must first commend the members of the house who engaged in the debate, but I find it disgusting that Baroness Neville-Jones arrived with her preordained answers, ignoring the effort other members had put into said debate, then displaying her intellectual bankruptcy towards the issue when mentioning the HIV statistics for Portugal.
I must also state a slight frustration at certain members’ failure to distinguish between what constitutes “use” and “misuse”. I am all for any policy which looks to curb the misuse of drugs, however, the categorising of any drug use as misuse is confusing the issue.
There should be a focus on educating the population on what constitutes “responsible drug use”. In some cases, heroin for instance, responsible use is not to use the drug at all. However, just like having a glass of wine with ones meal would represent responsible alcohol use, a couple of joints in the evening after a day’s work is similarly responsible use of cannabis.
Also, more studies need to be conducted around the real causes of addiction. I would draw your attention towards the following paper entitled “The Myth of Drug-Induced Addiction”
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/presentation-e/alexender-e.htm
A more evidence-based approach towards educating young people needs to be adopted, sooner rather than later. Simply telling teenagers that cannabis may cause them long-term developmental problems isn’t enough, and is likely to be greeted with a chorus of “Yeah, right!” then off they go to disobey.
There is, however, evidence to show that using cannabis while the brain is still developing, DOES have an effect on their memory. I have seen an experiment carried out on mice where one group was given cannabis at adolescence, another group was given cannabis as an adult, and the third group was not given any cannabis (the control). The mice were placed in a pool of water with reference points around the room and a transparent ramp in the pool on which they could escape. The groups of mice which were either given cannabis as adults or not fed any cannabis could remember where the ramp was each time. However, the mice that were given cannabis as adolescents struggled to find the ramp and either stumbled upon it by chance or required rescuing after several minutes of swimming around in circles. This is the sort of thing children need to see to reinforce the issues we’re trying to explain to them.
I hope this has provided you with some more information on the issue and I hope it will help you and your colleagues to be a part of the solution, rather than Baroness Neville-Jones’ seeming intent on continuing to be a part of the problem.
Good luck to you, and please keep up the good work.
I am encouraged by the number of honourable members of the house of lords that all see the obvious failings of the MODA 1971 and I would like to commend the honourable Lord Norton for bringing this debate to the house.
I am depressed to hear the response from Baroness Neville-Jones! How can she not relate to the evidence raised?
So, what now? It is obvious that drugs are creating criminal organisations more wealthy than governments which is a frightening prospect, hugely wealthy crime gangs lead to corruption and it would seem this government are more than happy to allow this to continue, I wonder why when faced with so much fact based evidence for the decriminalise route and only knee jerk response policies and a distinct lack of evidence for the case of continuing prohibition!
I see a huge deterioration of trust, faith in this government on a daily basis, never before during my adult life have I experienced such discontent because this government continually broadcasts a message of self serving, dictatorship with a distinct lack of understanding of real peoples lives.
We elect governments to mould our country in our image, not for them to tell us how it is going to be based on their ideals and not ours! We didn’t even elect this government into power but I now know I will never vote conservatives while they continue to support organised crime so blindly. I am thoroughly disgusted.
Pistils@dawn: Thanks for your comments. I was encouraged by the support from all sides of the House and indeed by the number of peers who saw me afterwards to agree with me. The need now is to keep pressing for some action.
Correction.. Apologies, I meant, not the act itself, but how our government choose to ignore the recommendations to reassess each drug based on new evidence, we have new evidence to the medical benefits of cannabis but it is still ignored and classified as having no medical benefit!
Pistils@dawn, indeed!
How can the Government have Sativex on the market and still maintain their position on ‘herbal’ Cannabis?
So it’s o.k. to be able to have Sativex on the NHS, at great cost, which is, after all, just a tincture, with all the constituent components of Cannabis, and yet not be ‘allowed’ to grow and make our own tincture?
Double standards abound.
I was disappointed by the Government response which appeared to say we reject all evidence and will only be reviewing our own policies on the subject.
This blog has seen quite a large influx of respondees all of whom seem to suggest that a review of current law is necessary. This was despite opposing views.
What is apparent is that Government has no wish to listen to evidence or indeed to the electorate. It is an autonomous decision that will continue to promote an unsuccessful,costly,policy to deal with drugs and related societal ills.
Carl.H: The problem is indeed ensuring that we adopt an evidence-based approach. In my speech, I said that too much legislation was introduced on the basis of hope. When I said ‘hope’, a colleague sitting in front of me, who did not speak in the debate, put it perhaps more accurately,saying ‘prejudice’.
This link takes a good look at Portugal’s common sense attitude towards drugs. http://www.guelphmercury.com/opinion/columns/article/498517–portugal-s-experiment-with-drug-laws-is-paying-off#Comments
How can anyone argue with real world developments?
O.K. Except Butcombeman!
Portugal remains the country with the highest incidence of IDU (Injection Drug Users)related AIDS and is the only country in Europe with an increase; 703 newly diagnosed infections followed from a distance by Estonia with 191 and Latvia with 108 reported cases.
The number of new cases of HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C in Portugal recorded 8 times the
average found in other EU countries.
Homicides related to drug use have increased 40%, and it is the only EU country to show
an increase from 2000 to 2006.
Portugal recorded a 30% increase in drug overdose deaths, and along with Greece,
Austria and Finland has one of the worst records in the EU, one every two days.
The number of deceased individuals that tested positive for drugs (314) in 2007
registered a 45% rise, “…..climbing fiercely after 2006 (216).”
Behind Luxembourg, Portugal is the European country with the highest rate of consistent
drug users and IV heroin dependents. (Portuguese Drug Situation Annual Report 2006)
Drug use increased 4.2% between 2001-2007, with life time use going from 7.8% to 12%
(66% increase.) Individual drug use grew as follows:
Cannabis 12.4 to 17% ( 37% increase)
Cocaine 1.3 to 2.8% (215% increase)
Heroine .7 to 1.1% ( 57% increase)
Ecstasy .7 to 1.3% ( 85% increase)
While cocaine and amphetamine consumption rates have doubled, drug seizures of
cocaine have increased sevenfold between 2001 and 2006, sixth highest in the world.
(World Drug Report, June 2009)
The current governments stance is blatently obvious – Mr Cameron reffered to Cannabis as “Toxic” and dismissed any medicinal use in a webcast interview recently even though he was caught using it at University (it doesn’t seem to have done him any harm) & his government granted a license to GW pharma for sativex (a cannabis based spray).
There is plenty of evidence that prohibition does not work and just creates a lucritive criminal controlled market so we need to do something soon otherwise what is currently happening in Mexico will start happening here.
To quote Tony Blair “Education, Education, Education” – This is the answer not criminalisation & persicution, the only way to reduce drug demand is to educate people with the facts not Frank’s propaganda.
The illegality of drugs has never stopped anyone taking them and never will.
If there is a bloody drugs war on the streets or large numbers of people killed by contaminated drugs (there is already heroin contaminated by anthrax in circulation) then maybe the government will do the right thing but until then they will just spout the same old lies.
