|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
UK: Police chief steps into cannabis row
Mark Townsend and Gaby Hinsliff The Observer
Sunday 15 Jan 2006 The senior police officer who was said to have inspired the government's controversial reclassification of cannabis has revealed for the first time that he has always opposed downgrading the drug. The then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, credited the liberal policing policies of Brian Paddick, now the Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, in the decision to reclassify cannabis. However, Paddick said that the Home Office never asked for his views on the issue and added that he has always believed the move was 'unnecessary' and would cause more damage than good. Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, will decide within days whether to order a U-turn on the relaxation of cannabis laws in January 2004, because of fears over its link to mental illness. Clarke also faces a parliamentary inquiry into the way drugs are classified in Britain. The investigation - which could open the way for a much wider shake-up of drugs laws - will examine not only the evidence surrounding cannabis and its effect on mental health but that on other substances, including cocaine. The chair of the all-party Commons science and technology committee, Phil Willis, a Liberal Democrat MP, said: 'What we want to know is why did Charles Clarke say Blunkett was wrong, and what's the basis of the evidence he's putting forward to support that. My private reading in discussion with a number of experts is that nothing has changed. There's significantly more evidence to say that alcohol has more of a deleterious effect on the brain than cannabis.' His inquiry will call as witnesses both Clarke and the Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), a panel of scientists which assesses drugs for the Home Office and whose latest report concludes that the evidence linking cannabis to psychotic symptoms cannot be considered definitive. The advisory council does not support reclassification of cannabis to Class B and members of the panel have threatened to resign should Clarke ignore their recommendations. Blunkett had asked the ACMD to investigate the reclassification of cannabis in 2001 in a request interpreted as a direct response to Paddick's cannabis policy in Lambeth, south London. Paddick, who was then commander of Lambeth, had introduced a pilot scheme which allowed officers to give people found carrying a small amount of cannabis a verbal warning. The initiative was designed to allow police officers to tackle harder Class A drugs such as crack cocaine, but contrary to the Home Secretary's belief reclassifying cannabis was never part of Paddick's agenda. Paddick, 47, said: 'I never discussed the Lambeth pilot with the Home Office. For people to say that it was my idea that led to the reclassification of cannabis ... well, I never spoke to the Home Office at all about it. I don't think cannabis should have been downgraded. All that should have been done was guidance from Home Office to chief police officers saying that you should consider allowing officers to seize and warn or arrest depending on the circumstances. Reclassification was unnecessary.' Although Paddick's 'softly, softly' scheme in Lambeth was motivated by the need to liberate more officers for targeting Class A dealers, he claims a Home Office decision may dissuade officers from concentrating on tackling crack cocaine and heroin suppliers. 'The idea of diverting police resources away from cannabis to more serious offences has now become further confused because cannabis warnings count the same as a conviction for rape or murder under figures for the number of offences brought to justice,' he said. 'Effectively, it means that a cannabis warning on the street is one of the quickest and easiest ways of achieving targets that police forces are under increasing pressure to meet,' said Paddick, who believes ministers should concentrate on reminding users that cannabis is illegal. 'With a maximum of two years in prison it probably means that there are sufficient powers to deal with problems relating to cannabis.' http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,1686874,00.html
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!