Newsgroups: uk.politics,alt.hemp,alt.drugs.pot,alt.drugs
From: glyn@crosfield.co.uk (Stewart Parkinson)
Subject: British Government Drug Legalisation Document
Message-ID: <1995Mar15.175256.27874@crosfield.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 1995 17:52:56 GMT


Stewart Parkinson asked me to post this for him as he is far to lazy
to do it himself, or he can't work his computer or something

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The British Government is on the process of formulating policy 
concerning drug law in the UK.  The discussion document to be
circulated has not yet (as far as I am aware) been released.

The following is Annex D of the discussion document, and presents
the official government view concerning legalisation, especially
concerning cannabis.

--

Annex D

D.1 The Government is firmly against the legalisation or decriminalisation  
of any drug controlled by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.  The case for  
change lies with those who are seeking to relax the law and the Government 
does not accept that this has been made out.  Nonetheless, it is clear 
that the debate can be conducted in good faith by responsible people who 
can respect each others' views.  The Government therefore considers it 
right to explain why it remains strongly opposed to the legalisation of 
cannabis or any other controlled drug.

D.2 Those in favour of legalisation tend to argue that if you remove 
drugs from the criminal law, the economic base of the traffickers will 
be undermined, drug taking will be less risky and therefore less 
attractive to some, prices will fall and drug-related crime will drop.

D.3 In the Govemment's view, this is to concentrate the argument too 
narrowly around the issue of criminality.  Of course, taking certain 
laws off the statute books brings about a technical reduction in crime 
figures.  Yet no one would suggest decriminalising armed robbery or 
assault on that basis.  The issue lies in the danger posed to individuals 
and to the community by the activities in question.  It is also worth 
noting that - as shown in the 'Four Cities' Survey' - a substantial 
majority of the general public remains committed to the status quo where 
legal controls over illicit drugs are concerned.

D.4 From a health point of view the blanket withdrawal of legal controls 
over drugs would be unwelcome.  As Professor Edwards of the National 
Addiction Centre and other experts have stressed, access to drugs has 
been shown significantly to encourage use of drugs.  With legalisation, 
the number of people dependent on drugs would increase, with severe 
personal health consequences, including death.  There would also be 
wider social and public health costs and damage, with more drug dependent 
users needing treatment and more social problems caused by chaotic 
life-styles and susceptibility to infections.

D.5 Legalisation would also increase use if it brought down the price 
of drugs.  Research on alcohol and tobacco shows clearly that price 
powerfully determines use.  Again, while acquisitive crime (to fund 
an expensive illegal habit) might be reduced by freely available 
low-priced drugs, the benefit in terms of reduced crime would be 
heavily outweighed by the human costs of widely increased drug 
dependence.

D.6 Legalisation has international implications as the UK laws on 
drugs are shaped by international laws and policies.  If the UK decided 
to break its international obligations and legalised unilaterally, 
there is a danger that it could become a major centre for drug using, 
trafficking, money laundering and associated crime.  For example, 
there is evidence - noted by the Report of the International 
Narcotics Control Board - that the international drug trafficking 
organisations target those countries with weak laws or controls, 
not least because these countries attract misusers from other 
countries where drugs are less easy to buy.

D.7 So, in general terms, the strongest arguments against legalisation 
of controlled drugs are the risks of wider use and addiction; these 
are very serious risks which no responsible Government should take 
on behalf of its citizens.

D.S Specific arguments are sometimes put forward in relation to cannabis 
for which, it is said, there is little evidence of grave risks to health 
through moderate use.  But, while the Government recognises that not all 
cannabis users become drug addicts, its use is part of the spectrum of 
drug misuse and carries real hazards associated with short-term memory 
problems, anxiety and sometimes depression.  There is also increasing 
evidence that some forms of cannabis are available with a high THC 
(tetrahydro cannabinol) content which probably have a much greater 
toxic effect on the user.  Evidence from research on long-term use 
has shown that cannabis may cause damage to body organs such as the 
liver, lungs and testes.  Other long-term effects described in research 
include interference in male and female hormone levels, gestation time, 
fertility in women and reduced immune function.  Long-term use can also 
be associated with a toxic psychosis which may become prolonged in 
some cases.

D.9 For those who experiment with cannabis as 'forbidden fruit', 
decriminalisation would simply make even more dangerous drugs more 
attractive.  To young people in particular, it is the job of Government 
to signal clearly that wherever on the spectrum of risk illegal drugs 
may lie, their uncontrolled use poses unacceptable dangers to 
individuals and to communities.

D.10 There would be no turning back from legalising cannabis or any 
other controlled drug.  The Government is totally opposed to taking 
such a step and is determined not to do so.

REFERENCES

Drug usage and drugs prevention: the views and habits of the general public.
M Leitner et al.  Home Office Drugs Prevention Initiative, 1993.
Narcotics Control Board for 1992: United Nations, New York 1992.

--

END


Stewart Parkinson


--
   Descartes thought an animal,          _     .
   That couldn't talk,                  /##.,.##\          Glyn Hanton
   Couldn't think, or so he taught,    #### ######    
   But I surmise,                      ###@   @###     glyn@crosfield.co.uk 
   My cat thinks otherwise.             ##/ v \## 
                                          ` ~ '