UKC

Against the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7386889.stm

I bet the police, judiciary and the prison system are looking forward it no end...

In reply to brothersoulshine: heard that this morning, first thought was 'whats the use of arraging a drugs council to do a study if they ignore the advice from it?'

idiots the lot of 'em

In reply to brothersoulshine:

You never know in a few years the Tories may just legalize it, i fail to understand why it's illegal as it is

In reply to johnj:

Tories have been pushing for reclassification to B.

In reply to brothersoulshine:

Yes first i would think they need to get in power, the time cannabis is made legal is when a politician can gain most from it, a lot of soon to be voters would vote favourably over an issue like this

In reply to johnj:
>in a few years the Tories may just legalize it

If you think that, you're daft.

In reply to brothersoulshine:

Think I read in The Guardian a couple of days ago that the police are basically gonna ignore the re-classification and just carry on with the caution system, so that they can carry on concentrating on more serious crime

In reply to punter:
Boris would

In reply to punter: I don't think anything like that, it the people in power who make those decisions, but i'd be very surprised if it's illegal in twenty years time

In reply to brothersoulshine:

Absolutely ridiculous! How cannabis can be likened to amphetamines with regard to the dangers it represents is beyond me. Arguments about the strength of cannabis are nonsensical. Do we ban vodka because it's stronger than beer? No! We just drink less of it.

The sooner the government legalises cannabis and brings it under a similar umbrella to alcohol the better. Tax it, remove the link to harder drugs by taking supply out of the hands of dealers, and stop criminalising people who do absolutely no harm to others.

In reply to brothersoulshine:
If cannabis is class B does that mean they could re-classify Alcohol and Tobacco as class C?

In reply to johnj:

There are a number of bad sides to decriminalization or legalization. I guess it depends upon how it is implemented. Here in NL the fact that it is a fuzzy area means that a whole diverse range of criminality orbits around the industry as they still have to traffik it in some way (a lot now is grown domestically though). The other factor is that the 'coffeshops' are prime sites for money laundering from the other criminal activities.

Another thought is that if you legalise it in the way it is here you end up getting 'lowest common denominator' tourists off their faces and being a bother as they come for their wild weekends from other parts of the EU.

In reply to Al Evans: On the latest findings of the government agency that studies such things Al, both tobacco and alcohoil would be re-classified higher than cannabis.

In reply to David Hooper:

Boris may have positioned himself on the "libertarian" wing of the Tory party but he's still a Tory. There's no bloody chance the Tories will ever, ever legalise cannabis.

By the way, did you hear that one of the first changes Boris is going to introduce in London, is to make it illegal to drink a can of beer on a bus?

In reply to hailtryfan: how can you say it doesnt do harm to others? what percentage of puff smokers do you think have serious mental health issues because of smoking? you speak to most workers in mental health, non of them touch pot because they see the effects day in & day out

In reply to neilinut: Maybe by that time, cheepo Euro flights are a thing of the past and they've just got to get stoned at home. A wild weed which just grows on the street in many places in the world is illegal, and a chemical brew which turns our cities and town centres into zombie filled no go areas at nights legal, where's the logic in that??

In reply to brothersoulshine:

Ridiculous knee-jerk Daily Mail pandering nonsense. But then I think all drugs should be legal so I guess I am a dangerous loon.

In reply to Gothy:

Most will be of the opinion it is a trigger rather than a cause though. And not to beat around the bush in mental health there it often holds true that it takes one to know one.....

In reply to Gothy:

no, they see the side effects of the small minority of pot smokers who have mental health conditions. i saw my dad die of alcoholism related conditions... doesn't mean i don't have a drink. your post smacks (sic) of the 80's 'all drugs are bad / just say no' approach which was at best confusing and at worst downright wrong.

In reply to Dom Whillans: not really, I've had personal experience of watching a partner go from a happy go lucky bloke, to a zombie with sucidal & murderous tendancies

In reply to grumsta:

I tend to agree. It transfers the consequences of drug use from society of a whole to the user in particular and the cost to the NHS would be ofset by the massive drop in crime that would result.

But I'd like to put my hand up and say that cannabis is quite dangerous actually. - I don't believe this "evil new strain of skunk" media stuff but I saw loads of guys soften their brains at uni on the stuff and basically smoke away they're futures. With cannabis is just a more subtle effect than with stronger drugs.

In reply to Gothy:

I thought that too.

