Pubdate: Tue, 16 Jul 2002
Source: Lima News (OH)
Copyright: 2002 Freedom Newspapers Inc.
Contact:  http://www.limanews.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/990

GOOD SENSE IN ENGLAND

JULY 16, 2002 -- The decision in Great Britain to change the laws on 
cannabis, or marijuana, almost to the point of decriminalizing simple 
possession of the plant by an adult is not as drastic as some news stories 
have suggested - and may, in fact, be so modest as not to achieve some of 
the hoped-for benefits of decriminalization.

Nonetheless it is an important step that will create a record U.S. 
officials should study.

As Roger Howard, chief executive of DrugScope, Great Britain's leading 
nonprofit organization dealing with drug policy issues, explained, the 1971 
Misuse of Drugs Act includes three categories: Class A includes heroin, 
cocaine, ecstasy and other "hard drugs," Class B includes methamphetamines 
and (until now) cannabis, while Class C includes benzodiazepine and other 
tranquilizers.

The policy change announced by Home Secretary David Blunkett will move 
cannabis to Class C. While retaining the option of arrest in certain cases, 
it will ensure that for most adults simple possession of cannabis will not 
mean arrest, though they may face a fine or civil penalty.

In the United States, under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, there are 
five "schedules" for controlled drugs. Schedule I, which prohibits any use, 
even under medical supervision, includes heroin, LSD and marijuana. Drugs 
on the other schedules (methadone, morphine, methamphetamine and cocaine 
are on Schedule II) can be prescribed under limited but increasingly 
liberal circumstances.

Based on science and relative dangers, marijuana has no business being on 
Schedule I, but for political reasons it remains there.

Why has Great Britain decided to institute policies guided more by science 
than political expediency? Peter Lilley, a Conservative member of 
Parliament who served in the cabinets of both Margaret Thatcher and John 
Major, noted that three years ago the House of Lords approved a report 
recommending decriminalization of marijuana. That got the debate started.

"I had no particular interest in the issue until I talked more intensively 
with my constituents," Lilley said. "They convinced me that the current law 
was unenforceable and, after some research, I concluded that the arguments 
for maintaining the status quo simply could not be defended."

Lilley wrote a pamphlet arguing that the legal status of marijuana should 
be changed so as to break the link with dealers in hard drugs.

Because the new policy, while it relieves some people of the fear of jail, 
does not set up legal channels for distribution of marijuana, he fears that 
it might not have that beneficial effect. Nonetheless, he is pleased to see 
this much of a move toward common sense.

The main difference between Great Britain and the United States seems to be 
that some British officials have paid attention to official scientific 
reports. Maybe U.S. citizens should require politicians, Drug Enforcement 
Administration honcho Asa Hutchinson and other officials to read and pass a 
test on the 1999 Institute of Medicine report and the 1972 Shafer 
Commission Report before discussing marijuana again in public.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth