Cameron On Cannabis Part 5
You can see the previous instalment here: Cameron On Cannabis Part 4.
I am still waiting for a further reply from Mr Cameron.
In the meantime, the subject of cannabis cropped up again on “Jamie’s Dream School” a Channel 4 programme in which a group of young people are given a second chance at education. Mr Cameron was challenged by the inspirational, 17 year old Henry Gatehouse, who proposed legalisation and a £1 per gram cannabis tax.
Mr Cameron responded:
“We concluded it would be wrong to make cannabis legal for two, I think, quite good reasons. One is, there is a link between that and mental health issues so it’s not harmless. And I think the second thing is that if you legalise drugs you will make them even more prevalent than they are. So I don’t think legalising is a good idea.”
Another inaccurate and misleading statement from Mr Cameron. This time though I think we should be even more concerned. Successive governments have stated that their main concern about drugs policy is children and young people and that they must be careful to “send the right messages”.
In fact, the only message that governments have successfully delivered to young people again and again is that they never tell the truth about drugs. While the Home Office throws millions every year at the Talk To Frank campaign, the only thing it achieves is for ministers to pat themselves on the back and for the self-serving drug support industry to soak up more public money. Frank is held in complete contempt by young people. The misinformation and untruths told about, in particular, cannabis, ecstasy and mephedrone are a scandal and a grave disservice to young people.
Of course, for children and young people, the use of any psychoactive substance in a still-developing brain has the potential for harm. Cannabis should only be used by adults. Cameron is distorting the truth though. The links between cannabis and mental health are trivial compared to those with alcohol, cigarettes or even energy drinks. It is dishonest and irresponsible to give such a misleading answer to a young man who has clearly done his research and knows the truth.
Cameron’s second reason though has no basis in fact at all. All the evidence is that where a system of regulation of drugs is introduced, use goes down. This is clearly proven in Holland, Portugal and the USA. Cameron’s assertion is entirely false and, I regret to say, he must know that it is. In Britain, which now has one of the most repressive drug policies in the world, young people’s consumption of drugs is one of the highest anywhere.
Once again, Cameron reveals the dishonesty at the heart of his government’s drugs policy. This time though he is misleading and misinforming our young people. What greater mistake can he make?
- Share this:
- StumbleUpon
- Digg
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
Written by Peter Reynolds
April 19, 2011 at 13:12
Posted in Consumerism, Health, Politics, Science, television
Tagged with alcohol, cannabis, Channel 4, children, cigarette, David Cameron, drug support, energy drink, government, Henry Gatehouse, Holland, Home Office, Jamie's Dream School, legalisation, mental health, mephedrone, ministerecstasy, Portugal, Talk To Frank, tax, USA, young people
40 Responses
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
@ Peter,
I’ve said it many times and I say it again: the UK Government as a whole, from the PM to the most humble civil servant, should be accountable to us, the citizens of this country. It is a disgrace that despite being a democracy, those in government can so easily dismiss their obligation to answer their citizens’ concerns.
I’m wondering, Peter, whether you could invoke your “right to reply” to address the misinformation given by the PM on Channel 4. Just a thought!
Gart Valenc
http://www.stopthewarondrugs.org
Good idea remember the public information films from the 1970s why not get some of the new info films based on what information is current and that can be used in a right to reply slot on T,V make them to fit a 3 min time slot. That way the lazy morons at the T.V station wont have to do any more work
The problem we have in the uk is that laws are formed in ignorance rather than on fact. It is clear that after the emails that were sent to Cameron in regards to the previous statements he has made in regards to the use and legalisation of cannabis he has still not gone and checked the facts. We should not have to listen to someone who does not have a clue what he’s talking about and is giving out wrong information left right and centre, before educating the uk population on drug use, Cameron should first educate himself. His arguments against the legalisation of cannabis have been disproved time and time again, but as he has no interest on the subject he will not go out of his way to find solid facts on witch to bass his opinions.
an extra piece to Cameron, if you do the research learn the facts and speak the truth, the people will have a respect for you, however if you act in ignorance, give misinformation then your the laws that are set by opinion and not fact you cannot expect people to live by.
