The dopey ACMD

Frank Clough

Are you for real? I mean, your rant was a satire about the Reefer Madness, wasn't it?

Ian

"Champagne for the brain" says it all. Satire or no, its complete rubbish. Stick with what you know.

pete

sorry, but whilst marijuana can indeed cause rare problems in those susceptible, so can many other things however...............it's just not that harmful to the vast majority full stop!

John

I can't believe that such uninformed writing is being published.The use of Cannabis has fallen over the last 10 years and particuarly since downgrading.I refer you to this press release which i wish the author had read before printing such half truths http://www.drugscope.org.uk/newsandevents/currentnewspages/Telegraph-cannabis-stats-response.htm Does she really want to see thousands of our Young adults thrown into jail and disenfranchised from society for using by the governments own admission a safer recreational drug than alcohol.Such journalism fosters ignorance and fear thankfully the board of the ACMD is guided by science based evidence not moral indignation. The sooner Cannabis is placed in the realms of Public health policy and not law enforcement the better for all of society. By the way I am not a Cannabis user!

Steve

There is not one single verifiable fact in this article. To look at a few items: "The full extent of this disaster is becoming plainer by the day, with the evidence of the huge rise in psychotic mental illness and associated crimes -- including incidents of deanged violence -- resulting from its use now so widespread as to be undeniable" and the source for this statement is? "The ACMD’s position has to be seen in the context of a billion-dollar backed, global campaign to overturn the UN drugs conventions aimed at eradicating drug use" Whose money? which campaign? who is running it? Finally: "it has ensured that the debate over drug policy has long been poisoned by disinformation, sophistry, intellectual confusion and outright lies." erm would this be in contrast to the rock solid, undistorted, factually based position of Ms Phillips?

A Parent

Melanie is deadly serious about this topic, and she is certainly a lot better informed than the first three contributions on here judging by their outdated references to reefers and marijuana. Skunk is now the most widely sold form of cannabis in the UK. It has up to 25 times more THC than previous offerings. It is not harmless, it does not render users passive it can and does promote violent episodes. The caseloads of the Police and NHS speaks for itself. In 2006 there were more than 22,000 "rare" cases of people who were treated for cannabis addiction - almost half of them under 18. In the 10 years to 2007 hospital hospital admissions for cannabis induced mental health problems have risen from 500 to 1000 a year. Behind every number there is a real person whose life is being destroyed and real families to grieve their loss.

Fran

Why the bile towards this article boys? No shred of evidence linking cannabis use with phychosis? Where have you been living these past few years. We aren't talking about the reefers of those heady days of your past when you lazed around in your halls of residence. We're talking about the powerful and refined drug of today which is being implicated more and more in violent crime such as the murder of Garry Newlove? For evidence which Ms Phillips clearly assumes you should know about because it's been in the public domain for years see here http://www.mentalhealthcare.org.uk/content/?id=30 written by Prof. Robin Murray from the Maudsley Hospital, Schizophrenia support organisations http://www.schizophrenia.com/research/cannabis.htm Finally, the Royal College of Psychiatrists: http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinformation/mentalhealthproblems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabisandmentalhealth.aspx finds links between taking cannabis and mental health problems. Enough? What I'd like to know more about is the "The ACMD’s position has to be seen in the context of a billion-dollar backed, global campaign to overturn the UN drugs conventions aimed at eradicating drug use and replacing them with leglisation of all drugs under cover of the benevolent-sounding policy of ‘harm reduction’." Who's behind this, Ms Phillips? And what's the reason for the funding?

Compost Mentis

I, too, would like to know about these billions of dollars. If I didn't know better, I would think Melanie had been puffing on some paranoia-inducing herbs herself. Those of us of a "liberal" persuasion have always assumed it was the alcohol industry funding anti-cannabis propaganda. As something of an (occaisional) cannabis connoisseur of advancing years, I can confirm that the "skunk" myth is allowed to persist only because the "great and good" who indulged in the 60s and 70s were naieve users who haven't learned to use the internet. Maybe some of them are driven to try to distance their middle class, Oxbridge "experimentation", from the "drug-fuelled rampages of the lower orders." Most of what is sold on the streets of the UK as "cannabis" would fail the test if it was covered (as it clearly should be), by the Trade Descriptions Act. There are websites devoted to this particular plant so there is no excuse for such misinformation, and the likes of leslie Iversen (AMCD member) and other respectable medical experts have written copiously on the subject. Those I feel most sorry for are indeed the young and vulnerable in society who are ill-served by misinformation and blatant lies - and by the continued lunacy of the "war on drugs". If the British army cannot prevent heroin flooding our streets from Afghanistan, and the navy cannot prevent cocaine coming in from South America, what an obscene waste of effort (costing billions, globally), to try to prevent 4 million adult citizens enjoying a habit hardly more threatening to their health than a glass or two of wine. Doubtless there are people who are vulnerable to a whole variety of substances, but leaving their supply in the hands of criminal gangs is not worthy of intelligent consideration in the 21st century.

