You say that cannabis used to be a benign substance, which a policy of prohibition has spent 30-odd years trying to eradicate. This programme of eradication has, according to you, resulted in a new and massively more damaging version of the drug coming into existence. How, then, do you conclude that prohibition is the right policy when clearly it has created the very problem you now seek to highlight? Derek Williams, By Email [end]
Harm reduction is the method we use to limit harm in just about everything humans do, from seatbelts in cars to childproof locks on jars containing dangerous chemicals. It's only with some drugs that we try using prohibition. And, in doing so, we work hard to prevent the most basic of harm-reduction measures. Illegal drugs aren't controlled drugs. There's no control over the market, no regulation of doses or purity or regulation of sellers. Prohibition is harm-maximization writ large, all in a futile attempt to prevent drug use. [continues 72 words]
I'VE just read the article by Melanie Reid, Cannabis: a drug more dangerous than heroin (October 19). It makes my blood boil to see such an important issue as cannabis and mental health debased by such ill-informed articles. There is no evidence whatsoever that today's cannabis is "20 times as powerful as the natural product", and simply repeating this myth will not make it true. As the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs reported in 2004, there has always been strong cannabis and some imported samples are at least as strong as "home-grown". [continues 196 words]
Now Charles Clarke has become Home Secretary, he really should take another look at the law concerning cannabis. The reclassification which happened a year ago was a simple administrative move to take account of the fact that the police could no longer enforce the law as was. It did nothing to protect the millions of users or the rest of society from the dangers of the illegal market. Cannabis is called a "controlled drug" - it is, of course, no such thing. Because it's illegal, there are no controls over the supply side, no regulation of strength of purity, no age limits for sales, nothing. By refusing to address this issue, Mr Clarke is supporting a profit driven illegal trade worth many millions of pounds, the profits often going to fund organised crime and even terrorism. Derek Williams Norwich [end]
Well said columnist Karl Minns (Why I'll always stick up for the underdog, EN July 9). Thr claims of the police that patrolling the Riverside area with sniffer dogs looking for people with small amounts of cannabis in their pockets is being done in the interests of "public safety" is clearly rubbish. If the police are really concerned about public safety at riverside, perhaps they would put a bit more effort into controlling violence caused by alcohol. The "war" against illegal drugs is becoming something of a farce these days and the latest police sniffer dog operation is little more than a PR exercise designed to show support for a government drugs policy in chaos. Inspector Gavin Tempest of Operation Enterprise would be better employed doing something more useful than chasing a few pot smokers on a Saturday night. Derek Williams Pembroke Road, Norwich [end]
"Drugs policy, is it working?" was the question the long awaited Select committee into the future of drugs policy report addressed. The short answer it gave was "no", it then went on to recommend a welcome move towards harm reduction but ruled out any move away from the cause of the problem, prohibition. The committee did acknowledge that the calls for legalisation are coming from sensible people and that the arguments were compelling, but they nonetheless decided to keep with the proven failure of the drug war's criminalisation of users. [continues 372 words]
I have never read such a lot of rubbish as "Soft line on soft drugs not ok", (EADT March 11) Bob Russell, the Lib Dem candidate you quoted said: "A teenager Is more likely to die from an ecstasy overdose than being murdered by a complete stranger" Well, he's probably right, but only because very; very few people of any age are murdered by complete strangers. Very few people die from ecstasy, although under our mindless regime of prohibition out of a million or so users, 40 odd did die last year; whereas in Holland there were none. [continues 60 words]
ANOTHER sad death from drugs of a young person has happened in Norwich. But this time there was no outcry against what is without doubt the most dangerous drugs on sale. Instead we are told that we should encourage responsible use and sympathies are expressed for the genuinely upset dealers. The reason is, of course, the drug in question this time is alcohol and not some illegal substance. As for the dealers, they're responsible, licensed and accountable people. How different to our approach to the other substances used for recreation. [continues 178 words]
CORONER William Armstrong is right to express worries about the link between cannabis use and hard drugs (Evening News, November 27) Cannabis is a common substance these days and, if truth were told, it has been for a long time. It's very easy to get and, in many quarters, pretty much socially acceptable. But it is still illegal. This results in a very easy way into the drugs sub-culture, a very easy way to step over the line of law-breaking, to break that taboo of 'drug taking.' [continues 79 words]
I WAS one of the people from far-flung places who wrote in to complain about William Marshall's stupid article (or, as he would have it, "jolly spoof") about what the world would be like if cannabis were legalised ("Going up in smoke", "Evening Courier", October 11). I was sent the story by a friend who knows I have an interest in this subject. He was right to assume it would make my blood boil. For too long we've had the same old lies and stereotypes of cannabis users, used to prop up an evil and very destructive law which has ruined the lives of many millions of otherwise decent people. I, for one, have had enough of this and so I will speak out every time I see articles like William's published. [continues 62 words]
