Regardless of the THC4MS trial outcome, sick people and those who help them will still face arrest and possible imprisonment. Pain and discomfort come in a range of unpleasant flavours - nausea, sickness, throbbing, itching, aching, stabbing, stinging, pounding, piercing. But all have one thing in common. Those who endure it want it to stop. Why is there such pressure in favour of the use of synthetics or THC Marinol (Dronabinol) and Nabilone rather than natural cannabis, to the extent that researchers and sick people who wish to use the latter are forced to use the former instead? [continues 182 words]
The chilling and scary accounts in the Mail about Legalise Cannabis Alliance campaigner Carl Wagner, who was raided by police in riot gear as a result of an "anonymous" phone call (Mail, December 17) sent shivers up my spine. Did it not occur to the police to use its intelligence department to verify the allegations before its over-the-top raid, which came away with an embarrassing result? By offering Mr Wagner a caution (Pro-cannabis campaigner fights charge, Mail, December 30) one has to wonder whether the police harbour misgivings for holding Mr Wager in custody for 11 hours, submitting his wife to an embarrassing body search, not to mention traumatising a three-year-old child. [continues 64 words]
I agree with Jane Collier ("Driving concerns" Post bag Dec 10). The majority are surprisingly ignorant of the consequences of using cannabis. Unlike alcohol - because there is no accepted level of blood concentration to prove impairment - The question of impairment through taking cannabis is far from clear-cut. If there is no accepted level of blood concentration for most drugs - including cannabis - how do we define impairment! How could you prove impairment? Further, there are many over-the-counter and prescription non-steroids anti inflammatory drugs or hemp seed oil products which allegedly show up for illegal cannabis use. [continues 147 words]
WITHOUT knowing all the facts it is difficult to comment on court reports published in the media. Take for example; "Cannabis: man fined" (Gazette October 31). The reported said the defendant pleaded guilty to "possession" of 135mgs of cannabis with an alleged UKP 5 street value. (Five pounds for 135mg? That makes it UKP 37/gram, UKP 1000/oz - unlikely! It's worth more like UKP 0.69, giving UKP 5/gram.) Notwithstanding that, let me say up front, I do not condone this crime. The defendant is clearly a danger to society. And, his antisocial behaviour will most certainly had an derogatory effect on his neighbours quality of life! [continues 100 words]
I do not wish to turn Times Post into an agony column. But. Mr Buckland's rationale (Times Post.October 9) for not committing council resources to the cannabis debate: - "taking up the cause of a small pressure group" - requires a response. Resorting to derogatory remarks was not the best way to responded to a serious request for council forums, where local people can air their views on cannabis. Surely, council policy (statutory duty) is to consult with local people and their representatives on issues affecting their quality of life? [continues 111 words]
I AGREE with Antonia Blaxland that a tolerant attitude is required towards those who prefer to use cannabis (A plea for more tolerance for all, EN, September 28), however, we also need a just society. The principle I invoke is that no one should be punished unless there are compelling reasons for doing so. In any attempt to evaluate the justice or injustice of our drug policy we must address whether the laws are just and whether cannabis possession is the kind of thing for which punishment is appropriate. [continues 85 words]
I AM agitated by Colchester councillor Tim Young's comments (Gazette, August 8) regarding David Beard's stall in Lion Walk, Colchester. Is this campaign against Mr Beard supported by Colchester Constituency Labour Party? Mr Young says he wants Colchester Council officers to review Mr Beard's licence. The effect would be to deny Mr Beard his right to earn an honest living regardless of the loss of taxes, rent and rates he pays. We would be pleased to join with Mr Young in an open debate on his concerns and the complex issues involved when talking about cannabis; he can name the time and place. Don Barnard, Legalise Cannabis Alliance [end]
June Rose (Evening News, Friday, 25 July) implied; that she did not approve of the prosecution/jailing of sick people who use cannabis. But she expressed concern a legal supply for medicinal users could open the floodgates to increased trafficking and recreational use, which, in turn may lead to more mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and depression. There is no evidence to show that a legal regulated (tolerated) cannabis supply would lead to increased consumption The decision to use, or not to use, cannabis rarely has anything to do with the law. [continues 177 words]
I Would like to warn cannabis users of the possible consequences of the new police guidelines (New Guidelines over Cannabis, Gazette last Wednesday). Contrary to popular belief, possession of any amount of cannabis in private or public is still illegal; you can still be arrested and face a jail sentence of up to 5 years. Once the new guidelines are in force it is likely that the police will not seek out people with a joint in their pocket. However, if the drug is found in a stop and search, or as a result of an operation involving a sniffer dog, the "three strikes" principle comes into play. If police find up to 3g on a first offence, you will not be arrested but will get a recorded ticking off. The second time you are likely to be cautioned and on the third occasion (within a year) you will probably get a court summons. [continues 85 words]
Sir, -- Cannabis users Beware - Cannabis possession (any amount) in private or public is still illegal - If cannabis is seized in your possession - You can STILL be arrested and face a sentence of up to five years in prison on the first offence. However, if the new guidelines (Three strikes for possession EADT September 5) given to police for disposal for cannabis possession do come into effect next year. The following will probably happen. The police will not (allegedly) seek out people with a joint in their pocket. But, if, in a stop and search, or, a sniffer dog indicates to it's handler you are in possession (have been in contact) with illicit drugs -- if cannabis is seized (up to 3g) - you will not be arrested for a cannabis offence. Instead on first offence you will get a recorded ticking off. [continues 173 words]
