This site endorses the aims of the UK Legalise Cannabis Alliance and asks for your support.

INDEX

A Legalise Cannabis Petition

Pot Smoking MPs

Famous Cannabis users

What happens when the Goverment can confiscate a citizen's property without trial.
Remember they want to start in the UK now.

A Contribution to the Drugs Debate

Thanks to Ann Widdecombe's gaff at the 2001 Conservative party conference and the Conservatives subsequent embarrassment when eight members of the front bench claimed to have smoked pot the debate on drugs has reopened. We now have a long list of notables including the ex-chairman of the Conservative Party, Peter Lilly along with the ex-Minister responsible for drugs, Mo Mowlem all clamouring for change.

By following the American "War on Drugs" policy we will end up in the same position as the Americans. Who are progressively reducing a once free country into a virtual police state. With one tenth of the worlds population, they now find themselves with one quarter of the worlds prison population, two million people and rising, the majority are in there for drugs and most of those for cannabis. The state is now able to confiscate a citizen's property without trial and weekly people are being accidentally shot in their own homes by Drug Squad SWAT teams, all in the name of the War on Drugs. Yet in spit of this draconian regime which has spent one third of a trillion dollars on the problem since 1980, they have an ever rising number of drug users and no fiddling with the statistics can change that fact. They seem incapable of learning from their own history and the Prohibition years. The war against alcohol in the twenties followed much the same course as is being followed by the war on drugs with increasingly vicious criminals controlling a progressively more valuable trade.

There is an escalating danger that like America we too may create a "War on Drugs" industry and lobby group. This industry builds, controls and staffs jails, sells millions of dollars worth of police equipment including helicopters with fancy search apparatus, provides bogus counselling and year by year pays the salaries for more and more "Drug Warriors" for the DEA. All of this is paid for either by the taxpayer or even worse by raids to confiscate property of accused users. These raids have frequently killed totally innocent citizens let alone some poor soul who had a couple of pot plants. Thousands of peoples jobs now rely on this "War on Drugs" continuing unabated. It is has been calculated that at the current rate of incarceration by the year 2020 the whole population of California will either be in jail or guarding them.

We need to step off the "War on Drugs" ideological bandwagon before Britain also becomes a police state. Cannabis could be the key here. We have one third of the shadow cabinet admitting to cannabis use and yet they all seemed to have survived unscathed. One must also presume a similar percentage applies to the Labour party, in spite of their reluctance to own up and one has to assume it also applies to the rest of parliament as well. You may be suprised at the number of famous people who have used cannabis. We now have the example of British juries increasingly ignoring judge's instructions and acquitting cannabis users. A large percentage of the population has discovered that cannabis is relatively harmless. It is impossible to go back to the old regime of frightening them with tales of degradation and misery should they take a single puff from a joint.

Trying to use distorted "facts" will not work any more because people can now, thanks to the Internet, research the truth for themselves. Here for example are some of the lies told:

• Cannabis kills.

  Not so. Before the Internet, I never realised that there has never been a single death attributed to cannabis use in over five thousand years.

• Cannabis is more carcinogenic than tobacco and is likely to cause more cancer.

  A distortion, yes it is true of the whole plant but not the smoked part, the bud, it contains less carcinogenic substances than tobacco. Even then the average cannabis users only smokes a couple of joints at the weekend not twenty a day. I have seen the report from Glasgow regarding four people, three of whom smoked tobacco, used as an example of these dangers. Yet, most other reports say there is no link between cannabis and cancer. For example, the Kaiser Permenente Insurance study of 1997 that used not a mere 4 individuals but 65000 said there was no link. There is also the UCLA study of 1996 that came to a similar conclusion.

• Cannabis must be dangerous, it contains 400 chemicals.

  This is no reason to ban it, after all coffee contains 2000 compounds 200 of which are carcinogenic.

• Cannabis leads to hard drugs.

  The latest report from the WHO states the gateway theory was "the least likely of all hypotheses". However when the same dealer sells them, which they are doing with the present system there is a connection. The Dutch with their coffee shops have removed that link and now the heroin user in Holland has an average age of 44, compared to the UKs average age of 19. This indicates that the prohibition laws are the real gateway. Usually though, the first drug tried by a junkie is tobacco or alcohol more often than it is cannabis. Less than 2% of cannabis users ever become heroin users even when it readily available, so it can hardly be called a gateway.

• Cannabis is a lot stronger than it was.

  This myth came about because of bad storage practice of old samples. However, it is a bogus argument, would a beer drinker switching to whisky continue to drink pints?

• Cannabis is addictive.

  Yes, as are all pleasures but it is less addictive than coffee according to the NIDA.

• Cannabis causes road accidents.

  Not so, according to the most recent report from the TRRL, which says cannabis users are so cautious that a tired driver is more dangerous. Similar reports have recently come from Canada and Australia.
  Saying cannabis is found in the blood of crash victims is also a false illustration as cannabis indicators stay in the blood for up too eight weeks but it has no effect on brain function after about four hours.
  The latest research from the University of Illinois says; "..cannabis decriminalization would reduce youth traffic fatalities by 5.5 per cent...".

• Cannabis causes memory loss.

