Interesting cannabis case in the UK

[Benedict]

link

Basically someone growing cannabis for their own personal use (for medical purposes, well respected professional) has been charged, and is now taking it to the court of appeal on the grounds that the tendency to arrest cannabis users while not criminalising alcohol abusers is against the actual principles of the Misuse of Drugs act.

The Misuse of Drugs Act is not a policy for prohibition, but of protection. It covers legislation "with respect to drugs which are being or appear likely to be misused and of which the misuse is having or appears capable of having harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem". And it allows for any method of control that best serves in protecting society, including healthcare, education and police intervention.

Mr Stratton says the Government is preoccupied with criminalising cannabis, while other more harmful drugs, namely alcohol and tobacco, remain legal.

Really interesting case . . . I'd like to see how it plays out, it's one of those issues where the government can't risk changing the law because they'd get slated for it, but the judiciary can set a more appropriate legal precedent for the application of the law easily enough. Which would then leave the government having to either let it slide or having to actively change the law away from the (perfectly reasonable) principles of avoiding damage to society and towards specific discrimination against some drugs over others on totally arbitrary grounds.

 

[Benedict]

Some further UK context article

 

[magerette]

That's a very interesting approach and I hope it works. I know far more people--generations of them--who have trashed their lives and others' because of alcohol abuse than potheads who've run amok and robbed a 7-11, and this is a medicinal user on top of it.

I imagine a lot will depend on the actual wording of the law and how various legal professionals (solicitors or attorneys? I can never figure that out...) will twist them.

 

[Benedict]

That's a very interesting approach and I hope it works. I know far more people--generations of them--who have trashed their lives and others' because of alcohol abuse than potheads who've run amok and robbed a 7-11, and this is a medicinal user on top of it.

I imagine a lot will depend on the actual wording of the law and how various legal professionals (solicitors or attorneys? I can never figure that out...) will twist them.

Ultimately I think it'll come down to the personal tastes of the judges themselves. The UK governments own advisory council on the misuse of drugs totally disagrees with the law and the way its implemented, the police think it's ludicrous (and have in many cases ignored official guidance on prosecutions & arrests), the crown prosecution service think it's a waste of time, drug use charities speak out against it, the official statistics clearly show alcohol & tobacco to be of far greater harm etc etc.

Basically there's no case whatsoever for the current status quo, I can't imagine the government will manage to rustle up any experts on the subject whatsoever.

More humiliation for Gordon Brown anyway. They downgraded cannabis from B to C (actually for once vaguely listening to the vast amount of expert research on the subject) then once Blair finally stepped down Brown moved to put it back up again and damn any evidence to the contrary. It'd be bloody hilarious if the courts essentially over-ruled him.

 

[JemyM]

I personally lost my father to alcohol, and I have plenty of friends who either lost their family, or their house/everything to alcohol. The majority of all crimes were done under the influence of alcohol. I do not know of a single victim of cannabis.

Of course, alcohol is a legal drug, freely available to everyone as long as they have the age and the money, and sometimes you do not even need that (Alcoholic abuse among underaged is a massive problem here). But cannabis is still available as long as you know people.

 

[Benedict]

It is interesting hearing a bit more about the actual structure of the Misuse of Drugs act here in the UK, the underlying law is far better laid out than I'd imagined given the way it tends to be applied.

 

[pibbur]

I have no doubt that if alcohol had been introduced today, it would be prohibited. The same with tobacco. But prohibiting substances that have been with us for ages and is well established in society is (as have been proved again and again) very difficult.

I can see no reason why we should legalize new substancesw, we have problems enough with the ones we have already. Then again, I don't think you should be punished for having small amounts for personal use. But selling should not be allowed.

As for the so called medical use of cannabis, afaik most of the claims are highly speculative, more like wishful thinking.

