ELLIOT MORLEY MP
Many thanks for the copy of the letter you have forwarded to David Blunkett.
I recognise that the whole issue of cannabis is a very complex one and there is no black and white response. I don't think it unreasonable to consider all the arguments in relation to controlling class c drugs and that includes the argument for legalisation. I think the case you have made is a perfectly fair one. You will appreciate of course that there those who take a very strong opposite view.
You will also be aware that the law has been changed to recognise the issue of users compared to dealers. I am sure that the Home Secretary will take into account the arguments which have been made to him.
Elliot Morley, MP
----------------------- ANABELLE EWING MP
I thank you for your letter dated 26 August, 2004 and shall read the enclosure with interest.
I shall arrange in the meantime to forward to you a copy of the SNP's position on the matter.
Yours sincerely,.....
Anabelle Ewing MP
-----------------------
DAVID WILSHIRE MP
Thank you for your letter and enclosures. It was very kind of you to take the trouble to ensure I have some additional background to this difficult issue.
Rather than fall in to the trap of making a knee jerk response, I would like the time to research this properly so will be back in touch shortly when I have made some enquiries.
David Wilshire MP
----------------------- LAURENCE ROBERTSON MP
Thank you for your letter dated 2nd September 2004 and the enclosures regarding legalising cannabis.
I realise that there are arguments on both sides of this debate, as with most things, but I'm afraid I have to tell you that I am not persuaded that cannabis should be legalised.
My reasons for feeling this way are numerous but are mainly as follows. That cannabis is not as harmless drug as it is often portrayed, being addictive and having carcinogenic properties. Also, I am advised by police officers experienced in these matters that most heroin addicts actually start on cannabis. And I feel that legalising the drug would send the wrong signal to young people. .
Prescribing cannabis for certain medical conditions may be a different matter, but I remain opposed to its general legalisation for the reasons I give.
I am grateful to you for letting me have your views and am sorry that our opinions do not coincide on this occasion.
With best wishes.
Laurence Robertson MP
-----------------------
ROGER GODSIFF MP
Thank you for your letter enclosing a.document entitled 'Cannabis: Challenging the Criminal Justice System'.
The whole issue of decriminalising certain drugs is a highly contentious one and, as you know, opinions range from those who want stronger legislation against any form of drug use including Cannabis and those who believe in the total decriminalisation of all drugs. Among the latter category I have to tell you are a number of police officers at different ranks in Birmingham who believe that the decriminalisation of all drugs will take away the profit motive and will undercut a lot of petty crimes such as burglary and breaking in to cars.
For my part I take more of a middle road and I am more than happy to sit down and talk with you about this whole subject over a cup of coffee. As far as Cannabis is concerned I have held the view, for some considerable time, that Cannabis use should be decriminalised and there are already some areas where trial projects have been initiated.
As I have said I will pop in and see you sometime to have a chat with you about the whole issue of drugs but in the meantime I am grateful for you sending me the enclosed documents.
yours sincerely
Roger Godsiff MP
----------------------- MICHAEL TREND MP
Thank you for your letter of 3rd September regarding cannabis legislation, which I read with interest.
Whilst I understood the points you make, I have on previous occasions in the House of Commons voted not to legalise the use of cannabis.
Yours Sincerely
Michael Trend MP
----------------------- ESTELLE MORRIS MP
Thank you for your letter, which I received recently concerning, the legalise cannabis alliance document 'cannabis: challenging the criminal
justice system'.
I thought you would like to know that I have contacted the home secretary, David Blunkett MP on your behalf regarding this matter.
I will, of course, contact you again as soon as I receive a reply.
Yours sincerely
Rt Hon Estelle Morris MP
----------------------- STEPHEN HESFORD MP
Thank you for your letter of 26th August together with enclosures.
I understand the arguments made in the document - non of which are new to me. The government have reduced the classification to being a class C controlled drug. This move, it part recognises to me of the arguments which the alliance makes.
Personally, I am not in favor of decriminalising cannabis, however, more input, I would welcome sight of any response which the alliance may receive from the Home Office.
Best Wishes,
Yours Sincerley
Stephen Hesford MP
Thank you for your email of 5 July to the Home Secretary about the registered letter of 19 February from Alun Buffry, enclosing copies of the Legalise Cannabis Alliance's paper, "Cannabis: Challenging The Criminal Justice System: A Public Discussion Document". You are concerned about the lack of response from the Home Office to this document. Alun Buffry has expressed similar concern in his letter of 5 July to the Home Secretary and through his MP, Dr Ian Gibson. I am replying as the Minister with responsibility for the national anti-drugs strategy to your correspondence, and separately to Dr Gibson.
I am sorry for the delay in dealing with this matter fully and for the lack of acknowledgment.
It may help if I outline briefly what happened to the earlier correspondence. As you know, Alan Hurst MP wrote to the Home Secretary on your behalf, enclosing a copy of your paper and conveying your request for a meeting with him. In my reply to this on 19 February (copy enclosed), I indicated that, because of diary pressures, it would not be possible for the Home Secretary to commit to meeting you in the foreseeable future. That was the day Mr Buffry's registered letter and enclosures were received and they were effectively treated as crossed correspondence.
The public discussion document you have compiled jointly with Mr Buffry represents a carefully considered examination of what I believe you would accept is a complex, multi-faceted issue.