  No it does not. This is an urban legend. The New Scientist has published several articles debunking this myth. Alcohol use is far worse for memory loss.

• Cannabis causes lack of motivation.

  Perhaps when stoned some folk would not want to set the world on fire but afterwards many cannabis users find they do their most inspirational work. Just ask in Silicon Valley how many of the programmers come up with their great ideas. The computer revolution has been linked to cannabis use. Also, ask snowboarders if they could win a gold medal after using it? (a cannabis user won gold at last winter Olympics) Ask most musicians since the turn of the century what effect it has had on their music. With out it we would not have had Jazz, the Blues, Swing or Rock and Roll etc. Great musicians from Louie Armstrong to Whitney Houston have been caught using it. Even Bing Crosby was a toker.

• Cannabis suppresses the immune system of the body causing cancer.

  Not according to the UCLA, the Madrid University and several other studies, which indicate cannabis, can cure some cancers. This was mentioned in Nixon's "Presidents Commission on Drugs" (Shafer Commission) back in 1973 which he then refused to publish when it went on to say cannabis was less harmful than tobacco or alcohol and recommended legalising it.

• Cannabis can cause hallucinations.

  Only at massive overdose levels but then again so does alcohol. However, an overdose of cannabis cannot kill, unlike alcohol.

• Cannabis aggravates schizophrenia and other mental disorders and undermines the effects of anti-psychotic treatment.

  Again so does alcohol. Many users though say the opposite is true and that it is an effective treatment for these disorders. But then again, were it to be true, many people can not take many different chemicals but this does not result in them being banned. Nuts for example. We do not ban something just because it may effect a very small minority.

• Cannabis turns people into "Dopes".

  As the word 'dope' means to improve this may not be such a bad thing. The American Drug Finder General wanted to test Chess players for cannabis so it cannot turn one into that much of a "Dope". As several Noble Prize winners will attest.

• We do not know the long-term damage cannabis may cause.

  Put the other way. If we don't know what harm it can cause, why is it illegal?
  One can trace cannabis use back for over 5000 years. Cannabis seeds have been found in Neolithic sites in the UK. Yet, in all that time no long-term harm can be attributed to it. Continually in this debate politicians say we do not know enough about the effects of cannabis and must do more studies. A ridiculous statement considering how long it has been in use. Nevertheless, they then sponsor yet another study that in time comes out and says that cannabis is not as harmful as the authorities hoped. This not being to the politicians liking, they have the report buried and we carry on as before. Witness the Runcieman Report.

• If cannabis was legalised more people would use it.

  The evidence from other countries is that initially use does go up. This is believed to be mostly from previously hidden users rather than new users. Then it drops to a level slightly above the original but users in general have a far smaller lifetime use than those in countries that maintain it's illegality but most importantly fewer kids use it. It is worth noting here that The Netherlands has one third less users per capita than the UK.

• We need to keep it illegal to save the children.

  The evidence is that kids can get hold of prohibited drugs easier than regulated ones. At present in the UK and America, school children say they can get hold of cannabis easier than alcohol. Whom would you rather control the drug trade, a government-licensed shop, that will not sell to those underage or a Colombian drug lord who will sell to anyone? The most recent European EMCDDA report says it all; toughest regime on drugs, Sweden. Most deaths, Sweden. Most relaxed regime, Holland, fewest deaths, Holland. Who's saving the children now?

• Legalising cannabis will "send the wrong message".

  The wrong message is sent now. Kids can see they are being misled about cannabis so believe advice about other more harmful substances is equally untrue. Surely it would be better to teach responsible use. After all, it worked with tobacco where use dropped from 61% just after WWII to 26% in '95 mostly through health education. Alas since '95 it has started to rise again thanks to the smuggling trade who because of the excessive tax can now make a lot of money from cigarettes and as we know smugglers are uncontrolled and quite happy to let get kids addicted. There is a lesson to be learnt there - do not tax it so much as to make it worthwhile for smugglers.

No one is trying to claim that cannabis is totally harmless. Anything used to excess can cause harm. However, at present the law causes more harm than the substance, this is wrong, and goes against the basic British concept of fairness.

For years the authorities have demonised cannabis so much so that the population at large believed to try it was death. Many people still believe this propaganda. Many people still refuse to consider that it may be harmless. Just look at some of the ridiculous letters published in various newspapers recently. A confidence trick made Cannabis illegal in the first place. Misinformation and blatant untruths have maintained its illegality. In Britain today nearly half of the younger generation have used it and realise they have been lied to. More than half the population has shown in opinion polls that they want it legalised. The vast majority of modern studies say that cannabis is safer than presently legal drugs and that users should not be treated as criminals.
The very latest from Canada says there is no reason why cannabis should remain illegal.
Now is time the to restore its legality.

Thanks to Miss Widdecombe and the Conservatives the debate is on. But no matter how it turns out it will be very hard from this date on for a cannabis user to accept the punishment of the courts knowing that one third of those in Parliament could be standing in the dock with them.

Here are some shortcuts to useful sites sites, both pro and anti, so that you can make up your own mind.

And finally if you are convinced please make the effort to sign this petition. But perhaps more importantly in future stand up for your rights. Rights that in the name of the' War on Drugs' are steadily being eliminated, abdicated or eroded.

Philip Slattery.