I am very worried that one of the governments measures of how sucessful prohibition is is how impure the drugs on the street are as some of the contaminents are more dangerous than the drugs themselves.
We all just saw first hand HOW and WHY our goverment dont want to review drug laws in the UK . They will have to use EVIDENCE and not go on what MPs think should happen , and that would mean making some drugs legal that they dont want legal and vice versa . Thats the problem plain and simple, small minded MPs who think they know best . Lord Norton , may i ask what can be done to sort this out ? From where im sitting all i can see is the same thing happening every year . Last year it was the ACMD and now its the Lords but the goverment gives the same answer every time . What can be done ? Something needs to change , our MPs have already proved they wont listen to the FACTS , SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FROM THE UK AND ABROAD . To be honest i have great respect for you and your colleagues standing up and making your voices heard but at the end of the day i think you will be ignored by MPs and will never get the questions you asked answered .
butcombeman to use a DEA web site to back up your views is laughable this is the very sharp edge that is the prohibition movement and the very people who have done the most harm whist having the most to lose over drug policy reforms and leaves me with questions?
I have been trying to post this letter up, its to James Brokenshire at the Home Office I’m awaiting his response:
02/03/2011
James Brokenshire MP,
Parliamentary Under Secretary
of State for Crime Prevention,
2 Marshem Street.
London SW1A 0AA
Dear Mr Brokenshire
Thank you for you response to my previous email on the subject of cannabis tincture now rebranded at great expense to the British taxpayer as Sativex, though I note your reply was not directly to me of course but to Mary McCleod MP and her request that you respond to me, I have not had the courtesy of a direct reply.
In your response you failed to answer the questions with any credibility. Claiming that Sativex is not the same as raw cannabis despite it having exactly the same range of cannabinoids as normal/natural cannabis; it is pharmaceutically identical in its chemical make up. I am writing again and expect a much more detailed answer; I would very much like to know exactly ‘how’ it is different; chemically, or perhaps on a molecular scale. Unless of course it is an interaction between cannabis and the other ingredients, one unknown to me, or for that matter anyone else.
You have also ignored/ failed to properly address my question over licensing Sativex by referring to the communication from ACMD which while it refers to Cannabis/Sativex and its need to be listed appropriately in Schedule 4 or 2 it is not the answer to the question asked. Which is to do with licensing approval which is I believe the responsibility of the Medicines and Health care products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to make these decisions not as you have implied the responsibility of the ACMD. Neither does it answer how cannabis can be scheduled as a ‘Dangerous drug of little or no medical value’ in schedule 1, while also existing in schedule 4 (the appropriate schedule or schedule 2 (the compromise to fit international requirements) as a ‘Medicine of little or no known harm’, which is impossible to achieve without a falsification of the facts.
I believe you are also well aware that your and the governments attitude to the right of those of a Muslim faith in this country to effective health care is being compromised as there are no effective other medicines that work as well as cannabis, no matter which form the cannabis comes in.
The only things different between Cannabis and Sativex are the impurities, Cannabis in its natural form can be produced free of contaminants with a licensing and testing approach (such as should be employed by GW Pharmaceuticals when they grow their Skunk* Cannabis, while Sativex, by its method and nature of production has contaminates infused into the mix deliberately; why? These contaminate are only included to facilitate the function of the patented dispensing device, Sativex contains Ethanol Anhydrous the rest being made up of Propylene Glycol, Peppermint Oil and Cannabis oil. Only one of these ingredients has any medical application claimed for it ‘Cannabis’ (despite its inclusion in schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act as a drug of little or no medical value)? Propylene Glycol on the other hand; a cosmetic form of mineral oil found in automatic brake and hydraulic fluid and industrial antifreeze. In the skin and hair, propylene glycol works as a humescent, which causes retention of moisture content of skin or cosmetic products by preventing the escape of moisture or water? The Material Safety Data Sheet warns users to avoid skin contact with propylene glycol as this strong skin irritant can cause liver abnormalities and kidney damage.
Propylene glycol is commonly found in: Makeup – shampoo – deodorant – detangler-styling mousse – cleansing cream – mascara – soap – skin cream – bubble bath – baby powder – conditioner – toner – after shave – baby wipes. It is also in: Tyre sealant – Rubber cleaner – De-icer – Stain removers – Fabric softener – Degreaser – Paint – Adhesive – Wallpaper stripper.
I know of no positive Medical claims for this product!
ETHYL ALCOHOL (ANHYDROUS)
INGESTION • May cause dizziness, faintness, drowsiness, decreased awareness and responsiveness, euphoria, abdominal discomfort, nausea, vomiting, staggering gait, lack of coordination and coma.
SKIN ABSORPTION • No adverse effects with normal skin; However, potentially harmful amounts of material may be absorbed across markedly abraded skin when contact is sustained, particularly in children.
INHALATION • High vapor concentrations may cause a burning sensation in the throat and nose, stinging and watering in the eyes. At concentrations which cause irritation, dizziness, faintness, drowsiness, nausea and vomiting may occur.
EYE CONTACT • Severe eye irritant even vapors can irritate eyes. Eye damage from contact with liquid is reversible and proper treatment will result in healing within a few days. Damage is usually mild to moderate conjunctivitis, seen mainly as redness of the conjunctiva.
EFFECT OF REPEATED OVEREXPOSURE• Long term repeated oral exposure to ethanol may result in the development of progressive liver injury with fibrosis.
MEDICAL CONDITIONS AGGRAVATED BY OVEREXPOSURE • Repeated exposure to ethanol may exacerbate liver injury produced from other causes.
OTHER EFFECTS OF OVEREXPOSURE • Repeated ingestion of ethanol by pregnant mothers has been shown to adversely affect the central nervous system of the fetus, producing a collection of effects which together constitute the fetal alcohol syndrome. These include mental and physical retardation, disturbances of learning, motor and language deficiencies, behavioral disorders, and small size head.
I know of no positive Medical claims for this product!
Peppermint while not controlled or illegal is banned from having medical claims made on its behalf under the EU Medical Herbs Directive.
I find it interesting to note that the warnings over Sativex and pregnant/ breast feeding women only mentions the possible (speculative) effects of cannabis on the fetus/infant whilst ignoring the known effect of Ethanol Anhydrous. It should also be noted that most side effects attributed to Sativex are those known to be a problem with the alcohols used to make the cannabis oil used thin enough to be used in the patented mist dispenser.
I recently appeared on a BBC 3 broadcast where I warned people over contaminated street cannabis, the truth is this medical cannabis also has some questionable pollutants / contaminants that add nothing to the medical affectivity of cannabis. Indeed these contaminate are only included to facilitate the function of the patented dispensing device and Sativex itself seems to be nothing more than cannabis tincture as was available in any chemists pre 1963 and not, a new revolutionary drug worth the £10m that the British taxpayer has put into cannabis as medicine.
Natural cannabis in its many varieties has the ability to offer a broader spectrum of cannabinoids tailor made to offer more effective relief to the many and diverse medical problems cannabis is documented as being an effective treatment of.
