|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
UK: High time to undo the hash that has been made of our Cannabis laws Kate Foster Scotland on Sunday Sunday 20 Mar 2005 IF YOU are in the mood for a bit of cerebral relaxation today and decide to smoke a cannabis joint, what would be the consequences if you were caught? Can you grow cannabis plants in your attic and get away with it? How much hash would you have to be found with before facing prosecution? Around 3.5 million people in the UK use cannabis but I doubt many of them know the answers to these questions. Recently a sheriff presiding over a court in Aberdeen admitted that even he didn't understand the cannabis issue. There has been huge confusion over the drug ever since former Home Secretary David Blunkett re-classified it last January to the status of steroids and anti-depressants, taking it from a class B to a class C drug. Now the legal status of cannabis, and those who use it, has been plunged into deeper chaos by Blunkett's replacement Charles Clarke, who has ordered a review of his predecessor's decision. Clarke has asked his independent advisers about re-introducing a higher classification in the light of new evidence about stronger forms of the drug leading to serious mental health problems. It is claimed, for example, that the drug dramatically increases the risk of developing schizophrenia in people where there is a family history of the illness, and significantly increases the risk even where there is no such genetic link. I don't know about Clarke's experience of cannabis, but hasn't it always been fairly obvious that a lot of people who smoke cannabis regularly don't have quite the mental acuity they should? Isn't that why they're called hash heads? I watched friends at university disintegrate into foggy-minded bores as they spent more and more time smoking dope, so the latest evidence comes as no surprise - nor is it the first warning about the powerful long-term effects of a supposedly 'soft' drug. Blunkett was evidently more concerned with tackling those who deal in hard drugs than those who fall victim to the softer ones. This was despite warnings over the impact on health and the danger that the re-classification of cannabis could create a climate in which the use of harder drugs would become increasingly socially acceptable. Blunkett's decision last year was hugely controversial. It may have appeased users of the drug and their liberal supporters in the media, but it was heavily opposed by critics, including former drugs tsar Keith Hellawell, who resigned over the issue. Aside from the political ramifications there was general public bemusement, not least because the complicated new set of rules were not spelled out clearly enough. For example, some believed, mistakenly, that re-classification made the drug legal and they could smoke it openly in public. Others thought, wrongly, they could now grow cannabis plants without facing prosecution. To muddy the waters even further, Scots law made the legal situation north of the Border slightly different and Scottish police were unable to relax their policies to the same extent as those in England. In fact, re-classification is not the same as decriminalisation. For users in England, the move meant those stopped once or twice with cannabis would have the drug confiscated, be given a formal warning and sent on their way. Anyone caught three times in a year would face arrest and could be charged with possession. In Scotland, meanwhile, possession of cannabis is still an arrestable offence because decisions on prosecutions are up to fiscals and not police. Therefore anyone caught with cannabis in Scotland has continued to face prosecution as police report offenders to the procurator fiscal every time they are found in possession. The fiscal then decides whether to press charges. But not many people know this. The Scottish Executive, despite the millions it spends on its controversial drugs education schemes, has failed to get this message across. Earlier this year, Douglas Cusine, a sheriff in Aberdeen, lashed out over the re-classification of cannabis as he locked up a teenager for pushing the drug at school. Cusine said he had difficulty understanding precisely what message the government was intending to convey. Cannabis, he pointed out, was no less dangerous now than it was before, and the penalties for being involved with the drug are exactly the same. Now if someone in charge of a court cannot comprehend the intricacies of the policy, what chance has anyone else? According to police, the number of marijuana plants and amount of resin seized have increased dramatically in Scotland since re-classification even though the move was supposed to allow forces to concentrate on hard drugs. There is a feeling that cultivation of the drug has increased because of a misconception among members of the public they would not be prosecuted. If the government did not listen to Hellawell when he was drugs tsar, hopefully their decision to rethink the status of cannabis will mark a turning point. They must begin to look again at the evidence produced by drugs experts other than those who peddle the theories they want to hear, such as those drugs workers who sold the Scottish Executive its controversial Know The Score anti-drugs campaign. The criticism of this campaign was correct: it was not tough enough. In Scotland, 384 under-16s were treated for drug problems in 2003-04, up from 156 in 1999. Perhaps instead, the government should listen to Professor Neil McKeganey, of the Centre for Drugs Misuse Research at the University of Glasgow, who believes that ministers and drugs workers should put the focus back on cannabis to solve the problem of illegal drug use north of the Border. Or maybe they should listen to the headteachers who say pupils are just as likely to be caught behind the bike sheds with a joint in their hand as they were with a cigarette a decade ago. There are growing concerns about the strength of cannabis nowadays, and the effects of such a powerful drug on its youngest users. The Home Secretary needs to learn from the mistakes made last year and face up to the liberals to protect the most vulnerable. And if there is to be an about turn on drugs, the government - and the Scottish Executive - must make sure that the facts on cannabis are spelled out clearly. Not just the legal consequences but the health impact too.
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!