TJC, oh but he has researched the facts, in 2002:
“as a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into drug misuse in 2002, David Cameron voted in favour of a recommendation that “the Government initiates a discussion within the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways – including the possibility of legalisation and regulation – to tackle the global drugs dilemma”
The fact that he knows the truth but ignores it as it is politically inconvenient only makes his lies worse…
At that time Cameron, personally, said it would be “disappointing” if “radical options” about cannabis were not considered.
He simply can’t be trusted, it’s a sad but blatantly obvious fact, he is only interested in corporate protectionism through telling lies that aren’t even defensible by pleading ignorance, as the above statement proves.
Its just like Mr David Cameron knows evidence relating to someone that has been in prison for 40 years ,sentenced to life imprisonment for something they didn’t do but still he chooses to ignore it in fear of upsetting his group of elite, pharma share holder friends :-/
One wonders what should happen to people who have admitted using cannabis in the past?
People like Boris Johnson and Francis Maude. Why is it ok to arrest users now, but BJ and FM have gone on to have successful careers without the inconvenince of a criminal record?
Don’t forget Andy Burnham, who went on to be Secretary of State for Health, after smoking cannabis (presumably before he realised he might want to be a politician one day. Well, turned out he was lucky and didn’t get bust, otherwise he probably wouldn’t have even got to be an MP). Never heard him discussing prescribing THC on the NHS, though.
Unfortunately, it’s now several years since any toking politicians were outed, or outed themselves, so the ones still prominent are few and far between. A notable one is David “Two Brains” Willets, currently Minister of State for Universities and Science, and living proof that using cannabis not only does not cause mental impairment, but is actually more likely to improve your intelligence.
Make the most of him – I think it most unlikely that we will get any more “outings”, considering the big downer on the herb that “these people” have.
Unlike self-proclaimed cannabis smoker and grower Luke “Ming” Flanagan who was, in February, elected TD (Irish equivalent of an MP) for Roscommon South Leitrim. My maternal grandfather, John McNeill (there’s a clue for you…), came from Castlerea, Co. Roscommon around the turn of the last century, so I feel a bit of a connection there, and pride in “my local TD”. Unfortunately, he announced last month that he has stopped using cannabis in Ireland, to protect his wife and baby. Seems like they have the same kind of vicious opposition that we have here.
I don’t imagine that John McNeill ever smoked any cannabis, but I bet he knew more about that plant’s value than any of those arseholes telling us we can’t grow it or use it.
Leave a comment?
ok
cameron is a liar. If you do ever get to meet Call me Dave, please ask him why he ramped up the retoric against Libya, how much BP lent on him to go on the offensive, ask him is Libya part of the UK’s energy strategy and if so, tell him it was a bad one!
He claims to care about youngsters and children whilst he continues the failed policies of labour – killing women and children to light sweet crude oil, rather than explaining to the British public there way of living may be coming to an end.
We should be exploring hemp bio fuels and products that dont require large oil inputs and we should be allowing our fellow adults to enjoy themselves as we head towards the end of the oil age – it may even soften the blow
n January 2009, Brent crude traded at $70 per barrel. One year later, it cost $86. By January 2011, importers were paying $95 per barrel. Now, with turmoil in Egypt, Bahrain and Libya, crude has shot up over $120 per barrel.
There is a reason, and don’t blame just the speculators. The brutal reality facing the world is that with each year, it is becoming more and more difficult to obtain and secure the energy needed for business as usual.
The war in Libya is just one aspect of the global race to lock up future supplies.
In 2009, Muammar Qadhafi announced that Libya was studying the best way to nationalize its oil resources. The oil should be owned by the people, he said, so the government could determine how much to charge for the oil. The announcement predictably sent foreign oil companies such as France’s Total, Britain’s British Petroleum, Spain’s Repsol, Italy’s eni, and America’s Occidental Petroleum, into a tailspin. Hundreds of billions of dollars hung in the balance—not to mention Europe’s economic prospects.If Europe has its way, Qadhafi won’t ever blackmail Europe again. Perhaps other nations will take the hint too: Europe takes energy issues seriously!