Vaporizing devices such as are available freely in many outlets across the UK are effective medical delivery systems that need no contaminants to work, do not contain alcohol as such they compromise no ones religion or right to ‘effective medical treatment’ as the government current stance does. The governments current policies also act to protect GW Pharmaceuticals strangle hold on its competitors by restricting medical competition such as is accepted in much of the EU and the USA. It is a hypocrisy that allows foreign nationals to use medical cannabis in the UK while arresting the sick and dying of the UK for using the same medicine. Now we are informed that cannabis minus the fibre of the leaf and flower mixed with a selective blend of contaminants / alcohols is to be placed in schedules 4 or 2 as a medicine of little or no danger, while cannabis in its natural non toxic form is to stay in schedule 1 as a drug of little or no medicinal value. This is pure protectionism in its most base form. It is interesting to note that vaporized cannabis is more effective by being better absorbed than Sativex/tincture and has immediate effect; below is an extract from the MHRA web site dealing with Sativex;
Absorption:
The inhaled route results in a very different plasma concentration /time profile from that following oromucosal administration of Sativex. A rapid increase in plasma THC levels occurs when Cannabis is smoke is inhaled, in contrast to the Tmax for Sativex of approximately 90 minutes. From the available published literature it can be demonstrated that the plasma levels of THC following smoked or vaporised THC BDS (mean dose 6.6mg, mean Cmax =118ng/mL, Study GWPKO114) are over 10 times higher than those achieved with a cautious omucosal administration with Sativex (mean dose 10.4mg THC + 10mg CBD mean Cmax = 4.9ng/mL (THC), Study GWPK215).
* Skunk; I use this term, as this is the term applied by the press, police and government when describing plants grown using the methods employed by GW Pharmaceuticals or plants hybridized to adjust cannabinoid ratios, I believe both plants currently used by GW Pharmaceutical’s has been bred to achieve pre conceived results in common with all other cannabis ‘labeled as skunk’ despite this name not being botanically accepted. One plant being high in THC and one high in CBD, these plants I believe are not naturally occurring land races but hybridizations aka skunk.
I request a proper accurate statement of ‘fact’ over these issues, not the fudge of prohibition led falsities and sweeping generalisations that your last letter contained.
Yours Sincerely
Mr P S Walsh.
Lord Norton – The current government is a coalition and the LibDem manifesto clearly states….
Ensure that financial resources, and police and court time, are not wasted on the unnecessary prosecution and imprisonment of drug users and addicts; the focus instead should be on getting addicts the treatment they need. Police should concentrate their efforts on organised drug pushers and gangs.
Always base drugs policy on independent scientific advice, including making the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs completely independent of government.
So if Mr Clegg and his merry band have any scruples then why are they letting the government drive through a drugs policy that is media driven, moralistic & idealistic rather then scientific?
Is it because far too many of them have interests in alcohol & pharmacutical businesses or do they believe their own propaganda that alcohol and fags are OK (even though they kill tens of thousands) and cannabis is the indeed the devils milk.
The way the current government are going we will have the most draconian drugs laws in the free world & a prison population to match the USA’s.
Paul
You seem confused about the role of the LibDems and “The Government”, the LibDems are part of government. In a coaltion various parties do not get all their own poilicies through.
I stand to be corrected but I do not believe drug policy was a part of the coaltion agreement?
Nevertheless if you take a cool look at drugs stratgey, it DOES encapsulate much of what LibDems campaigned for especialy the new emphasis on treatment leading to abstinence.
You say:
“Ensure that financial resources, and police and court time, are not wasted on the unnecessary prosecution and imprisonment of drug users and addicts; the focus instead should be on getting addicts the treatment they need. Police should concentrate their efforts on organised drug pushers and gangs”.
Surely the vastly increased use of cautions for personal has gone some way to deal with that? In practice now, the Police/SOCA DO concentrate on dealers/trafickers.
You further say:
“Always base drugs policy on independent scientific advice, including making the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs completely independent of government”.
I do not think that has been carried forward quite as some LibDems envisaged, so I see your point. But was it sensible?
The ACMD is independent of government, a statutory body with members changing every few years (I think typically members serve for three). It IS advisory and it is statutory, existence prescribed by Act of Parliament.
It is a fact of the history that most reccommendations from the ACMD get accepted in entirety by government.
Maybe some in the LibDems envisaged government handing over all decisions on drug policy to the ACMD, that was never going to happen, the ACMD are not democratically accountable. That would be wrong. That was typical LibDem lack of wordliness.
Easy to say things like that from never ending oppossition, harder from government.
Also bear in mind the ACMD is NOT just staffed with scientists and even if it was, scientists have a good record of getting things wrong.
Overall Drug Policy is rather more complicated than just the science (though Professor Nutt would have you believe otherwise no doubt).
Incidentally listen to John Humphries defenestrating Nutt, Radio 4 2130 tonight. (On the Rocks). The surprising thing about Nutt is that he seems surprised he was sacked.
I have read the coalition document & I do understand that by definition it results in a compromise by both parties. But the current policy is becoming draconian and highly prohibitionist. It assumes all drug users are addicts & criminals yet refuses to include alcohol in any discussions because “it’s different”, well with an estimated 6 million cannabis users in the UK thats a lot of voters and a lot of tax payers they are alienating & criminalising.
I’m not after legalisation – I want our elected MP’s to have a meaningfull debate on the subject and overhall the MODA-71 so it is fit for purpose.
Prohibition isn’t working as drugs have never been so easy to obtain so it must be time to debate if there is a better way to control/regulate all drugs including alcohol and tobacco.
As for addiction – I’ve never been addicted to any illegal drug but I was to prescription pain-killers – I got no help whatsoever overcoming an addiction that was caused by a lazy GP who didn’t even tell me they were addictive.
So in my book all drugs illegal, legal or prescribed are just the same – they all need regulation and users need the full facts before they take them – the current system pevents that by design and that is why the current implementation of the MODA-71 is unfit for purpose.
Steve, I think the problem lies with Government M.P’s. I live in Wales and I am currently in the process of gathering consensus from them all, Plaid Cymru think Cannabis should at the very least be decriminalised. It will be an uphill struggle, not sure it will work, but I cannot think of anything else I can do.
How are people supposed to respect this or any Government?
Even the mothers in my primary school think it’s outrageous that I could go to prison for a few plants, [new ruling in the appeal court means for the charge of production, minimum 9 months custodial].
The Government, especially this one, is so far adrift from the population they are not, in fact, representing us.
Tom please let me know more about the 9 month minimum sentencing for production I am in court (again) for this offence.
e-mail on it’s way, for anyone else that may be interested in this new appeal court precedent the details are: Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWCA Crim 76
Case No: 201004933 A8 201006048 A6 201004903 A2 201004254 A1
This needs overturning as it is pernicious and immoral in nature.
This isn’t a precedent as such, these sentences are the existing ones – in practice most courts sentence less where defendant’s are of good character, early guilty plea etc – I would still try and fight it, so far the courts have refused to accept jurisdiction over the misuse of this law through the determination of certain judges to support the government’s lies – however the day of reckonning is drawing nearer.
