LONDON (AFP) - Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Wednesday announced a second review in two years into whether to reclassify cannabis from class C to its previous class B status, hinting at a return to tougher cannabis controls.
ADVERTISEMENT

Brown told the House of Commons Home Secretary Jacqui Smith would produce a consultation document about the country's drug strategy next week in response to claims that the current status of cannabis does not reflect its true danger.

"She will be asking the public to comment on new ways in which we can improve drugs education in the country, give support to people undergoing treatment... and give support for communities who want to chase out drug dealers from their communities," he said.

Cannabis was downgraded from class B to class C in 2004 under then home secretary David Blunkett. This decision was reviewed in 2005 under his successor Charles Clarke and left unchanged.

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said the government's move was not far-reaching enough.

"Drugs are a scourge on society and a major cause of crime which Labour has failed to tackle.

"We have long called for the reclassification of cannabis based on the available evidence which shows all too clearly the real damage this drug can do to people.

"The Government must also secure our porous borders to stop hard drugs flowing into the country and seriously strengthen drug rehab treatment for those already on drugs," he said.

A spokesman for the Transform Drug Policy Foundation accused Brown of vote-chasing.

"This announcement is all about political posturing, and has nothing to do with science, said Danny Kushlik

"In reality the potency issue and the mental health issues associated with cannabis are well understood and have not changed significantly since they were last reviewed in 2005.

"If the government is serious about reducing harm they should legally regulate the trade and use their limited resources to educate young people about the risks."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070718/wl_uk_afp/britainpoliticscrimedrugs_070718151848

BOOOO! He just lost my vote!

What would be the point. :dunno:

So his Cabinet Ministers can concentrate in meetings?

Good. I fucking hate cannabis. It destroyed the lives of many of my friends.

Well said Medo. My next door neighbour is a dealer and it fucking stinks and can't be good for you, especially the amount he smokes.

I was pro cannabis for years, mainly because i was a smoker myself, then i started working as a Psychiatric Nurse 8 years ago (i stopped 'everyday' smoking 18 months prior to this) and was shocked at how fucked up and addicted so many people were, kids with full blown schizoid dissorders and 40 year olds who wished they were on heroin instead because at least they'd get methadone for the horrid withdrawls. It's fun on occaision i admit, but long term it does (most people) no good what so ever....

Good. I fucking hate cannabis. It destroyed the lives of many of my friends.

After continuly smoking cannabis users sometimes try stronger drugs like extacy and cocaine then onto heroine then stuff goes missing from my garage and porch.Me i tried cannabis when i was around 17 and it never apealed probably because i had bucket bongs and chocking on a mouthfall of bong water.

Never really been interested in the stuff to be honest. Smoked it abit with my mates when we were about 15/16. Never really liked the effect so I just didn't bother.
A few of my friends are hooked on the stuff now and all their money goes on it so I'd welcome the change.
Then I won't get phone calls off them asking me to lend them a tenna.

I used to love bucket bongs, a friend of mine still does them on a regular basis (2 prior to work, 2 during lunch...everyday) when he's not on them people ask him if he's ON drugs as he looks shit, can't eat, won't socialise. He's a good looking bloke with a wicked sense of humour yet (possibly) because of the masive 'Puff' intake, hasnt got laid for 15 years, still lives with his folks and suffers from depression, he knows there is a problem but will 'sort it out when i feel like it'...

I find it amazing at the number of people who don't smoke, or have given up smoking because of the threat to their health, yet still enjoy the regular puff on a joint. Smoking may mess you up physically, but weed, especially the harsh stuff that most people smoke today will totally mess you up psychologically - i've seen the results of prolonged use myself.

However, its a tough position that the government is in, if they make the laws stricter it will pretty much be a waste of time with the widespread use it currently has, and it will do very little to reduce usage. They could legalise it, therefore allowing the sale of weaker, more natural weed and taking tax from the sale of it.......but that will obvously have its problems too.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but personally, smoking weed isn't my kinda thing so i'm fairly indifferent as to what the government does with its drug laws.