The reality of an oil-constrained world guarantees that European nations become far more actively engaged and aggressive in Middle Eastern affairs.
Now stop Bullshitting us about Cannabis Dave
we all should take any and every opportunity to throw his bull back at him .
Keep a look out for when he is making a public press opp. and if you get the chance make him repeat his lie over and over the fool will hang himself with enough rope.
But you got to wonder why no journalist is willing to pull him on his lies. They are quite public and dont take a lot of research to prove as bullshit so what is going on there?
Peter Reynolds was (is) a writer for a newspaper maybe he can answer that question. Why is the press to reluctant to cry foul when it comes to hemp / cannabis. Worried about losing a few interviews, exclusive or sources? Or maybe advertising revenues and financial support, owners, and vested interests may not take kindly to it. Who knows…
The way i see it, is this:
The law is wrong and immoral. The MODA is 40 years old, 4 years younger than me. It is an outdated law not based on scientific evidence. Luckily i have never been arrested for using cannabis and i have used for over 25 years. If i ever have the misfortune of being arrested this will be part of my defence
Cameron has no defense, he is shamless
Yep fact: alcohol Is an extremely toxic substance That has proven links to psychological problems.
Fiction: cannabis Is an extremely toxic substance That has proven links to psychological problems.Tories lie… That has been proven today while they are trying desperately to discourage people with lies from voting yes on the AV vote.
They are scared… If the AV vote goes ahead Tories lose the next election – and then some.DC is scared.. He’s scared of what the papers will say, he’s scared of what his elders will say and he’s scared of what the corporations will say.
He’s scared so he’s lieing. That’s what Tories do.
The mistake was in the question; you cannot talk about legalisation of cannabis because it isn’t illegal anyway. This falsehood creates the corollary of so-called ‘legal drugs’. Legal drugs are where it all begins.
Government has misused the Act by misunderstanding it, misunderstandings still also apparent in CLeaR’s language, and of the questioner, and the commentators here – so, please pay attention.
All problems arise from two very basic misunderstandings: as a result of mistakes of legal understanding apparent in Government’s failure to perform their statutory duty to administrate the law by bringing about subordinate legislation to fulfil the MODA’s legislative purpose.
The government must act by making orders in parliament for the regulations to enable the supervision and restrictions of persons property in controlled drugs, all this to ensure that the specific drugs are not misused. Misuse has been the default assumption concerning any use at all of a controlled drug – this implies that somehow these drugs can never be used without causing a social problem. Really the focus ought to be, according to the law, on making arrangements for the appropriate supply of potentially harmful drugs to people, wider restrictions being necessary only where the misuse of the substance was likely to cause a social problem.
Government drives the Act by bringing under control new substances; or rather in truth, the law targets persons exercising property rights in those substances, and then ignores other persons who use substances not controlled by policy. This is because it is a policy that believes that these are ‘legal drugs’.
Government has abused its power by deeming even peaceful activities with cannabis to constitute a misuse of the drug, and in so doing, any understanding of what an actual misuse of the drug is now impossible to convey. Unless one believes that the problem really is the any use of controlled drugs, and if this is the case, why was use not criminalised by Parliament? The only drug that use is forbidden in law is for the use of opium. So use is there, we can use as long as we don’t contribute to, or cause social harm. Other use falls outside of the Act.
This leads on to why it is vital to appreciate that drugs are not really illegal; the use of a drug is not prohibited by the Act because it allows this very differentiation between the need for liberty to balance with a more generally restrictive policy.
If there was no evidence for harm, especially ‘harm to others’ (as the health of the individual is not mentioned in the Act), only conduct that offends the public sufficient to constitute harm satisfies the threshold for curtailing liberty. If the Act were understood; then persons using drugs would be regulated according to outcome, ie if they are not causing a problem, then they must be ignored or educated.
However, the criminal markets create the need for the courts to occupy themselves with not only persons exercising peaceful rights in controlled drugs, but also criminal operatives in a market created out of a policy that not only is a fail, but one which doesn’t do any justice the law that we have anyway.