I thought the links between canabis and schizophrenia were now beyond any doubt?

The Ent

In reply to Enty:

They seem to always ignore the advice of panels of experts ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5230006.stm

In reply to Enty:

Sadly some people still live in some kind of "magical pixie land" where they are utterly convinced that there is no harm at all in smoking cannabis and that it's all a conspiracy to stop them living like druids.

Or something like that.

In reply to Gothy:

In that case I hope they don't drink. All the evidence suggests long term alcohol use is at least as damaging to health as cannabis, probably much more so as the body becomes physically dependant on it with long term use ravaging the body. The argument here is the classification of cannabis. I'm not saying it is completely without risk as no drug is. It's the hippocracy of having alcohol as legal while still causing huge social and health problems, while cannabis is demonised and compared to highly damaging physically addictive drugs.

rant over

In reply to nz Cragrat:

Thanks for the link - that is the study I was telling Al Evans about - watched the documentary on it - interesting stuff.

All drugs and intoxicants are harmful in some way - we just need to get a realistic perspective and thats where this study is good.

Politicians UKIP voters,and Daily Mail readers will of course ignore it.

Enlightened coppers already have an unofficial policy I think

In reply to nz Cragrat:


However the politicians who get to make these kind of decisions are still lost somewhere in the rhetoric of 50 years ago

In reply to Rampikino:
Aye, there's a lot of that attitude, but there doesn't seem to be much sense in it being illegal while alcohol - which is much more likely to make people hurt others - is legal.
I have difficulty with the idea of making things illegal just because they can hurt the user / participant (climbing, anyone?)

In reply to hailtryfan:


RUBBISH!

has it not been proven that people high on canabis (and often alcohol) have commited serious crimes? or were the stories i've read/heard made up?

In reply to Rampikino:

I'm not particularly bothered about what someone does to themselves really and I'm no angel myself.
However, I do personally know a Consultant Psychiatrist who studied this for a few years. He came to the conclusion that because of the patients who he saw with bad schitzophrenia, canabis should be well up the dangerous drugs list.

The Ent

In reply to Enty: Not a full reflection of the situation though is it? forming an opinion of a substance from second hand views from mental health

In reply to adderz:


The type of people who are violent after smoking cannabis are the kind of people who are violent to begin with. There is no cause and effect between smoking cannabis and violence. As you point out, these hyped-up media accounts are often when people have been drinking to a large extent as well as smoking (and taking god knows what else). Alcohol has a link with violence, not cannabis.

In reply to Enty:


that argument is SO tired and wrong. i bet that consultant has never done any research into the millions of people who use cannabis quite happily and have never had any mental health problems. and that's without going into everything that's wrong with mental health care in this country in the first place.

In reply to John Wood:


There was a programme on BBC World Service recently about cannabis growing in Canada, and they interviewed a grower who said that the vast majority of people in his industry would rather keep it illegal, as they make more money that way. Apart from anything else surely this shows the ridiculousness of the 'war on drugs'.



I agree, but so is alcohol, so are prescription drugs - it should be a medical issue not a legal one.

In reply to Dom Whillans:

Like I say, I don't really give a shit. I don't smoke it because I prefer riding my bike and the two dont mix.

The Ent

In reply to gingerdave13:

The ACMD has limited scope and is there to provide advice so it may not follow that the best thing to do is to implement their recommendations.

ACPO also said last year they wanted it back to class B and ACMD would not look into policing implications.

In reply to thread:

My two-penneth:

It should be treated the same as alcohol, legal, taxed, age-limited, warnings included.

Both drugs can cause social problems, work problems, mental health issues, or be completely harmeless and fun.

Creating a sensation by increasing its 'illegality' will only exacerbate the existing problems we have...

In reply to brothersoulshine:

Confirmed by Smith it's class B again (subject to approval etc).

In reply to hailtryfan:

>It's the hippocracy of having alcohol as legal while still causing huge social and health problems, while cannabis is demonised and compared to highly damaging physically addictive drugs.

For God's sake, you silly little twerp, if you want to use words like hypocrisy learn how to spell it. Learning what it means can be the next stage, though I imagine that will always be beyond you.

'Hippocracy' means rule by horses. However much one may sometimes feel that that wouldn't be a bad idea, it's not on the political map at the moment and hasn't really been since Caligula's time.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Oh lovely lovely, what a great post

In reply to brothersoulshine:

Maybe they are trying to keep the number of galactically dull cannabis smokers to a minimum. As much as most of them seem to think they are supremely interesting, just like the argument to legalise, it is very boring. If you want to smoke it - smoke it, just shut up about it.