While I've no qualms with the idea of prescribing cannabis to the elderly and severely disabled as some have campaigned for in terms of pain relief, there is no denying it is an extremely harmful drug. I've had two family members unfortunate enough to suffer some awful things because of it, mentally- one is now a paranoid schizophrenic and seemingly beyond reprieve and the other is doing well with a lot of medical help to overcome the effects of years of cannabis abuse.

It annoys me no end when people perpetrate the myth that Cannabis has no negative side effects or doesn't cause health problems. I support reclassification to B.

It's like anything, do it in moderation and it will not harm you, do it in excess and one way or another it will. The arguments over legalisation are so cliché yet they are true. It causes more problems prohibited than it does legal. Alcohol IS more dangerous yet no one questions its legality. And to put heavy criminal penalties risks bringing in millions of people who are otherwise law abiding and decent into the classification as criminal. It is a dangerous waste of our police resources. The Netherlands and Belguim where it is legal has a far lower percentage of their youth taking both soft and hard drugs.

Quite frankly the way everyone here never questions the motivation of a man who wraps himself in a Union Rag. Your deference to Scots is disgusting. The reclassification has already gone under one review, which came out and agreed with it, why the need for a second? Simply as an attempt at political point scoring, for no other reason but to cast himself as a hard man.

A much more sensible approach would be to legalise everything, but to restrict free health care to those who truly can't afford it and those who live frugal lifestyles. Liberty with responsibility.

NBTD I completely agree with you... Making the laws harsher will only put more people in prisons...

I think that growing cannabis at home for personal use should be relaxed a little... Especially when all of the gear is bought from Hydroponic shops and therefore the money is going back into the economy and not into the pockets of criminals.

Talking about growing and different strains.. Strong strains of cannabis have been around as long as the plant have.. They are simply more widely available today. It is not a new thing... Strains that have been fucked around with in a lab i.e. 'Purple Haze' where the buds are actually purple and is because the strain is actually laced with LSD.

Dependency to cannabis is a silly thing imo and those who have it should be checked into rehab as it is very similar to alcoholism. Those who claim cannabis is a 'gateway drug'... the kind of person who would 'move on' to harder drugs would probably do hard drugs regardless to cannabis.

As the distribution of cannabis goes.. It is just one of those things that a lowly student can deal or it can be done by organised gangs of criminals who also distribute class A drugs. I do not agree purchasing cannabis from dealers as it only serves organised crime and it should be quashed... Yet as long as there is a demand there will be a source for it...

While Brown may call it a menace to society some nations find good medical uses for it and other nations have no problem with recreational sale such as in Holland... The cannabis the Dutch smoke is are not super strains but fairly week gear and is treated like having a pint.. You would see a businessman in an expensive suit and his portable computer sitting down in a café smoking a blunt after work... It is not so socially unacceptable as the politicians of our great nation claim...

Those who claim cannabis is a 'gateway drug'... the kind of person who would 'move on' to harder drugs would probably do hard drugs regardless to cannabis.

What is more I guarantee that nearly 100% of all those who have taken heroin have had alcohol, doesn't mean that alcohol is a gateway drug.

I don't do any drugs myself (only ever tried cannabis 3 or 4 times in college), but I firmly believe all drugs should be legally available, controlled and taxed.

what happens when the suppliers undercut the price of legally available drugs?

That would be quite surprising.

Firstly just as there is a considerable risk in being a dealer, there is a considerable risk in any kind of smuggling, which carries a prison sentence with it. People won't get involved unless there is a considerable mark up, a lot of the current cost of drugs involves the shipment, multiple transactions, the time that someone invests in dealing as well as a little extra for the risk. None of those will exist in the same way. You won't even get the small time cottage industries in the same way, they'll be competing against legal supplies and most people for convenience would get them there.

