Posts Tagged ‘heroin’
Home Office Backtracks On Cannabis – Part 2
See the original article here.
The Home Office has been denying to me all week that it had changed its story. It claimed that it had said “Drugs such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis are extremely harmful and can cause misery to communities across the country.” It claimed that cannabis was never included in this statement.
Today it finally owned up. It issued this statement at 5.18pm this evening:
A Home Office spokesperson said:
“There is clear evidence that drugs such as heroin and cocaine are extremely harmful substances.
“There is also clear evidence that cannabis is a harmful drug which can cause both physical and psychological problems. Even the occasional use of cannabis can be dangerous for people with diseases of the circulatory system, and it can contribute to heart disease and lung cancer.
“In this instance there was a drafting error with the original version of this statement, which was subsequently rectified.”
Does It Look Dangerous To You?
Now, I understand and respect the professional efforts of the Home Office PRs to damp down this story. It just doesn’t wash though does it?
Why did it take nearly two weeks to correct this error?
Why did they try to cover up the error in the first place?
All this from a government department that emphasises how important are its “health and education messages” and that it must not send “the wrong message – to young people in particular.”
Of course, the truth is that the Home Office sends inaccurate and misleading messages about drugs all the time. Everyone, except the Home Office ministers and mandarins, agrees that the present drug classification system is nonsense, that it amounts to nothing less than misinformation. In fact, the Home Office is currently less than seven days away from a judicial review of its political manipulation of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Drug Equality Alliance co-founder, Casey Hardison, has taken it upon himself to challenge the Home Secretary and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) in the Administrative Court for its irrational, unfair, and possibly illegal exclusion of alcohol and tobacco from control under the Act.
Even David Cameron agrees that ecstasy should not be a class A drug – see here. The debacle and embarrassing nonsense about the ever-changing classification of cannabis destroyed Alan Johnson’s integrity for good. Young people have been watching the government’s “messages” for years, comparing them to their own experiences and realising that the government talks rot when it comes to drugs. The Home Office is inconsistent, unreliable, contradictory and nothing short of dangerous when it comes to messages about drugs – as they’ve just proved, yet again.
As for the revised statement, there is evidence to show that smoking cannabis can cause the same damage to the cardiovascular system as smoking tobacco, but no one smokes anywhere near the same amount of cannabis as they do tobacco – they’d be asleep! In fact, the very latest research shows that cannabis has an extraordinary protective effect for tobacco smokers and may actually reduce the likelihood of lung cancer. Other recent research has also shown cannabinoids to have remarkable effects in shrinking brain, head, neck and breast cancers.
The Home Office is so far out of date it’s difficult to believe. It still talks sensationally about the dangers of “new stronger strains of cannabis known as skunk”. The truth is that skunk has been the predominant type of cannabis available in the UK for more than 20 years. That’s how up to date the Home Office is. Finally, the “psychological problems” story. Sure, any psychoactive substance has the potential for harm but increasingly there’s evidence to show cannabinoids actually have an anti-psychotic effect. One of the most useful applications of medicinal cannabis is in the treatment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
To those who don’t already know the facts, I say simply google your questions. Even the Home Office, much as it might try, has not yet found a way of silencing the truth.
My MP, Richard Drax, To Write To David Cameron On Drugs Policy
The Honourable Member For Dorset South
Today I met with my MP, Richard Drax. He was just as sickeningly handsome and charming as I expected him to be! So I showed him no mercy and bombarded him with my opinions for a good half an hour.
I realised afterwards that my favourite maxim “less is more” would have been a better strategy. Nevertheless, he did offer to write to David Cameron on my behalf on drugs policy and seemed genuinely sympathetic to some of the points I made.
I have just sent him a lengthy email in confirmation which I reproduce below. If anyone wishes to use this as a template for a letter or email to their own MP, please feel free to do so.
******
Dear Richard,
Thank you so much for your time today. I very much enjoyed meeting you. As I said, I came with opinions not problems. I am grateful to you for listening to me.
I realise that I made the classic mistake of bombarding you with far too much information and not giving you time to absorb any. I hope I may correct that error by summarising here what we talked about.
