Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:


After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.

You the juror: Cannabis law and drug testing (Pt I)

Don Barnard

Publication

Thursday 23 Sep 1999

---


Public safety and health are the most common justifications given in favour
of drug testing, but are these justifications valid? What is drug
Testing, and does it make our skies, roads, workplaces, schools and streets
safer?

If you do not want to be a casualty of the drug war, the following text may
be of help in protecting your job, driving licence, reputation and freedom
of choice.

Public Information Document Printed and published by: CLCIA Essex, 25
Aetheric Rd, Braintree, Essex CM7 2NE
**********
The fully informed jury
No victim no crime!

TRAGICALLY, few people are fully informed about the duties and rights of
the juror. Those of you who have done jury service before will recall the
judge reminding you of your oath: "You must reach a verdict on the evidence
alone."
But do you remember him telling you that you could also return a verdict
according to your conviction? He should have!
Since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, trial by jury has been a
fundamental right for the accused person, acting as the final safeguard
against tyranny by the state. Moreover, according to that document - one of
the fundamental elements of our unwritten constitution - the law itself can
and must be called into question: Is the law fair? Is the law just?
This right was first put to the test in 1670 - From around 1650, common
law juries begun to refuse to enforce the religious intolerance of the Crown
by acquitting Quakers for violating Parliament's degree that "All, Religious
services conformed to the Anglican ritual."
Jurors were frequently fined by judges for returning not guilty verdicts
in these cases. Things came to a head when the government increased the
severity of the enforcement on the Quakers, ordering that all the doors of
Quaker Churches be locked and guarded by soldiers.
This resulted in Penn and Mead preaching in the street and their
inevitable arrest and trial. The jury acquitted them. A plaque commemorating
this historical event can be found at the entrance to the Old Bailey law
courts:

"Near this site William Penn and William Mead were tried in 1670 for
preaching to an unlawful assembly in Gracechurch Street. This tablet
commemorates the courage an endurance of the jury, Thomas Vere, Edward
Bushel and ten others, who refused to give a guilty verdict against them
although they were locked up without food for two nights and fined for their
final verdict of Not Guilty.

In short, it is a juror's duty to judge the application of law itself, and
not just whether a defendant has committed a crime according to that law. It
was because of US jurors using this right to bring in not guilty verdicts in
alcohol prohibition cases that the US government was forced to repeal
alcohol prohibition...everyone knew someone who consumed alcohol; people no
longer saw it as a crime.

A more recent case of a jury exercising these rights was in at Manchester
Crown Court July 1999 in the case of Colin Davies. Davies had admitted to
cultivation of cannabis plants, possession of cannabis, possession with
intent to supply and of illegally supplying cannabis to two friends who
suffered from MS.
Davies who suffers from a serious back injury argued that he used cannabis
out of necessity to alleviate his own pain and discomfort and supplied his
friends with cannabis to help them in the same way.

The jury unanimously found him not guilty on all charges.

As a reader juror, rather than being constrained by the allegations about
cannabis hemp which have been foisted on society for the past few
generations, you are expected to keep an open mind and review the evidence
put before you to.


Drug testing stands the presumption of innocence on its head. Does
sacrificing this right serve any legitimate moral or economic purpose?
*********8
Table of contents

INTRODUCTION Are universal drug screening tests the way forward?
We need to talk!
What's happening now.
Could it happen here?

THE DEBATE What is drug misuse?
Defining a drug.
Socially accepted drugs.
Are the reasons given in support of drug screening tests a myth?
What is wrong with drug testing?
False positive test results.
Passive inhalation.
False negative results.
Over-the-counter medication.

CONCLUSION Drug tests and doubts.
Summary.
Unanswered questions.
A challenge.

APPENDIX 1 How cannabis became illegal.
A picture paints a thousand words.
A brief history of UK cannabis control.

