PDA

View Full Version : Reclassification of Cannabis in the UK


Wonga
07-12-2002, 09:44 PM
What are our American brethren's thoughts on the below reclassification?What are your dept's policies(if in public domain)on possession of cannabis ?

BTW there is a power of arrest for Class A & B drugs in the UK but not Class C.

Extract from BBC online :
Cannabis is to be reclassified as a less dangerous drug to free-up police resources to fight hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine, Home Secretary David Blunkett has announced.
He unveiled the controversial measure in the House of Commons just hours after the government's former "drugs czar" Keith Hellawell said he had quit his role as a government adviser in protest.

It came shortly after Tony Blair defended the move during prime minister's question time.

Mr Blunkett also announced that the controversial cannabis experiment, currently under way in London's Brixton, would be extended across London.

The decision to reclassify cannabis was in response to a report by MPs arguing that drugs policy should focus on tackling the problems caused by heroin addicts.

The change will put cannabis on a par with anti-depressants and steroids. Possession of small amounts would no longer be considered an arrestable offence.

Mr Blunkett countered suggestions that he was going "soft on drugs" by saying police would retain the power to arrest marijuana users in certain "aggravated" cases, such as when the drug is smoked near children.
He raised the maximum sentence for dealers of class B and C drugs from five years to 14 years

An education campaign will be launched, targeted at young people and emphasising that "all drugs are harmful and class A drugs are killers".

"There will be an increasing focus on class A drugs," the home secretary said
"The message is clear - drugs are dangerous. We will educate, persuade and where necessary, direct young people away from their use.

"We will not legalise or decriminalise any drugs, nor do we envisage a time when this will be appropriate."

Mr Blunkett placed heavy emphasis on the importance of drug treatment.

The committee recommended moving Ecstasy from class A to B, but Mr Blunkett rejected this, stressing: "It kills".

"I will seek to reclassify cannabis as a class C drug by July of next year."

"Cannabis possession remains a criminal offence. I am determined that the police are able to control the streets and uphold order," he said.

But shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin criticised the reclassification, warning that Mr Blunkett was handing control of cannabis to dealers.

The idea proposed by Mr Blunkett was a "muddled, dangerous policy" and would lead to an "open season for drug peddlers", he said.

Roger Howard, chief executive of DrugScope, welcomed the measure but warned that the arrest powers in "aggravated" cases might "sow confusion in people's minds".

Mr Blunkett said the Association of Chief Police Officers would shortly issue national guidance that in the vast majority of cases "officers will confiscate the drugs and use warnings".

On other drugs Mr Blunkett said he accepted that expansion of "managed" prescriptions for heroin users will be necessary.

But he was not persuaded by the argument for "shooting galleries" - places where people take hard drugs in a safe environment.

"We will clamp down on the dealers who prey on the young," he said.

Earlier, former "drugs czar" Keith Hellawell said he handed in his notice in protest at plans to move cannabis to a lower category.

He launched a stinging attack on the proposals, which he claims will damage communities and lead to more drug use.

But the Home Office insisted Mr Hellawell supported the move when it was first floated last year.

Mr Hellawell, meanwhile, says he had made his reservations known to Mr Blunkett at a meeting last autumn.

Sig220Man
07-12-2002, 11:20 PM
Here in California possession of under an ounce of marijuana has also been largely decriminalized.

While still technically a misdemeanor, a person arrested for having less than an ounce of MJ is supposed to be given a citation only, unless the person has no ID or has warrants or other charges against him.

The punishment is equally lightweight...a maximum $100 fine. If a person is convicted 3 or more times within a 2 year period, any further convictions within this time period will mandate attendance in a drug education/treatment course.

Despite the passage of California's infamous "Medical Marijuana Law", the stance of my department and MOST others in this state (meaning anywhere outside of the greater SF Bay region) is that we follow the Federal Government's view...they don't recognize the smoked form of MJ as being medicinal. And we all remember our American Government class, that if a state or local law conflicts with Federal law, that the Federal law takes precedence...

JRT6
07-13-2002, 09:33 AM
In Ohio any amount less than 100grams is a minor misdemeanor. $100- max fine, court costs, and no jail unless the offender refuses to sign the citation.

Pipes, bongs, roaches are considered "drug paraphernalia" a M-4, punishable by 30days in jail and 200 fine. When I find this I just issue a MM for the marijuana in the bowl and cut them loose. Waste of money to arrest.