1. Gary McKinnon. Thank heavens that progress seems to have been made on this. The idea of an “extradition” treaty that provides for someone to be sent to the USA for trial on an alleged crime committed here is iniquitous. It’s particularly unfair in McKinnon’s case as he suffers from Asperger’s syndrome. You pointed out to me that similar dangers exist with the new European arrest warrant.
I would urge you to do everything possible to ensure that if Gary McKinnon is to be tried, it should take place in the UK.
2. Ian Tomlinson. In my view the failure to prosecute the policeman who assaulted him is an outrage and Keir Starmer’s reasons entirely inadequate. Now that the credibility of the pathologist in the case has been destroyed by a GMC panel, Starmer should at least reconsider and hopefully reverse his decision.
References here:
http://pjroldblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/killer-cop-harwood-must-be-charged/
http://pjroldblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/keir-starmer-the-next-lord-widgery/
I would urge you to press for a re-consideration of the decision not to bring charges. If no criminal charges are brought, at the very least the disciplinary hearing should be held in public as the rules allow. The Tomlinson family are entitled to justice.
3. Drugs policy. You very kindly agreed to write to David Cameron on my behalf. I am very concerned at the conduct of the Home Office at present and particularly James Brokenshire, the Minister for Crime Prevention who is causing great damage to both the coalition governemnt and the Tory party by promoting ideas and policies that contradict virtually all expert opinion, including the government’s own scientific advisers. He also seems to be completely at odds with the calls for drug law reform which both David Cameron and Nick Clegg have made consistently over the last 10 years.
This is not a peripheral or secondary issue. According to Baroness Meacher in the House of Lords on 15th June 2010, “There is no more obvious waste than the £19 billion annual cost of the UK’s war on drugs”.
There is a huge amount of reference material on this subject on my blog:
http://pjroldblog.wordpress.com/?s=drugs
I would also refer you to the Transform Drug Policy Foundation which has highly detailed and almost universally acclaimed proposals for drug regulation:
Virtually all experts agree that the “war on drugs” has failed. In exactly the same way as alcohol prohibition in the US led to a massive increase in crime and violence, so drug prohibition has created an illegal market said to be worth £350 billion per year. It has also financed civil war in Latin America for 25 years and is the principal source of finance for Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Our soldiers are dying every day because of the illegal trade in opiates. Why don’t we just buy up the whole crop for the next 10 years? It would be much cheaper in both cash and lives than the Afghan war.
Virtually all experts agree that regulation would be a better solution. I have distilled the following five point plan from everything that I have read and learned over more than 30 years:
1. An end to oppression of drug users (at least 10 million UK citizens)
2. Removal from the criminal law of any offence for possession and/or social supply
3. Fact and evidence-based policy, information and regulation
4. Re-direction of law enforcement resources against real criminals
5. Treat problematic drug use as a health issue
Five years ago, while campaigning for the Tory party leadership, David Cameron called for “fresh thinking and a new approach” towards drugs policy and said that it would be “disappointing if radical options on the law on cannabis were not looked at”. Nick Clegg has promised to repeal “illiberal, intrusive and unnecessary” laws and to stop “making ordinary people criminals”. There can be no better example of this than the laws against personal use and cultivation of cannabis, particularly for medicinal reasons. The coalition government’s new Your Freedom website has been inundated with proposals to legalise cannabis and to end the futile war on drugs. In July a poll carried out for the LibDems showed 70% of people in favour of legalising cannabis.
The Home Office and James Brokenshire are completely out of touch with expert and public opinion as well as the declared views of both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
In my view, regulation means tighter control on the most dangerous drugs such as heroin, cocaine and alcohol and lighter regulation on relatively harmless substances like cannabis and ecstasy.
There is also the very important question of medicinal cannabis. The discovery of the endocannabinoid system in 1998 has led to an ever-escalating volume of evidence of the medicinal value of cannabis. In June the MHRA approved Sativex as an MS medicine in the UK. It is a whole plant extract yet presently, the Home Office refuses to consider a regulated system of the plant itself for medicinal purposes. This is completely irrational and absurd. The House Of Lords scientific committee recommended such a system should be introduced 12 years ago. Medicinal cannabis is available and regulated throughout almost all of Europe, Israel and 14 states in the USA (with 12 more in the planning stage). The UK stands almost alone in its obstinate refusal even to consider such a system.