APPENDIX 2 2.1 Drug offences in the UK 1985-95.
2.2 Breakdown of drug offences into possession and trafficking 1985-95.
2.3 Extra government spending to tackle drugs 1999-2002.
2.4 All drug seizures by drug type and year.

APPENDIX 3 How long does a drug stay in your system?

APPENDIX 4 Common sense.
Drugs and driving.
Drugs and the workplace.
Schools and drug testing.

APPENDIX 5 Action open to you.
Employment Protection Act.
Some important tribunal judgements.
International law.

APPENDIX 6 Drug testing and you: Questions and answers.

APPENDIX 7 Political overview.

APPENDIX 8 Sources, acknowledgments and further reading.

APPENDIX 9 About the CLCIA

APPENDIX 10 Consultation document.

APPENDIX 11 Questionnaire.
******
Introduction
Are universal drug screening tests the way forward?

DURING a job interview or at work have you been asked:
Urinate in a bottle?
Give a blood or hair specimen?

Ever wondered why? What can your employer tell from these tests?

At the turn of the century, company spying was pervasive, and privacy
almost non-existent. Your employer had the right to know everything about
you: whom you lived with, whether you went to church, to which political
group you belonged. With the growth of the trade union movement and
heightened awareness of the importance of individual rights, workers came to
insist that life off the job was a private affair, and not to be scrutinised
by employers.

Recently major chinks have begun to appear in the wall that has separated
life on and off the job, largely due to the advent of technologies that make
it possible for employers to monitor their employees' off-duty activities.
Today thousands of UK workers, in both the public and private sectors, are
subject to drug tests as a condition for getting or keeping a job.

Public safety and health are the most common justifications given in
favour of drugs testing. But is this justification valid? What is drug
testing, and does it make our skies, roads, workplaces, schools and streets
safer?

Can we achieve a drug-free society via the extensive use of drugs testing?
We would require:

Pre-employment and random drugs testing at all work places, and at schools
and colleges (for students and teachers).

Random testing of the unemployed when reporting to the job centre (along
the same lines as those currently employed by the armed forces and prisons).

Roadside random testing of all drivers.

Compulsory monthly testing for those who have a responsibility for life:
for example, train, bus, taxi, and ambulance drivers, doctors, firefighters,
police officers, etc.

The introduction of a register of known drug users to ensure they do not
gain employment in sensitive areas. We would know who they were and what
they were doing.
************
We need to talk!

IF the current trend of the UK drugs prohibition policies continues the
situation being described could soon become your future.
We seek your leadership in stimulating a frank and honest evaluation of
global drug control efforts. We are deeply concerned about the threats that
drug pose to our children, fellow citizens and our societies. There is no
choice but to work together, both locally in the UK and across borders, to
reduce the harms associated with drugs.
We believe that the global war on drugs with particular reference to
cannabis is now causing more harms than drug abuse itself. Every decade the
UN adopts new international conventions, focused largely on criminalisation
and punishment, that restrict the ability of individual nations, to devise
effective solutions to local problems.
Every year our government enacts more punitive and costly drug control
measures. Every day politicians endorse harsher drug war strategies.
What is the result? UN agencies estimate the annual revenue generated by
the illegal drug industry at 400 billion dollars, or the equivalent of
roughly eight- percent of total international trade. This industry has
empowered organised criminals, corrupted governments at all levels, eroded
internal security, stimulated violence, and distorted both economic and
moral values.
These are the consequences not of drug use per se, but of decades of the
failed and futile drug war policies.
In many parts of the world, drug war policies impede public health efforts
to stem the spread of HIV, hepatitis and other infectious diseases. Human
rights are violated, environmental assaults perpetrated and prisons
inundated with hundreds of thousands of drug law violators.
Resources better expended on health, education, and economical development
are squandered. Realistic proposals to reduce crime, disease and death are
abandoned in favour of unrealistic proposals to create drug-free societies.

