|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
UK: Cannabis law in a haze of confusion
Margo MacDonald (MSP) Edinburgh Evening News
Wednesday 28 Jan 2004 Opinion WHICH group, caught up in the woeful web of confusion and deception spun by the Government on the reclassification of cannabis, deserves most sympathy? People who use it for pain relief come to mind first, but I think David Blunkett, the Home Secretary at Westminster, and the Scottish Executive, between them, have dropped the police into a deeper mess. For a good number of years now, since there was a Tory Lord Advocate in fact, reacting to a nod and a wink from the top man at the Crown Office, procurators fiscal let the police know they weren't all that interested in prosecuting occasional, or even regular users of recreational reefers. After the farce of trying to bring to court MS sufferer Biz Ivol from Orkney, it's likely there'll be no change in how police officers on the beat bring their judgement and discretion to bear in their application of the letter of the law on the use of cannabis for personal consumption. But now that the Scottish Executive has given Scottish police forces a markedly different steer from the Home Office's guidance to police in England and Wales on how to interpret the new law on cannabis on the streets, things for other users in Scotland might be very different. Following the announcement from the Scottish Justice Minister that the law against possessing or using cannabis, even a teeny-weeny wee bit, would be upheld, the Lothian and Borders Police could hardly do anything other than come down like a ton of bricks tomorrow on Paul Stewart when he opens up for business the Purple Haze cafe in Leith. He'll warn smokers that neither tobacco nor cannabis joints can be smoked on his premises. He says he's utterly opposed to the harm, active and passive, caused by people smoking in public places where food is served. He's scornful of the timidity shown by Westminster and the Scottish Executive in refusing to make it illegal to smoke in such places. But Paul could still be arrested and charged under Section 18 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1971 with attempting to commit an offence. If they are following the letter of the law, the police will surely report him to the procurator fiscal for allowing his premises to be used by others for the consumption of an illegal drug - cannabis in cakes and choccies. Presumably, anyone caught in possession of a cannabis cookie will be nicked also. But how will the police know whom to finger? After all, some non-smoking, weight watchers like myself might pitch up to the Purple Haze for a cup of coffee, and in all innocence accept a biscuit, or even beg a wee bite "just to know what it tastes like". Cookies made with flour, butter and sugar don't figure in my eating plan and, apart from a modest amount of alcohol, neither do mind-altering substances. But it wouldn't be the first time I'd have succumbed to a wee corner of a tempting cake. Would I be reported to the PF? Supposing I protested that I wasn't trying to commit a crime and that I didn't believe the particular fruit cake I fancied contained any cannabis? Will the arresting officers have to submit broken biscuits and half-eaten cakes to the public laboratory for analysis? Since Paul Stewart won't have sold the illegal drug to his customers, thereby profiting from a crime, since the home-baked cannabis confections won't turn them into crazed hooligans roaming the streets of Leith or the Capital capable of mugging or robbing to provide the means of their next fix, is this the best use of police time and public money? The law on cannabis is now in a total mess of Westminster's making, and the Scottish Executive is daft not to try and use its full authority north of the Border to allow police to pursue the evil people making big profits from hard drugs. New research is said to show cannabis, particularly a new more potent form, to be much more injurious to the individual user than was previously thought to be the case. OK, let's see the results and methodology of the studies to judge whether David Blunkett is right to re-classify cannabis as less harmful. To justify the Zero Tolerance approach of the Scottish Executive, the results will have to be pretty explosive. Alcohol causes violent, anti-social behaviour, cannabis doesn't. Research results will have to prove one or two joints at the weekend to be more harmful than the cocktail of alcohol consumed as par for the course by hundreds of thousands of Scots every weekend before even consideration of a policy of total prohibition. Far better to classify cannabis alongside booze and baccy, sell all three under controlled licences thereby eliminating poor quality or too potent products as well as taking out the criminal drug suppliers. Finally, warn people that all three drugs are capable of damaging our health, and that taken in too large amounts can prove very dangerous indeed.
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!