cheesemonster2005 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 It seems that for once the politicians haven't made a knee-jerk decision and cannabis will remain as a class 'c' drug. Its use has fallen since it was changed from class 'b' to class 'b' under Blunkett's reign. Clarke says that although there are possible side-effects these are still small and its effect on society doesn't warrant a return to class 'b' status. The Shadow Home Secretary has said cannabis is a GATEWAY DRUG (registered copyright of the Daily Mail). Surely the Tories should've learnt by now that that's just bullshit. The Guardian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombay Bad Boy Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 It seems that for once the politicians haven't made a knee-jerk decision and cannabis will remain as a class 'c' drug. Its use has fallen since it was changed from class 'b' to class 'b' under Blunkett's reign. Clarke says that although there are possible side-effects these are still small and its effect on society doesn't warrant a return to class 'b' status. The Shadow Home Secretary has said cannabis is a GATEWAY DRUG (registered copyright of the Daily Mail). Surely the Tories should've learnt by now that that's just bullshit. The Guardian It's not been decriminalised, it's just been downgraded so that possession is not an arrestable offence. (That's what 'Class C' means.) Hence Tynwald rushing through the Arrestable Offences act, so that there was no effective change here. Little known fact: In Amsterdam, pot is illegal. It's just tolerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Yey! A pot discussion. I really thought they were going to reclassify it, glad to be proved wrong. Next downgrading: MDMA/ecstasy please! Did the Government here actually rush through a change here so the law is different to that of the UK regarding cannabis? No-one seems to know if they did or not, or what the law is here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 I really thought they were going to reclassify it, glad to be proved wrong. Next downgrading: MDMA/ecstasy please! I read somewhere that they are considering de-classifying ecstasy from A to B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 I really thought they were going to reclassify it, glad to be proved wrong. Next downgrading: MDMA/ecstasy please! I read somewhere that they are considering de-classifying ecstasy from A to B They already have. In the UK at least. It happened at the same time as the cannabis 'reclassification'. They like to pretend it's not been decriminalised but everyone knows that it effectively has been as the police don't give a toss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Nah, it's still a Class A http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/drugs/ecstasy.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 Nah, it's still a Class A http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/drugs/ecstasy.shtml I stand corrected. Thanks Alex. Surely it should be class 'b' as the risks are in no way comparable to heroin, crack or coke. Plus of course it's not physically addictive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Isn't the only difference between A, B, C the severity of punishment you can receive. They're all technically illegal still, right? Not sure I'd be so delighted with a downgrade of, say, Ecstacy from A to B as doesn't it just mean you'll get less of a fine or prison time for possession? I guess it means people are more prepared to take the risk, but you're still breaking the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Man, you really have a huge blind respect for the law don't you? A real square. I have no respect for a law that I just happened to be born into and had no say upon. I live by my own moral code and not one imposed on me, so am not bothered about breaking it. But as for the question, I guess so. If you believe that prison / punishment is the way to go when dealing with people possessing drugs for their own personal use then you could look at the issue in the black and white way you appear to be. Personally (as I'm sure you've gathered) I am for the legalisation of all drugs, and don't believe punishing people who take them is in any way the right thing to do. So any downgrade is good in my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 There are plenty of laws I don't agree with, but I recognise that the only solution is to campaign for them to be changed. The law is the law. If wanting to be law abiding is square, then sign me up. I realise that probably excludes me from being in your 'cool gang'. You may choose to ignore certain laws, but I'm pretty sure they wont apply your own particular moral code when it comes to penalising you. Let's see how bothered you are about breaking it when you're fined, imprisoned and have a criminal record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Saturday January 14, 2006 The Guardian New scientific evidence suggests a causal link between cannabis use and long-term psychotic symptoms, according to the government's top drug advisory committee. But in a draft report to the home secretary, Charles Clarke, seen by the Guardian, the committee says that the risks are not high enough to support reclassification as class B. The report says: "The [committee] considers that cannabis products should remain class C. At worst, the risk to an individual of developing a schizophreniform illness as a result of using cannabis is very small. The harmfulness of cannabis, to the individual, remains substantially less than the harmfulness caused by substances currently controlled under the act as class B." Group trials Study group: Swedish army conscripts Size: Around 50,000 When: Originally 1988, but updated in 2002 Finding: Heavy cannabis users at 18 years old were 6.7 times more likely than non-users to be diagnosed with schizophrenia 27 years later. Study group: Netherlands Mental Health Survey Size: Around 4,000 When: 2002 Finding: Cannabis users nearly three times more likely to experience psychotic symptoms 3 years later. Study group: New Zealand cohort studied for 20 years Size: Around 1,000 When: 2003 Finding: Users dependent on cannabis at 18 were 3.7 times more likely to get psychotic symptoms. Study group: Individuals born in Dunedin, New Zealand Size: Around 750 When: 2002 Finding: 10.3% of cannabis users aged 15 were diagnosed with schizophrenia-like conditions at 26, against 3% of non-users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Yep, even though it's downgraded it's still prohibited. What changes is the punishment. The police in some counties will now not arrest for posession of 'own use' quantities of cannabis. This doesn't make it legal, and the guideline penalties are still severe, especially for supply quantities. And to say you wont abide with a law just because you dont agree with it is lunacy. What if someone believes he has the right to have sex with whoever he wants regardless of their consent? That OK is it? The problem with relying on an individuals moral code is that many people dont have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Oh, and from the Drug and Alchohol Strategy report 2004 The reclassification of cannabis from a Class B drug to a Class C drug was finally introduced in the United Kingdom at the end of 2003 after much change of views and last minute debate. The Island immediately adopted the change as this section of our Act is tied in with that of the UK. Cannabis is now a Class C drug. In the Isle of Man, The Criminal Justice (Arrestable Offences) Bill, 2004 mirrors UK legislation and adds the possession of cannabis as an arrestable offence under the Island's Police Powers and Procedures Act 1998. Therefore the mere possession of cannabis is an arrestable offence, although the maximum punishment is now two years instead of five. So it's as I said, you get two years less for being caught with hash. Not much of a change really and that ties with the recent cannabis prosecutions in the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 I live by my own moral code and not one imposed on me, so am not bothered about breaking it. What a great outlook on life! I also live by my own moral code, which includes such hobbies as serial murder, armed robbery and rape. I have no respect for laws that I just happened to be born into and had no say upon. Tosh. (My view - I would also like to see the de-criminalisation of some recreational drugs) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Erm, any drug user (of which there are millions, a third of the population according to recently published Govt figures) has chosen to ignore a law they don't agree with. It may well be lunacy but it's also a fact of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.