Criminal law – Cultivation of cannabis – Sentence length
R v (1) John Auton (2) Lawrence Hindle (3) Glen Vincent (4) Stephen Willis: CA (Crim Div) (Lord Justice Hughes LJ (vice-president), Mrs Justice Eady, Mr Justice Rafferty DBE): 3 February 2011
The appellants appealed against their sentences for offences of cultivation of cannabis. Each of the four appellants had been convicted of small-scale cultivation of cannabis at home.
The methods included hydroponic cultivation and intensive artificial lighting and involved the use of specialist equipment.
Held: (1) For cultivation short of industrial cultivation, as was contemplated in R v Xiong Xu [2007] EWCA Crim 3129, [2008] 2 Cr App R (S) 50: (a) where the cultivation genuinely involved no element of supply of any kind, the sentence after trial was likely to be in the range of 9-18 months, depending on the size of the operation and the personal history of the defendant;
(b) where the cultivation was for the defendant’s own use and was not a commercial operation for profit, but did involve supply to others, the sentence after trial was likely to be in the range of 18 months to three years; where any individual case came within the range depended on, inter alia, the scale of cultivation, the investment made, the number of parties involved, the nature of the likely supply, the level of any profit element and any history of similar offending;
(c) where the cultivation was a commercial one designed with a view to sale for profit, and whether or not the defendant might use a limited quantity of the drug himself, the sentence would usually be below the Xu range because of the smaller size of the operation, but was likely to be in the general range of 3-6 years after trial, Xu considered (see paragraph 14 of judgment).
(2) On that basis, the first appellant’s sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment for an estimated crop of 49 plants with a street value of £5,500-£6,000, where he pleaded guilty on the basis that it was principally for his own use with supply to friends, was within the correct range (paragraphs 16-18).
(3) The second appellant’s sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment for a similar crop, after a guilty plea and on the basis that he made no profit from it, was also within the correct range (paragraphs 19-21).
(4) The third appellant’s sentence of three years’ imprisonment for a similar crop with supply to friends, ought to have been one of 27 months (paragraphs 22-24).
(5) The fourth appellant’s sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment on the basis that the cannabis was for his sole use should have been one of 12 months.
Appeals allowed in part.
B Walker Nolan (instructed by Bett & Co) for the appellant Auton; M Taylor (instructed by LatifeAdams) for the appellant Hindle; M Miller (instructed by Tates) for the appellant Vincent; R N Sheldon (instructed by Foyes) for the appellant Willis; C Cartwright (instructed by CPS) for the Crown in Auton, Hindle and Vincent: I West (instructed by CPS) for the Crown in Willis.
butcombeman, you say “I stand to be corrected but I do not believe drug policy was a part of the coaltion agreement?”.
This Government has no mandate for anything they are doing, so your statement holds no water whatsoever, and since when have a Government carried forward ANY pre-election promise?
The Government claim that only alcohol and tobacco are culturally acceptable and that it would be culturally unacceptable to include Alcohol and Tobacco in the misuse of Drugs Act as these very dangerous drugs are use sensibly by the majority of the public.
This is a racial and cultural lie that legitimises persecution of minorities.
I was nine years old when the 1968 Act criminalised cannabis users.
I got up one day as a child and was taken aside by one of my brothers and told that I could not/must not talk about how my family lived our lives in our home as we had been declared a ‘criminal family’ while we slept as we had a culture of cannabis use in our house.
As a teenager growing up through the seventies I was told I had to accept the tides of foreigners coming to Britain, learn to absorb and respect the cultures of these immigrants and make them my own, this my generation did.
As the years went by it became apparent that cannabis featured in the cultures of a large percentage of these immigrants. These peoples are now part of our culture and society and our British society now has cannabis firmly entrenched in it and in its culture.
It is a bigoted view that denies this as a fact of British life with approximately 10% of the UK population who consider Cannabis to be part of our culture. It may not be the culture of the rich and privileged that never mix with immigrants or the working classes but this is because they are far removed from modern Britain and the culture of the modern British. These are the people who make up the majority of parliamentarians, they have been protected from reality through exclusive schools and universities and as such are from a different Britain and a different culture from the rest of us; yet they see fit to impose their Britain and their culture on the rest of us. If we don’t fit in we have our homes attacked and invaded, our children terrified by state oppression and our lives and careers ruined by criminalisation.
This is my Britain and my culture and it includes cannabis and its use. To deny it, is racist and bigoted. Apparently this is irrelevant as are we and our opinions / beliefs, be they cultural or religious!
Applewoods
Strong opposition to & laws/taboos against use of cannabis, have a long history in societies other than ours. So your racism rant is way off beam. Fantasy in fact as far as the UK is concerned (though the US has a slightly differrent history).
You are certainly passionate but a bit of history would surely give you a better & calmer, perspective?
Those who oppose use of cannabis in our society (or any other society) have a respectable and historically justified position. Indeed so do those who oppose all use of alcohol. Think of the Temperance movement.
You might also ask yourself why that historic oppossition to cannabis ever developed. It goes back a very long time. Societies tend to develop taboos because they find them useful.
It is often asserted that it was the US pushed for inclusion of cannabis in inernational agreements. It was the Egyptians.
Cultural and historical taboos are subjective and irrelevant when considering the legal status of cannabis.
An evidence based approach is required to maximize benefit to society and minimize unnecessary cost.
Upholding misinformed old dogma has no place in such a policy.
Ed
You say:
“An evidence based approach is required to maximize benefit to society and minimize unnecessary cost”.
Indeed it is and the evidence against cannabis use grows year by year. All the harms of tobacco and more. An intoxicant like alcohol, with teratogenic effects like alcohol, damaging effects on the brain, particularly the young brain, dependency inducing, combined with carcinogenic and other effects.
It causes more total harm than all other drugs apart from alcohol & tobacco, simply through prevalence.
It is very difficult to make a logical and serious case for normalising use on the tobacco/alcohol model, which is presumably why the cases that are made, are so weak.
It gives rise to great passion in some users and especially those dependent on it, yet are their pleas worth taking any more seriously than those who argued against the laws on tobacco smoking in public places or those who said, in defence of tobacco, “it never did me any harm”?
The case for cannabis, is dead now in the UK. It had a brief flurry of success but it’s time is past.
I accept that cannabis can be damaging to the adolescent brain, as can many things which can be legally enjoyed by adults, alcohol and tobacco included.
I’m afraid however the rest of your sweeping claims have no scientific basis of which I am aware.
Cannabis has been *correlated* with certain brain abnormalities, but as far as I am aware there is no hard evidence it causes any significant health issues in adults. If it does, feel free to cite the studies to back up your rather severe claims.
Les Iversen, Roger Pertwee, David Nutt, all accomplished men who disagree with you on the basis of their life’s work. If you’re going to claim to know better, please provide some proof, there is more than enough prohibitionist rhetoric to go around, contribute something solid.
