|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
Beware Political Language
Don Barnard Press Briefing
Friday 06 Dec 2002 As the dateline for the date of Home Secretary David Blunkett's reclassification of cannabis draws closer,the prohibitionists are working hard regurgitating and rehashing 'Reefer Madness' literature to torpedo it in an attempt to impose the Swedish-style policy favoured by the Conservatives, some would argue already being implemented by stealth. NOTE: Sweden's drug policy of zero tolerance [a very long piece] is posted at http://www.partyvibe.com/articles/swedish_national_drug_policy_and_the_dr ugfree_state.htm NOTE: Vocal Swedish critics of the Swedish Model [See 1] Closer to home: The Conservative Party has branded the Home Affairs Select Committee's recommendation to reclassify cannabis and governments proposed liberalisation of disposal of cannabis possession offences to finance the war on addictive substances as "muddled and dangerous policy". The Conservatives, instead, back a strategy for the public to report suspected drug users and want a huge expansion of drug rehabilitation facilities and prisons to lock the non-conformist up - an approach described recently by David Blunkett as "unworkable". George Orwell said! "Political language is designed to make a lie, appear the truth .... and give solidity to wind"! The Legalise Cannabis Alliance asks who is correct? Don Barnard said: "Apart from relaxing the laws on cannabis you cannot get a Rizla between Labour and Conservative drug policy - both say conform or go to jail in a different language... New Labour is proposing to amend the law on the disposal of cannabis possession offences in order to finance the seeking out of those who are using illicit substances and offer appropriate treatment in rehabilitation [if they want it] or have it forced upon them with "Drug Treatment and Testing Orders" or "Drug Abstinence Orders" imposed as part of a community sentence imposed by the court. Government strategy has been to expand The Conservative Party 1994 Three- Year Strategy to Combat Substance Misuse - "Tackling Drugs Together" - which heavily promoted education and the seeking out and punishment of people who deal or use illicit substances tempered with Treatment and Harm Reduction: Government has introduced a raft of strategies to catch drug users without much interest by the Conservatives, without the public being aware of the consequences: To catch those in possession of illicit substances, police are using passive sniffer dogs on the streets, at festivals, railway and bus stations and so on. Private sniffer dogs (accompanied by police) in and around clubs. And employers are random testing employees Anyone who is caught involved in crime or suspect of using illicit substances and subsequently fails a drug test for recent past illegal substance use will be punished.[see 2] It would appear that when the new rules come into effect on cannabis, police will be out searching for and arresting and testing casual users (those in possession) of 'club drugs' - cocaine and heroin - wherever they are, and offering them treatment or a threat of going to jail if they get caught again. Or, as the PM put it: Those get caught using drugs will take treatment or go to jail. [PM question time on same day the Home Secretary announced his intentions to make changes cannabis law]. On November 11 2002 Iain Duncan Smith and Oliver Letwin announced a consultation process on youth crime which allegedly moves away from the punitive "war on drugs", to a new policies in line with the practices carried out in Sweden with an emphasis on treatment not punishment! [See 2] The Conservative consultation process on youth crime billed - "the biggest exercise of its kind ever conducted by an opposition party" has been sent to the police, probation officers, drugs workers and the LCA for comment. SEE Legalise Cannabis Alliance response to conservative document at: http://www.lca-uk.org In summary; The Conservative's discussion paper alleges it is a radical break with past Conservative's drugs policy with a shift in the emphasis away from punishment and onto treatment, that will be more a effective programme to lift young people off the 'conveyor belt' and break the cycle of crime. They propose to intervene at an early stage and identify those young people who are using illicit substances: A new onus is to be placed parents, teachers and social workers, among others, to inform the relevant agencies when they encounter a person they believe is using illicit substances. Those coming to the attention of the relevant agencies would then face a choice: Intensive residential rehabilitation/treatment including the psychological and other help required. Or, off to court, possibly jail. What did Orwell say? "Political language is designed to make a lie, appear the truth, murder respectable and give solidity to wind!" REPLY TO: DonBarnard@lca-uk.org PHONE: 07984 255015 ----------------------------- 1] Sweden contacts: Media [ONLY] Contact number for these REPLY TO: DonBarnard@lca-uk.org PHONE: 07984 255015 Leif Lenke and Henrik Tham are professors of criminology at Stockholm University. They have written extensively about Swedish drugs policy and are highly critical of it. Mats Hilte is lecturer in sociology at Lund University and is another highly vocal critic of the Swedish Model. They have all been interviewed at various times by Swedish Television and are a very high profile, although small minority, in the Swedish drugs debate, such that it is. They do have some degree of notoriety in Sweden , as critics of Swedish drug policy. Any one of them would be ideal for comment. 2] Conform or be punished! NOTE those marked *do not test for cannabis!!! Drug Treatment and Testing orders = possible jail On parole = back to prison.** Probation = possible jail sentences** At work = sack Drivers = no licence (without committing a traffic offence) Serving community sentence = possible prison** On arrest = possibly offer of treatment or no bail**?? Rehab centres and clinics = expulsion Private schools = expulsion State schools [they have the powers] = exclusion or refused re-admission Armed Forces = Contract ended. END
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!