Already this is leading to quite obscene injustices where patients have been prescribed Sativex by their doctor but their health authority has refused to fund it and patients are then facing criminal prosecution for cultivating their own plants. There is a case of exactly this going on in the Dorchester Crown Court at present and the CPS insists it is in the public interest to prosecute!
Thank you once again for listening to me Richard. I hope these notes are useful in composing your letter to David Cameron and I look forward to hearing from you in due course.
Kind regards,
Peter Reynolds
Home Office Backtracks On Cannabis
A fortnight ago Sir Ian Gilmore, the outgoing president of the Royal College of Physicians, famously denounced drugs prohibition as a failed policy. He said “”Everyone who has looked at this in a serious and sustained way concludes that the present policy of prohibition is not a success.” He then went on to advocate decriminalisation and regulation.
The Home Office immediately issued a statement saying “‘Drugs such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis are extremely harmful and can cause misery to communities across the country.” This statement was reproduced on the Home Office website and has sat there for the last two weeks in direct contradiction to the governments own scientific advisers. Anyone who has even the smallest knowledge of the subject knows that the idea that cannabis is “extremely harmful” is absurd and a lie.
Within the last day or two the Home Office website has been quietly edited to remove the word cannabis from the statement. See here.
Charades, Fibs And Porkies
This correction is very welcome. However it calls into question the honesty, competence and intelligence of the Home Office and the government’s drugs policy. James Brokenshire, the Minister for Crime Prevention has been looking increasingly ridiculous in the last few weeks, contradicting his advisers, spouting pre-Reagan “war on drugs” propaganda and conflicting terribly with the wise words of both David Cameron and Nick Clegg, both of whom have called for drug policy reform consistently over the last 10 years. Young James has made himself very unpopular with the country’s six million regular cannabis users and embarrassed the government and the Tory party with his antics.
Whoever was responsible for this smart and very discreet editing, let’s hope they get to have a look at James’ Drugs Strategy consultation document too. It needs some intelligent correction and adjustment as well. See here for more information on what’s really a very silly game of charades, fibs and porkies.
Home Office Drug Strategy Consultation
All over the BBC this morning is the story that addicts may have their benefits withdrawn if they refuse treatment. This, apparently, is a proposal included in the Home Office’s new Drug Strategy consultation document.
Where is this document? It’s not on the Home Office website. That’s a bit strange for something that purports to be about consulting with the public isn’t it?
I had to phone the Home Office press office to get a copy. I shouldn’t have to be doing this for the government but you can download it here:
Home Office Drug Strategy Consultation Document
Theresa May and James Brokenshire, the ministers responsible for this, should remember that they are not in office to preserve the status quo or cook up policies between themselves based on the misinformation that the Home Office currently promotes. Their first responsiblity after their duty to the Queen is to the public. Consultation is not something they should pay lip service to, nor is it something they can pick or choose. It should determine their actions.
As part of this consultation, the Home Office should take into account the tens of thousands of people who have used the Your Freedom website to call for relaxation in the drug laws and particularly the legalisation of cannabis.
I urge everybody with any interest in the drugs issue to download, complete and return the consultation document. It’s presented as a Q&A form. I also suggest that you keep a copy and send a copy to your MP. Regrettably the Home Office doesn’t have a good record on keeping track of what the public says to it. It loses a lot of things.
On the face of it, I support the idea that if you’re a heroin, cocaine, alcohol or prescription drug addict and you’re offered treatment but refuse it then you shouldn’t be able to live on benefits. That seems entirely just. The danger is that just as current drug laws drive addicts to crime and prostitution so will this. This is progress though. There has to be personal responsibility but also some flexibility to ensure this doesn’t become another self-defeating policy. Most important of all, possession of drugs for personal use and/or social supply must be taken out of the criminal law.
The other headline grabbing proposal is that the government should be able to impose a temporary 12 month ban on “new substances”. This is designed to tackle the danger of “legal highs” – a danger mainly of the government’s own making because of its policy of prohibition. There is a real glimmer of hope and intelligence here though because “Possession of a temporarily banned substance for personal use would not be a criminal offence to prevent the unnecessary criminalisation of young people”. I applaud this. It shows that it is possible to get common sense from the Home Office. There is hope yet!
***UPDATE***
As I go to press (oh, alright, as my finger hovers over the “publish” button), the consultation document has become available on the Home Office website. A little tardy but better late than never.