The problem with ‘legal drugs’ is that it has its corollary of drugs that do concern Government, that is ‘illegal drugs’. This lie makes the whole regulatory apparatus envisaged by parliament impossible – this is why we must not talk about legalising or even regulating drugs – it is drug users who are regulated!!
Parliament did not create either of these categories of user or drug, nor allude to any artificial divide. And yet this policy explained with errors of law, has denied any possibility of a regulatory structure because it immediately utilised the Act to carry out policies agreed in International treaties and conventions, these supplanted the belief that prohibition is the default status of the Act; whereas in truth, all such statutes are regulatory instruments that equitably seek to balance the needs of various tensions such as a need to protect public health and morals and the practicalities and desirability of policing every minute aspect of an individuals consciousness and the business of providing various drugs to satisfy the market to moderate that consciousness. This is what you seek by asking for the ‘regulation of cannabis’ – however the expression is meaningless, and yet the Act is perfectly set up to regulate persons with respect to cannabis.
Perhaps the government’s bad faith is highlighted through the fact that they have not made one exception to their mantra that licenses to grow cannabis cannot be given to anyone other than for specific medical and research purposes. This has been taken to mean that individuals cannot apply; however this is again not the purpose of the Act which provides specifically in Section 31 (1) that:
Regulations made by the Secretary of State under any provision of this Act—
(a)may make different provision in relation to different controlled drugs, different classes of persons, different provisions of this Act or other different cases or circumstances; and
(b)may make the opinion, consent or approval of a prescribed authority or of any person authorised in a prescribed manner material for purposes of any provision of the regulations; and
(c)may contain such supplementary, incidental and transitional provisions as appear expedient to the Secretary of State.
You will note that it is persons, not corporations that are specified.
In summary; the persecution of some drug users is arbitrary. This is happening because as the governmental decision makers do not properly construct the law, they fail to give proper effect to it. Government omits the users of the most harmful drugs from the (drug user) neutral Act, and targets even the most peaceful users of some other drugs. This is because it makes an error of law that believes alcohol and tobacco to be legal drugs. Whether it be through a wilful abuse of power, or just being blinded to a propaganda machine that insisted that there be no legitimate use for any controlled drug other than scientific and medical use.
Please consider that there is no war on drugs, it is a war on people. In particular a war on people who use some drugs. It is the people, all people who are the object of regulation under the MODA, and the MODA is arbitrarily applied to persons who use some drugs and not others. More, it is affront on all of our free choices to avail ourselves of such desires. YET, this denial is borne from the lie that we are using ‘illegal drugs’, not only do they not exist, but as for using illegal drugs, using a controlled drug isn’t even directly a crime.
How can something with no basis in law be the bedrock for a policy or, to for those who wish to challenge that policy?
I have re-written my own post (again)!
The mistake was in the question; you cannot talk about legalisation of cannabis because it isn’t illegal anyway. This falsehood creates the corollary of so-called ‘legal drugs’. Legal drugs are where it all begins.
Government has misused the Act by misunderstanding it, misunderstandings still also apparent in CLeaR’s language, and of the questioner, and the commentators here – so, please pay attention.
This is what you seek to reclaim by asking for the ‘regulation of cannabis’ – however the expression is meaningless, and yet the Act is perfectly set up to regulate persons with respect to cannabis.
Perhaps the government’s bad faith is highlighted through the fact that they have not made one exception to their mantra that licenses to grow cannabis cannot be given to anyone other than for specific medical and research purposes. This has been taken to mean that individuals cannot apply; however this is again not the purpose of the Act which provides specifically in Section 31 (1) that:
Regulations made by the Secretary of State under any provision of this Act—
(a) may make different provision in relation to different controlled drugs,
different classes of persons, different provisions of this Act or other
different cases or circumstances; and(b)may make the opinion, consent or approval of a prescribed authority or of any person authorised in a prescribed manner material for purposes of any
provision of the regulations; and (c)may contain such supplementary, incidental and transitional provisions as appear expedient to the Secretary of State.You will note that it is persons, not corporations that are specified.