What's happening now

Since the mid 1980s, consecutive UK governments have increased funding and
actions to tackle drug misuse on five main fronts: international
co-operation, enforcement, deterrence, prevention and treatment.
Estimated Government funding in these areas for 1993-94 was 526 million.
Today this figure is obviously considerably higher, though by how much is
unclear .The figure is estimated between 2-4 billion annually but there are
no comprehensive figures available.
Despite these increasing efforts clearly drug misuse continues to increase
steadily year on year. That is why we believe it is right to review the
existing approach involving everyone affected.
You have a legitimate and important role to play in this regard - but only
if you are willing to ask and address tough questions about the intentions,
success and failures of past and current efforts.

We appeal to you to initiate a truly open and honest dialogue regarding
the future of UK drug control policies - one in which fear, prejudice and
punitive prohibition yield to common sense, science, public health, human
rights and practicality.
If UK drugs policies continue on the same lines as they are now, we can
look to the USA for the shape of things to come:

Zero tolerance.
Drug testing in all sections of society.
Three drug offences: a mandatory seven years in a private prison. There
are around 1.7 million people in US prisons, of which around 500,000 are
drug offenders. Approximately a million more Americans are on probation and
parole in expensive drug rehabilitation programs. All are subject to drug
testing for illicit drug use.
Random testing of employees for illicit drug use in both the public and
private sector.
Random testing of students for illicit drug use.
*******
Could it happen here?

IS this state of affairs too extreme to become reality in the UK? Wake up,
it is already happening under our noses!
In the name of the war on drugs, the Government has spent - some would say
wasted - a vast amount of public money drug-testing the armed forces,
prisoners, and drivers involved in accidents or suspected of a variety of
offences.

Many companies are now insisting on drug testing as a condition of
employment.
Clauses like "You must not do or take part in any activity at night that
could affect your quality of work the following day or at weekends which
could affect your performance on a Monday," are being inserted into
employees' contracts.
In some circles of government, it is already being suggested that all
public service personnel be made subject to random drug testing - including
the police!
According to the Drugs and the Workplace project: 'Police forces are to
introduce drug testing as part of a radical health program aimed at reducing
the numbers of early retirements on health grounds and cutting the chronic
levels of sickness in their ranks.'
Jack Straw, (Home Secretary), has said this "ridiculous" problem is
costing police forces up to 250 million a year and he has threatened forces
with punitive budget restrictions unless they reduce the burden.
Controversially, these drug-screening tests are designed not to expose
officers for dismissal. Even those officers using Class '' drugs will be
dealt with in a "supportive, not punitive" manner. The aim is for officers
to come forward for counseling and rehabilitation (Independent 12/10/98).
More recently, the Association of Chief Constables has called for
legislation to allow them mandatory random drug testing for all police
officers and support workers.
At the introduction of a government partnership with leading British
companies to tackle drug abuse (20/11/98) Mr. Hellawell, UK Drugs
Coordinator (drugs czar), said that young people had to be shown drug-taking
was not acceptable: "We have to make it clear to people in prominence that
that sort of behavior is not acceptable, especially if they are in a
position of responsibility where they could influence kids."
He called for more random drug testing in the work place, and advocated
drug drive tests on motorist to match spot checks on pilots and train
drivers (The Times 21/10/98).
Reports suggest that industry is already losing billions of pounds
annually due to sickness, lost productivity and theft that is a direct
result of substance misuse. "The Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence
has stated: 'Drink and drugs misuse is costing employers an estimated 3
billion a year." (The Independent 12/10/98)
Patrick Nicholls MP (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for
Employment), in his introduction to 'Drug Misuse and the Workplace', said:
"You may feel that drug misuse isn't a workplace problem at all, but a
significant proportion of people who misuse drugs are in work. Studies of
known illicit drug users suggests that at least 30 per cent are in
employment [more recent statistic suggest 35%], some of them, perhaps, in
your company. Workplace safety, job performance, efficiency and productivity
can all be affected by the misuse of drugs. That makes drugs a workplace
issue."

