Announcement today
Posted by helensello on May 7, 2008
Gordon Brown will be announcing today the decision on whether cannabis should be reclassified.
We will be able to find out if he is taking advice from a panel of experts or from the Daily Mail . We shall see if he has thought through “giving a message”
What worries me most on a personal level is the effect a move to “B” would be likely to have on people with severe mental health problems. And I don’t mean it will be “gving a message” to them about risk because it won’t. Plenty of people are already telling them about risks of cannabis alcohol tobacco and other drugs. No I mean increase of stigmatism and there is plenty of that already. Let us hope that the mentally ill are not blamed for any change in the law.
I want my son to be supported in his specific vulnerability, not punished by the law. And I don’t want his vulnerablity to be seen as a reason to punish others. That would not help his rehabilitation
And children? How are we going to stop children using cannabis ? By division or working together? Do we deal with the problem of drunk teenagers by arresting adults having a glass of wine with their meal? No we do not, and nor should we take this approach with cannabis.
Moving to “B” would be a sad blow for getting messages across about risks.
trainer said
It seems obvious to me that this is a decision made (beforehand!) on Brown’s own moral stance and under pressure from the anti – lobbyists, and has no founding in science or research.
Once again, government does not listen and does not lead in the best interests of it’s citizens.
David Raynes said
Moving cannabis back to B where it always was is exactly the right thing to do. The news will reverberate around the world just as Blunkett’s blunder in downgrading did. Cannabis is much more potentially harmful to the brain, particularly the young brain than pro pot apologists care to admit. The Head of the Government’s own Mental Health Service called for it to be re-classified at the ACMD meeting on 5th February. Discussion of the potential penalties is wide of the issue, it is very hard to get sent to priosn in the UK for personal use of ANY drug, sentencing guidelines forbid it. the UK has a huge drug problem with legal and illegal drugs, the problem is deeply cultural, we cannot arrest our way out of the problem. The re-classification is NOT about punishment. potential users, users, parents & grandparents are ENTITLED to be told the truth about cannabis for the sake of future generations. The ACMD sadly fell prey,wittingly or not-that is unclear, to the legalisation/liberalisation lobby.
helensello said
Traynor – agreed. He has barely had time to read the report.
David – “The re-classification is NOT about punishment.” Yes it it, thats exactly what it is its increasing prison terms.
“potential users, users, parents & grandparents are ENTITLED to be told the truth about cannabis for the sake of future generations.” Yes of course they are and in a way that is likely to be believed. The polarised debate does not encourage believable information. You have I am sure seen some of the debates on the net – the general “response to its all bad and users should be punished” is to say it isnt, its harmless. the response to a pragmatic debate is informed discussion.
“The ACMD sadly fell prey,wittingly or not-that is unclear, to the legalisation/liberalisation lobby” they seemed a pretty intelligent load of people to me David with a mass of expertise between them.
Legalisation/liberalisation – legalisation for regulation is what I want. Liberalisation does not discribe in any way what I want, and I only got involved in all this to raise awarenss of the partiular risks for children and those with mental health problems
trainer said
the issue of cannabis affecting young people’s brains (how? when? under what circumstances? pre – dispositions?) seems to be a very convenient cop – out. to simply blame cannabis for young peoples’ mental health issues dodges the question of what is actually needed – more resources for young people with mental issues! if youve ever tried to get a young person into services, you’ll know how under – resourced this area of work is, and to put the blame on a “theory” that it has a link to mental health problems (by the way, 12 – 17 years of age is the classic time for any underlying mental health problems to manifest)simply takes the focus away from an area of work which lets down our youth.
Reclassification Reaction « Drug Education News said
[...] cheek saying Millions quit cannabis following reclassification, and Helen Sello questions whether messages about risk are best dealt with by the criminal justice system. No Comments Leave a Commenttrackback addressThere was an error with your comment, please try [...]
helensello said
Trayner, Early Intervention Psychosis teams are a new(ish) move to support young people. And yes, most young people in the early stages of a psychotic illness use drugs including cannabis. Click here
I would like to hear what EIP teams think about the decision to move cannabis to class B to give a message. And if they consider this move has any impact on the aims.
Respect of the right to recovery and social inclusion and support for the importance of personal, social, educational and employment outcomes.
Respect of the strengths and qualities of young people with a psychosis, their families and communities, encouraging ordinary lives and expectations.
Services that actively partner young people, their families and friends to place them at the centre of care and service delivery, at the same time sensitive to age, phase of illness, gender, sexuality and cultural background.
Use of cost-effective interventions.
Respect of the right for family and friends to participate and feel fully involved.
And I quote from Sara McGrail in her excellent piece
“Alas Smith and Brown”
In the meantime there’s a substantial piece of work for that ever shrinking team at the Home Office to start to get to grips with as well, and only a couple of weeks for them to do it in.
In two weeks time, its “National Tackling Drugs Week”. DATs across the country have been pulling together all their materials and information for stands in shopping centres and libraries, community centres and schools publicising the successes of the Government in tackling drug issues. As a former DAT co-ordinator I can tell you that one of the most popular leaflets – particularly for young people and parents – relates to cannabis and its attendant risks. Presumably the Home Office has a new version standing by ready to go out across the country to make sure that people are well informed about this shift in the Government’s position and the rationale behind it.,/em>
Or will they be leaving that, along with policy making, to the tabloid press?
Thank you Sara. And what will happen – a new batch of trees felled to make the new leaflets, or will there be willing vounteers to go though them all and stick B labels on every C
David Raynes said
Helen-you said:
David – “The re-classification is NOT about punishment.” Yes it it, thats exactly what it is its increasing prison terms.
It is extremely difficult to understand why you think that. Imprisonment for personal use of any drug in the Uk is almost unheard of. Sentencing guidlines prevent it. I have been engaged in the debate as vigorously as anyone in the UK. My coments about the ACMD are posted widely on the web. I know everyone of any significance who campaigned for reclassification to B or against the original Blunkett Blunder. Absolutely NO ONE in the campaigners was concerned with penalty-That is a FACT. The pre occupation with penalty comes from cannabis apologists and (at the ACMD hearing) from Sir Michael Rawlins, who was quite silly and venemous in attacking one speaker. Not a scientific approach at all. It seems to me you you are not listening you are just rearranging your prejudices. It is quite plain that given the high level of cannabis use now, the UK cannot arrest itself out of the cannabis problem. The government plainly listened to the Uk Director of Mental Health. Quite right. A difficult view to ignore.