Adam

"Melanie is deadly serious about this topic, and she is certainly a lot better informed than the first three contributions on here judging by their outdated references to reefers and marijuana. Skunk is now the most widely sold form of cannabis in the UK. It has up to 25 times more THC than previous offerings" A Parent. You are not well informed either. The home office state the following. "The potency (THC content) of skunk has increased but the potency of sinsemilla type cannabis – the highest potency herbal cannabis - has increased about 2 to 3 fold over the last 10-15 years. The FSS data show that the average THC content of sinsemilla increased from about 6% in 1995 to about 14% in 2005." Did you read that? That means, the 'skunk' seized by police you refer to is at best, two or three times stronger than it used to be. Note also, forensic reports for Cannabis seized in 2006 showed only 4% of cannabis seized to be so called skunk with levels of THC only 2 to 3 times. The only thing which informs you is media lies and people like melanie. If you want to know the truth, contact the home office and ask them. "In 2006 there were more than 22,000 "rare" cases of people who were treated for cannabis addiction" Again this shows you're uninformed> Cannabis is not physically addictive. It may be psychologically addictive but anything can be psychologically addictive, like watching TV. Please go and do some research on this before you state such rubbish. "In the 10 years to 2007 hospital hospital admissions for cannabis induced mental health problems have risen from 500 to 1000 a year" Wrong again. http://www.drugscope.org.uk/newsandevents/currentnewspages/Telegraph-cannabis-stats-response.htm It seems your response neither has any factual basis or crediability. I'm glad you're not my parent.

Adam

Fran you can quote Robin Murray to death for all I care. I'd rather you try and explain to me why the international rates for schizophrenia and related serious mental illnesses have not changed since records began, 1% schizophrenia and 2% related serious mental illness. The use of cannabis has sky rocketed. These rates are also lower in Holland where it has been decriminalised. Then you should also have a look at other research besides Murray's. Research by Zammit et al (2007), at the university of cardiff has shown that genetic variations don't modify associations between schizophrenia and cannabis use, meaning those who are genetically predisposed to schizophrenia are not at greater risk of it by smoking cannabis. Put simply, the idea that cannabis causes schizophrenia is just that it's an idea, a theory. It's not certain and there is plenty of evidence to show it does not cause psychotic illness or even if it does, very very rarely. You'd be well advised to type the words 'alcohol' and 'psychosis' into google. You may be quite surprised by what you find. ;-)

Gavin Andrews

Is it melanie phillips contention that more cannabis users being put in prison would somehow improve the mental health picture? I'd love to see her attempt at an expanation of how this would work in practice. The evidence shows that cannabis use decreased significantly following reclassification. Criminalisation doesn't work, all it does is to randomly imprison otherwise harmless people for a crime that has no victim. Prison is the number one driving force in the increased levels of heroin addiction, has an extremely negative effect on the mental health of young prisoners, and massively higher suicide rates among young prisoners than non-prisoners. Melanie Phillips is advocating a policy that has been tried and shown to have failed. It's time for society to move on and ignore the ill informed rantings of this silly woman & her ilk. Yes there is a problem surrounding cannabis use and mental health, but further criminalisation won't do anything to solve this.

Frank Pulley

Well said Fran. But, as you know, whenever the problem is delineated as cogently as Melanie has in this post (and many previous ones over the years), the hounds of hell are unleashed from the demiworld of deluded dreams to bark, bite, bluster and bullshit. Why? Because cannabis is an hallucinogen. Those dependent on it cannot face reality and wish to hold on to their pathetic plane of existence regardless of damage to family and social stability. The traffickers have clout with politicians, many of whom have admitted to patronising this evil trade in misery and addiction and as is quite obvious from their political decisions, live in a dream world themselves. Cui bono?