In his recent review on drug strategy (1999) Mr. Hellawell places great
emphasis on the 'treatment' analogy as opposed to the 'war' metaphor (This
idea is not new: US drug czar Lee Brown said this in 1993, as did US drug
czar McCaffery in 1996) and we agree, the emphasis should indeed be on
treatment.

After all, doctors do not arrest their patients and test them for cancer in
order to cure them!
*******
Unfortunately, like the former US czars, Czar Hellawell's rejection of the
'war' metaphor is hollow rhetoric. All he has rejected is the word 'war'
but the war on drugs continues. Just look at the proposed drug control
budget. The vast majority of the funding is for detection, testing and
enforcement.

In his first annual report Mr. Hellawell states that enforcement activity
would seem to be working. To support this he claims from 1984 to 1997 drug
seizures increased tenfold! His report, however, is surprising in that
plays down the role that cannabis may be contributing to the drug problem.
Is this because he is going soft on 'soft drugs'?
All too frequently we are hearing that the focus on drugs' prevention is on
drugs like heroin, crack cocaine and MDMA, the so-called hard drugs, as
opposed to cannabis, However, drug offences statistics do not support this.


The future UK drug strategy is more of the same: continued surveillance,
hunting down, arresting, tagging, fining, imprisoning and drug testing.

AND THEY SAID WE COULD NOT WIN THE WAR ON DRUGS!
Picture reproduced from The Emperor Wears No Clothes by Jack Herer.
********
The debate
What is drug abuse?


DRUG misuse is defined as the non-medical use of drugs that are intended
for use in medical treatment, and the use of drugs which have no acceptable
medical purposes and a high potential for misuse.

This, however, should not be confused with drug abuse, which is:

The inappropriate use of drugs, where use may aggravate an existing
condition or situation, or is done in potentially dangerous or inappropriate
circumstances

The habitual use of drugs, to the extent that the desired effects become a
dominant concern to the detriment of other aspects of their lives.

The excessive use of a drugs that can lead to physical and mental illness,
anti-social behaviour or result in a person being a danger to themselves or
the public at large.

Defining a drug

This is difficult since thousands of substances consumed every day can be
described as drugs. Most of these have very little effect on the nervous
system and are unlikely to cause any severe physical or mental harm unless
used to excess.
Another problem is that in general conversation the word drug is used in
many different ways. Many people for example still do not see caffeine and
nicotine as drugs. Others use the word drug when they really mean narcotics,
and some take 'drug' to mean any man-made chemical.

Socially accepted drugs

NICOTINE. This drug acts on the cholinergic pathways in the brain, being
first as a stimulant and then as a depressant. A fatal overdose for nicotine
is 40 mg. One cigarette contains 3 mg of nicotine. A pack of 20 therefore
contains more than a fatal dose. The major adverse health effects of excess
tobacco use are respiratory diseases, such as chronic bronchitis, and
increased risk of cancers to the lungs and respiratory tract.

CAFFEINE (found in cocoa, coffee and tea, amongst others). This drug is a
stimulant - the noticeable effects are to remove feelings of tiredness,
increase the ability to think clearly, stimulate the heart muscles, and
relax the muscles of the bronchioles and acts as a diuretic. Although it is
often stated that caffeine only produces habitation it does produce a
physical dependence.

ALCOHOL. This drug is probably the most harmful socially accepted drug
today. It has many derogatory effects on physical and mental health as a
result of excess use. Alcohol misuse can produce addiction, psychotic
symptoms and psychosis, brain damage, memory defects, schizophrenia,
impaired occupational performance and lower educational achievement in
adolescents. Alcohol is also a major contributor to road traffic accidents.