In reply to PeterM:


It was quite an interesting debate i thought before you came along


bad hair day at the office?

In reply to PeterM:

Reminds me of my youth in the 1970's. Had lots of mates well into dope. I was the odd one out. Instead of getting blasted at the weekends I went climbing. Better high?! IMHO.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Congratulations on spotting a spelling mistake and commiserations on completely failing to add anything to the discussion.

In reply to brothersoulshine:

This whole thing is a farce. For 90 years the richest & most powerful organisations on earth have tried to prove this stuff is harmful. They have consistently failed.

The greatest proven problem is the typical 'lack of ambition' and excessive giggling having a negative impact on the economic utility of the user. So the greatest effect of this proposed change is that 'a tendency for sitting on your arse giggling your head off with intent to be a lazy b45tard' will be a serious criminal offence. Well, that will really make a difference, won't it!

They are still on about cannabis causing schizophrenia. Being born with a brain gives you a chance of mental health problems (New Labour will be OK then?). Maybe I'm wrong but I would expect that those with a pre-disposition to mental health problems to be more likely to use drugs.

In reply to hailtryfan:


In fairness it's only really a spelling 'mistake' if you actually do know how to spell the word in the first place.

In reply to hailtryfan:

Whilst I appreciate the comments about alcohol i.e. there are probably far more users of alcohol at the 'wrong' end of the usage spectrum than there are Cannabis users, in terms of physical/ mental addiction Cannabis is probably far more addictive en-mass as it is generally smoked by mixing it with tobacco, another drug that is extrememly addictive, far moreso than alcohol. Cannabis probably becomes more of a health issue in these terms due to inhalation related illnesses.

Personally I think decriminalising Cannabis would go some way to dimishing the levels of crime, both domestic, and international, and cut the levels of exploitation of 3rd world areas where the 'industry' is rife, whilst pricing young teenagers and many of the lower social order out of the market, thus diminishing the related issues.

Cannabis has grown into a huge political weapon on a global scale, I wouldn't expect this argument to die-down anytime soon.

In reply to dave wearing:


Sounds familiar.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

absolutely f*ckin classic put down!


'hailtryfan' is clearly a Yahoo and should therefore perhaps be forgiven for craving Houyhnhnm rule though don't you think?

...now, where'd I put that bong?

In reply to hailtryfan: The straights like to shout a lot and call stoners dull, it makes them feel more interesting about themselves, and they almost feel that their day was worthwhile if they've had a go at a worthless slacker

In reply to Enty:


The link is clear, but not very well understood yet, but the same can be said about alcohol.

I used to get well and truly battered every single day without fail. We would smoke an 8th of bud through a bong every day and then go and pick up for the evening. They were good times and lasted for almost 3 years, that doesn't include the years before when I was smoking less frequently.

Then, One day I felt like my brain had exploded and even smelling the stuff sent me into a spiral of brain melt down! It was rubbish and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I was however an extreme case and if I'd gotten pissed as a fart everyday for that period of time I'd probably be a heluva lot worse off! Still, I think legalisation isn't the best idea and the argument of "but alcohol's legal" doesn't really cut it. If murder was legal would you be saying "let's make rape legal too, it's no worse than murder!".

Finally, those of us who have smoked or currently smoke gear surely realise that it's not really particularly hard to get at the moment and if it was legal the government would tax it so hard you'd be better off getting on the black market anyway. Although can you imagine the comedy "small pack of GV, king size blue skins and some tesco finest Ganja please".

In reply to Nom:

Murder isn't legal, for good reason, so your arguement is rather poor.

The point is that we as a society accept the consumption of certain substances, such as alcohol, that cause harm to the health of individiuals and wider society, because:

a) We always have and they are part of our cultural identity.
b) They bring pleasure.
c) They raise revenue.

Cannabis is treated differently to alcohol for cultural and historical reasons, the social and medical case seems to be a poor one.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Thanks John; it is looking like a long day here, and you've just significantly brightened it with that post!

In reply to Cerulean:


have you heard of the black market hun?

altho we can't really say that anymore, it's now the 'grey' market...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Best post of the day!

The Ent

In reply to PeterM:

2nd best post of the day.

The Ent

In reply to Enty:

Maybe: but what exactly is the link? Do people get schizophrenia because they smoke cannabis or do they smoke cannabis because they are schizophrenic?

Too many unknown and unproven factors. Too much muddled thinking and not enough science. Listening to the garbage most politicians talk about this subject, you would think they had been smoking something.

The big one of course is that so long as everyone is taking it by mixing it with tobacco it is very difficult to separate the effects of the two drugs.

In reply to brothersoulshine: I smoked it for years and I don't think it did me any harm... neither do the voices in my head.

In reply to Enty: Do you still live in Victorian times?

In reply to adderz:

Who's the black market hun?

Is he like Attila, but a bit dodgy...?

In reply to PeterM:

I don't really want to smoke it. But I find it offensive that our government seems to think it's ok to say I can't. And when my children are older and start doing things that teenagers do, I'd hate them to get into legal trouble.

In reply to brothersoulshine:

Seems to me like many people still wouldn't stop however much it costs or is proved to cause health problems, a bit like some drinkers and smokers. All I know is that I know several people who have had problems, some quite serious. It may not be addictive in the usual sense of the word but when 14 year old kids can't get to sleep unless they have some to relax then their is certainly a physical dependence on it. There are also dangers involved when using resin because of the other drugs used to adulterate it.

In reply to Knitting Norah:

Sounds like a good argument for legalisation (or at least decriminalisation) to me that....

In this situation if the government were seriously commited to preserving public health they'd take a step like this because:

a) People are going to smoke it whatever they do.

b) If you accept (a) then you've got to look into limiting the potential damage by controlling the supply chain. This would seriously cut down if not erridicate things like the spraying of glass crystals onto buds, mixing plastics with resins, money from the sale going into the hands of career criminals etc... Having dedicated outlets could limit the amount any one person could consume at once (theoretically). If you look at the analogy of alcohol control, it makes no sense buying moonshine from a dodgy guy at Canden Lock when you go over to the pub and get a watered down pint of camel piss - err i mean larger!

c) If you don't accept (a) - Well you're deluded I'm afraid.....

This change in classification after these disasterous local election results really stinks of pop politics to me - Come on lads lets prove to middle england that we're tough on crime and the causes of crime (weed obviously), that'll claw back middle England from the Tories......

Or maybe I've just smoked too much weed

In reply to gingerdave13:

Exactly, bunch of idiots.

In reply to johnj:


Eh, best explain.

The Ent

In reply to hailtryfan: Why is speed more dangerous than cannabis?

In reply to Knitting Norah:

They don't use expensive things like drugs to cut resin. think tar, boot polish, you get the general idea...

In reply to marsbar:

It's well known that lots of speed f**ks you up. Some speed user will be along shortly to tell me I'm talking out of my arse

The Ent

In reply to brothersoulshine:

Apparently cannabis usage has dropped by 20% since it was moved to class C.

I assume therefore that the Government have some obscure reason for now wanting to increase usage again.

I also heard that possession and sale of seeds will be become illegal so gardeners would be well advised to place some bulk orders soon.

In reply to brothersoulshine: nanny jackie is at it again

In reply to Duncan Disorderly:

glass microbeads have become widespread since the crackdown a few years ago. i dread to think what damage they are causing, yet it goes largely unreported or researched
youtube.com/watch?v=I_-Hf0NXMNU&
decriminalising small amounts of cannabis for personal consumption is the way to go

In reply to Duncan Disorderly:
Sounds like a good argument for legalisation (or at least decriminalisation) to me that....

I agree, I dont think we should have decimalisation .

In reply to marsbar:

It may be that the physical effects of long term use of a stimulant are deemed to be more dangerous than a mild hallucinogen with sedative effects. I doubt it personally.

The fact that Amphetamine is classified with Barbiturate is conclusive proof that the people who designed this system are barking mad. It's a political priority list effectively: they want to criminalise and lock people away on the basis of a political whim. This is not a good thing. This is the reason that I continue to take an interest in this matter: it is simply anti-libertarian and therefore I find it very distasteful.

Amphetamine certainly does not have potential for causing the syndrome we call addiction. In spite of having narcotic effects, reports that I have seen mark Cannabis out as non-addictive also. (I recall that there is a specific term for the relationship between addictive behaviour and cannabis user behaviour but I cannot remember it just now.) Barbiturate, on the other hand, has a history that leave no doubt about its addictive nature.

youtube.com/watch?v=SM9H_b2FgQg&

In reply to brothersoulshine: imo enough people use it to, signify a shift in the Zeitgeist. the people want to use it, the goverment is elected to rule in the name of the people, the goverment make the laws. therefore the goverment should pass the laws the people want.