Bill Hicks

We're fighting a drug war and its being won by people on drugs! What does this say to you? It says to me that marijuana shouldn't be illegal it should be mandatory

Adam

"Why? Because cannabis is an hallucinogen." This is yet another untrue statement. Cannabis is not classed as an hallucinogenic drug. For absense of a better resource, please consult wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen It's it no an hallucinogen! And any hallucinogenic properties of cannabis are compeltely irrelavent. Frank it is a lot more serious for your health to be physically addicted to a drug. And cannabis shows to be very little, if any physically addictive. A 1998 French governmental report commissioned by Health Secretary of State Bernard Kouchner, and directed by Dr. Pierre-Bernard Roques, classed drugs according to addictiveness and neurotoxicity. It placed heroin, cocaine and alcohol in the most addictive and lethal categories; benzodiazepine, hallucinogens and tobacco in the medium category, and cannabis in the last category. Frankly I find your post insulting. "many of whom have admitted to patronising this evil trade in misery and addiction and as is quite obvious from their political decisions, live in a dream world themselves. " Such a paragraph above is more descriptive of alcohol than cannabis. Considering this article is about criminalising drug users, you might want to do some thinking about that.

John

I really must correct some of the presumptions expressed in some coments particuarly Fran. Such comments are indicative of a total ignorance around this subject.We really need to get our facts straight before we can have an informed discussion of this subject. First lets take the strength of Cannabis. According to the Police Forensic dept looking at Cannabis seized 05-06 (latest figures) the amount of so called skunk with a high THC content is around 4% and at most this is three times the THC content available in the 60's.The vast majority of Cannabis seized is the same strength Jacqi Smith and her fellow members of Parliament were smoking in the 70's. The incidence of mental health problems associated with Cannabis is real to a very small minority of young users but in a far less proprotion than the risk associated with alcohol (126,000 in longtem care with mental health problems caused by alcohol) If we go back to Criminalising, will these so called 22,000 suffering from Cannabis addiction be thrown into jail.As the classification of Cannabis is an irrelvance to them. A stupid suggestion and will do any mental health condition no good at all. The actual numbers for admission to hospital directly related to Cannabis are in 2005 (946) and 2006 750 a fall of 20% this is purely because of the Public health message.The incidence of Cocaine use over the same period increased showing that the Classification of a drug is irrelevant to its users. By the way I am not a cannabis user but have seen far more young lives ruined by a criminal record than I have by the use of Cannabis itself.I have worked within the youth service and in drug rehabilitation.Talking of addiction, Cannabis addiction is really a dependance coming off poses no more threat than a few sleepless nights and too much energy but this passes pretty quickly.Yet I have known long term alcoholics whose withdrawel had the potential to kill.

Compost Mentis

Frank, if cannabis were not a hallucinogen, those of us who enjoy the occaisional spliff wouldn't bother with it. Maybe you enjoy more than one glass of wine on occaision ? Would you get into your car while under the influence ? Many of us dislike the effects of alcohol.

steve parks

Same old views and lies from Melaine the journalist who claims theres no global warming, its a hoax?? when i read " it has ensured that the debate over drug policy has long been poisoned by disinformation, sophistry, intellectual confusion and outright lies." LOL i thought she was taking about the daily mail! a murdoch paper that goes on and on about cannabis. And almost and never about the real harm causing drugs like cocaine,crystal meth ect that are getting so common on our streets these days.strange? unless they have an agenda? the ACMD our there to do a job and separate fact from fiction of which theres so much of regrading cannabis. and they should be allowed to do there job not bullied by the tabloids. the truth is Melaine. few care what you think and fewer believe you! funny to see the reefer madness poster. which still goes on today!

A Parent

Adam: Yes you ought to be glad that you are not my son after what skunk did to him. I'll leave you in your smug denial and with your dodgy URLs.

Compost Mentis

I should have qualified that. Having taken LSD and shrooms a few times in my youth, the "hallucinogenic" effects of cannabis aren't in the same galaxy ! Cannabis does wonders for music and dancing, and is very definitely an aphrodisiac (unlike alcohol), but does strange things to the perception of the taste of food. Mostly it builds on what's already there, so, (like alcohol) is not a good idea when the imbiber is not in a good frame of mind. I'm nearly 50, hardly ever indulge these days, and am very, very tired of reefer madness and the "war on drugs" / "war on terror" / .... If I thought too deeply about it, I might become as conspiraloony as poor Melanie.

