|
As
regards cannabis the Home Affairs Committee report
says the following:
They
support the Home Secretary's proposal to reclassify
cannabis from Class B to Class C.
They
accept that drugs
policy should primarily be addressed to dealing
with the problematic drug users, however whilst
acknowledging that there may come a day when the
balance may tip in favour of legalising and regulating
some types of presently illegal drugs, they decline
to recommend it, so our campaign goes on.
They
also say that to decriminalise possession of drugs
for personal use would send "the wrong message"
to the majority of young people and that it would
inevitably lead to an increase in drug abuse,
even though there's such strong evidence to suggest
otherwise, not least of all from Holland.
They
don't think that intent to supply should be presumed
on the basis of amounts of drugs found, but they
say that "simple possession" and "possession
with intent to supply" should be retained
without alteration. However they recommend that
a new offence is created of "supply for gain",
which would be used to prosecute large scale commercial
suppliers. They had been expected to propose a
new offence of "social supply", is this
political double speak for the same thing?
On
more general issues they recommend that a target
is added to the National Strategy explicitly aimed
at harm reduction and public health, although
they rule out any form of control or regulation
of the supply side, so "controlled"
drugs will remain uncontrolled.
They
recommend that the Government reviews Section
9A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, with a view
to repealing it, to allow for the provision of
drugs paraphernalia which reduces the harm caused
by drugs. This should make it easier to sell bongs,
pipes and other non tobacco ways of smoking cannabis.
They
recommend that Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs
Act 1971 - the section which makes it illegal
to allow your premises to be used for the consumption
of drugs - is
amended to ensure that drugs agencies can conduct
harm reduction work and provide safe injecting
areas for users without fear of being prosecuted.
However, they don't seem to be suggesting it will
be OK to allow your teenage kids to smoke weed
at home, so they'll still be expected to do that
on the street.
Perhaps
the most interesting and promising recommendation
comes near the end of the report, when they recommend
that the Government initiates a discussion within
the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative
ways - including the possibility of
legalisation and regulation - to tackle the global
drugs dilemma. In other words, leaving the single
convention?
We
had hoped for more, there is much to be welcomed
in the report, but not enough by a long way. UKCIA
will update when we have more.
Editorial
Author
Derek Williams, UKCIA
Contact Derek
The
full report published
on 22nd May 2002. available
on line from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmhaff.htm
"Drugs
policy, is it working?" was the question
the long awaited Select committee into the future
of drugs policy report addressed.
The
short answer it gave was "no", it then
went on to recommend a welcome move towards harm
reduction but ruled out any move away from the
cause of the problem:
Prohibition.
The
committee did acknowledge that the calls for legalisation
are coming from sensible people and that the arguments
were compelling, but they nonetheless decided to keep
with the proven failure of the drug war's criminalisation
of users.
Actually,
the report is a little confused in this conclusion.
Whilst it ruled out legalisation of cannabis "because
it would send the wrong message to young people",
it did recommend providing heroin to users and providing
them with somewhere to use that heroin, based on the
successful schemes underway in Holland and elsewhere.
Giving users their drug and allowing them somewhere
to use it is actually legalisation in my book - highly
controlled and regulated, but it's legalisation non
the less.
And
this is the rub, legalisation doesn't just mean a free
for all unregulated market place, it actually means
anything that's not prohibition. Legalisation means
the opportunity to control and regulate a market which
is totally unregulated at the moment. Supporters of
prohibition claim there's a deterrent effect provided
by the law and point to the huge number of users of
legal alcohol and tobacco, but they conveniently forget
that these products are advertised and often marketed
directly at young people.
The
move towards harm reduction is long overdue, yet no
true harm reduction is possible when drugs are supplied
by the present illegal market, with no checks on strength,
purity, quantity or who buys. They claim that children
will still find ways around age limits and so they might,
to an extent, but there's no age limits or any other
controls over the sale of illegal drugs.
Cannabis
is to become "less illegal", which will probably
mean the police turning a blind eye to small scale use
or possession, but where will this small scale possession
come from? Every small bit of cannabis was once a big
bit after all and this big bit was supplied by a dealer,
some of whom also supply other substances. Indeed, even
the government accepts that the biggest (if not the
only) "gateway" cannabis provides to harder
drugs is through the supply side, yet they've decided
to keep it wide open.
All
in all, the Select committee report into the future
of UK drugs policy was a rather limp affair and will
do nothing to solve the cause of the problem, it was
a waste of time.
Derek
UK Cannabis Internet Activists
|