In summary; the persecution of some drug users is arbitrary. This is happening because as the governmental decision makers do not properly
construct the law, they fail to give proper effect to it. Government omits the users of the most harmful drugs from the (drug user) neutral Act, and targets even the most peaceful users of some other drugs. This is because it makes an error of law that believes alcohol and tobacco to be legal drugs. Whether it be through a willful abuse of power, or just being blinded to a propaganda machine that insisted that there be no legitimate use for any controlled drug other than scientific and medical use.Please consider that there is no war on drugs, it is a war on people. In particular a war on people who use some drugs. It is the people, all people who are the object of regulation under the MODA, and the MODA is arbitrarily applied to persons who use some drugs and not others. More, it is affront on all of our free choices to avail ourselves of such desires. Yet, this denial is borne from the lie that we are using ‘illegal drugs’, not only do they not exist, but as for using illegal drugs, using a controlled drug isn’t even directly a crime.
How can something with no basis in law be the bedrock for a policy or, to for those who wish to challenge that policy?
Darryl, could you clear this up for me – I knew that standard ‘use’ was technically allowed, but misuse is deemed appropriate for sanctions/intervention (and they choose criminalisation)? So to use an arbitrary illustration, use of ‘controlled drugs’ (sorry to use the term) is ‘ok’ and misuse is ‘not ok’ under the MoDA? The distinction is therefore how they define misuse, as in if misuse was a ‘social problem’ they could interviene but not if you were e.g. using in the privacy of your own home… that being if the law was interpreted correctly with Cannabis still listed as ‘controlled’? (I think you allude to this in your penultimate paragraph).
Has anyone tried to get a definition, or had a reply, of what constitutes ‘misuse’ then?
The policy is that all use equates to misuse of a controlled drug, and this is what the Drug Equality Alliance call the second inequality of treatment. This however is not borne out in the law that gives the gov power to control persons re drugs, ie the MODA. We must distinguish between what this is about and how the govt implement it. They have adopted this policy that never distinguishes between use and misuse because they consider (and again this is NOT borne out of the Act), that the only legitmate use of a controlled drug is a narrowly constructed medical and scientific special use. The problem is that this whole issue is obscurred by the term ‘illegal drugs’ and the response to ‘legalise’ drugs.
Thanks Darryl. I went over to legislature.gov to have a read of certain mentioned sections. In section 10 “preventing misuse” there is no definition of misuse.. So what you are saying is that the government took the MODA framework and arbitrarily said that any non-scientific/medical use is ‘misuse’ and possession/production/supply etc. are therefore under the control/sanctions in section 23-25 which relate to the punishments in schedule 4? i.e. a regulatory framework was set up for controlled drugs which allowed the secretary of state (rather than a scientific etc. process or ignoring the ACMD) to put their own definitions over the act and then set their own punishments, without any real oversight? So instead of ‘legalisation’ you (DEA) are calling for the act to be implimented equally, or fairly, with proper definitions of use/misuse etc., (most) criminal sanctions being removed and licences granted for production and supply to business/people?
Just out of curiosity, would enacting the act fairly/equally mean sections become redundant or unused i.e. sections 23 and 24 relating to power of search and arrest? Would section 31 (or the regulations it pertains to and schedule 4) have to be re-written (after consultation with the ACMD)? As I understand it, a licence to produce and supply, in the case of Cannabis, grow and sell, could be granted to anyone (in the same manner as a licence to distil Alcohol from HMRC) under section 30 from the secretary of state if they changed their ‘views’, so that part of the act wouldn’t need to be touched? But they aren’t giving out licences.. except to GW Pharma..
Also, section 5, why does it always refer to “his” i.e. in ‘his’ possession? Is that just legal convention?
(I’m sorry, this is all probably very basic stuff for you but a greater understanding will help me immeasurably
)
Darryl thanks for a very informative message.
What about the question of possession? And section 8 of the Drug act that makes it an offence to allow premises to be used for the smoking of cannabis and opium.