CANNABIS. A substance that is both socially-accepted and controlled under
the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. On the one hand there is the scientific
opinion that it would be unwise to do anything about rescheduling cannabis,
because of the possibility that research may at some future time establish
long-term hazards to health! Other scientists hold the dangers of cannabis
have been exaggerated. Many argue cannabis is a benign substance free of any
dangers to health.
*******
Are the reasons given in support of drug screening tests a myth?
What happened in the USA

IN the early 1970s, reports on the use of cannabis in the workplace began
to appear in the US media. One estimate based on a 1976 survey suggested
that about 15 million American people used cannabis regularly and possibly
as many as 36 million had tried it at least once.
As a result, the 1970s and 1980s saw the number of companies who subjected
employees to drug testing rocketed from an initially very small percentage
to 21% by 1986.
In 1987, Nancy Reagan recommended that no corporation should be permitted
to do business with the Federal Government without having a urine purity
policy in place to show their loyalty.
In 1989 President George Bush went to great lengths to promote drug
testing. He went on record as saying drug abuse by US workers cost
businesses $60 billion to $100 billion a year in lost productivity,
absenteeism, accidents, medical claims and theft.
By 1989, the number of companies testing for illicit drugs had risen to
over 50%, with more than 8 million workers tested in 1998 alone.
Today practically all US workers employed in a job subject to the national
minimum wage are subject to random testing for illicit drug use including
all White House personnel (for the protection of the president)!

Over the last decade thousands of people have been refused employment,
dismissed or forced into expensive drug programs solely for failing a
chemical test for substance use.

Just as worries were expressed about drug use in the workplace, concern was
expressed in respect to cannabis use by students. Fears included possible
effects on students' development, potential loss of motivation, and decline
in health.
In 1976 a US survey suggested that over half the 18-25 age group had tried
cannabis, and a quarter of these smoked it regularly. Over the next few
years, other reports emerged asserting serious health harms associated to
cannabis use.
The extensive media coverage given to these asserted harms resulted in the
introduction of drug's education program into US schools, even though many
other reports declared cannabis to be safe.
On September 12th 1983 a program named "Drug Abuse Resistance Education"
(DARE) was introduced by a Los Angeles police officer, its sole aim being
zero tolerance - a drug free society. Police officers were paid to go into
classrooms to give education on drug misuse. These talks were almost
invariably slanted towards cannabis.
As a result of the alarmist information given various charities and
organisations began to surface, all calling for stiffer penalties for drugs.
Schools sent parents pledge letters of "drug-free" homes, and lists were
made of which households had not returned them, even when the respective
pupils' tests were negative.
Students and parents were encouraged to wear a red ribbon to indicate they
supported the drug-free policy. It was not long before politicians and
organisations began calling for drug testing of students.
Drug testing gradually became increasingly prevalent across the US
education system, using a program that specifically concentrated on cannabis
use.
During 1985 in Milton Wisconsin all high school students, at the request
of organisations like Families Against Marijuana, were ordered to take
weekly drug tests to see if they had smoked cannabis (but not for any other
substance).
Ironically while corporal punishment had been outlawed in many states,
little attention was given to the degrading and humiliating strip searches
and urine tests of school students for cannabis use.
From 1985 onwards more and more schools implemented testing for drug use;
some states, which already tested all their athletes, used court orders to
extend the testing program to all extra curricular activities!
By 1993 testing of high school students had been widely adopted and the
policy continues today throughout the USA.
*******
What is wrong with drug testing?

"Drug tests fail on their own terms: their greatest shortcoming is their
inability to determine intoxication or impairment at the time the test was
taken."

THE question of impairment through taking cannabis (or indeed any drug) is
far from clear-cut. As will be shown below, the presence of a drug or
metabolites of a drug in the biological body fluids says nothing about the
competence of an individual, whether he or she is at work, at school or
behind the wheel. This raises interesting questions:
If there is no accepted level of blood concentration for most drugs -
including cannabis - how do we define impairment?
How could you prove impairment?
Since positive tests for drugs are not indicative of impairment, do we
need drug testing?

