What do you do when you're prime minister and every single one of your advisers and scientific committees suggest that you don't reverse a decision? Of course, you ignore all of them and do your own thing. That seems like the best course of action- fuck evidence, and do whatever the hell you like. That's how real leaders do things.
In case you haven't guessed, I'm talking about old Gordo's decision to switch cannabis back to a class B drug. Not that this actually means anything useful, as many very dangerous chemicals aren't even classified, and some class As have effectively no risk of death or serious damage to the user*. Cannabis is a drug that has never killed anyone. Ever. Its thought to cause any kind of long term damage only in extremely chronic users, and at least 30% of the adult population, most likely more and including many members of the current government, have used it at some point. Raising it to a class B will mean that the police "should" be arresting anyone they find with it on their person, with a maximum jailtime of five years for mere possession (14 for supply).
Luckily, many police officers realise that arresting teenagers smoking joints in car-parks and down alleys really isn't the best use of their time, and the Association of Chief Police Officers seems reluctant to have their officers do so. As I said in a previous post, police are just normal people, and sometimes there's an upside to this, such as when an idiot who wasn't even voted into power starts telling them to arrest people they know don't deserve it. The problem comes, of course, when the officers do decide to follow the law, perhaps to bump up their arrest statistics or simply because they buy into all the Daily Mail's bullshit about cannabis. The situation you're then in is having a force of entirely unpredictable police who are able to essentially judge whether to ruin someone's life or not on a complete whim. Perhaps the cop is having a bad day and decides to arrest a stoner because he was being a bit mouthy? Fine for the officer, but there's still the little issue that, if the stoner gets convicted (which is hit-and-miss thanks to our erratic legal system), his life will be ruined. Police should be restricted by their power, not given more than they need, and locking people up for something which harms nobody but themselves is not a power that the police need.
On a related note, the war on drugs has claimed one more victim.
*I'm presuming that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is based on the concept of minimising harm to users rather than purely political pressure from the US and "Reefer Madness"-style hysteria induced by yellow journalism of the type so often employed by the Daily Mail et al.
In case you haven't guessed, I'm talking about old Gordo's decision to switch cannabis back to a class B drug. Not that this actually means anything useful, as many very dangerous chemicals aren't even classified, and some class As have effectively no risk of death or serious damage to the user*. Cannabis is a drug that has never killed anyone. Ever. Its thought to cause any kind of long term damage only in extremely chronic users, and at least 30% of the adult population, most likely more and including many members of the current government, have used it at some point. Raising it to a class B will mean that the police "should" be arresting anyone they find with it on their person, with a maximum jailtime of five years for mere possession (14 for supply).
Luckily, many police officers realise that arresting teenagers smoking joints in car-parks and down alleys really isn't the best use of their time, and the Association of Chief Police Officers seems reluctant to have their officers do so. As I said in a previous post, police are just normal people, and sometimes there's an upside to this, such as when an idiot who wasn't even voted into power starts telling them to arrest people they know don't deserve it. The problem comes, of course, when the officers do decide to follow the law, perhaps to bump up their arrest statistics or simply because they buy into all the Daily Mail's bullshit about cannabis. The situation you're then in is having a force of entirely unpredictable police who are able to essentially judge whether to ruin someone's life or not on a complete whim. Perhaps the cop is having a bad day and decides to arrest a stoner because he was being a bit mouthy? Fine for the officer, but there's still the little issue that, if the stoner gets convicted (which is hit-and-miss thanks to our erratic legal system), his life will be ruined. Police should be restricted by their power, not given more than they need, and locking people up for something which harms nobody but themselves is not a power that the police need.
On a related note, the war on drugs has claimed one more victim.
*I'm presuming that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is based on the concept of minimising harm to users rather than purely political pressure from the US and "Reefer Madness"-style hysteria induced by yellow journalism of the type so often employed by the Daily Mail et al.
Leave a comment