Britain to Relax Laws for Millions of Dope Smokers.

July 9, 2002 6:00 PM

Britain to Relax Laws for Millions of Dope Smokers. The theory is that this move will free up officers and money to deal with more serious drug problems. As far as the classification goes, cannabis will now be grouped with anabolic steroids and growth hormones, two substances that I think are more dangerous than pot. What was it grouped with before?
posted by Miss Beth (18 comments total)

I really wish they would do so in the U.S. This drug war is such a cancer on our society. Over 15 million people incarcerated over the last 30 years. For what?
posted by keithl at 8:48 PM on July 9, 2002

I'm guessing it was a class B drug.

"The downgrade -- making cannabis a Class C rather than Class B drug . . ."

Recommendations for changes to Britain's Drug policy.

"The main recommendations of the report include:

Reclassifying cannabis from class B to class C-which would reduce the penalty to a warning, caution or court summons
Reclassifying Ecstasy from class A to class B
Conducting heroin prescription trials, based on Dutch and Swiss models, to reduce the harms done by those who are unable or unwilling to stop using heroin
Piloting “safer injecting rooms” to reduce disease transmission, overdose and other harms associated with injection drug use
Dramatically increasing the availability and range of drug treatment options, including methadone maintenance
"
posted by bobadoci at 8:49 PM on July 9, 2002

I thought Britain already had methadone programs.
posted by dhartung at 12:06 AM on July 10, 2002

But note that whilst the penalty for possession has gone down, that for dealing has gone up from 5 to 10 years. Ably examined by Deborah Orr in the Independent.
posted by nedrichards at 12:19 AM on July 10, 2002

What was it grouped with before?

Class B
Common substances:
Amphetamine, barbiturates, cannabis and cannabis resin (inc. herbal cannabis). Less common substances:
Codeine, dexamphetamine, dihydrocodeine (DF-118), methaqualone, methylamphetamine, methylphenidate (Ritalin), phenmet-razine (Filon),

Class B drugs become Class A when prepared for injection.

Maximum Penalties:
Possession (Magistrates Court) 3 months/2,5000 pounds sterling fine or both
Possession (Crown Court) 5 years/unlimited fine or both
Supply (Magistrates Court) 6 months/5,000 pounds sterling fine or both
Supply (Crown Court) 14 years/unlimited fine or both
posted by stuporJIX at 12:24 AM on July 10, 2002

By all means, up the penalty for dealing. What one precisely doesn't want is commercial bulk sales of weed.

Rather, one wants to legalise (a) growing "personal use" amounts of marijuana; (b) possession of "personal use" amounts; (c) gifting of "personal use" amounts.

With those three steps, trafficking in marijuana pretty much grinds to a halt: if the stuff is growing in people's yards, there isn't going to be a lot of need for massive grow ops, and certainly bugger-all for profit.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:44 AM on July 10, 2002

The government has run into a media firestorm over this, partly orchestrated by the opposition. Now there's a stab in the back from their failed Drug Czar. Credit to the courage of David Blunkett for seeing this through. Hope it does some good.
posted by grahamwell at 1:43 AM on July 10, 2002

Ably examined by Deborah Orr in the Independent.

Err ... no, Deborah has got it wrong.

Up to today: Maximum penalty for Cannabis dealing - 14 years (Class B Crown Court)
From today: Maximum penalty for Cannabis dealing - 10 years (revised Class C Crown Court)

So the penalty for dealing cannabis has gone down. There's a suggestion here (Times link) that the penalty for Class C will be put up to 14 years once the penny drops.
posted by grahamwell at 4:46 AM on July 10, 2002

Part of the intent of this reform is to allow for a clamp down on harder drugs - unfortunatly this is exactly what it won't do

If you smoke cannabis you'll still have to buy it from dealers, who'll also (in many cases) sell other, more dangerous drugs. You'll still be helping to fund organised crime. At the same time the government is sending out the message that its OK to ignore government drug laws.

One of two things should be done - either full legalisation and control - so there's no law breaking or dealers involved and the government makes a clear distinction between dangerous drugs that need to be criminalised and safer ones that don't or a strict application of prohibition. Whatever option you favour, this halfway house is only going to encourage the use of other drugs and make the UK's drug addiction problems worse.
posted by prentiz at 5:42 AM on July 10, 2002

Part of the intent of this reform is to allow for a clamp down on harder drugs - unfortunatly this is exactly what it won't do...If you smoke cannabis you'll still have to buy it from dealers, who'll also (in many cases) sell other, more dangerous drugs.

You must have been been reading the Daily Mail to believe that. You won't find many crack or smack dealers who bother to sell a little weed, it's not worth their while. The Brixton police have already transferred their responsibilities from smalltime cannabis dealers to street crack dealers and the number of arrests is up significantly.
posted by niceness at 6:12 AM on July 10, 2002

Good call graham. That'll teach me to do my homework a bit better. Apart from that her points make some sort of sense.
posted by nedrichards at 8:15 AM on July 10, 2002

> What was it grouped with before?

I can't remember, either. Got anything to eat?

Shift the prison profits to taxes on dope and the whole "problem" would go away as prisons emptied and became highly profitable government-approved dope plantations.
posted by pracowity at 8:30 AM on July 10, 2002

good show, uk.

Jolly good show.
posted by tsarfan at 11:45 AM on July 10, 2002

good show, uk.

Jolly good show.
posted by tsarfan at 11:52 AM on July 10, 2002

Actually, New Scientist recently ran an article that suggests that perhaps the best thing for heroin addicts is to provide them with a safe supply of heroin. Methadone evidently has even worse withdraw symptoms and is developing a very bad pattern of fatalities.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:53 PM on July 10, 2002

> the best thing for heroin addicts is to provide them
> with a safe supply of heroin.

It's certainly best for everyone else. Cheap, easy, and suddenly no incentive for crime, no profits for criminals.
posted by pracowity at 11:50 PM on July 10, 2002

My favorite quote from the SFGate article on the subject:

"The U.K. is not, by the way, claiming drugs are safe. They aren't saying drugs can't be dangerous if abused. They are simply acknowledging that casual pot use is of such minor import and of such negligible threat to the social fabric, punishing people for its use is about as successful as trying to discourage a Mormon from masturbating. "

Nicely put.
posted by kfury at 9:53 AM on July 12, 2002

Lordy, I hate to say this, but I think that Tories such as Peter Lilley are on the ball here, by saying that it's a choice between Swedish-style prohibition and Dutch-style decriminalisation, and this decision falls in between the two, by creating ambiguity over what constitutes 'dealing'. Yes, niceness, there's a distinction between the crack dealers and the weed dealers on the streets of Brixton, but it's not necessarily the case outside the big cities, where you have very different supply networks.

The ideal solution: grow your own.
posted by riviera at 10:29 AM on July 12, 2002