EyeSee

Melanie, reading many of the self-serving comments on here I can only conclude that not only should drugs be denied them, the vote should too.

Thom

Mel, I support your view points on many issues (the state of Israel, creeping Jihad, etc.) but this is one thing I cant agree on - drug use has been with us since man first starting putting weird herbs in his mouth to see if they were edible; to attempt to eradicate its use this way is like trying to herd cats - it just doesn't work. A superior approach would be to legalise all drugs and bring the massive economic power they command on the black market into the light, eliminating an illegal and dangerous trade in low quality goods by low quality and dangerous people, and similtunaeously providing a source of income, equivalent to that of the alcohol and tabacco industry, whilst regulating the sale and strength of narcotics and off-setting the health costs as opposed to adding to it in the NHS setting. Wouldn't we be in a safer, cleaner world if the NSH shortages in morphine, a viable problem since the main supply comes from synthetic sources, could be met by fields of poppies in Afganistan, the oppressive warlord's regime ousted by BigPharma allowing self-determination for millions of afganis? Or that instead of crippling corruption, organised crime and lawlessness in columbia pro-capitalist militias destroyed the hold of the cocaine trade by the mafia, regulated it and provided a stable income for the people of Columbia? Before people accuse me of being a pot-headed liberal I am anything but - I despise drugs of all kinds, having had a friend who suffered from all the above problems, but those same problems would have never even been an issue had this vile industry been regulated and funded accordingly - likewise millions of pounds would've been raised towards better NHS care to support him if he still developed problems. A Parent, Your concerns are admirable; parents should be interested in what their kids are getting up to but the reality is that for every one good parent there are several who dont really care - the UK's burgeoning underclass and its addiction to the welfare state has seen to it that a culture of limited care has become apparent in our parents. My concern is for these kids who are parentless in this regard; do you want them associating with the criminal fraternity because they are either starved, undervalued, ignored or all of the above? Besides, one sure fire way of getting kids to stop using drugs is to make them legal; in the same way that dying your hair neon blue would stop your kids turning EMO. NOTE: I am not for one minute saying that ones personal liberty comes at the sacrifice of others - smoking in public places, whether cannabis or tabacco, is still very rude, just as driving under the influence of ANY drug should be penalised to the full extent of the law (and this, I fear, is far too mild). A persons drug use should be their own personal responsibility.

Frank Pulley

Adam Waffle! All the hopheads I ever knew hallucinated on the drug; most of 'em convinced that they were making intelligent statements when they were talking complete bollocks. All the lectures I had on drug abuse from experts included the classifiation of cannabis as an hallucinogen. I'm not defending alcohol - that's a different kettle of fish and I might agree you with you about the effects of that. But Melanie is not addressing that issue here. She cites evidence against cannabis that is irrefutable. I testify to that after a full career in policing and a later role in NHS security where I was responsible for dealing daily with the malign and damaging effects of ganga and all its derivatives. I can fully understand why Melanie campaigns against cannabis use, but will never understand why any rational person would campaign for it - unless they are (a) inveterate users (b) peddlers or (c) misguided libertarians who demand that everybody should be allowed to to go to hell on their own handcart regardless of family and societal implications. There is no longer universal and sanguine policing to control its abuse and supply and that's why the war is being lost. Incidentally, the country would be in less danger if Jacqui Smith did walk the streets rather than attempting to fill the role of home secretary.

Compost Mentis

EyeSee, wasn't that Nixon's idea ? Who should we deny the vote to next ? Jazz musicians, Hispanics ? (I'm "reefering" to the humorous illustration accompanying Melanie's rant - surely not her choice !)