Additionally whilst we have smuggling of legal items, say cigarettes. It is smuggling of cigarettes that are legal and regulated somewhere else, not a lot of fags that are made in some dealers home from the tobacco he himself has grown.

not really that surprising though. vast quantities of cigarettes are manufactured and distributed illegally; criminal gangs are always happy to exploit markets and you can be certain there'll be a market once all the 'quality control' costs and taxes have been piled on to the official product. drug use is also a constantly evolving recreation/lifestyle...any sanctioned product will obviously be heavily regulated anyway as to its effects so there'll always be markets for alternative varieties...so the profit incentive remains.

believe me, i'd love to live in a completely free society where whatever i wanted to indulge in i could, but people aren't so responsible as you. legalising drugs would be the biggest cluster fuck since some twat rat dealer from central asia decided to catch the plague and spend his holidays in europe.

nope...carpet bombing south america and afghanistan is the only way. maybe france.

i have a love/hate relationship with weed. i used to smoke it all the time and get battered every day - it was fun for a few years, then it stopped working properly and messed with my head. since then i've smoked it much less, and i havent even had a spliff since may. i've accepted that it's never going to give me all the good effects it used to give me again, so there's no point smoking now.

i do however think anything that encvourages people to see and think about things from a totally different perspective is a good thing. i reckon there are a lot of people who would benefit greatly from getting battered for a year or two and experiencing life in a state that makes you appreciate things in a diufferent way. they'd soon stop being cunts to each other. i've had my fill though.

what happens when the suppliers undercut the price of legally available drugs?

Well it rarely happens in The Netherlands and the legalisation has been successful there where they have low rates of class A drug usage. It may still happen, but nothing like it does at the moment and it will become less of a "gateway" drug, although everyone I know who's tried it hasn't gone onto anything harder with one exception.

I'm seriously starting to wonder whether I like where Brown is heading with the decision to effectively kill off casinos and now hardening the line on cannabis. If anything we should be moving in the opposite direction. Whilst there have been many deaths as a result of alcohol and numerous health problems, cannabis has killed very very few people and the reason so many people are having mental health problems from smoking hash, is the stronger varities available. Another reason why it should be legalised. In moderation it is perfectly safe for 99% of the population. Bringing it back to class B will only criminalise people, put further strain on prisons and cause more problems. Cannabis use has fallen since the reclassification incidentally.

Question: why is alcohol legal when it causes liver cirrosis, heart problems, kidney problems, depression etc... Relating to this topic it's also interesting to point out that more people die every year from swallowing bees than from ecstacy tablets.

Cannabis should be legalised, people should be far better educated on the topic and we'd kill of alot of criminal acitivity overnight and have a healthier society as a result.

ARGH why must brown stop everything fun, i've enjoyed the occasional spliff for a few years now, occasionally i smoke too much so quit for a few weeks. I also like the occasional gamble, i comit to never spending more than ten pounds a week on online poker, would have loved to go to a super casino once a year, but nooo brown steals all my fun. Next he'll ban heavy metal, you watch!

If cannabis is a gateway drug so is alcohol, and so is tobacco.

If 1 in 4 young people smoke cannabis, and less than 1 in 1000 develop schizoid problems, is it really the cannabis' fault? What rate of non cannabis smokers develop similar problems, is it just a sign of the times. I know of a few people who struggled at uni got very low towards the end, and never smoked once in their entire lives. The level of happiness in children drops every year, it cannot be entirely down to one drug. Maybe depressed people are more likely to take marijuana, does that skew the statistics?

What is for certain is that a criminal record and even the possibility of a prison sentence will do the majority of people far more harm than any risks associated with it.

It's like anything, do it in moderation and it will not harm you, do it in excess and one way or another it will.


Botulinum
Ricin
Anthrax
Sarin
Tetrodotoxin
Cyanide
Mercury


There's 7 things that will kill you within minutes if you do them 'in moderation'.

So, it's not really like 'anything' is it? The point I'm making is that debates like this are riddled with generalisations such as that one which mean nothing but sound convincing.

