Sara McGrail on her thoughts about reclassification:
Regardless of whether cannabis is class b or class C or class x, y or z, there are some things we need to make sure of.
Firstly, people need information and access to advice and support about drug use – whether that’s about cannabis, alcohol, coke or heroin. Young people in particular need good drug education and effective youth work support to help them develop the confidence to make decisions and understand the consequences of their actions.
Secondly, people who have problems with drugs need access to support and help. It shouldn’t matter what drug it is that is causing them problems. Help should be articulated on the basis of the individual’s experience, not on the legislative pigeon hole their drug use fits into.
Finally, the people who are dealing with drug problems on the ground – the counsellors and Drug Action Teams, communities and parents, need to have access to adequate resources to meet local needs – top provide drug education, to support people with problems and to tackle the problems related to drug markets – whether for illegal drugs like cannabis or legal drugs like alcohol.
Marjorie Wallace of Sane:
We, like the police and the many thousands of families affected, believe that the only way to give out clear signals and prevent new casualties is to upgrade the message that cannabis is not only illegal, but for those vulnerable to its toxic effects can lead to a life sentence of psychotic illness.
Anonymous letter to The Independent:
Skunk is a mix of the indica and sativa plants, which does produce a stronger crop (with more THC) and thus does increase the risk of mental health problems. However, I would argue that the main reason is that the vast majority of the crop is grown in this country under the wrong conditions, which has led to growers spraying the crop with methadone, cocaine, morphine and any other drugs which increase the effect and appearance of the crop. This means that the drugs being used bear little resemblance to the cannabis that was imported (and grown in proper conditions) from abroad.
All of the above is a huge reason to legalise, grow, and test cannabis and educate people on its effects. This is the only way to reduce harm to our children and the next generation of cannabis smokers. To reclassify the drug as a class B or A would only serve the purpose of increasing the strength of the crop and thus the damage to people who smoke it. When any drug is illegally grown its potency is always higher than its legal counterpart, in order to maximise profit.
ACPO’s evidence to the ACMD:
Evidence suggests that over recent years, cannabis has also become more potent, consequentially impacting on health issues, particularly amongst the young. It is still the most prevalent illicit drug with approximately 20% of the population aged 16 – 24 having admitted to using cannabis in the past year.
An unintended consequence of re-classification is the common belief that its possession and use is no longer a criminal offence and that cannabis misuse is no longer a policing priority. One effect of this perception is a heightened public concern about drug misuse within communities, and the damage this may cause to public confidence and trust in the neighbourhood policing style.
As debate in the press rages over the potential reclassification of cannabis from class C to B, DrugScope thought it might be helpful to bring together some of the latest research and reports.
RSA’s submission to the ACMD:
Rather than altering the classification of cannabis, the Commission would favour a major new British research study of the risks associated with the drug. In the meantime, in its report it has called for a sustained and comprehensive education campaign on a scale similar to that waged in France, with the focus on pragmatism and harm reduction. Dramatizing the evils of something generically labelled ‘Skunk’, or exaggerating the closeness of the link between cannabis and schizophrenia, is less constructive than publicizing the fact that it is possible to become dependent on cannabis and that an increasing number of people are seeking treatment for problems with cannabis. The FRANK ‘Brain Warehouse’ campaign acknowledged the limitations of alarmism by focusing on the less serious but still inconvenient side effects of smoking cannabis, such as the risk of being sick or finding it hard to concentrate…
If the government’s primary objective is to convey the message of the risks associated with cannabis, it is only through an education campaign of this kind that the objective can be achieved.
Filed under: ACMD, cannabis, classification , cannabis classification
Of course cannabis should be reclassified away from Schedule 1 and 2. The simple, incontrovertible fact is that cannabis has medicinal value. Science tells us so. That cannabis – in most countries – is found on the schedule 1 is nothing but a testament to the capacity and will to engage in blatant lies.
At the same time the reclassification is a red heering and essentially unimportant.
The demonization of cannabis is a clear-cut case of Social Constructivism, ie. we have constructed out of thin air the notion that cannabis is terribly dangerous and that almost any violation of rights and punishment of users is legitimate. As often is the case these over-estimated socially constructed problems are only possible if the majority of the population LACK first-hand knowledge of the subject. When they tried the trick on alcohol in the US it didn’t work because people KNEW otherwise.
Having this socially constructed place in our consciousness opens up for something else terrible. Everyone thinks of cannabis as “something special”, so instead of looking at it rationally the voters apply a drastically different standard to cannabis. One that can only be called medieval in natur, or one which resembles most of all the Islamic notion of Sharia: that our values should be made into absolute law so that dissidents can be crushed.
The most comprehensive study ever by Stanley Zammit demonstrated that the marginal likelihood of contracting schizophrenia due to smoking cannabis is 0.002 – or 0.2%. To explain this to those not into statistics: a non-user has a likelihood of contracting schizophrenia of 0.5% (a 0,005 likelihood). Smoking cannabis allegedly raises this likelihood to 0,007 – or 0,7%. That’s the 41% increase you may have heard about elsewhere?
Recent large studies have – despite the fact that there are carninogens in cannabis smoke – acquitted cannabis on this account. For “some reason” cannabis smokers simply do not statistically contract cancer. Maybe that’s because THC retards cancer cell growth, and maybe it’s because the normal, average cannabis smoker happens to smoke a small fraction of what the tobacco smoker does (thus getting fewer carcinogens that fail to increase illness).
The simple fact is that cannabis is a relatively safe drug that doesn’t qualify as so particularly dangerous that we can legitimate the criminalization.
Unfortunately people DO NOT LIKE CANNABIS. They just don’t. Just like racists don’t like other races, just like some religious nut cases don’t like homosexuals. The list goes on. But because they’re in the majority that can simply chose NOT to care and use whatever power they have to fine, imprison and otherwise humiliate the average cannabis smoker. Constitutional Rights are, unfortunately, only for those who do NOT happen to smoke cannabis (or do any other drug they choose).
Stop this moral crusade. Don’t support this Western Sharia. Legalize.