Re: Skunk Contamination
Posted by:
Sparetimesmoker (IP Logged)
Date: October 23, 2006 03:19PM
I got a reply and here it is, the way the government see our dilema:
Thank you for your e-mail of 6 October expressing your views on the legalisation of cannabis and sentencing policy issues. Your e-mail has been passed to the Crime and Drug Legislation and Enforcement Unit and I have been asked to reply.
Can I first explain that the Government has no intention of legalising cannabis. In response to the Home Affairs Committee report on The Government’s Drugs Policy: Is It Working? in 2002, the Government stated that “We do not accept that legalisation and regulation is now, or will be in the future, an acceptable response to the presence of drugs” and that includes cannabis for the reasons set out below.
The Government considers that cannabis (in all its forms) is a controlled drug for good reasons. When recommending the reclassification of the drug from Class B to Class C under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs asked for it to be clearly understood that cannabis is unquestionably harmful. It has a number of acute and chronic health effects and can induce dependence with prolonged use.
Most cannabis is smoked and smoking, in any form, is dangerous. Even the occasional use of cannabis can pose significant dangers for people with mental health problems, such as schizophrenia, and particular efforts need to be made to encourage abstinence in such individuals. The Government believes that it clearly makes sense therefore for cannabis to remain a controlled drug whose unauthorised production (including cultivation), supply and possession are and will remain illegal.
It follows that, like all other illegal street drugs, cannabis is all the more harmful if it is sold with dangerous substances added.
This knowledge serves to reinforce that part of the Government's drugs strategy which deals with expanding the provision and improving the quality of drug education, information and advice. The Government’s message to all – and to young people in particular – is that all controlled drugs, including cannabis (even when it is not adulterated), are harmful and no one should take them. It is vital that our drugs laws should accurately reflect the relative harms of drugs if education messages to young people about the dangers of misusing drugs are to be credible, convincing and, ultimately, effective.
The Government is aware of the arguments for legalising cannabis in a regulated way and has concluded that the disadvantages would outweigh the benefits. To legalise the possession of cannabis for personal consumption would send the wrong message to the majority of young people who do not take drugs on a regular basis, if at all, with the potential risk of increased drug use and abuse.
The Government’s objective is to reduce the use of all illegal drugs – including cannabis – substantially, not to encourage use that would result from increased consumption due to more ready access to increased supply. While our drugs laws cannot be expected to eliminate drug use, there is no doubt that they do help to limit use and deter experimentation.
The Government will continue to make it clear that cannabis is illegal and can cause serious and sometimes considerable harm to those who use it as well as great distress to their families and friends. Its education and health campaigns will clearly transmit these messages, making clear the harms of the drug and specifically the risks to mental health. The Government's aim is to ensure that people – and young people in particular – are well aware of all
the risks.
In response to your points concerning sentencing policy, the misuse of drugs is made unlawful by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Under this Act, possession of a Class A drug with intent to supply it to another carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a fine. In deciding whether or not a defendant had an intention to supply a drug to another person, a court must consider all the evidence available to it, drawing such inferences from it as appears proper under the circumstances. An involuntary keeper of drugs may be considered guilty of supply, for example. It is ultimately the judge’s decision whether a sentence of imprisonment can be passed, and the length of it, taking into account any aggravating or mitigating features of the case.
You also suggest that violence-related offences carry less severe penalties than drugs-related ones. The criminal law contains a wide range of powers to deal with violent behaviour. Where only one or two people are involved in causing unlawful violence, the offence is known as affray and carries a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment. Assault attracts a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment and/or a fine of £5,000. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm and malicious wounding carry maximum penalties of five years’ imprisonment. Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and manslaughter attract a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Murder has a mandatory life sentence.
I hope this helps to explain the Government’s position, but I recognise that my reply is likely to disappoint you.
Yours sincerely,
Tawa Bishi
I would say; you refer to cannabis as controlled however the problem is that it is not.
They say that smoking is bad for health so they cannot legalise it however tabbacco is on sale in every news agent?
They say cannabis causes mental health and family problems, I say so does alcohol but this is allowed? The amount of blokes I have seen lose it and get into a drunken rage in my time is enough evidence for me to say that it can cause violence, just look in any city on any weekend.
Drinking is bad for health but this is a personal choice why not cannabis?
They tried to clear up my concern for violent criminals being given less of a sentance than your dealer of herb or cultivator but they failed. I said how can you give 3 years for rape and up to 14 for cultivation which do you think is worse. If you go out and assault somone causing malicious wounding you serve up to 5 years and if you grow some plants you serve up to 14 years lol complete joke, fucking school boys are running our country!
Holland has had coffe shops for 30 years and the results are clear if the gov opened their eyes and took their heads out of their bosses arses. Why does Tony have to be Bushes Bitch?
Summing up this is just the sort of wet, school boy bollocks that I expected from the Homeoffice and is not a proper reply. I think it would have helped if they had read my comment before answering it, tossers.
If I choose to smoke it is up to me how can some one tell me I cannot. If i smoke 20 cigs a day or drank alcohol every day and ate junk food I know that it is harmful to me but it still is a personal choice of what I do with my own person.
People in my family have died so that the people in this country might live in freedom and then you get some prick in a suit telling me how to spend my spare time based on incomplete/inappropriate research, Well Fuck You Lot!
The reasons behind legislation are purley economic the same with the reasons if we should go to war or not i.e is there any oil to take, is there any poppies to control i.e leave Mougarbi and Milosovic to it.
Transparent and useless thats Labour, they say one thing do another and answer to no one.