Niteshift
07-13-2002, 09:33 AM
Several states have been decriminalized. Many others allow for the person to be cited and released with a court date.

I don't see what the hoopla is about.

Babylon
07-13-2002, 09:56 AM
ah yes.the supposed decriminalisation...which wont come into force until next year...in the meanwhile...the phrase"officer,its only some personal!!"which has rocked the custody suite all week...whoops

Wonga
07-13-2002, 07:34 PM
Yet again the politicians have come up with a proposal that winds just about everybody up!!

Conservatives are p1*ed off because any kind of easing of any laws (esp.drug laws)are anathema to them.The "hang'em high" brigade aren't happy bunnies.But the proposals also contain an attempt at a sweetener for the conservatives by the increase of sentences for dealers.

The liberals are generally happy and quote the alleged lack of medical problems and release of cops for other duties as a justification.However they are PO'd at increased penalties wondering why some one can smoke the cr*p but can't sell it.

And the lawyers(for a change)are rubbing their hands in anticipation of lots of large paydays in an attempt to seek clarification and "justice" for all their "innocent" clients.With the soft sentencing of a lot of the courts here I wouldn't be surprised if a kilo(2.2 lbs)is deemed personal use.

Confusion reigns !! I await the guidelines with trepidation.

[ 07-13-2002: Message edited by: wonga ]

wonderwoman
07-13-2002, 11:54 PM
Funny that you mention this. This was in our papers the other day. I can't remember the last time someone was sent to jail for simple possession in my area.

(From Ottawa Sun)

Justice Minister Martin Cauchon is considering relaxing Canada's marijuana
laws to make possession punishable by a fine instead of a prison sentence,
the Canadian Press has learned. But Cauchon's plans do not include making
the drug legal, said highly placed sources in the Justice Department. Trafficking
would continue to draw harsher punishments, the sources said.

[ 07-14-2002: Message edited by: wonderwoman ]

SB
07-14-2002, 04:47 PM
In 7 years I don't remember seeing anyone go down for straight possession, they all get fined. Up in Central London, we get tons of drugs arrests. This whole subject was being discussed in the locker room on Friday. The overall feeling was that we would just continue to confiscate and instead of nicking 'em, we'll process them instead (issue a citation to our US buddies). Same result ie, they lose the drugs and pay a fine. Not sure the message being sent out to the kids is a good one though......

IPDBrad
07-15-2002, 10:13 AM
We have just changed our arrest policy if we catch someone with 30g or less. It is an A-misd, but we can only summons the individual, unless we have other more serious charges. This is due to jail overcrowding. Trying to limit non-violent offenders. Prostitution, soliciting a prostitute, driving while suspended, all fall under this same guideline.

Wonga
07-22-2002, 09:18 PM
Thanks for all the replies.I wasn't aware that it was viewed in as similiar a vein in the States as it now seems to be here.

Now all we've gotta do is figure out some realistic guidelines and sanctions. :confused:

rugbyman
07-23-2002, 06:58 AM
HI wonga,just finished late shift.

Down under the Green party and others (its election time) want to free up the Cannabis law like it is the UK. They plan to make life harder for the dealers, apparently.

At the moment you can get arrested for a "usable amount" and there is a presumption law for large amounts i.e over 28 grams = your a dealer.

Basically what they are saying is that if you just want a smoke and aren't a dealer then thats ok, its your call. :rolleyes:

Urban Jedi
07-23-2002, 09:48 AM
rugbyman:

does your presumptive law in relation to amounts of drugs apply to harder drugs?

The reason I ask is cos I have nicked innumerable people with 'large' quantities of crack cocaine before (10-20 rocks) who have had their possession with intent to supply charge dropped to mere possession, as they cannot be classed as a supplier on amount alone. Which is a pile of horses**t if you ask me.

rugbyman
07-23-2002, 05:57 PM
Urban...sorry about the delay just got up.

Presumption for the big stuff is harder to prove if someone just has a little on them.
They tend to be a bit smarter so dont say too much.

Big catches lately with ecstacy and metha labs which is causing us big problems. Tend to be the domain of the (CID) operations

Gangs are big time into manufacturing metha and making big bucks with the party crowd

I would say we are about 5 - 10 behind you with regard to drug trends

General rule is $150 fine for possession of Cannabis (40 pounds your money) but causes big problems if they want to travel overseas from NZ

I understand you cant get into the states with a drug conviction.