As regards comparing opposition to cannabis prohibition with opposition to tobacco prohibition, tobacco isn’t prohibited so I’m afraid that’s a moot point. The two substances are also completely different, something with either escapes you or is beyond the simplicity of your argument.
Taboos can be rooted in common sense, trying to control the masses, superstition or just plain prejudice and bigotry. Anyone who isn’t a teetotaler who argues against cannabis users is a bigot. Whilst I believe in free speech it’s a teribble sufferenace that some drug users are undergoing – criminalisation, hatred, contempt – and it is still fair game to criticise them and make degrading comments. This has stopped officially for gays (another old taboo) and yet now we don’t have blogs demanding that it be stamped out. It’s not really about cannabis at all – it is about giving people a scape goat who they can persecute and claim a ficticious moral high ground over. Opposition to cannabis is Orwellian double-speak for hating people and ruining their lives because of a personal difference, a choice that harms no-one beyond the harms the prohibitionists create themselves (both physical and mental as well as social).
butcombeman
I don’t need a history lessen you do The American government was behind the push to outlaw cannabis, it was there insistence that it was included late in the proceedings of the opiates convention, The Egyptians were in favour because it took hemp a major competitor with the Egyptian and American cotton interest. Britain opposed its inclusion until the British representative; A cotton Baron who’s own industry was in a slump due to the loss of the Egyptian Cotton fields after the Suez crises saw Britain ejected from Egypt accepted a bribe of 30 years of subsidised cotton from the USA in return for his signature. This was the real reason behind the British clothing industries decision to move production abroad in 1993, not the cost of wages as was claimed wages only became an issue when the bride/subsidy run out.
As for the rights of totalitarians such as yourself and those with vested interest to criminalise, humiliate, incarcerate and ruin the lives of others and their children you / they do not have those rights. The drug laws are all based on an act of malfeasance justified by lies and enacted on the basis of bribery and corruption.
Sorry the first paragrath of the above should have read:
butcombeman
I don’t need a history lessen you do. The American government was behind the push to outlaw cannabis, it was their insistence that it was included late in the proceedings of the opiates convention, The Egyptians were in favour because it took hemp a major competitor with the Egyptian and American cotton interests out of the equation.
Applewoods
(Sigh)
There many many references to the Egyptian initiative, supported in some accounts by the Turks. If I am wrong, a lot of historians are wrong even some who would support your position on cannabis.
Here is just one:
http://ccguide.org/since12.php
If you know how to do a boolean search I suggest you do it.
butcombeman, sighing is a sign of arrogance and superiority, its a bit sad really.
That made interesting reading but contains no new information, it doesn’t mention the acts being passed in America at the time and doesn’t give information on the views as expressed by many countries concentrating on the Egyptian statement. The Egyptians like the Turks where having trouble controlling the peoples and regions that used cannabis. these peoples refused to except the power of those that considered themselves in control of these nations.
Its something cannabis smokers still do today it what really frightens the prohibitionists
isn’t it!
Saying the case for cannabis is dead is like saying the 6 million users are dead. When people make comments like that, that these people are rejected, there is nothing polite to say. Youare talking to a bigot, and until they recognise that they are acting in such an unpleasant way there is nothing of any worth than can pass their lips or be written on a blog. People who hate people without good reason are inadequate and contemptuous inviduals. Butcombeman my arse.
Well said Darryl!
Butcombeman should not be fed. His ultimate comeuppance was the laughable “Kingpins of Legalisation” post. Lord Norton himself diagnosed the delirium of anyone who can adduce such nonsense in his claim.
As for the blatant misinformation and distortion of the truth about cannabis, I will not even dignify it with a response.
The truth about cannabis is clear.
Gentlemen, we could argue about historical precedents and taboos until we are blue in the face. I would put forward however that the concept of “taboo” is irrelevant in the context of this debate.
Anything illegal will obviously be taboo, once illegal for a sufficient period of time. To then state that the resulting taboo is justification for illegality of the substance is circular reasoning and nothing more than a mere distraction from the real point of this debate.
Is a review warranted as regards the suitability of prohibition via the criminal justice system a means of controlling the negative impact of drugs.
The answer here has been a resounding yes – a review is needed.
If butcombeman and his like are as correct as they claim, they have nothing to fear from a review, so why fight it with such vigor? Perhaps it’s because prohibition will only thrive in the dark, damp recesses of ignorance in which UK drug policy currently resides.
ED
You are on sticky ground.
Iversen appears to have changed his mind on cannabis and now disagrees with Nutt.
Nutt has his views on cannabis (not all the ACMD agreed with him) but note Professor Robin Murray said of Nutt that he was “playing fast & loose with the statistics”.
Nutt is discredited by his sacking and his lining himself up with the Beckley Foundation, run by someone who believes that boring a hole in the skull is sane and sensible behaviour. Enough said.
On the multiple harms of cannabis I say you are in denial.
INSERT>
SummarySummary (text)AbstractAbstract (text)MEDLINEXMLPMID
Format
Summary (text)Abstract (text)MEDLINEXMLPMID 1 selected item: 19586351
Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2009 Jul;47(6):517-24.
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]
Publication Types, MeSH Terms, Substances
Sticky ground? You are fond of your droll, metaphorical proclamations.
Regarding Prof Iversen, can you provide some proof of this alleged U turn? Iversens presentation “Bringing cannabis back into the medicine cabinet” would tend to suggest the contrary. Regardless, even if Iversen and Nutt have differences overall, they can still agree on cannabis, the subject of debate.
As for your paper, it’s secondary research of a very casual nature. Note:
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.
So they googled a body of work (screened it by hand, sample bias anyone?) and *CORRELATED* cannabis use with some conditions. There is no control group, no double blind, no direct CAUSAL evidence that cannabis causes health problems. Now we do have a considerable body of double blind controlled studies for the benefits of cannabis, if this high school standard paper is your best rebuttal I’m afraid you’ve lost already.
I could review the available papers and draw the conclusion that banana consumption is correlated with heart disease, were I to adjust my interpretations accordingly. Correlation falls short in providing sufficient proof the substance is harmful.
Of course I am very aware of the fact that the debate here is on harms, but we have absolutely zero evidence of prohibition (despite costing billions) is even a suitable means of combatting these harms! It is beyond doubt that Alcohol is more harmful, yet it is not brought under the same prohibition controls, nor is tobacco. The notion that cannabis is “especially dangerous” and requires prohibition is not only directly contrary to current scientific consensus, but completely illogical.
Regarding Robin Murray, the classic Ace in the hole for the prohibitionists (or should I say Ace-hole) while he has suggested cannabis can be harmful, he has admitted that this risk is only amongst a minority predisposed to psychiatric illness (i.e. around 1%) Check out the BBC documentary Cannabis: What’s the Harm to see him make that statement on video.
Robin Murray’s statements are often blown out of all proportion by prohibitionists.
On Nutt’s sacking, he was clearly sacked for political reasons. This does not discredit him, it only verifies that the government does not want the truth on cannabis to be openly spoken. This is made clearer by their dismantling of the ACMD and filling it with quacks who think Homosexuals are paedophiles and that magnet therapy and ear acupuncture is an appropriate form of “addiction” therapy for cannabis, a non addictive substance.
