Cannabis Law Change: Again

The time between the first warning and second arrest for cannabis use could be years and users will continue to smoke many 'joints' during the intervening period. They will also learn how to avoid capture simply by practice. The warning shot about the future will focus the mind, but by then immense damage will have already been done. The arrest at second offence is almost certainly too late if the effects of powerful 'skunk' are so dangerous compared to the strength of cannabis used a decade or two ago. To suggest that the initial offence carries only a warning is idiotic. Speeding doesn't attract a warning. Or any robbery and there is no warning for murder. Using class B drugs is illegal. To provide simply a warning is a dereliction of government duty. The rhetoric of the Home Secretary (Jacqui Smith) sounds quite laudible, but closer examination highlights real problems.

• points to claims that "alarming" levels of super-strength (skunk) cannabis are in circulation and fears that the drug could damage mental health

• plans to limit the number of cautions police can issue to people caught with the drug

• curb the sale of cannabis seeds, bongs and other paraphernalia. To curb only implies restraint and not outlawing (anything that checks, restrains, or subdues)

• the maximum penalty rises from two to five years in prison

• reject suggestion by police chiefs (politicians in uniform) about retention of simply cautioning cannabis users

• wants a "clear and workable system of escalation" - tough action on second offence. This indicates a simple warning to potentially (in theory) five years in prison and with the overcrowding justifiction to avoid spending public (taxpayers') money to protect the public this just won't happen. This is a classic example of misappropriation (extortion) of funding
  

• Ms Smith: "not against cannabis warnings, but I believe it is unacceptable for someone to receive more than one warning and for that warning not to be recorded properly". If a 'warning' is not 'properly' recorded, it must be a deliberate action. The currently (alleged) requirement for documentation is already serious 'pen-pushing', so 'not ... properly' seems an inappropriate definition. And more than one warning. Why any warning at all?

• promises of tougher penalties already introduced for drug dealers who target schools would be widened to cover those [schools] near prisons and mental health institutions. Ironically it is possible that some of those patients in mental institutions are there as a result of cannabis

DrugScope (policy development) chief executive, Martin Barnes: "The message given by this is that drugs policy can be driven as much by political considerations, media headlines and scare stories as by the evidence."

A disturbing aspect of this whole affair is that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) is supposed to represent 'expert' opinion and still claims that cannabis should remain in a class C category, being less dangerous than a class B substance. Defining dangerous by degrees.

Cannabis is only technically a single substance. The psychoactive component is tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)

Different brands of various strength cigarettes or cigars all contain the psychoactive class A drug, nicotine. This is quite legal, but has been engineered to be a high revenue 'earner'.

It causes millions of early deaths on a global scale

The members include scientists and health 'experts' and the 20:3 vote of no change to reclassification was based on the fact that no new evidence had been uncovered to indicate increased health dangers. The council reported a "probable, but weak, casual" link between cannabis use and psychotic illness and that to prevent one case of schizophrenia 5000 young users would have to give up (illegal) cannabis use. This is clearly a political cop-out as just 5000 users would need to be cautioned or arrested or simply caught and this defines a weak link: 1 in 5000 and represents just 0.02%. One schizophrenic is obviously insignificant, but significance is given to the 5000 users of an illegal substance. It also claims there is scant evidence that cannabis use leads to use of more dangerous substances.

So what? Red herrings are always used as excuses for inaction

Suggestion by the ACMD? Place a health warning on cigarette papers! Warnings do little to deter nicotine (cigarette) addicts, so this would be an absolute non-starter. But it looks like doing something to justify its existence. The council's chairman (Sir Michael Rawlins): "I've been on government committees for many years. Sometimes they have taken my advice, sometimes not." This presumes good advice is being given. Rejection can simply imply the advice is wrong. Taking advice is commonly just cherry-picking.

Jacqui Smith felt it necessary to override the advice given about tightening the laws of possession of the drug, but this only considers cannabis in generic terms and not different types of cannabis.

• The speed of government is staggering: by the end of the year is only 6 months!

The original relaxation of the law by reclassifying cannabis as a class C drug, downgrading from class B was a lunatic idea, yet reduced crime overnight since it became legally acceptable to use cannabis. No change was ever made to class A drugs (alcohol and nicotine). Ultimately, it is logical that cannabis will be fully legalised and taxed, although the user base will be much less than those with nicotine addiction. Alcohol addiction is gaining ground and the number of alcoholics in denial is already huge. But it's revenue at the expense of both public health and the damage to public health caused by drunks. Alcohol and cars needs to be separated by zero tolerance. The argument of a fixed maximum level independent of the individual's tolerance to alcohol is pathetic and very dangerous. If an individual decides to kill themselves by alcohol abuse then that is their choice, especially after the self-warning by the 'hangover'. Alcohol is very cheap to produce as it is such a simple compound. But a high revenue 'earner' (cynically 'justifies' high taxation).

• The arguments for cars drinking alcohol (biofuels) are substantially different.

Another example of the reason to gain power and control: the 'elected' government, usually based on lies and half-lies and the mandated promises that will always be dealt with tomorrow. This simply provides the platform to pontificate yet do as they please regardless of the opinion of the public that gave them that 'power'.