The main pillars of the case you present for legalisation of cannabis draw attention, among other things, to the legal background (the UN Conventions), an assessment of the health risks and the human rights issues. In correspondence, reference is made to the medicinal benefits and you call for an ongoing, wide-ranging discussion on drug use and misuse and the legislative controls. The Government also welcomes an open, balanced debate.
I accept that you have fairly reflected the main requirements of the UN Conventions, which govern these matters internationally and which largely underpin the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. These provisions provide signatories to the Conventions with a fair degree of flexibility. The United Kingdom Government exercises that flexibility responsibly at every level, having regard both to the terms of the Conventions and to the impact of our legislative actions at home as well as on the international community.
Central to our thinking is the importance of protecting the health and welfare of the British public. We have taken the view that prohibition is the most appropriate means of doing this. The Government has no intention of either decriminalising or legalising cannabis (or any other currently controlled drug) for recreational purposes. In response to the Home Affairs Committee report on The Government's Drugs Policy: Is It Working? we stated that "We do not accept that legalisation and regulation is now, or will be in the future, an acceptable response to the presence of drugs" and that includes cannabis.
Our view is that cannabis is a controlled drug for good reasons. In recommending the reclassification of cannabis, the Advisory Council on the
Misuse of Drugs, which, as you know, advises the Home Secretary on such matters, asked for it to be clearly understood that cannabis is unquestionably harmful. It has a number of acute and chronic health effects and can induce dependence. It clearly makes sense therefore for it to remain a controlled drug whose unauthorised production (including cultivation), supply and possession are and will remain illegal.
Our educational message - to young people in particular - is that all controlled drugs, including-cannabis, are harmful and that no one should take them. To decriminalise or legalise the possession of cannabis for personal consumption would send the wrong message to the majority of young people who do not take drugs on a regular basis, if at all, with the potential risk of increased drug use and abuse. Our target is to reduce the use of all illegal drugs - including cannabis - substantially and the consequent drain upon the health services that would result from increased consumption due to more ready access to increased supply. While our drugs laws cannot be expected to eliminate drug misuse, there is no doubt that they do help to limit use and deter experimentation.
Those, such as yourself, who advocate legalisation suggest that this would reduce a range of harms associated with the illicit control and supply of the drug, including severance of the connection between cannabis users and drug dealers. But this takes no account of the consequences of the significant increase in use that would be likely to follow legalisation and only takes account of the acquisitive crime that feeds some drug habits, not the crimes committed under the influence of drugs or the drawbacks to a lawful, regulated market, which would not eliminate illicit supplies, as alcohol and tobacco smuggling demonstrate.
The Government is aware of the arguments for legalising cannabis in a regulated way and has concluded that the disadvantages would outweigh the benefits. A substantial increase in consumption of cannabis (largely by smoking) could have significant implications for public health. Also, unilateral action on the Government's part would undoubtedly encourage unwanted drug tourism to this country in the event that there were no similar move to legalise internationally. At a time when we are doing much to try to reduce the use of tobacco and alcohol due to ever greater concerns about their safety, it would be perverse to take the huge gamble with public health that would be involved
in legalising cannabis.
On the human rights front, the passing of the Human Rights Act 1998 by Parliament reflects our fundamental belief in the importance of maintaining basic human rights in this country. Since 2 October 2000, rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights may be relied upon directly in our courts. Some of the rights and freedoms are qualified and that includes the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence (Article 8 of the Convention, to which you refer). That right is subject to such limitations as are prescribed by law and "are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public damaging effects, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".
Among other things, the prohibition on cannabis (and many other drugs) was introduced by UN Convention specifically for protecting public health and welfare. Also, it is widely agreed that the law has a function in protecting people from the consequences of their own actions - compare, for example, speed limits, seat belts, safety and crash helmets, tobacco health warnings, etc. The Government must balance the rights of individuals on the one hand and the greater public health and welfare considerations on the other.
On the medical front, I am well aware that there are many who would wish to have cannabis legalised for therapeutic purposes. I have every sympathy for those with debilitating pains and illnesses, who cannot satisfactorily alleviate their symptoms through the use of existing medication. Their keen interest in the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes is entirely understandable.
This issue is one which the Government wishes to see resolved as quickly as possible. We welcomed the announcement by GW Pharmaceuticals that their advanced clinical trials into the development of a medical preparation of a cannabis-based drug have been successfully completed and that they are seeking marketing approval for the product from the Medicines and Healthcare products
Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
If product approval is forthcoming, the Government will seek Parliament's agreement to make any necessary changes to the law to enable the prescription of cannabis-based medicine.
However, that willingness to license an approved medical preparation of a cannabis-based drug does not extend to licensing the cultivation and use of cannabis itself for therapeutic purposes. It would not be appropriate to circumvent or undermine the well-established process attached to the evaluation of the safety, quality and effectiveness of all prospectively prescribable products by the MHRA. It is a process which all such medicines have to go through and is designed to protect public health. Accordingly, the Government faces difficulty in making any changes to the law unless and until it is satisfied that the benefits have been formally established by the statutorily recognised means.
I hope this helps to explain the Government's position, butt recognize that much of my reply is likely to disappoint you.
Caroline Flint MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State
Home Office
50 Queen Anne's Gate, London, SW1H 9AT
The Challenge
CCGUIDE INDEX