Britain has moved closer toward a rational drug policy as Parliament reclassified marijuana. as of January 29th most marijuana offences will be non-arrestable offences. The law passed with a 2:1 majority. Of course the horrors created by prohibition of "harder " drugs will continue until politicians move the laws against them in the same direction but at least they are not following the U.S. example of hysterically demonizing marijuana. This seems to be a sort of experiment to see if the harms caused by marijuana prohibition can be reduced while politicians continue to talk tough about drugs in general. It should be interesting to see how things go.
The Guardian,  (UK)
MPS VOTE TO DOWNGRADE CANNABIS

MPs today backed the downgrading of cannabis as ministers denied the move
amounted to legalisation of the drug.

The reclassification of cannabis from class B to class C was backed by 316
votes to 160, a majority of 156, despite Conservative warnings that it
would lead more young people into hard drugs. The downgrading of cannabis
is now scheduled to go ahead on January 29.

Junior home office minister Caroline Flint said the change was part of an
"honest and credible" strategy to tackle the scourge of drugs, denying it
was tantamount to legalising the drug or would increase cannabis use.

Under the switch, cannabis will be ranked alongside bodybuilding steroids
and some anti-depressants.

Possession of cannabis will no longer be an arrestable offence in most
cases, although police will retain the power to arrest users in certain
aggravated situations - such as when the drug is smoked outside schools.
The home secretary, David Blunkett, has said the change in the law is
necessary to enable police to spend more time tackling class A drugs such
as heroin and crack cocaine which cause the most harm and trigger far more
crime.

Ms Flint told MPs: "This Labour government is absolutely right to focus on
the most dangerous drugs, to intervene most vigorously in the most damaged
communities and to seek to break the link between addiction and the crime
that feeds it.

"And to reduce harm that drugs cause by addressing the chaotic lifestyles
of those users who are harming themselves and harming others."

Educating young people about the dangers of drugs, preventing drug misuse,
combating the dealers and treating addicts were key elements of the
strategy, she said.

Criticising the change, the shadow home secretary, Oliver Letwin, said the
government's drugs policy was now in a "dreadful muddle". He called it a
half-way measure aimed at short-term popularity rather than a coherent
adoption of either the decriminalisation philosophy of the Netherlands or
the more prohibitive stance of Sweden. With most Tories absent from the
Commons in order to attend the vote on Iain Duncan Smith's leadership,
there were barely any MPs in the chamber, with those present complaining
that only one and a half hours were allowed for debate.

Ms Flint told MPs it was important to have an "honest discussion" with
children about drugs.

"They can see for themselves the different effects of drugs, and therefore
if we are not having honest discussion they will not listen," she said.

"This is not about legalisation, it's about having to have a mature
discussion about drugs, about the relative harms." She went on: "The right
strategy we must use is what works. We must be honest and credible and rely
on science, not prejudice." The treatment of all drugs as equally harmful
and dangerous "lacked credibility" with young people.

"Individual police forces have developed disparate policies on the policing
of cannabis possession based on their own view of the relative seriousness
of the offence, leading to inconsistency and a lack of proper political
accountability."

Ms Flint said that by upping penalties for dealing hard drugs to 14 years
while at the same time reclassifying cannabis the government would be
sending a "very strong message" to dealers.

Reclassification would provide police with an opportunity to put in place a
"consistently and properly thought-out" approach to drugs and allow them to
redeploy officers to tackle hard drugs.

But the powers of arrest in place for cannabis would not apply to other
class Cs such as tranquillisers or anabolic steroids. "The policing regime
will ensure that action is properly taken by police against someone who is
causing a problem or needs help whilst avoiding needlessly charging large
numbers of young people," she said. In a series of interventions from the
back benches, MPs set out both sides of the argument for downgrading cannabis.

Labour's Martin Salter said the government would be doing young people a
"grave disservice" by allowing them to think that all drugs were the same.

Fellow Labour MP David Cairns said heroin was "far more damaging, far more
pernicious and far more destructive of communities" than cannabis.

And Tory John Bercow asked the minister to consider legalising cannabis as
"it must be desirable to break the link between the soft drug user and the
hard drug pusher".

But Tory Graham Brady claimed that cannabis was 10 or 15 times stronger
than 20 years ago and that it was "perverse" to propose downgrading the drug.

Labour's John Robertson warned that the message going out to young people
was that cannabis was no longer as dangerous as it was before. Tory Ann
Winterton insisted that "sophisticated measures do not wash" when trying to
get the drug prevention message across. And fellow Tory Angela Watkinson
warned that downgrading cannabis would lead to an increase in use of the
drug and act as a "gateway" to harder drug use.
 

Hope you are enjoying your Tidbits. If you're not a member of and would like to join, please fill out our membership application.  And be sure to visit our website.

Click here to unsubscribe to this mailing list.
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.