Drug concentrations in biological fluids are affected by the size of the
dose, how the drug was taken, the longer-term pattern of drug use and the
individuals' metabolism, and rate of excretion.
As most drugs are distributed to the site of action by the blood, a drug
concentration in the blood should give the best indication as to the
potential effects on behavior.
However, due to the wide individual variations in the rate at which the
drugs appear in an individual's plasma, drug concentration for the
estimation of impairment has not even been established for most drugs.
There are numerous problems with testing body fluids or hair for
indication of an individual's impairment through drug use.
Some of the these problems relate to the test itself and its limitations,
and others relate to the involvement of imperfect human beings at all levels
of the testing process. No single analysis technique or method has immunity
from errors or omissions. All can yield and have yielded incorrect or
unacceptable results in some hands. There are several causes of
inaccuracies, including problems of interfering substances, cross-reactions
between illicit substances and other legal substances, human error and
inadequate testing procedures.

Clearly, it raises both social and legal issues if an individual can test
positive for cannabis without consuming it - especially where person's
integrity, freedom or future prospects are at stake

False positive test results

A false positive is when the test shows recent drugs use when the person
being tested has not consumed it - a false allegation. A major concern here
is the ability of prescription, over-the-counter drugs and natural
substances to show up as illicit drug use. Codeine, for example, is rapidly
absorbed with maximum concentrations 1 hour after ingestion. It is
extensively metabolised, primarily as conjugated 6-codeine-glucronide. This
shows up as a positive test for metabolised opiates such as morphine, and
will register for 2 and 4 days after use. Poppy seeds often found on seeded
bread loaves will produce positive test results for opiates up to 60 hours
after being eaten. Cannabis seed oil is recognised as causing false positive
for cannabis use in urinalysis tests.

Passive inhalation

Passive inhalation is another problematic area, particularly with reference
to cannabis and to limited extent cocaine. Although you are not likely to be
effected by it you can inhale enough smoke to test positive for cannabis
use. There have been several reports and studies on passive inhalation, all
of which support this fact. These studies all failed to find and identify a
level showing whether the drug was passively or intentionally taken, but did
document cannabis metabolites in the urine. In a 1985 study, cannabis
metabolites were also found in the blood as a result of passive inhalation.
******
False negative results

FALSE negatives are test results that fail to detect the presence of a
substance, when it is present.
The most common cause for this is tampering with the sample.
However, it is worth pointing out that although drug-screening tests are
far from infallible it is difficult to challenge positive test results,
aside from launching a legal challenge.
Your best defence is to stay clean - don't rely on excuses!

Over-the-counter medication

A further drug-testing problem is posed by the use of over-the-counter
medications and prescription drugs many of which warn against driving or
operating heavy machinery for fear of disorientation, drowsiness, etc.
These medications can often show up as illicit drugs use in drug screening
tests, a point illustrated by instances where MPs and high-ranking policemen
have tested positive for opiate use after using proprietary painkillers.

According to a report in the Daily Mail (September 16 1999) Conservative
MP David Maclean and the national secretary of the Police Superintendent
Association both failed a voluntary drug test at a conference [drug testing
trade fair] which was debating compulsory random drug testing of all police
officers.
A similar case was reported in the New Scientist (The prying game, July 24
1999). According to the report an 82-year-old German woman tested positive
for LSD after using Ambroxamol, an over-the-counter medicine prescribed to
clear mucus from the lungs.
Further investigation by German researchers uncovered 11 other false
positives for the drug following urine tests of the kind widely used in
German drug screening labs.