It should be clear to you by now that you are putting forward a twisted, misinformed and untenable argument. The debate showed a clear consensus from the House of Lords and the more informed commenters on this forum that the current system does not work. Bleeting shady studies and half-truths about historical precedents does not change that fact. Prohibition has failed to protect the people of the UK, if protection was even it’s original motive in the first place (called in to doubt by the lack of prohibition of alcohol and tobacco).
Even if cannabis were harmful, and the vast majority of evidence points to the fact that it is not, prohibition is not a suitable means to control it as a substance, given it’s high costs and low success rates (reducing supply by 2% is not by any means a success) and the arbitrary exclusion of considerably more harmful substances from the regime.
Further reading from someone with proper credentials (note a professor, not a Dr.)
Paper: Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic review by Theresa H M Moore (University of Bristol ), Stanley Zammit (Cardiff University & University of Bristol), Anne Lingford-Hughes (University of Bristol), Thomas R E Barnes (Imperial College London), Peter B Jones (University of Cambridge), Margaret Burke (University of Bristol), Glyn Lewis (University of Bristol), is published in The Lancet (July 27).
“At present, there is little good evidence suggesting that cannabis use increases the risk of depression, suicidal thoughts, and anxiety”
Applewoods
My comment on the history clearly rebutted your position.
If you say my source is wrong (and you will know there are plenty more that agree with that, if you have NOW done the research).
Provide your multiple sources, or even just one.
Put up or pipe down. If you have nothing to say of value, say nothing.
Let’s stop dancing around minutiae about history and culture and get right down to the point.
Are you against a review into UK drug policy? If so, why? Any of the “evidence” you have submitted so far in support of prohibition would fall under the scrutiny of said review, so isn’t really justification for not holding the review.
If you’re against this review, let us hear why, if you are not, then it would appear we are all in agreement on that matter and the evidence will decide how policy is to change.
Given the only “evidence” you have supplied so far amongst your swathes of rhetoric and nonsense, is a half-hearted review providing a *CORRELATION* with some health effects, I would say the evidence is pretty damning against prohibition of cannabis.
Butcombeman;
It is futile and redundant to argue subjective harms of substances. Despite any studies you have to hand, the comparative harms of cannabis are still minimal & negligible, and this is irrefutable.
You are skewing the debate to your own agenda; it is precisely the harms of something that mean a stricter state control should be evoked over feral street law.
All the while people like yourself try and conjure the debate of “it’s harmful – no it’s not, yes it is” it deliberately puts us in stalemate and plays right into the hands of the cartels, human traffickers, gangs, and those who seek to drag children into cannabis and further drug related harms.
You readily pull up, what you consider, damning evidence against cannabis as a concept. The selective reading that you are taking from this is that cannabis is bad, ergo, illegal = good.
Prohibition accounts for most harms in cannabis. CBD is readily considered a neuro protector and this is why it is imperative to have the correct balance of cannabinoids. Under prohibtion, not only do we have high THC and low CBD (which accounts for some harm) but we also have street dealers who will cut cannabis with glass, chemicals and harder drugs to give false potencies.
£6billion is now in the hands of hardline criminality. If the law has worked, why have we lost all control?
So, I ask of you butcombeman, when we have 50 years of cannabis prohibition to collate data from, how has the law aided, how is it currently helping, and how does it propose to win the ‘War’?
Why, after 50 years, do we dire quality cannabis on street level, why do have such prevalence, and why do so many senior police, medical professionals and academics, why are they saying to put cannabis in a place of regulation? Why is it only really a politicians that agree on keeping cannabis in current law?
Why is cannabis so easily available to kids?
I would appreciate answers to these questions please.
Jason
You say:
1. “the comparative harms of cannabis are still minimal & negligible, and this is irrefutable”.
I refute that. So it is NOT irrefutable.
Cannabis causes more harm than all drugs but tobacco & alcohol. The proportions of personal & social harm from any drug is dependent on not just their individual potential for harm but prevalence. Cannabis is the third most prevalent and the most used illegal drug.
There is plainly (on the history) ample scope for much more cannabis use in a legalised situation. I am against encouraging much more use of a harmful substance.
2.”Prohibition accounts for most harms in cannabis. CBD is readily considered a neuro protector and this is why it is imperative to have the correct balance of cannabinoids”.
Certainly you are correct that cannabis containing balanced proportions of THC & CBD may have less potential for mental harm topa particular individual than low CBD high THC forms of cannabis.
But cannabis with balanced proportions is STILL harmful. The WHO paper on cannabis published as long ago as 1997 (when low CBD cannabis was much more rare) made that clear. Read it.
Also significant is the age of regular use and first use AND regularity of use (which would inevitably increase in a legalised scenario).
Cannabis with high THC low CBD is emphatically NOT the product of illegality, you should study the history, it is the product of consumer demand for a stronger hit and became popular because of that.
It is pointless to blame prohibition. you are just plain wrong on the history. I will not go into the details of how Neiderweit came to be produced, you can research it yourself.
Now you may have a point that a legal cannabis supply of balanced THC/CBD product would have slightly less potential for individual harm but there is just no way that the high THC product could be kept out of the market.
Balanced against those points the TOTAL harm from cannabis use would inevitably go up were it legalised.
It could ultimately exceed tobacco and alcohol since it has some of the potential for harm, of both, My prevalence point therefore holds.
3. “If the law has worked, why have we lost all control?”
The law has not worked as well as it might but it HAS worked, cannabis use is WAY below that of the legal drugs. Clearly given the rise in use since the 60s there is plenty of potential for even more use. Interestingly the latest British Crime Survey statistics indicate a slight downward trend in popularity, probably consequent upon the publicity about mental harm around reclassification.
Too early to say how that will go, drugs have fashions.
4. “Why is cannabis so easily available to kids?”
How could it not be? It is out there and dealers want to make money from it. The more adults use it, the more dealers will be around to supply it. Legalisation would not make it LESS available. There is ample price flexibility for illegal dealers to continue in a legalised scenario.
5. “why do so many senior police, medical professionals and academics, why are they saying to put cannabis in a place of regulation?”
A relative handful of senior Police Officers, (there are/have been an awful lot of senior Police Officers). You would struggle to find 10 of senior rank in the UK who advocate legalisation. Point of fact, the ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) gave evidence to the ACMD and argued for cannabis to be reclassified upwards.
Yes of course some are/have been, noisy in the other direction but they are insignificant in the scheme of things and ACPO plainly does not agree.
“Medical profesionals”? Really? Can you provide a list? Dr Clare Gerrada was the General Practioner spokesperson on the ACMD, she was against lowering the classification.
I think you need to back up your statement. I doubt you can. Since I have taken the trouble to respond at length, I hope you will feel obliged to provide your evidence.
“Academics”. Yes there have been a noisy few. Noisy out of proportion to their numbers largely because the newsapers like copy on drugs and they like controversy. you need to look beyond that. Plenty of VERY knowledgeable academics have disagreed and written to one time Home Secretary Blunkett to say they disagreed, even with downgrading to C.