Penny

Cannabis use is going down sinse being moved to class c, why would Melanie Phillips want it moved to class b..? it makes no sense what so ever. Why would she like to send children to prison? If there was a grain of truth in this cannabis psychosis propaganda there would have been a steep statistical rise in schizophrenia in line with the increase in cannabis use. This has not happened. Why is that? It's because we are being lied to by people like this crazy Melanie Phillips person, that are obviously here to help support the claim of cannabis psychosis to help the government claim that we need 3 huge private prisons as in America, private prisons that will make the investors/government lots of money once full. And truth be known, cannabis smokers are the easiest, most non-violent, peaceful people to arrest and send to jail in the world. If people want to live in a violent, crumbling country similar to that of America then listen and believe in what Melanie is saying. But if you want to live in a stable, peaceful country like Holland that forty years ago decriminalised cannabis and has a much lower amount of juveniles in prison than the UK, a lower amount of people using cannabis and hard drugs than in the UK and just recently research has shown is the best country in Europe to live in and bring up your children, then we need to follow their example and listen to what the ACMD say and decriminalise cannabis. people have been using cannabis for 10,000 years, if it wasn't for cannabis we wouldn't be here. and this woman wants to take this plant away from people..i think Melanie Phillips needs to stop drinking alcohol and smoke some cannabis. It may help her depression..

Helen

Melanie is one of the few people to speak up for the victims of cannabis abuse and their long-suffering families. The fashionable gliberalistas don't care if anybody gets trampled underfoot by street drugs. In a Godless age a drug free for all is their cause and they will not be humiliated by recanting their views.

Remember that Prince song, Sign o' the Times: "In September my cousin tried reefer 4 the very first time, now he's doing horse [heroin, m'lud]. It's June."

This is where these wicked, vile drugs lead us to: serious brain problems and more, nastier harder drugs. But as long as you're a survivor you can crow about it, apparently. So much for the Left's alleged "social conscience".

Helen

The well-informed poster called Steve Parks says: "the daily mail! a murdoch paper". The Daily Mail has never been owned by Rupert Murdoch. Even if it were, I don't see what would be objectionable about it. What's the matter? Don't you like free speech? If you don't like certain newspapers, don't buy them.

John

Anyone who denies the dangers of Cannabis is not facing up to reality. Melanie is spot on with her comments and she is not alone. Recreational drug users are not addicts they are people who don't want to face up to life and deal with it. How many more lives will be ruined by liberal thinking . This approach to life and society is what has brought the country to where it i today.

Kevyn Bodman

The post from Thom earlier: absolutely right, it's what I would like to have written if I'd got here sooner, but Thom has said it all. It's worth re-reading.

Punishment of Luxury

Helen you stick to religion & I'll stick to spliff. I wonder which popular European narcotic has killed more people or ruined more lives?

Max Kaye

I'm no advocate for drugs, but the 'cure' - prohibition, like in the 1920's - is worse than the disease. Legalise, regulate and tax the damn stuff. Cut out the crime, the high profits and the criminals.

Hogie

Why should we believe anything this M Phillips has to say on any subject, after all she is a biased agenda driven journalist and an expert on nothing!, she is not quallified to make statements on any subject as her ignorance(deliberate or otherwise) of Cannabis is plainto see. "But there was plenty of evidence then of the terrible harm that cannabis does to the brain"(sic) is there really melanie then why do you not print the source of this incredible evidence that would settle the matter once and for all!, perhaps because it does not exist or perhaps it only exists in the minds of hacks with a prohibitionist agenda and newspapers that seem devoid of any facts. I challenge any of the people posting replies on here to provide a link or article from the people who claim this nonsense to be the case, if you can, I think you will find that the "plenty" evidence for the claim comes from other newspapers who seem to have a similar disregard for the facts and contempt for the inteligence of its readers.

Roger

Let's face it, the issue is not Cannabis in and of itself rather the fact that you people simply don't like they type of person who uses it, as they tend to see through your right-wing lies and are harder to control because of that. The ACMD is an expert advisory panel, maybe you think it shuld be replaced by rabid prohibitionists such as yourself - you may have a point as it would not seem to make much difference to the way our government acts; taking account of the facts always seems to come second place to populist measures designed to show that the poweres that be are tough on something - the fact that these policies actualy cause many of the issues that we face in society are a minor factor in their considerations.