Although in the case of the MP & the policeman it was an opiate-based
analgesic, which caused the incorrect, reading there are alleged to be
hundreds of commonly used medications that can produce a false positive test
result.
Are we to punish or sack those who are using cold remedies for treating
themselves with Beecham's or a similar medicine?
This seems a ludicrous course of action but the argument is equally sound,
after all, such remedies are known to effect reaction, dexterity and
co-ordination. So why pick on illicit drug use only?
*******
Conclusion
Drug tests and doubts

THE inherent possibility of error in drug screening tests for recent drug
use is one of concern that escalates in proportion to the consequences of a
positive result. One false positive in 100 true positive is insignificant in
an incidence survey for research purposes.
One false positive, however, is of great concern if it is a forensic
sample from you and your freedom, career, reputation or civil rights hang in
the balance.

Drugs test must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a person
deliberately took a substance and was impaired, at the time of the test,
however, drug tests are unable to do this. These tests are unsafe, unjust
and unfair, and have nothing to do with competence or health and safety.
Positive results of drug-screening tests, standing alone, are not precise
enough to supply the formal proof needed for prosecutions, such as driving
under the influence of drugs, or for use in other prosecutions or
proceedings - such as disciplinary action by employers, or the denial of a
job or which will adversely affect the person being tested.
The possible variations involved in drug screening tests render the task
of the general acceptance of a presumptive level of impairment for cannabis
practically impossible, therefore, any standard levels of presumptive
impairment become meaningless in practical application.

Summary

Drug screening tests are useful only as a tool of surveillance.

Drug screening tests cannot prove or disprove the offence of using drugs.

Drug screening tests provide no evidence or information as to their
effects on an individual's ability or performance.

Drug screening tests cannot establish the date time of use. (It is
possible that the same individual could test negative on drug screening test
in the morning and positive in the afternoon) without consuming cannabis
during the interim.

If an individual has used cannabis only very recently, he or she will
probably test negative on a drug-screening test because the cannabis has not
reached their urine, irrespective of any suggestion of impairment.

Drug screening tests for recent illicit substances are a creeping invasion
into private life.
Arbitrary and irrational, they say nothing about competence or impairment.
********
Unanswered questions

OVER the last few decades, the government has given out massive amounts of
misinformation to gain support for its self-proclaimed war on drugs. The
most obvious examples are the alleged health harms from using cannabis. Is
the Government now doing the same with its information on drug testing?

What is the cost of drug misuse to industry?

Is there a sufficient drug problem in the work place to warrant
drug-screening tests?

Does social or occasional use of cannabis or any drug necessarily become
problematic, or interfere with work performance?

Can massive government deployment of drug testing resources to enforce
prohibition on cannabis and other drugs achieve its objectives?

Who really profits from drug testing - and who pays?

Is the Government attempting to impose drug testing on us all by stealth
with their 'drugs in the workplace' and 'drug-driving' rhetoric?

Is drug testing a way of making companies help the Government in combating
drug use?

Are employers and drug czar Hellawell sufficiently informed to dictate
which drugs will harm the workforce?

Is the public sufficiently informed to access the impact of the
implementing universal testing for recent illicit substance use in drug and
driving offences?

Would you submit to a drug-screening test if your freedom, job, driving
licence or prospects depended on the result?

Considering their own drug difficulties, is the US model the best one to
follow?

A challenge...

We invite you to join in a healthy democratic debate, in the confidence
that it will strip away many of the misconceptions about cannabis hemp,
demonstrate the cannabis hemp plant is so much more than a recreational
substance, and show that many long-term social, ecological and economical
benefits can be reaped by rescheduling the substance.

We believe that the laws that prohibit cannabis are money-motivated, not in
the public interest and have created many social problems. Rescheduling
cannabis would release funds for other social programs, helping those who
need help. We are concerned by the failure of our current democratic
institutions to concern themselves with putting this wrong to rights.

Finally, we accept there will always be those of you who are passionately
against cannabis use for any purpose. However, there does come moments, when
a particular combination of circumstances calls for deeper investigation of
all the factors involved. We seem to have reached one of those moments.

We can only hope that you will open some of the doors we have knocked on,
to increase your understanding of the cannabis plant and the controversy
surrounding it.
********


Click here for Part II

 

 

 

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!