You can respond to this consultation until 30th September 2010. Make sure you do.
The Drugs Debate
It won’t go away will it? It seems like at least once a month now some new high profile figure comes out against prohibition. The latest, Sir Ian Gilmore, outgoing president of the Royal College of Physicians, is hot on the heels of Nicholas Green QC, chairman of the Bar Council in July and three eminent co-authors in The Lancet in May. The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have also criticised government for failing to implement an evidence-based drugs policy and instead giving more weight to opinion.
Meanwhile the Humpty Dumpties at the Home Office keep on building their big walls, refusing to listen, refusing to think, refusing to care. Their response is no, no, no, out of the question, no and no again. In fact, I don’t think the ministers even think about it at all. They just replay the same old no, no and no again as written by some civil servant, probably in the days of the golf ball typewriter. Remember those?
It won’t go away though. I first submitted a report to the Home Affairs Committee on the cannabis laws in 1978. It was called “An Unaffordable Prejudice”. I’ve been giving them the facts and the evidence ever since and so have hundreds of other individuals and organisations. I’m in direct correspondence with the Home Office at the moment. I’ve received one three page response and replied with four. That’s how long it takes to get a dialogue going with our “responsive” government. I started in May, immediately after my new MP was elected, and it takes a good three months to get anywhere – or perhaps I mean nowhere. Still, I expect it was worse in the USSR.
It won’t go away. Aside from the Home Office the only people in favour of our current drugs policy are the drug dealers and the Taliban. They certainly don’t want things to change.
The Home Office can’t even get its story straight. Today its latest pearls are: “Drugs such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis are extremely harmful and can cause misery to communities across the country.” This is nothing short of crass stupidity and irresponsible misinformation. Lumping in cannabis with heroin and cocaine is simply ridiculous. Describing cannabis as “extremely harmful” is in direct contradiction to every one of the Home Office’s own scientific experts. These are the people who are supposed to be protecting our children, the vulnerable and the uneducated. They should be ashamed of themselves.
When Proposition 19 passes on 2nd November (see here), the world will sit up and take notice. Even Humpty Dumpty will have to engage his brain then because when 37 million Californians get the right to enjoy God’s herb without interference, well it ain’t gonna stop there. If for no other reason than that our avaricious politicians will soon put aside their “principles” when they realise the oodles of cash and brownie points they’re missing out on. California reckons it will create up to 110,000 new jobs, £1.4 billion in new tax revenue and a saving of $200 million in law enforcement costs. When Humpty Dumpty takes off his blindfold of prejudice, ignorance and propaganda he’ll soon be gagging for the cash.
There are a million quotes from world leaders, politicians, doctors, scientists and “experts” of all sorts stating how ridiculous and self-defeating current drugs policy is. It never seems to make any difference though. David Cameron and Nick Clegg have both called for change many times but once they get into power what happens? However, just to get right up the nose of Humpty Dumpty (that’s right, snort it up there), here’s what one very, very senior civil servant said just two years ago:
“I think what was truly depressing about my time in UKADCU was that the overwhelming majority of professionals I met, including those from the police, the health service, the government and voluntary sectors held the same view: the illegality of drugs causes far more problems for society and the individual than it solves. Yet publicly, all those intelligent, knowledgeable people were forced to repeat the nonsensical mantra that the government would be ‘tough on drugs’, even though they all knew the government’s policy was actually causing harm.”
Julian Critchley, Director, Cabinet Office UK Anti-Drug Coordination Unit. 13-08-08
It won’t go away. Just Say No has become Just Say Now and the slimy dissembling oiks who insist on running our lives (and ruining many) will soon be in retreat. It won’t go away.
It’s Not Drugs, It’s Drug Laws That Killed the Bradford Girls
Forced Here By The Law
If heroin was legally available on prescription the three Bradford prostitutes would be alive today. It is our discredited, ludicrous policy of prohibition that has led these women to their terrible deaths. Cowardly, self-serving politicians who will not address the real issues about drugs policy have blood on their hands.
Today we also learned that the sensationalist, exploitative treatment of the death of two young men in Humberside “linked with mephedrone” was nothing but hysteria. See the story here. Humberside Police shares responsiblity with the media for leaping on a bandwagon, seeking kudos or some unknown advantage through lies, propaganda and misinformation. Trying to look tough.