five 0

COPS SAY LEGALIZE DRUGS! ASK US WHY After nearly four decades of fueling the U.S. policy of a war on drugs with over a trillion tax dollars and 37 million arrests for nonviolent drug offenses, our confined population has quadrupled making building prisons the fastest growing industry in the United States. More than 2.2 million of our citizens are currently incarcerated and every year we arrest an additional 1.9 million more guaranteeing those prisons will be bursting at their seams. Every year we choose to continue this war will cost U.S. taxpayers another 69 billion dollars. Despite all the lives we have destroyed and all the money so ill spent, today illicit drugs are cheaper, more potent, and far easier to get than they were 35 years ago at the beginning of the war on drugs. Meanwhile, people continue dying in our streets while drug barons and terrorists continue to grow richer than ever before. We would suggest that this scenario must be the very definition of a failed public policy. This madness must cease! The stated goals of current U.S.drug policy -- reducing crime, drug addiction, and juvenile drug use -- have not been achieved, even after nearly four decades of a policy of "war on drugs". This policy, fueled by over a trillion of our tax dollars has had little or no effect on the levels of drug addiction among our fellow citizens, but has instead resulted in a tremendous increase in crime and in the numbers of Americans in our prisons and jails. With 4.6% of the world's population, America today has 22.5% of the worlds prisoners. But, after all that time, after all the destroyed lives and after all the wasted resources, prohibited drugs today are cheaper, stronger, and easier to get than they were thirty-five years ago at the beginning of the so-called "war on drugs". With this in mind, we current and former members of law enforcement have created a drug-policy reform movement -- LEAP. We believe that to save lives and lower the rates of disease, crime and addiction. as well as to conserve tax dollars, we must end drug prohibition. LEAP believes that a system of regulation and control of production and distribution will be far more effective and ethical than one of prohibition. We do this in hopes that we in Law Enforcement can regain the public's respect and trust, which have been greatly diminished by our involvement in imposing drug prohibition. Please consider joining us. You don't have to be a cop to join LEAP! Find out more about us by reading some of the articles in our Publications section or by watching and listening to some of our multimedia clips,. You can also read about the men and women who speak for LEAP, and see what we have on the calendar for the near future.

No one special.

For those that think cannabis should be a class B drug may i ask what class you think cigarettes and alcohol should be ?. I find it odd that our whole society is alcohol based yet know one really complains about it. Adverts promote is as though if you don't drink you are some sort of loner/lepper(you know who your mates are and belong)being one example ,two of the most watched tv programs are based in pubs (coronation street and eastenders),we have footballers playing in shirts with brands of drink on them ,i can even get a drink at the zoo , cinema , theatre , train station and at a petrol garage. we now have "McDonald's type pubs" whos only interest is to get as many young people in as possible and ply them with special 2 for 1 drinks that are aimed at children (no kids like the taste of alcohol so lets make it taste like fruit juice/irn bru etc)then they lob them out on the streets once they have spent their money , if the kids dont get served in the pub they just go to some corner shop and buy it ,we have media who glamourise "stars " drunk and falling about all over the place and "entertainment "programs that show groups of young people getting drunk abroad on holiday or in our town centers.,then theres all the drink related violence ,wife/husband beatings ,neglected children ,the assaualts on public service workers , cost to the NHS etc ,alcohol ruins lives and families yet people accept it. We have super strength ciders and lagers that where not around years ago and no one complains and cigarette boxes say that over 30,000 people die each year in the uk from smoking yet they are still freely available and i have seen people get violent when pestering people for a cigarette ( they normaly have a can of stong lager/cider in their hand)and how many lives are ruined each year by gambling it can cause homlessness , marriage breakups , neglected children (again)and violence. Just before i finish , how many people get killed by religion each year.? Everyone is different and if people over 18 would rather stay in doors and smoke cannabis rather then go out and get drunk then that should be their choice , i can find no research anywhere that proves cannabis when used on its own has ever killed anybody or that it leads to taking other drugs .people who like the occasional sherry do not always turn into psychopathic whiskey drinking homicidal maniacs either. Cannabis will go up to class B for two reasons only , to appease those who are against it " im voting for Gordon "nero" Brown , he's getting tough on "drugs", and to stealth tax any user caught with it by handing out large fines , probably around £200 ish. I really am going to finish now. lol ,if anyone's worried about cananbis use then wait till you see the next figures for cocaine use in the UK.

Frank Pulley

no one special: ... and you will remain so unless you try to unscramble your confused state of mind. Read the post properly and think! Rather than going off into a defensive rant at the very sight of the word 'cannabis' and trying to blame your confusion on everything other than the real root (or leaf) of your problem.

Stray Dingo

Hogie, if you find Mel's blog, articles etc offensive stop reading them...'simple'....go and read objective papers such as the Guardian & Independent which will provided a nice and packaged view of the world which make you feel safe and morally superior :).