The ones who object to legalisation tend to be those most knowledgeable on specific drugs and not generalists with a penchant for personal publicity. You may not know of them all but government certainly does.
So what harms does cannabis cause then?
They are trivial compared to the harms of prohibition.
The more crucial point though,in terms of what is actually likely to happen, you are simply out of touch with the zeitgeist.
However much you dissemble or promote your prohibitionist and scaremongering agenda, cannabis is a far safer intoxicant and medicine than those currently permitted. The prohibition of cannabis is unjust and undemocratic.
Just as the people of the Arab world will not live under oppression indefinitely, neither will we who choose to enjoy this wonderful, beneficial and relatively harmless plant.
The tyrants such as Gaddafi and Mubarak are more obvious and less subtle than the evil we face but people like you, butcombeman and your prohibitionist cronies are doomed. The truth will out. Your lies, propaganda, unfairness and vested interests are unsustainable. Your time is past. A new day is dawning.
http://www.alternet.org/story/150243/weedmart%3A_meet_the_entrepreneurs_with_plans_for_marijuana_superstores_and_pot-focused_reality_tv?akid=6678.219591.yPrg80&rd=1&t=4
Butcombeman, you were bound to know you’d be ripped to shreds on this one, another sweeping collection of grand statements with zero evidence, are you *SURE* you don’t work for the Home Office?
Please provide the research backing up your statement that cannabis is the third most harmful drug. I’ll be interested to know how this is possible given that it has never been credibly shown to cause a single death – nor has it been credibly established to cause illness in adults. If you have some study stashed away somewhere that establishes that cannabis CAUSES illness (and there are many such studies for tobacco and alcohol) please by my guest.
Professor Nutt’s paper ranked cannabis among other drugs in a multicriteria analysis which took account of prevalance.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61462-6/fulltext?version=printerFriendly
Does your mere supposition trump research, or do you have something to back this claim up?
Another fanciful and baseless claim:
“Also significant is the age of regular use and first use AND regularity of use (which would inevitably increase in a legalised scenario)”
There is zero evidence that prohibition acts as a deterrent, or that legalisation would increase consumption. I have studies to back this up, do you have studies for your claim?
Have some of this research you seem so fond of, yet rarely produce!
Studies conducted in Oregon, California, and Maine within a few years of decriminialization found little increase in cannabis use, compared to the rest of the country; “The most frequently cited reasons for non-use by respondents was ‘not interested,’ cited by about 80% of non-users. Only 4% of adults indicated fear of arrest and prosecution or unavailability as factors preventing use.”
http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/harrison.cannabis.06.html
In 1997, the Connecticut Law Revision Commission examined states that had decriminalized cannabis and found any increase in cannabis usage was less than the increase in states that have not decriminalized cannabis; furthermore, the commission stated “the largest proportionate increase [of cannabis use] occurred in those states with the most severe penalties.” The study recommended Connecticut reduce cannabis possession of 28.35 grams (one ounce) or less for adults age 21 and over to a civil fine.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/lrc/drugpolicy/drugpolicyrpt2.htm#SecD7
“It is pointless to blame prohibition. you are just plain wrong on the history. I will not go into the details of how Neiderweit came to be produced, you can research it yourself.”
Sorry buddy but saying “you’re wrong” and not backing it up counts for nothing. Point taken as Null and void until you provide at least something, maybe not even hard evidence but some brief backup for a completely unsupported statement? You make a lot of unsupported statement and then tell people to “just look it up”. We all have done, and we’ve doused you in studies you have completely ignored.
“Balanced against those points the TOTAL harm from cannabis use would inevitably go up were it legalised.
It could ultimately exceed tobacco and alcohol since it has some of the potential for harm, of both, My prevalence point therefore holds.”
ZERO proof provided for these sweeping statements. Cannabis has harms from both alcohol and tobacco? It has nothing in common pharmacalogically with either substance. Both substances have studies proving they CAUSE (no reliance on correlation) deleterious health effects in adult humans. Cannabis has no such studies.
You have no proof cannabis use would “inevitably” go up were it legalised.
If I may retort:
In 2001, a report by Robert MacCoun and Peter Reuter entitled “Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes,” was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry. The report found there was no available evidence cannabis use would increase if cannabis were decriminalized.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/reprint/178/2/123.pdf
Please also read the two studies referenced earlier regarding prohibition and the lack of deterrent effect.
In 1999, a study by the Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Health at the Institute of Medicine entitled “Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base,” concluded “there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use
http://books.nap.edu/readingroom/books/marimed/notice.html
In 2004, a study entitled “The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco,” found strict laws against cannabis use have a low impact on usage rates.
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/94/5/836.pdf
There’s enough reading there to keep you busy for a while. If you have any research to back up your claims I suggest you provide it. Suffice it to say you have no proof for your sweeping claims, but the proof to the contrary is substantive.
“The ones who object to legalisation tend to be those most knowledgeable on specific drugs and not generalists with a penchant for personal publicity. You may not know of them all but government certainly does”
Another beautiful gem with ZERO evidence backing it up. You lot have Robin Murray and that’s pretty much it. Even he notes that the harms he alludes to apply to a tiny minority. Supply any others and their work if you must, I’m well enough armed for a rebuttal!
Your baseless and unsupported suppositions have been hit with plenty of research Butcombeman, I suggest you go back to the drawing board and do some reading.
Hi Butcombeman, thank you for the reply.
I’ll be honest and upfront, this will be my last posting on this specific blog as I feel it has reached the inevitable conclusion.
Plus, in debating, it is manner and tone that makes up substance, you have repeatedly tried to appear condescending and glib. Within the parameters of your posts, you always infer that you know best, you’ve read all the literature, and you don’t give credit to anyone’s view or intelligence. This is not how polite society works and this is why I thank you for your time and I conclude – with prior warning – with this post. I’m sure we’ll come across each other again though.
By the way, I feel it is further more my duty to explain that I was considered a prohibitionist, I had believed all I had heard; I had never ingested any substance other than prescription drugs. I’m allergic to caffeine and alcohol, and any consideration to illicit drugs was laughable given my strange body. Point is, I’ve been on your side of the argument, it was through reading every source I could find on cannabis, then on drug policy, that made me alter my mindset and made me feel quite ignorant in the process. So, thank you for the tips on reading matter, but I have read them, and I have crossed referenced in all my research. To convince me of your points is as futile as me explaining my points, we’re both as dug in as it gets I think it’s fair to say.
What you are still missing the point on is that we are not here to debate the harms of cannabis or any other drug, and this is your only string of conversation. We’re here to discuss alternatives to policy, and clearly you have no alternatives… unless I’m mistaken?
If the current law had any good results to show for itself, I may have some degree of respect for your position, but you are still maintaining an argument that directly accounts for £6 billion profits to the gangs and cartels; a vast network of child involvement and ingestion, and quality control that is now, funnily enough, comparable to Moonshine and Hooch of prohibition America. I would ask for you to show me success rates and stories from current policy, and I’m sure you’ll try and muster some, but I think that’s treading old ground now too.