In reply to Undertow:

Sorry?

In reply to Jim Fraser:


I think the point about speed is that it definitely is toxic. It can kill you either by overdose or by cumulative damage over a (much) longer time.

It's also bad for your teeth.

In reply to Removed User:

and shit. you'd get more fun out of a nice cup of tea than a whole bag of speed.

In reply to brothersoulshine:

If cannabis is ever legalised - and then made available through proper distribution channels, and taxed, but still at a lower cost than dealers currently sell it for - then there is going to have to be serious consideration about things like driving under the influence, and also for some work situations.

So it would have to be regulated fairly strictly, anyway.

The main reason I can see for legalising it, is that it might take some income away from the dealers, who are just pocketing huge amounts of money tax free, and a fair few of them are probably scamming on "welfare" payments, too.

In reply to brothersoulshine: the real crime is the government not publicising the widespread contamination of cannabis

In reply to Jim Fraser: Thanks. I wondered if it was just me. I work with young people. Their cannabis use has caused a lot more problems in my experience than their use of speed or E. I find it extremely concerning that so many people think its so harmless. If I remember rightly cannabis is considered psychologically addictive rather than physically addictive. Either way what I see looks like addiction to me.

In reply to Removed User:

I think this is the crux of the issue, and typically the proponents for both sides of the argument have missed it totally - and have missed the chance to unite behind a common strategy.

Since reclassification cannabis use has dropped and police have been able to concentrate on drugs that have more tangible effects on society (eg heroin-related theft). If you honestly believe that cannabis is the great Satan, then why on earth would you support a policy which saw usage rise for over two generations? If your scientific advisors say that it'll achieve nothing, and the statistics suggest that you'll achieve nothing, what the hell are you expecting to happen?

I don't for a second think that cannabis is 'safe', having been f*cked over by it first hand. However an approach that sees people using it less often, and apparently with better information and awareness of potential side-effects, is a great improvement over the situation when I was smoking it.

In reply to hailtryfan:


Is that a state ruled by horses?

In reply to Dominion:

Legalisation would be the most sensible measure by far.

Age restrictions could be imposed in the same way as they are on alcohol and the only small but identifiable health risks i.e. those to the small percentage of teenagers who are genetically pre disposed to developing mental health problems as a result of over use, could be limited while allowing the rest of the public to get on with their lives in peace.

Not only would legalisation take distribution out of the hands of criminals in the UK but it would also deprive likes of Hezbollah and the Taliban from a useful source of income.

Whatever, the solution to this country's problem with drugs, in which cannabis is a very minor player, does not lie in the criminal justice system.

In reply to psd:


Fair enough, but did it do you any lasting damage? I often feel that the anti drugs lobby make hysterical statements on the damage that dope can do. Healthy people can get a bit phuqed up for a while because they've been caning it, they leave it alone and in a while they're back to normal.

In reply to psd:
Most specialists accept there is no scientific basis for altering the advisory council's 2006 conclusion that cannabis is "substantially" less harmful than the class B drugs amphetamines and barbiturates and should therefore remain in class C. Drug and mental health charities agree that the law is too blunt an instrument to deliver public health warnings, and have called for education campaigns to warn young people of the risks. They point out that consumption of cannabis has fallen 4 per cent since 2003, after being downgraded to class C in 2004.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/reefer-madness-do-the-drug-l...

>better information and awareness of potential side-effects, is a great improvement over the situation when I was smoking it.

why no info on its contamination?

In reply to Removed User:

Apart from the stigma of having some pretty serious mental problems for a while, no. Thing is, I was already prone to it and just happened upon something that helped make it a lot worse. Given the way the debate on cannabis has now moved on, I'd probably have stayed clear now - but instead we're looking at going back to 'just say no' and 'all drugs are bad'.

To qualify my attitude to things being 'safe', crossing the road doesn't qualify as 'safe' either and I wouldn't argue for it to be banned as a result. The current move appears to be the equivalent of saying that "crossing the road is dangerous, so to discourage people we're going to get rid of all the pelican crossings and tell drivers to go faster".

In reply to marsbar:

We should be far more careful with the term addictive. We are not journalists, so let's not be deliberately misleading.

