|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
UK: Cannabis debate gives everyone a headache Ian Cobain The Times Tuesday 10 Jul 2001 THE day when you can pop down to the corner shop for 20 Red Leb Lites and a packet of Swan Vestas may not be approaching quite yet. As the cannabis debate continues, however, increasing numbers of people in government, law enforcement and business are considering the implications - and the mechanics - of legalisation. Some in favour of legal reform argue that simple decriminalisation would be sufficient, perhaps reclassifying the drug as a Class C rather than class B substance, and lifting penalties for its possession. Others such as Peter Lilley, former deputy leader of the Conservative Party, argue that the best way to sever the link between cannabis users and serious crime would be to legalise the drug, which could then be sold at special off-licences. Under the Lilley plan, magistrates would grant licences to "fit and proper people" to open shops at which cannabis, but not tobacco or alcohol, was sold to customers aged 18 or over. These outlets would be supplied by commercial growers in Britain, and any shortfall could be met by licensed imports. Cannabis would be clearly marked with a government health warning. Taxation would be minimal at first - to ensure that the new, legal trade was able to undercut the illicit suppliers - but would rise steadily as the off-licences became established. Cannabis is categorised under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act as a Class B drug, along with amphetamines. Possession of a Class B drug can carry a five-year prison sentence, while possession with intent to supply carries a potential 14-year sentence. Class A comprises the hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine, as well as LSD and Ecstasy. Class C includes prescription drugs such as tranquilisers and mild painkillers. Suppliers and even users of black-market cannabis would still face criminal charges. The legalisation of cannabis would not necessarily increase demand in what is already estimated to be a £4 billion-a-year business, if the Dutch experience is anything to go by. The Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction found that although 41 per cent of 15-year-olds in Britain had tried cannabis, with 24 per cent using the drug in the previous month, in Holland 29 per cent had tried the drug while 15 per cent had used it in the previous month. Beyond that, however, Britain would be entering uncharted waters after the end of prohibition. The Home Office says that it has produced no research into possible means of legalisation or the likely effects. Most of the major tobacco companies are reluctant to say whether or not they would become involved in the trade. A spokesman for British American Tobacco said that Britain was such a small market for a global corporation that legalisation here would be unlikely to result in a significant shift in the company's policy. But he added: "You can never say never." It is possible that cannabis could be sold in a form other than for smoking. Clive Bates, director of Action on Smoking and Health, who says he finds the arguments for legalisation "persuasive", would like to see it sold as a tablet, vapour spray, tea or patch, rather than in rolling form or in ready-made "joints". Such products could encourage pharmaceutical companies to take an interest. GW Pharmaceuticals, the only UK company licensed to produce cannabis - for medical purposes - has recently raised £25 million with a share placement that was six times oversubscribed. Other pharmaceutical companies cannot have failed to take note. It could be that when it comes to licensing people to sell cannabis, those involved in the illegal trade might be at an advantage. When the 1961 Betting and Gaming Act legalised off-course gambling, many of the licences went to men and women who had been the mainstay of the illegal trade. Marketing would be strictly controlled. Release, a drug welfare charity that has been campaigning for a reform of the law since 1967, and Mr Lilley, a recent convert to the cause, are agreed that advertising of cannabis should be banned outside the off-licences. "I want society to permit cannabis, not endorse it," Mr Lilley said. Mike Goodman, director of Release, added: "Because there are health risks associated with cannabis, we would not want to see it on billboards or football shirts." And how would the law and the police deter the use of cannabis by motorists? "Drug-driving" tests are not as precise as those for drink-driving. Because cannabis remains detectable in the body for 30 days, they reveal whether a person has used the drug, but not whether their performance is impaired. Unless new tests are devised, police may be forced to fall back on imprecise tests such as asking drivers to stand on one leg, or to recite the alphabet backwards. Most of those involved in the debate agree that an end to prohibition would involve a large number of regulations covering licensing, taxation, importation, advertising, health warnings, driving and health and safety at work. Mr Lilley agrees that his blueprint for legalisation would entail continuing penalties for anyone involved in the unlicensed trade, and said that he hoped that greater regulation may even help to reduce demand. "Nothing dampens an industry more than regulation and taxation," he said. Furthermore, the very legality of cannabis could undermine demand. "It will have lost any allure that it had by being naughty. Instead, it would become simply boring."
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!