PAUL Whitcher's letter rebutting cannabis reclassification (Drugs must get zero tolerance, Wednesday, July 17) said: "Labour had three years to send out a strong defining message to children and ill informed adults, that the use of cannabis is harmful to health and morally wrong." It is unclear in what sense he means cannabis use is inherently immoral. It is immoral to tell self-serving lies, to shout at your spouse, to belittle friends or betray a confidence - but none of these are the kind of thing that the criminal law has any business prohibiting. [continues 210 words]
Elaine Mullucks (Times post April 18) asks if I realised the abandoned site for a cannabis cafe in Spa Road Witham is practically next door to an infant and junior school, and ten minutes away from another school. Of course I did. That aside, I get the message Elaine. You don't want a cannabis cafe on your doorstep. However, I find your arguments concerning children ill-informed and spurious: There are various other establishments selling substances which some would consider far more harmful than cannabis (solvents, tobacco, alcohol, pornography and kitchen knives to name but a few) which kids pass every day without being adversely influenced. Why should a cannabis cafe (albeit semi-legal) be any different? [continues 101 words]
Sir, - Recent comments on the cannabis cafe saga highlights the need for a truly open dialogue regarding cannabis in which fear, prejudice, punitive prohibition yield to science, common sense and practicality. I agree we need to protect the community from the consequences of inappropriate cannabis use. But - as is becoming increasingly clear - prohibition is neither an effective nor a desirable way of doing this. Furthermore, the war on some drugs has impeded public health efforts to stem underage drinking, vandalism, anti social behaviour the spread of HIV, hepatitis and other infectious diseases. [continues 197 words]
Sir - Colchester Lib Dem MP Bob Russell believes his Party's Annual Conference adoption of the Legalise Cannabis Alliance's Aims, and Proposals for cannabis control [soft' line on soft' drugs not ok] would give the party a "soft on drugs" name - A vote loser. He said he was against drug abuse and said: "A teenager is more likely to die from an Ecstasy overdose than being murdered by a complete stranger." This argument is fundamentally flawed. There is no authenticated recorded death directly attributed to cannabis use in the world. [continues 199 words]
Dear Editor WHY has drug use increased in every city, town and village? Almost certainly because we are doing something really wrong In 1998, Drug Tsar Hellawell, said parents must do more to help with the war - will our way of dealing with drugs ever change? Who is benefiting the most from this war? Almost certainly uncaring politicians, corrupt or uncaring officials, money-launderers, street sellers, and other powerful sectors benefit from the war on drugs. Including, police, Customs, the justice department, prison systems, drug testing companies, and the web of services related to and benefiting from the present system of control. [continues 124 words]
WITH the general election due to be called at any moment, Labour's local canvassers, policy makers and campaign organisers will no doubt have received their 600 page policy guide. This guide gives all the stock, party line answers to questions that they may be asked about by the prospective voters. The 'model' answer for canvassers over legalising cannabis: 'Labour remains firmly opposed to the legalisation or decriminalisation of any currently controlled drug. "The scientific evidence is quite clear about the harmful effects of cannabis, both long term and short term'. [continues 69 words]
LEGALISING cannabis for medicinal reasons is problematic, (Gazette Comment 22 March). Admittedly, natural cannabis-based medicines are not available because the plant is illegal under the Misuse of Drug Act 1971, and not an approved medicine. Consequently, this prohibits patients growing or possessing cannabis for personal use. It also prevents doctors being allowed to prescribe cannabis based medicines. However, doctors can prescribe Cesamet (synthetic cannabis) to treat nausea and vomiting brought on by Cytoxic drugs? Notwithstanding, from October 2000 when the Human Rights Act was incorporated into UK law many of the laws on drugs possession (there is not a separate case for cannabis under law) have become outdated and incompatible to the European Convention of Human rights and Fundamental Freedoms: [continues 193 words]
I must question Dr Paul Callow's use of the words substance misuse ("Addicts need more support", March 23). Drug misuse is defined as the non-medical use of drugs that are intended for use in medical treatment, and the use of drugs which have no acceptable medical purposes and a high potential for misuse - weekend takers, pill poppers and chasers. This should not be confused with drug abuse: the habitual use of drugs, to the extent that the desired effects become a dominant concern to the detriment of other aspects of their lives. [continues 201 words]
I note, your views in your comment column on February 20 about the levels of drinking and drug taking. I believe everyone knows that cannabis is dangerous addictive substances which turns out to be 'not all that dangerous' and 'not all that addictive' - -could this be the reason for the alleged disrespect for authority and rampant use of cannabis by all sections of society? Does this also justify a 'relaxation' of the laws that would otherwise control? I am told good laws should reflect the latest scientific understanding, be accepted by the public as fair, enforceable, consistent, and conform to international Human Right Law. [continues 132 words]
IN the Gazette report, Drug rethink urged in case (Gazette, December 1), magistrates were asked to consider the seriousness of dealing in cannabis. How much do cases like this cost the taxpayer? Total up the cost of police surveillance, evidence-collecting, and the trial. Add on the cost of prison or other sanction. Su;ely, instead of wasting valuable resources, we should view cannabis as a commodity within a lucrative, dynamic and expand-ing economy. Legalise cannabis, and bring professional dealers and their customers into the taxation sys-tem, just as we do with cigarettes. [continues 56 words]