It is a syndrome, comprising most or all of a particular set of conditions including tolerance, dependence and psychotoxicity on withdrawal. It varies from one substance to another and from one person to another.

Many will tell you that this is an outdated analysis and that physical dependence and psychological dependence are completely different things. American medics will tell you that an addiction is any uncontrolled compulsion. This is so that they can sell you an expensive cure for your chocolate addiction or your shopping addiction or your t-shirt addiction. If it's a compulsion then by definition its uncontrolled: a compulsion is a compulsion. The term addiction was first used 100 years ago to describe the effects of Heroin and it is shameful to devalue the suffering of Heroin addicts by comparing their strife with some daft girlie's shoe fetish.

Adulteration is the single most disruptive factor both to the health of individuals who are taking black-market recreational drugs and to the understanding of those drugs by the general population. Unadulterated drugs are rare on the black-market. The most likely unadulterated products being Cannabis and Psilocybin. In the case of psilocybin, the adulteration risk is replaced by the misidentification risk and with Cannabis nearly every user increases the dangers of their drug use by mixing it with tobacco.

People are not taking what they think they are taking. The effects that Cannabis users experience are not all due to Cannabis but partly to unfiltered tobacco. If you know a thousand recreational drug users and have a knowledge of their habits and problems then you still know nothing about it unless you have done a scrupulous pharmacological study of what they have taken.

In reply to The New NickB:


Well that sounds like a stonking good reason to increase the penalty for possession from 2 years to 5.

Can anyone tell me just why we should increase it from class C to B and what positive results they expect to see from this?

In reply to Jim Fraser:

Now that is a point that should be drummed home. Perhaps there needs to be a nationwide campaign to get smokers on to bongs and off those filthy tobacco riddled splifs.

In reply to brothersoulshine:

I can put the miss-use of Cannabis into a personal context. As you may geuss from the UKC name, I'm a copper here in the UK. But before I joined the police I had a very good friend that was a regular user of Cannabis - the weaker stuff that was around prior to Skunk.

I watched that friend abuse cannabis to the extent where his short term memory was totally addled - and one day, after a session prior to comming to work he collapsed and stopped breathing - I had to breath for my friend and do CPR until the ambulance arrived. Up until then I'd not really got an opinion on the (mis)use of Cannabis. Since that event I've been dead against it.

I was a copper prior to the de-classification and didn't agree with it then. I'm all in favour of the re-classification to a 'B' grade controlled substance. If, at a later date, some medical EVIDENCE (note the capitals) proves that it's good for certain medical conditions then I'll approve of doctors prescribing it - but I'll never accept that it's a socially acceptable thing to buy, use and abuse.

Rich

In reply to brothersoulshine:

Cannabis never did me any harm...

Class B or Class C I don't care, I'll still have a bifta now and then in the same way as I have a glass of wine now and then.

Load of bollox and a total waste of time

In reply to Lawman:

never heard of that one before- you should report this to the medical council
while you're at it, please report the alarming rise in contaminents

In reply to Lawman:

Then why not reclassify alcohol and cigarettes while where at it? Surely in your line of work you will have seen more than one death due to drink, and I'm sure any oncologist here will have more than had their fair of tobacco related fatalities.

If we can happily move cannabis classifications at the drop of a hat and against expert advice, tell me why we shouldn't do the same for alcohol? I'm watching someone fall apart at work before my very eyes as a result of booze - do I have a say?

Does your one example of someone suffering cardiac arrest (was this absolutely linked to cannabis) justify banging up more healthy users in prison for longer sentences, for no apparent gain (unless you consider increased number of users a gain)?

If you really want to stop people using cannabis, you'll have to make the decision between imposing the death sentence for possession or decriminalising for anyone over a certain age group. I don't see what this dithering around the middle is going to achieve.

In reply to brothersoulshine:

In Book IV of the The Social Contract, Jean Jacques Rousseau discusses the concept of 'The General Will'. The title of Chapter 1 of Book IV is 'That the General Will is Indestructible'. This, I think, is the fundamental problem behind drug enforcement.

http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon_04.htm (Insomnia cure.)

If too many people believe that it is nonsense, even those whose motivation is not a wish to perform the illegal act, then it is doomed. So long as government talks nonsense, imports the political priorities of other territories, or ignores the skilled advice of its own advisors, progress will be zero or worse.

The greatest impediment to effective drug law enforcement, as stated above, is indeed alcohol. No amount of pleading about historical context will remove this barrier and we know, both intuitively and from the experience of other territories, that banning alcohol would provide excellent proof that the general will is indestructible.

Without sensible alcohol controls, sensible control of other drugs is impossible. So long as the term 'binge drinking' is misused to the same extent as 'addiction' we don't even understand what we are talking about. So long as a huge proportion of the well-off and influential people in this country are too pissed every evening to think sensibly about this then the rest of us are pissing into the wind.

In reply to Lawman:

I don't mean to disrespect you, but your post is a brilliant illustration of why it's a good idea as a general principle to not give the police too much control over our laws.

In reply to Lawman:

But I bet you know lots of people who have messed themselves up on booze, but then you probably had a good laugh about it afterwards over another drink.

If you had to choose which drugs would be illegal with no cultural baggage attached, its clear that alcohol is far more socially destructive.

This latest announcement is amazing, they are basically saying 'we realise that this is the wrong thing to do in the face of all the evidence, but we want to be seen to be tough on this issue to impress readers of the Daily Mail.'

In reply to grumsta:

That may be the nub of the issue.

A cynical ploy by Labour to win back the middle-ground of tory/labour swing voters by appearing tough on liberal vices.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

Jim

May I just say what an incredibly cogent and reasoned post this is, brilliant - thankyou.

P.S. You know the Daily Mail readers will still dismiss your sensible points raised here, because they dont fit with their worldview, but good try anyway.

In reply to brothersoulshine:

Hopefully the police will exercise some "discretion" when deciding whether to clog up the courts with cannabis users and small-time dealers. I think most of them understand that cannabis PROBABLY doesn't pose the same dangers as certain other class B drugs.

Having said that there is alot of conflicting scientific evidence out there about the potential risks of cannabis use. As others have said, there should be more education about the potential risks i.e. apathy, possibility of worsening underlying mental illness, contamination with glass beads etc etc.


Of course this is probably linked to the governments wider political agenda (tougher stance on "crime" etc), and in that sense the reclassification is nonsense.

In reply to Lawman:

but I'll never accept that it's a socially acceptable thing to buy, use and abuse.

Lets hypothetically assume that a more enlightened government decriminalised/legalised cannabis.

As a policeofficer surely you would have to accept it then, if it was the law that it was legal?

In reply to David Hooper:
Why does he? All he has to do is uphold the law, he's allowed to think what he likes surely?

In reply to gingerkate:

Of course he is Kate - and thats why our laws are so stupid.

Enlightened police chiefs have already stated that despite being re-classified, they will carry on with the caution system for cannabis (effectively treating it as Class C) so that they can focus their person-power on more serious crime.

However officers whose personal conviction that cannabis is "unaccepotable" like Lawman may choose to hit a cannabis user (young white middle class, student boulderer?)hard and arrest andf prosecute.

This makes the whole bloody issue a lottery with the consequences of possessing some weed varying from the officer turning a blind eye, right through to imprisonment with a combination of draconian policeofficer and judge.

The whole thing is blatant politicval expediency, a fudge and a farce.

In reply to David Hooper:

Exactly. This is one of those issues that undermines the law itself.

It is one thing to allow police discretion, quite another to be playing a lottery as to whether an officer's reaction will be at on extreme end of the spectrum or not - there is quite a substantial difference between 5 years in prison and light-hearted "please don't do that again in public, sir".

In reply to David Martin:

You appear to be under the impression that police officers have the powers to convict and sentence people.

jcm

In reply to 1234None:

I don't think there's as much conflict in scientific evidence as you suggest, there is a lot of disinformation and hysteria.

EG. There has been no measurable increase in any of the mental illnesses that have been associated with cannabis use over the last several decades in the UK. As cannabis use has increased over this period it is reasonable to assume that a rise in recorded cases of schizophrenia, for example, would also have occurred. This hasn't happened. One can also look at incidences of mental illness etc in other countries with different patterns of drug use and compare the data with UK figures to see if there is any connection. As far as I know, there isn't.

In reply to brothersoulshine: Acohol should be made C class and keep cannabis at C

In reply to David Hooper:

Yes, I know. But 'It is, in truth, not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom, for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.'

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

No, but they certainly kick start the process. If you aren't arrested then you are safe, but if not then you face every chance of having the full force of the law to bear.

That aside, care to tell me good class-B will do?