Edit: I may have been too quick in condeming medical use. There have been several studies that indicate a positive effect for a wide range of diseases. OTOH, a lot of studies are required before an effect can be established with confidence. There is also the matter of side effects, and the relative efficacy of cannabis compared to other established treatments. I'll come back to you on this one.

 

[skavenhorde]

On the topic of canibis and legalization, how is it going in California? I keep hearing whispers/rumors/little newsbits about potentially legalizing it as a savior for the budget. Isn't that irony in it's highest form. Here there is this huge war on drugs costing us a ton of money and now they're talking about MJ being the savior that the state needs

It would be nice if I could see this happening sometime in my lifetime. This whiteboy would fly back home faster than Towlie can say "Wanna get high?"

 

[dteowner]

Then again, I don't think you should be punished for having small amounts for personal use. But selling should not be allowed.

I've seen this stance many times, but it just doesn't make sense to me. If nobody can sell it, how do your "personal users" get it? I can see someone growing pot in their flowerbox, but I expect there will be climate issues that make that a rather inefficient proposition. If we open the logic up to a wider range of recreational drugs, it really gets hairy since there aren't too many people with the chemistry lab (and chemistry experience) to manufacture their own pills.

 

[Surlent]

Alcohol doesn't deserve to be tagged with drugs. People enjoy it in the form of low and mild drinks during meals. It is well connected to our customs, traditions and celebrations.

 

[pibbur]

@dtowner: I admit there is a paradox here, but it still makes sense. One might for instance argue that having cannabis for personal use would be a very small crime, and should not be persecuted. But distirbuting the stuff would be a bigger crime and as such punishable.

In a similar vein, selling alchohol to underage teenagers is in Norway at least a crime. But we don't charge the youths buying the goods.

Until a few years ago selling hardcore pornograpy was illegal in Norway. But posessing pornography was not illegal (except for child pornography). Another example of "legal assymetry" is the recently adopted law which makes it illegal to buy sex from prostitutes (I think a similar law exists in Sweden). Selling sex is not illegal (unless you're a pimp).

 

[pibbur]

Alcohol doesn't deserve to be tagged with drugs. People enjoy it in the form of low and mild drinks during meals. It is well connected to our customs, traditions and celebrations.

It is well established, and enjoyable, and to most persons nothing more than that. But it is also a cause for disease and death, and social catastrophy for a not insignificant minority. So I stand by the claim that it would be prohibited if it was introduced today.

 

[Surlent]

If it were introduced today by shady smugglers and junkie street vendors? Or as bottled product that can be bought from a local store?
As a sold product, it would probably include a mandatory warning of its side effects.

Simply based on medical standards, I believe doctors might suggest forbidding it. And politicians tend to be eager to restrict people in these matters, so no doubt they would try influence public opinion to forbid alcohol. I also can't help but to think there exists groups of people who are hardcore sober and would ban all forms of relaxations. Some would ban alcohol for the sole reason they don't enjoy it themselves.

Long traditions (and commercial interests) keep it going, sure. We can't really rewrite history of our societies.

As for the deviants whose lives were wrecked, are you sure alcohol was the sole factor behind their fate? My uneducated opinion is that it's more of a symptom of other issues in their lives. But I don't have the exact first hand info on statistics in this field. I can imagine alcoholism costs quite a toll for the rest of the society though.

Is there any other way we could deal with these rotten drunks than by ruining the fun for everyone and banning all drinks? Increasing taxation doesn't help much if they spend all their money on booze anyway or start brewing their own coctails.

 

[GothicGothicness]

Almost all the politicans are drinking.......... so who should make it illegal to drink?? and who has an interest to ?

 

[pibbur]

If it were introduced today by shady smugglers and junkie street vendors? Or as bottled product that can be bought from a local store?
As a sold product, it would probably include a mandatory warning of its side effects.

I don't think it would matter how it was sold. The negative effects would be enough.