You also provide no evidence and sweeping statements, you’ve been asked time and again on here to not do that, even Lord Norton pulled you up on it a few occasions, but you’ve still not progressed. My feeling is that it is possible that you’re not taking this seriously, hence my will to thank you for the discussion and move on.
You wish me to cite senior and professional people who have spoken out against prohibition? Will an entire organisation do? LEAP, I’m sure you’ll know of them – Law Enforcement Against Prohibition?
http://www.leap.cc/
Or, I point you towards Transform (who you certainly know) with a list of those speaking out. Even the Church of England wish to give mind to alternatives:
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/MediaNews_Reform_supporters.htm
It seems like each passing day there is a new international figure calling for a change of policy. Some of our notable speakers:
Nicolas Green QC, chairman of the UK BAR council
Professor Roger Pertwee – Neuropharmacologist
Sir Ian Gilmore – President of the Royal College of Physicians
Remember Butcombeman, these have spoken on the nature of current law and how it is not aiding, they are not condoning drugs, they are not arguing harms of drugs, they are stipulating that we could have better ways of controlling them. This is the point you are not discussing or taking on board.
I will rise to one point, to suggest I should study the history of cannabis is amusing. Thank you for the patronisation. I believe I have. Perhaps you should speak to people on the subject however. When so many people are choosing to grow their own to cut criminal links (I can pre-empt your reply to that by the way!) and specifically to impart their own quality control, then you know we have a strange state of affairs. Those who know cannabis wish for the correct balance of cannabinoids. If you believe what you read in the newspapers however, you’ll be under the impression that high THC is desirable. Not so.
On a personal note, your comments and opinions actively impose on those wishing to use a safer substance than alcohol. You are preventing people like myself from having a medication, therapy – whatever you wish the semantics to be – that is exponentially safer (and non organ toxic) than pharmaceuticals.
I truly hope that those on the fence in this discussion read your comments and this blog, you do the case for reform many favours, and for this I further thank you.
A said, I’m sure we’ll cross paths again, and I hope we can be cordial and engage in a healthy debate. Wishing you the best.
Oh, some reports on the law and cannabis (which is what I believe this discussion is about; Current law & policy – as I incessantly reiterate) – I’m yet to find the recommendations for cannabis in current law.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/wootton/wootmenu.htm
http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1714/Estimating_drug_harms.pdf
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/drugs/acmd1/acmd-cannabis-report-2008?view=Binary
http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/cannabis-policy-moving-beyond-the-stalemate/
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/drugs/acmd1/cannabis-class-misuse-drugs-act
http://www.peterlilley.co.uk/article.aspx?id=12&ref=805&hl=Common+Sense+on+Cannabis
http://www.ukcia.org/research/cunion/cu60.htm
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm
http://www.ukcia.org/research/CanadianPublicPolicy/index.php
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/ae.1982.9.3.02a00300/abstract
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ganja-Jamaica-Anthropological-Marihuana-Sciences/dp/9027977313
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/lag/lagmenu.htm
I think we are all now aware that Butcombeman is not here for worthwhile debate, his are the views of the bigoted and nothing one says to him will gain anything but a snort of self righteousness. Personally I feel he is a either a troll with his own reasons for taking the line he does or a paid for troll armed as he seems to be with a pre collected set of augments and web pages to back them up. I am happy to admit that as a man with a seed collection that I market, I have a vested interest that should be considered along with my views.
I can’t help but wonder where the interest and opinions of others come from!
That is why I ignore him now, he spoke of “community”, I replied with the input I have had, including my service in the parachute regiment and the cost to my family, he didn’t even have the decency to reply.
butcombeman you post only supports elements of what you say and as previously stated contains nothing new and nothing I am unaware of.
one only has to look at the names at the bottom to see the organs of this paper. It does however show the ignoring of India’s long trouble free and responsible use of cannabis. I simple search of Tukish history would provide you with information on the Turkish political scene at the time if you can be bothered. Egypt was not ruled by Egyptians but by Britain from 1882 and remained so for the next 72 years. Its representatives were appointed by the British and the views expressed were those of Britain and based on cultural bigotry and the economic interest of cotton production.
What is your employment and is it as I suspect to do with keeping cannabis illegal as you post while been well thought out are slewed to support nearly a century of non science based discrimination, racism, bigotry and commercial protectionism that outlawed a plant that had previously underpinned many of the worlds economies and still has the potential to feed, provide clothing, fuel, paper and help bring the third world out from
poverty and dependence on the West.
I will not be responding to you again as I simply don’t trust your independence or input which seems to be more about trying to justify the unjustifiable and proving you are right while ignoring truth and reality.
And I’m accused of ranting!!!
I have a one for you BUTTCOMBMAN aka James Brokenshire . I have medical conditions that means i get percribed strong pain killers , i choose not to take the pain killers and use cannabis to control my pain , so why does our goverment continue to tell people that im a liar and cannabis has no medical value when me and many others like myself are proof that cannabis HAS medical value ? You have to admit that the goverment is going about cannabis the wrong way . Their whole reason for keeping cannabis illegal is because of the young brains it would affect but by keeping it illegal means it is easier for children to get weed and is mostly contaminated . HOW WOULD YOU DEAL WITH CANNABIS ? Make it class A and throw more taxpayer cash down the drain and more poeople in prison ? Ill leave you with this , if you had my condition and were given boxes upon boxes of pain killers would you look for another way to ease your pain that wasnt going to destroy your liver and stomach ?
Sorry one last thing , id far reather my kids found my weed instead of finding my pain killers , what do you think the out come would be if they were to eat the weed or the pain killers ? PAIN KILLERS = KIDS DEAD . CANNABIS = TIRED AND SORE STOMACH MABYE . Alot better than DEAD wouldnt you say . You need to wise up BUTTCOMBEMAN you have no proof on anything you have posted here and have made yourself look very stupid and as narrow minded as our MPs . I really do think you are James Brokenshire from the comments you have left on this site because you come out with the same crap he rambles on about and cannot prove a bit of it . And when questioned on your comments you rely on propaganda and scare tatics to make it out that you are right ,post some PROOF . As peter said your prohibitionist days are numbered .
Steve et al, please, stop feeding the troll.
I know you are angry, so am I, we could end up losing our house and with four young children let me assure you, I am very angry, angry because there was no social harm, angry because I have fought for my country, angry because my family has lost members for this country, angry because the police have told blatant lies on their statements.
Angry because all it is is historical and cultural precedent that will ensure our lives and those of many others are being destroyed.
The home office, Brokenshire and Oliver are bigots and liars.
There is no way in hell I will have any of my sons fight for this country, we live in a fascist state that is descending into a corporate driven hell.
maybe he’s more than a troll? http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks
Either way we should stop feeding him. He only presents opinion and cherry picks his ‘evidence’…
Police lied in their statements? That is disgusting! They have a personal distaste for what you have done so they lie and twist the evidence to get you a harsher punishment? Despicable.