It’s not a good idea to use heroin or mephedrone but criminalising users and creating a lucrative black market for criminals to exploit is an absurd idea. It’s exactly what America did with alcohol in the prohibition era when, in fact, it created organised crime.
Created By The Law
For those who become addicted to illegal drugs there is very little help available. Almost all street crime is related to feeding a drug habit. If, instead of the unwinnable “war on drugs” we put our money into a regulated supply and treatment facilities we would massively reduce the harm that current laws cause.
The girls in Bradford, the poor people of Jamaica, our young heroes who are dying in Afghanistan, the young man who is selling his body right this minute in Manchester, Baltimore, Hamburg or Singapore, the downtrodden people of Columbia. They are all victims of our absurd, self-defeating drug laws. When will our politicians and leaders stop chasing cheap political points (and expensive bribes) and face the facts?
Fighting For The Law
Legalise, regulate, tax – you pull the rug from under organised crime, you eliminate the need for most street crime, you have the resources to address the issue as a public health problem.
Transform Drug Policy Foundation has the answer.
Drug Crazed Politicians Promote Crime And Misery
Sir David Nutt
"I'm so stoned...I don't know what I'm doing..."
Nothing more clearly demonstrates the complete absence of integrity in this inane, corrupt government than the sacking of Sir David Nutt. I had always admired Alan Johnson. Now he shows himself to be just as stupid and dumb as any of Gordon’s cronies.
Cannabis is a benign, natural herb that has been used as a medicine and recreational relaxant for over 4,000 years until politicians took a dislike to it just over 100 years ago. Since then, despite dozens of “studies” across the world, each one of which has been specifically tasked to condemn it as dangerous, no harm has been proven. Nevertheless, from Richard Nixon to Gordon Brown, myopic, paranoid, self-serving, tabloid-worshipping politicians have imposed more and more severe penalties for its use.
In the 50s the argument was that it made white women promiscuous with black men. The standard of discussion has barely improved since. The recent government sponsored hysteria over psychosis in adolescents is now revealed as utter nonsense in the face of the facts.
So why do politicians continue to persecute those who use cannabis? What’s in it for them? After all there is overwhelming evidence to show that a properly regulated cannabis supply could be a huge source of new taxation revenue for government and that regulation would drastically reduce all the harm that is caused by prohibition.
Off His Head
It’s more difficult to accept this argument in respect of heroin and cocaine because these are harmful substances but look at the evidence from Holland, Switzerland, Portugal and many other places. There can be little doubt that if the supply and distribution of drugs was regulated rather than prohibited then the harm caused would be reduced enormously. Furthermore, decriminalisation would drastically – and I mean DRASTICALLY – reduce crime at all levels. Street crime is all about theft and robbery in order to fund the purchase of drugs. International organised crime and terrorism is all about the drugs trade. End prohibition, start regulation and you pull the rug from under criminals at all levels. It would transform our society and save thousands of lives.
So I ask again – why? What do politicians gain from such a fundamentally stupid policy? At a stroke they could cut out the majority of both street and serious crime and massively reduce the funding of terrorism.
Cannabis was first demonised because hemp was an early rival to the oil industry. Before diesel came biodiesel. Rudolph Diesel designed his engine to run on peanut or hemp oil. Henry Ford designed his Model T to run on bioethanol produced from hemp and planted hundreds of acres on his own farms for that purpose – then along came oil. More importantly along came the early investors in the oil industry, specifically Randolph Hearst, owner and controller of the biggest propaganda and disinformation machine ever known to man. He started the the “Reefer Madness” campaign and promoted the lie against cannabis. Hemp was outlawed in favour of oil and we have since spent 100 years burning oil, becoming more and more reliant on its byproducts, destroying our planet and persecuting those who use cannabis.
Politicans are cowards. They were bribed and cajoled by big money to turn against cannabis in the first place. They do not have the vision or the common sense to see past the mess they have got themselves in over drugs policy. In a very real way they are more responsible than anyone else for the misery, death and chaos casued by the drugs trade which they actually support through their stupidity.
This government might as well have a committee of tabloid newspaper editors advising it on drugs rather than scientists. All over the world politicans have let us all down over drugs policy. Why? Because they are cowardly, self-serving and only interested in short term political expediency.
Peter Reynolds 