|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
THE POLICE CHIEF AND POT
News and Star, Carlisle, UK
Wednesday 18 Oct 2000 Source: News and Star, Carlisle, UK Subj: THE POLICE CHIEF AND POT Pub Date: Wednesday, 18 October 2000 THE POLICE CHIEF AND POT Q: What did you think of Ann Widdecombe's proposals for on-the-spot fines for drug-users? A: "I don't think they would have been practical. They go against what we are trying to achieve. Over the last few years the move has been away from treating users as criminals and towards getting them help. "The fines would be a backwards step. "I support the fact that we are looking at help, through drug referral schemes for example." Q: Do you think the fact that the debate on legalising cannabis has intensified to such a degree is reflective, or due to, the public's feeling; that they are becoming more tolerant? A: "That's a very difficult question to answer. "I think what people want is some sort of sensible debate about it. "A report came out earlier this year, following an independent three-year study into the Misuse of Drugs Act, which was submitted to the Government. "They disregarded out-of-hand the main proposals which included changing the category of cannabis from B to C. "The Government didn't want to debate it at all. "There's no doubt that cannabis is still a harmful substance. To say that it's harmless and that people making a joint in their own home aren't hurting anyone isn't true. They're harming themselves. "The Government needs to have some sort of parliamentary debate without any prejudgments of the issues at all." Q: If you're saying that people are harming themselves by smoking cannabis, that's exactly the same situation as with smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol but we don't prosecute people for doing that. A: "Cigarettes and alcohol do have criminal offences attached to them - age limits, drink driving etc. If cannabis was legalised, it would have to be a similar situation. There would have to be some sort of controls over it. We would have to make sure the market is controlled effectively - with age limits on its purchase. I wouldn't want my 12-year-old daughter being able to light up a joint of cannabis." Q: Are you saying you believe it will be legalised? A: "If you look at how society has moved on, I think there will be a lifting of the restrictions on it. The police service have responded to the public mood. We don't target users. We are reflecting public opinion. "When we catch people with cannabis we invariably caution them. "That is a sign that things will change, inevitably. In five years' time there could be further moves." Q: What sort of moves? A: "There would be a restriction on its sale - there has got to be." Q: Are you saying it will be legalised? A: "That's inevitable. In due course." Q: What's your position now? A: "At this moment in time what I would support is to have a knowledgeable debate." Q: Do you think that the Government is more open to that now following the recent events? A: "Not one of the recommendations made by the report earlier this year was taken up, but Jack Straw is saying now that he is willing to take part in a debate. "Before, he wouldn't even talk about it." Q: You said at a meeting with regional journalists earlier this year that you would support the legalisation on medical grounds if it was "wholly appropriate". Do you still feel that way? A: "If there was a proven medical benefit to cannabis then I would support it being legalised for the purpose of prescription." Q: What did you think about the acquittal of Lezley Gibson, the cannabis user who takes it to alleviate multiple sclerosis? A: "Lezley's case showed the strength of the jury system. They made their own minds up. When you look at the simple facts, she would have been seen as guilty. "That's the great strength of the jury trial - even though she was clearly guilty, she was cleared. That was a great triumph of the jury system. They decided in their wisdom to make a stand, to say 'this isn't sensible.' "She produced evidence of the illness which persuaded the jury." Q: If it was someone you knew, someone in your family, in that situation, what would you say to them? A: "It's a matter for the individual. All I could do would be to advise them on the consequences. I understand her decision." Q: Have you any personal experience of cannabis? Have you taken it or anyone in your social circle? A: "I've got no personal experience of cannabis at all." Q: If you were at a friend's house and someone there, a friend or a stranger, lit a joint, what would you do? A: "Nothing" Q: You wouldn't say anything or do anything at all? A: "No. I wouldn't do anything at all." Q: Why? A: "I'm a police officer but I'm also a person, and I think it would be a bit crass, and inappropriate, if every time something happened I acted as a police officer. "It's about making a moral judgment - when to intervene as a police officer and as a person. Police officers are faced with these sorts of dilemmas all the time, and I would never have a life or any friends if I acted on every single thing. "For example, I was shopping in Penrith at the weekend and I saw five or six cars parked on double yellow lines, but I didn't take their details. I was on the motorway earlier and cars passed me that were obviously doing 80 mph, but I didn't take their details either." Q: You've been in the police for a number of years ... A: "I had my 30th anniversary on Monday" ... Q: "How has the situation changed towards cannabis in that time? A: "I remember taking part in raids with the drugs squad in Northumbria. It was a lot tougher on cannabis users then. It was virtually court every time, even for a first offence. "Cannabis was a new phenomenon in the early Seventies." Q: What do you see the stance as now? A: "Up to now the stance is if we come across it and do something it will probably be a caution. We've got other things to do. The problems are heroin and cocaine." "Keith Halliwell's strategy two years ago was a massive shift towards saying cannabis isn't really a problem and that we should be concentrating on heroin and cocaine. "Enforcement isn't the answer to the problem, just as arresting someone for being drunk and disorderly doesn't solve the problem. If they are an alcoholic, they need help for their addiction. "Similarly, arresting someone for possession of cannabis won't cure the problem. We should be moving away from cannabis offences, taking people out of the criminal justice system. "The strategy was a massive step forward - now it's common practice." Q: So what happens next? A: "I think that in four or five years we will see a rewriting of that strategy which will take us another step forward." Q: In what way? A: "It's a series of steps. We need a debate first and then, if medical trials support it, the next thing would be legalisation for prescription purposes." Q: How long until complete legalisation? A: "How far in the future and whether I support it is another matter ..."
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!