Five0

listen to the guys who no video link http://leap.cc/cms/index.php?name=Content&pid=28

Punishment of Luxury

Stray Dingo your name is nearly as stupid as mine. Look it's fun & educational to read things you don't agree with that's part of the point of blogs. I rarely agree with much on the Spectator boards although I did today on Stephen Pollards blog. My new year resolution was to be more open minded & less tribal in my politics to be open to a reasoned argument to that end I started reading these blogs took out a Spectator subscription. You might want to try it it's a big world out their & you can't be right about everything. Obviously Mel is wrong about this though & and has been thoroughly put to the sword in the comments.

Peter

"THC content is around 4% and at most this is three times the THC content available in the 60's."

Most scientific,if a pint of lager contained three times the alcohol it used to,there would be no problem then?
Does cannabis affect your maths?

Martyn Jones

Was this written by a passive smoker?

Peter

Alcohol and tobbaco are more dangerous and harmful than cannabis. The majority of scientific opinion agree on this. It's very clear, as deaths which result from tobboco and alcohol are in the millions, whilst there has not been a single death from cannabis, remember you can vapourise or eat it so even the possibilty of lung cancer can be ruled out. Put simply, the idea that cannabis should be illegal when alcohol and tobbaco are, is so absurd a notion it doesn't deserve a response. Melanie has actually argued that because alcohol and tobbaco are supposedly more 'culturally acceptable' (even thogh cannabis has been used for longer) we should therefore criminalise cannabis users. The stupidity and absurdity of such a view astounds me. How anyone could possibly argue that makes me think they're not prohibitionists, their views are tantamount to racism, just like when the earlier poster stupidly referred to cannabis smokers as 'liberals'. No these people clearly are not prohbitionists. Many most likely drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes. Ask yourself this question, why do such people have such a problem with cannabis smokers? Why will they say almost anything to argue cannabis should remain illegal in the face of the simple fact that their legal drugs of choice are a lot more harmful?

Robdbuck

Why do people think that changing the drug from C to B will reduce its usage? Since it's reclassification I have noticed it is far HARDER to get hold of, as if no one can be bothered any more, and hence the street value has gone up! I'd say the reclassification has had a brilliant effect and to reverse that would be stupid.

Say hello to my little friend

The poster called Punishment of Luxury says: "Helen you stick to religion & I'll stick to spliff. I wonder which popular European narcotic has killed more people or ruined more lives?" That's rich. I can think of many people who've received a substantial education from devoted teachers at religious schools and all of the places where religion helped to bring basic standards of healthcare, but those good deeds go unnoticed, don't they? Yes, religion isn't always a good influence, which is why all but one of the great religions has modified themselves and been reformed. Violence and murder are endemic within all drug taking and drug dealing 'communities' (as New Labour would call them) no mattter where you are in the world. From the schizophrenic cannabis user who self-harms or kills others to the dealers who kill each other over territory and drug debts - drug culture has always been inseparable from a culture of violence. And of course, it's all made so much easier when your sense of reason is cut off with a high of cocaine. From memory, about 80 per cent of crime in this country is said to be drug-related one way or another, whether it's stealing the car radio to a proper bank heist. Look at how all the famous crime families in Britain made their money - from the Adams family to the Arif clan. They were both names synonymous with violence - and it wasn't antiques they dealt in, that's for sure. I suggest, 'Punishment of Luxury', that you grab a bowl of popcorn sit down in front of Scarface and see how much love, peace and harmony a drugs free for all brings to people who actually end up having it.

BernieR

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs are on the right side in this battle. A decision like this deserves to be taken on the best evidence available. Anyone who had read and understood their findings would know that the ACMD have carefully sought out and weighed all the available evidence. They concluded that cannabis should be in Class C because of the known facts about its relative harmfulness. Its harmfulness hasn't changed, it is still the same substance it has always been, with the same effects. Cannabis of sufficient potency to have all the those effects has been freely available in this country throughout the last 30 years. Anything that is wrong in the present situation has come about under conditions of prohibition. The way Melanie wants us to behave is stupid. Why should we try to pretend that cannabis is more dangerous than it really is? Many people avoid alcohol and prefer cannabis because it is less harmful for them: why shouldn't they be allowed to make this rational choice, based on the best evidence and their own experience?

