Brown Wednesday

The number 10 website had this gem on it today:
Morning press briefing from 6 May 2008

The Prime Minister’s Spokesman (PMS) began by telling the assembled press that the official Cabinet had met for about an hour this morning. There was a further discussion on the draft legislative programme and there was also a report from Jacqui Smith on the position relating to Cannabis. This was followed by a Political Cabinet.

Asked if the Cabinet gave its support to the Prime Minister, the PMS said that it had. There was a political Cabinet that took place afterwards that the PMS was not present at. Asked how long the political Cabinet lasted for, the PMS said it had started at 0930 and he thought it was just breaking up at 1100.

Asked when the draft legislative programme would be published, the PMS said it would not be happening this week.

Asked for a flavour of the Cabinet meeting, the PMS replied that the official part of the Cabinet meeting was very businesslike, focussing on the two agenda items of the draft legislative programme and the Cannabis announcement. The political discussion that he was not present at was no doubt more wide-ranging.

Well then: Wednesday 7th May would seem to be the day prohibition campaigners have been working toward so hard for the past four years or so. This, of course is because tomorrow, which is when the 7th may is at time of writing, is when Mr Brown will announce that he is to ignore the advice of the expert committee and will reclassify cannabis to class B anyway. He’ll do this no doubt on the back of claims of genetically modified version of lethal skunk which are now on sale in every playground in the country. Something like that anyway.

So, for the record, UKCIA will make it clear how upset we all aren’t about this move. From this website dated Setember 2003

At first UKCIA saw Blunkett’s plan to reclassify cannabis to class C as a positive first step on the inevitable route to the full legalisation and regulation, and congratulated Blunkett to some extent at making this baby-step change in the law. However, despite a year passing since his announcement, the process has yet again been put back, now until January 2004 at the earliest. Worse yet, amendments are being made to the Criminal Justice Bill which make the change almost entirely meaningless in any case.

Cannabis possession will still be a criminal offence, and still arrestable and imprisonable at the discretion of a police officer, leaving the door open to intimidation of individuals and “justice by postcode”. The penalties for dealing/producing class C drugs will become 14 years, which is what they already are for cannabis. Ludicrous new laws such as allowing cannabis users houses’ to be confiscated have been suggested. These laws will simply serve to clamp down on small-time dealers and growers and allow organised crime to continue to profit from the massive cannabis industry. Users, recreational or medical will still suffer persecution from the law threatening criminal records and prison and there will be no controls on what is sold as cannabis or to whom. Where is the change?

It is with regret then that UKCIA must withdraw any support for the current plans. We will continue to campaign for the Government to change the laws to give us our rights back, and reduce any harm done to the individual or society by the use of cannabis.

We believe the laws against cannabis cause far more harm than the plant ever could and sadly they seem to be set to continue to do so.

So, we are faced with the reversal of a move which we considered to be a waste of time at best, perhaps undesirable and certainly pointless. It’s a bit difficult to know what to say actually, many of us are lost for words.

Also for the record, UKCIA had online a guide warning what Class C actually meant for cannabis users sometime before ACPO did, it’s still there for the record and you can read it if you click here

The move to class C meant nothing and the move back to B will mean just as little to cannabis users. Indeed, the only difference is to make the theoretical maximum for possession 5 instead of two years. Two years isn’t a penalty that’s ever used, so it’s hard to see how a non-threat of 5 is going to send shivers down anyone’s back. So it’s all abit more illegal again, just like the good old days. Whooppee.

The defening wall of silence from one quarter is worth a comment though. Where have all the drugs agencies been throughout this cannabis reclassification mass-debate? We haven’t heard a peep out of HIT in Liverpool or Lifeline in Manchester, companies which earn their money issuing drugs advice to young people. Even Release with it’s street level reputation of opposition to prohibition hasn’t made too much noise.

It wasn’t so long back these agencies were in the vanguard of the drugs debate. In particular it’s worth mentioning that in the 1990’s Lifeline for example built it’s name on giving honest, friendly information to the rave scene. Yet when in 2008 it comes to a decision to expose millions of people to greater criminalisation against the advice of the experts, all we get is silence, no quotes in newspapers, no interviews on TV.

Of course, these agencies depend on the government for their funding and as we all know, he who pays the piper calls the tune. The drugs agencies no longer give real independent advice, it’s all run from the Home office.

So it is fair to point to one blogspot jewel in the mud: Prof David Clark writes in ” The Prof speaks out from Saturday 4th May:
I have to confess that I really cannot see what reclassifying the drug will do, other than criminalise and alienate more of our young people. It won’t reduce harms that the drug can cause to some people. In saying this, I am not arguing that cannabis is safe – but nor are alcohol, tobacco and a wide range of prescription drugs which are all legal.

It will do nothing, simple as that. But it will make it worse.

Interestingly a well known prohibition campaigner Peter O’Loughlin who runs “The Eden practice” gives his chilling opinion of what should happen to drug users by way of a comment to David’s blog entry, you can read it on the page. He writes:

Nor do I think that first or second time drug users who come to the attention of the Criminal Justice System, be criminalised for either possession or use, they should however be obliged to enter into treatment with a primary objective to ‘educating them on the total harms caused by the drug(s) of their choice.

I would also suggest that as part of the entry into treatment, an assessment in accordance with the criteria in ICD-10, or DSM-1V, carried out by a suitably qualifed person. The outcome of the assessment, ie addiction, or misuse, should dictate the objective of the treatment.

I wonder just what type of “treatment” Peter O’Loughlin has in mind for someone who is a “misuser”? The whole concept is really quite chilling and Mr Brown is probably thinking along similar lines right now, ever closer towards a police state is the only direction prohibition can take after all.

But at least Brown will ensure that cannabis remains in the news for the next few years, and he’s about to provide the law reform movement with undeniable proof that the law isn’t based on science.