The point you're trying to make is that there are other substances such as alcohol which are legally available and potentially as damaging if abused. However it's not true that cannabis will do you 'no harm' if used in moderation - the question is about acceptable risk, not about the absence of risk.

not really that surprising though. vast quantities of cigarettes are manufactured and distributed illegally; criminal gangs are always happy to exploit markets and you can be certain there'll be a market once all the 'quality control' costs and taxes have been piled on to the official product. drug use is also a constantly evolving recreation/lifestyle...any sanctioned product will obviously be heavily regulated anyway as to its effects so there'll always be markets for alternative varieties...so the profit incentive remains.

Criminal grangs with weed? LOL. There's so little money to be made from weed that those who do it, cover the cost of their own smoking and nothing more. Criminal Gangs? Perhaps for serious drugs, for weed there is so little profit that organised crime wouldn't even bother to get involved.

The vast majority of cigs are brought legally despite such artificially high prices, and of those that aren't vast majority are not manufactured by gangs but associated with not paying VAT or being brought from abroad and smuggled in.

I'd say moderation being perhaps three or four joints a month, then it will do neglible harm for most people.

^depends how big the bifters are, and how pure they are. i've smoked one with half an ounce in it! not all by myself i might add - i'd probably have lost the use of my legs if i had.

i want to see signs that politicians trust people enough to let them make their own minds up about things - that's a sign of someone with their feet on the ground. to a certain extent obviously. i think it may be true that many politicians just don't have a clue about drugs and base their judgments on the drivel reported in the media, having never experienced such things themselves. in the end, sadly, winning votes appears to be a higher priority than making real improvements.

I'd say moderation being perhaps three or four joints a month, then it will do neglible harm for most people.

Neglible harm for most people isn't quite the same thing as 'no harm' for anyone is it? That's the trouble with generalisations, they're too general.

What you're saying is, the risk is perceived to be worth it for the benifits gained. But to people who don't see that there are benefits to smoking cannibis, the risk, however neglible, isn't likely to be worth it is it?

Criminal grangs with weed? LOL. There's so little money to be made from weed that those who do it, cover the cost of their own smoking and nothing more. Criminal Gangs? Perhaps for serious drugs, for weed there is so little profit that organised crime wouldn't even bother to get involved.

actually i was discussing harder drugs in response to will's post (hence my very reasonable suggestion of carpet-bombing south america), it was you who raised the illegal trade in cigarettes as a comparison to dope. but since you mentioned it, i live near the country's largest independent container port and the supply of cannabis from the continent helps supply most of east anglia - someone's making a profit from it.

The vast majority of cigs are brought legally despite such artificially high prices

i think an estimated 30% of cigarettes smoked in britain are illegally smuggled into this country.

and of those that aren't vast majority are not manufactured by gangs but associated with not paying VAT or being brought from abroad and smuggled in.

agreed. but what i was attempting to argue and which the above figure demonstrates, is that once an officially licensed product has had all its additional costs factored-in, a market will remain in which criminal gangs can still operate. added to that, there will inevitably remain varieties of drug that will still be illegal owing to the extreme nature of their side-effects but will continue to find eager consumers.

Neglible harm for most people isn't quite the same thing as 'no harm' for anyone is it? That's the trouble with generalisations, they're too general.

Exactly. There are very few things that can be guaranteed to do no harm and there are very few things that can be guaranteed not to do severe harm for certain people. However that is no reason to restrict their use for everyone. There are people with addictable personalities that can get addicted to alcohol after a few drinks, there are people who can get violent after a few drinks and become a danger to other people.

What you're saying is, the risk is worth it for the benifits gained.

No authoritarian, what I am saying is that the risks of smoking it for the vast majority of people are far lower than the life damaging risks from obtaining a criminal record or worse. I'm also saying that the risk of diverting police time to the drugs war particularly cannabis can put us all at risk from non-victimless crimes, such as violent crime which continues to rise.

But to people who don't see that there are benefits to smoking cannibis, the risk, however neglible, isn't likely to be worth it is it?

No and they shouldn't force people to smoke it.