Adam

"to the dealers who kill each other over territory and drug debts - drug culture has always been inseparable from a culture of violence." What you mean like Al Capone and alcohol prohibition during the 30s? "about 80 per cent of crime in this country is said to be drug-related " Seeing how, if you disregard crime commiting due to taking the drug, in the US all crime related to the prohbition of alcohol pretty much ceased when it was legalised. Makes you wonder what the best solution might be to the problem you've highlighted.

Nordle

Ech. If you had your way, no-one would be allowed ethyl alcohol either. Except those you deem 'responsible enough', ...right? Perhaps it's time to authorise some nice tasting weak strains at a low price in Pharmacies. Then perhaps it won't be such an unpopular move to make stronger strains more illegal again. The police need a cheap, easy way to distinguish 'approved' dope from illicit material. Imported 'pot' is easy to distinguish from freshly farmed sinsemilla, by smell & appearance. Why does the law HAVE to treat all forms of cannabis as the same substance?

Danny

All of you saying cannabis is bad, it's saving my life, i have eating disorders, mental and normal disabilitys, and if it was not for cannabis i would not be here, i would be dead from fatally losing weight, i have given up tobacco and alchohol, i now live a more happy, less suffering, and no longer having that chance of not waking up in the morning. I used too be an alchohol addict, and it was killing me, my GP, shrinks, and many people reccomended me cannabis, guess what? IT SAVED MY LIFE!

Texas Pete

Peter - For all intents and purposes there is a certain kind of lager with three times as much alcohol - only it's called wine. Should wine be banned? Or spirits? Vodka is far more dangerous than beer if consumed in the same amounts - but unless there's a standardized measure of cannabis consumption from which no user deviates, it is a ridiculous argument. What irks most sensible people about this argument is the apparent inability of a surprising number of a people to understand the basic logical fallacy that underlies it.

An interesting side-effect of any increase in THC content would, of course, be a reduction in the volume of cannabis traded, as users would need less to satisfy their needs.

Say hello to my little friend - You suggest viewing Scarface, yet you fail to understand that the violence represented by the movie is not some direct result of drug use. If your average drug user were able to purchase his or her drug of choice at a reasonable price under regulated, safe conditions, free from the looming threat of a prison sentence, I think you'd find very few of them acting violently - yet the same cannot be said for alcohol users, either with respect to violent tendencies or associated health problems.

And to back it all up, the massive windfall from not having to clothe and feed thousands of nonviolent drug users at Her Majesty's Pleasure, while depriving them of gainful employment, could quite easily fund increased spending on education, addiction treatment, and general harm minimization across society.

Nordle - basically, because they are. Your two-tier system is a practical impossibility, and your casual differentiation between imported 'pot' and sinsemilla shows a rather significant lack of understanding:

1. 'Pot' has never referred to whether something is imported or not.

2. All cannabis is farmed, even imported stuff.

3. Very few people smoke 'fresh' cannabis, it is particularly harsh and generally inferior to dried cannabis.

4. Smell and appearance has only a weak correlation with actual strength, as any user would attest to. For example, sugar-water is sometimes used to improve the appearance of cannabis, but obviously has no effect on strength.

5. The law does treat different forms of cannabis differently - cannabis resin / oil, essentially pure THC extracted with some solvent, is class A.

The first of these points is perhaps the most important. There is an enormous lack of education and understanding of the various terms used in referring to cannabis. Take 'skunk', the current bad boy of the mainstream media. In purely technical terms, skunk refers to certain strains of cannabis, which are typically characterized by a strong odour and relatively high THC content. However, not all skunk strains are potent, nor are skunk strains the only potent strains. This simple definition is quite far apart from the current media and government obsession with 5-million-times-stronger-super-killer-skitzophrenia-causing-violence-inducing 'skunk'. No doubt many cannabis users would be happy if the potency of their stash suddenly increased exponentially, but it remains the stuff of fantasy.

However, point four worries me the most. Occasionally indulging in a spliff and having friends who do so, I have encountered (like most other users) a worrying trend towards 'cutting' of cannabis with any number of adulterants - silica, sand, starch, silicone, etc. In what way will reclassification reduce this risk, faced by the millions of Britons of smoke cannabis, and resulting directly from the silly scheme that is prohibition?

What happened to a little bit of pragmatism and compassion?