Simply based on medical standards, I believe doctors might suggest forbidding it. And politicians tend to be eager to restrict people in these matters, so no doubt they would try influence public opinion to forbid alcohol. I also can't help but to think there exists groups of people who are hardcore sober and would ban all forms of relaxations. Some would ban alcohol for the sole reason they don't enjoy it themselves.

Long traditions (and commercial interests) keep it going, sure. We can't really rewrite history of our societies.

Agreed. It is part of society, no point in trying to forbid it now. And for the record, I do enjoy an occasional pint of beer.

As for the deviants whose lives were wrecked, are you sure alcohol was the sole factor behind their fate? My uneducated opinion is that it's more of a symptom of other issues in their lives. But I don't have the exact first hand info on statistics in this field. I can imagine alcoholism costs quite a toll for the rest of the society though.

A couple of problems here: Regarding alcoholism: we don't necessarily know who these "deviants" are before they're hooked. And not all of them end up living on the streets. Which means that the problem is much bigger than what it seems based on what we observe.

As for long term health effects: Alcohol use is not as bad as smoking, but still a significant risk factor for disease. Examples include chronic liver disease and several types of cancer (including breast cancer). Chronic liver disease was the 10th most common cause of death in the US in 2001 (from Wikipedia), alcohol consumption was probably the most important cause behind it. We're not talking about alcoholism here, but admittedly daily consumption of above average number of drinks.

But for cancer, the "dangerous" dose is smaller, especially in females. Some doctors advocates that young women shouldn't drink at all. I think that's a bit drastic.

And finally there are all the accidents, acts of violence and such that happens while drunk.

Alcoholism is not the only cause for accidents and social problems. But it is a major cause, and I really can't see how we can sort out those who should be allowed to drink from everyone else. Can you?

Is there any other way we could deal with these rotten drunks than by ruining the fun for everyone and banning all drinks? Increasing taxation doesn't help much if they spend all their money on booze anyway or start brewing their own coctails.

This is the dilemma: For most of us it doesn't become a problem. But for quite a number it does. So, how large must the numbers be before it's reasonable to "ruin the fun for everyone"? I don't know, and as I said I take a drink now and then. But I think it's irresponsible to underestimate the negative consequences. They are significant.

Well, well, this thread is actually about cannabis. The reason for my long rant was the claim that prohibiting cannabis was incorrect since we allow alcohol. As I've said, I think the main reason that alcohol is not illegal, is the fact that it's since long ago has been an integrated part of society. There have been numerous attempts at prohibiting it (1920 to 1933 in the United States), they failed. Trying to ban it now would be futile.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

One imho often overlooked problem is the damage drunk people do every year. Pure vandalism.

 

[pibbur]

One imho often overlooked problem is the damage drunk people do every year. Pure vandalism.

Yepp. Agreed.

 

[Corwin]

The other issue, is that most gov'ts make a HUGE amount of money from the taxes on both alcohol and tobacco. There's no way they'd give that up!! Perhaps the best people can hope for is the decriminilisation of some illegal drugs so small users won't clog up the legal system!!

 

[Rithrandil]

I want them to decriminalize and tax the hell out of it. I'm sure that alone could pay for half the social programs the US decides it needs to bankrupt our country to support.

 

[pibbur]

The other issue, is that most gov'ts make a HUGE amount of money from the taxes on both alcohol and tobacco. There's no way they'd give that up!! Perhaps the best people can hope for is the decriminilisation of some illegal drugs so small users won't clog up the legal system!!

i

That depends on how much the smoking/alcohol consumption cost society.

Again I can't comment on other countries, but in Norway the government has been working very seriously to reduce/eliminate smoking. And finally the efforts seems to work, as tobacco consumption is going down. For several years smoking among men has declined, while it still was increasing among women. Which was kind of sad, as at least some studies indicate that the health risk is higher in women.

So at least in Norway the government is perfectly willing to loose the income from tobacco taxes, and it's imo likely they'd rather be without the alcohol income as well.

Things may of course be very different down under, of course. Of course.