So although the drugs are “controlled” and strictly speaking not illegal that fact that you have to possess it and take it somewhere there makes it illegal. I mean how can you drive a car if it is illegal to own one and even if you did it and illegal to use anywhere?
Lindsay, OK, getting nearer, firstly the point is that it is policy to make these acts of possession and the other property based offences (supply, production, import,etc) connected to controlled drugs all illegal irrespective of outcome. So the effect of policy is similar to if drugs truly were illegal (yes the distinction between objects and persons does seem pointless at first, but bear with me), but what we are doing here is questionning if policy is truly consistent with primary law, and the notion that drugs are illegal ties in with making policy look like the normative default version of the Act, yet it is not, the Act is a regulatory instrument already. Section 8 aims at the mischief of disorderly houses, yet the key sections of the Act that regulate the whole thing are sections 7, 22 and 31.
ah. From a quick glance at those sections of the Misuse of Drugs Act they all seem to be about the state providing provisions for authorised drug use and selling with permission from the state. However it does not seem to be relevant to the personal possession and / or use of it. Unless (perhaps) that person gets permission from the state?
Fascinating angle though. I guess “Clear” should be promoting the de-criminalisation of cannabis.
Can one apply to the Home Office to use cannabis responsibly?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/38/section/7
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/38/section/22
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/38/section/31
Lindsay Butler refers to “section 8 of the Drug act that makes it an offence to allow premises to be used for the SMOKINGg of cannabis and opium” and it set me wondering if this is JUST for smoking? Would it be legal for someone to allow their premises to be used for the consumption of cannabis in other ways than smoking, such as vapourising or eating?
This has become nothing short of a medieval farce.. THe world is flat but science says its round. Science says cannabis is relatively safe yet the powers that be stick to out dated theology. I’m almost lost for words…
On another note, what does everyone make of the Muslim Brotherhood against crusades promising to burn the Union Jack and effigies of the happy couple along the route of the wedding? Is it me or are we absolute twatts for even considering letting them into London on the day of the wedding?
The title sounds very tempting – someone gathering the Cabinet together and saying a’la Bill Hicks “Sit down, smoke this, and shut the fuck up.”
Agreed Mr Bimble, I’ve recently written to plaid re cannabis and they worte back promptly stating that they will de-crim. I wrote to Welsh labour about 2 months ago requesting the same info. They declined to answer. I re-requested about a week ago quoting FOI at them and still havent heard.
An article about the Schengen Agreement being used by a person for Sativex not licenced in Ireland.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/carrying-cannabis-medicine-to-be-legal-152033.html
Pretty much what he said in his youtube interview.
Alcohol plays a greater risk for mental health problems than cannabis and like you wrote, in every country which has ‘softened’ the laws, usage has gone down.
… If only there was a way to tell him this information, maybe a letter or something so if he says it again we could be ready next time.
Don’t Wales (well Scotland also) have legislative powers to decriminalise and legalise weed? I know it probably wouldnt happen in Scotland but in Wales didn’t Plaid Cymru always voice their opinion on decriminalisation? Interesting stuff.
Good question do the different regions have the power to make their own policy or does it all stay in London.
we have a justice minister and a health minister in N.Ireland can they decide to go their own way?
From what I heard people have suggested it to the Scottish government to be shot down immediately. But recently, because of a vote in March Wales were given legislative powers on range of areas.
The difference between Scotland and Wales is that a major political party in Wales, Plaid Cymru claim they want to take the trade out of the hands of criminals and decriminalise the stuff.
I have asked both Sinn fein and the S.D.L.P and they have said they would support medical cannabis if proscribed by a doctor they just dont bother cause they are not really thinking about it very much. nobody here is making the argument cause of fear from paramilitary groups that have decided that cannabis supply should be stopped by killing and bombing suppliers . we do have an independent standing on a people before profit platform I know he supports full decriminalisation for all use so should be interesting what with the republic about to bring in medical use laws
Leave a Reply
Tuesday, 26 April 2011
Cameron On Cannabis Part 5 « Peter Reynolds