I STARTED reading the article headlined "Going up in smoke" (Evening Courier", October 11th) with some interest, given the fact that cannabis legislation is now a major issue, but oh, what a pathietic item it turned out to be. If William Marshall, the author, was trying to be funny, sorry but by playing on the myth of the amotivated pot-head, he simply ended up writing line after line of stupid drivel. Look around you; we have a major problem caused by the drug laws and something needs to be done. We've had nearly 30 years of a war against drugs, a policy which has tried to address a social issue by treating the people at risk as criminals. If nothing else the events of the last week or so have shown that we've had enough. Please treat this issue in a serious, informed way in future. Derek Williams, Pembroke Road, Norwich [end]
SO NOW we know both the city's MPs have used cannabis. But the fact that as things stand, they and all the other MPs who have come out clean about their us of this plant in the past could be classed as "criminals." It is certainly unacceptable that one of these "criminals", Norwich South MP Charles Clarke, is partly responsible for the continued existence of the law he ignored in the past. There are cannabis users, or past users, in every section of the economy, many in high-level jobs which they do very well. Again, as things stand, these perfectly able people are also "criminals." If ever there was a clear cut indication that a law has failed, this has to be it and it's now time to accept that cannabis has to be legalised and brought under proper, workable controls. Derek Williams, Pembroke Road, Norwich [end]
READING Coun Andrew Feather's recent comments in "Mailbag" about drugs shows just how far out of touch the Conservatives are these days. We've had the "war on drugs" for nearly 30 years now and in that time the problems surrounding illegal drugs have grown and grown. We can look around the world, to the U.S., the home of drug prohibition, and see the mess there and we can look at Holland, with its cannabis coffee shops, and see a much better situation. [continues 134 words]
On the programme "On the Record BBC 1" on Sunday, Home office minister Charles Clarke (pictured) stated that by running as a "Legalise Cannabis" candidate in Norwich at the last general election, Howard Marks tried to "to disrupt the election". As Howard's election agent, I would like to ask him for a public apology, we did no such thing. The issue of the legalisation of cannabis is something this government has set its mind against, no matter how many experts, police authorities and even members of the public demand change. To present those of us who are willing to stand up against this myopic policy and are trying to make ourselves heard as "disruptive" is an indication of the desperation they must be feeling. [continues 66 words]
He understands, correctly, that cannabis - along with the hard drugs - is supplied by criminal gangs. He also rightly understands that ignoring the present law on possession of cannabis will allow the trade to grow. But he doesn't seem to have grasped that the trade has expanded because cannabis is illegal. Something which is demanded by such a large section of the population will be provided. If you don't allow a legal supply, then you'll have an illegal one. If he is really concerned about closing down these gangs, there is only one way to do it - put them out of business economically by allowing a legal, regulated trade to undercut the illegal market. Yours sincerely, Derek Williams, 21 Pembroke Road, Norwich NR2 3HD. [end]
I read Mairead Scannell's justification for her claims of the supposed harmful effects of cannabis 7 December 1999) with a mixture of sadness and hilarity when she cited as the source of her information the Readers Digest magazine. My sources of information tend to be rather dryer - but, I suspect, more authoritative - such as New Scientist or The Lancet. She belongs to a campaign group called Positive Action for Children, the aims of this group being to maintain the prohibition of drugs including cannabis. This seems a strange name for an organisation dedicated to supporting the massive industry which supplies illegal drugs. [continues 122 words]
I of course welcome The Examiner's giving space in its letter column for anyone to express their own personal opinions, even if they support the continued prohibition of drugs, as Mairead Scannell clearly does in her letter published on November 20, 1999. Is it asking too much however, that when a claim is made which can be easily verified, that you do so? In her letter Mairead wrote of "13,000 technical studies on cannabis" held by the University of Mississippi "which showed that young people who were regular users developed head and neck cancers". [continues 102 words]
Re: They're Not Going There Just to Get High, Sept. 2. I have just read the article by Mitchel Raphael concerning raves in your online edition. He made the point that its better to have these events in licenced clubs where there is running water and the emergency services can get to them should something go wrong. He went on to say that if they are banned they will simply be driven underground and therefore become very much more dangerous. How right he is. [continues 104 words]
AT LAST there is a realisation that the problems of drug use cannot be solved by enforcement. Perhaps it won't take too long before the politicians realise that enforcement of drug prohibition actually causes most of the problems. I welcome the EU-wide campaign of demand reduction, designed to make drug use less appealing, but it should always be remembered that any publicity is good publicity. Unless the dealers are removed, the selling will continue and all the negative advertising the state may like to produce will only serve as product awareness. [continues 100 words]
COMMENTING ON the large number of underage smokers at the recent pot rally ("No Token Presence," Sept. 8), Sgt. Garet Bonn of the Edmonton police said: "Our liquor laws don't allow anyone under 18 to drink in public, but here, we're noticing a lot of teens doing illegal drugs and I don't have the resources to do anything about it without starting a riot." That's because liquor is legal and pot is illegal, Sgt. Bonn. May I suggest if the good officer is genuinely concerned about this issue, then he take his head out of the sand and joins the calls to legalize this herb? Derek Williams (Is that a smoking pot calling the moonshine kettle, black?) [continues 4 words]
