Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 16:58:50 -0700

Subject: Germany: Second Firm To Manufacture Dronabinol (THC)
From: "Int. Association for Cannabis as Medicine" <info@cannabis-med.org
To: en@cannabis-med.org
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 21:54:43 +0200
Subject: IACM-Bulletin of 7 July 2002
* Germany: Second firm to manufacture dronabinol (THC)
1.
Germany: Second firm to manufacture dronabinol (THC)
Since June 2002 Delta 9 Pharma, a company of Bionorica
(Neumarkt, Bavaria), provides pharmacies with dronabinol, who can
make medicines (capsules, tinctures) from it, according to official
formulas of the German Pharmacists Association. The increased
resonance in the media has increased the demand for dronabinol by
patients and doctors which allowed to reduce the price.

Delta 9 Pharma is the second German firm to produce dronabinol
and provide pharmacies with it, following THC Pharm (Frankfurt)
which provides pharmacies with dronabinol since about three years.
Bionorica is a well-known manufacturer of herbal medicines. Both
firms manufacture THC (dronabinol) from cannabidiol (CBD) of
fibre hemp by isomerization.

Prices for dronabinol of Delta 9 Pharma (selling prices in
pharmacies):
250 mg - about 300 Euro (about $ 310)
500 mg - about 520 Euro (about $ 535)

Prices for dronabinol of THC Pharm (selling prices in pharmacies):
250 mg - about 270 Euro (about $ 280)
500 mg - about 465 Euro (about $ 480)
1000 mg - about 860 Euro (about $ 885)
According to that 1 milligram dronabinol costs about 1 Euro with a
selling volume of 500 mg. With a medium daily need of 10 to 20 mg
this results in monthly treatment costs of about 300 to 600 Euros.

(Sources: Personal communications by THC Pharm and Delta 9
Pharma)
<rest of IACM bulletin snipped>

 
 

**




web:     http://www.crrh.org/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 16:59:20 -0700

Subject:Canada: Police seize 16,000 marijuana plants Up TOC
Newshawk: Join CMAP (http://www.mapinc.org/cmap/lists.htm)
Pubdate: Wednesday, July 10, 2002
Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON)
Website: http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/
Address: P.O. Box 5020, 1101 Baxter Rd., Ottawa, ON K2C 3M4
Contact: letters@thecitizen.southam.ca
Webpage: http://www.mapinc.org/cancom/02A64A44-0D4C-41EB-BE25-DC8FF5DF5ECA

Police seize 16,000 marijuana plants
The Ottawa Citizen

Camouflaged police officers arrested a Cobourg man yesterday, after
discovering more than 16,000 marijuana plants on a rural property.

Bao Jian Li, 37, has been charged with production of marijuana, possession
of marijuana for trafficking and possession of the proceeds of crime.

Police say it's the largest marijuana plantation in the region's history.
They also seized a 1997 Volkswagon van and a farm tractor.

Mr. Li will appear for a bail hearing today in a Trenton court. Police are
still investigating other suspects.


Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 16:59:44 -0700

Subject:UK: Britain set to soften its pot laws Up TOC

Newshawk: Join CMAP (http://www.mapinc.org/cmap/lists.htm)
Pubdate: Wednesday, July 10, 2002
Source: StarPhoenix, The (CN SN)
Website: http://www.canada.com/saskatoon/starphoenix/
Feedback: http://www.canada.com/saskatoon/starphoenix/letters/sendletter.asp
Address: 204 5th Avenue North, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7K 2P1
Contact: spnews@thesp.com
Author: Bruce Wallace
Webpage: http://www.mapinc.org/cancom/BD479960-C769-4454-B30D-965EA216BCDA

Britain set to soften its pot laws

Bruce Wallace
The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon)

LONDON -- Smoking a joint on the streets of England and Wales will no longer
be a sneaky, subversive act after today.

A long debate on whether to liberalize Britain's drug laws is expected to
culminate with the Labour government announcing it is reclassifying cannabis
as a less dangerous substance along the lines of anabolic steroids and
anti-depressants.

The change will effectively decriminalize personal use of cannabis. Getting
caught with marijuana or hash will still be on the books as a criminal
offence. But no one will be arrested for having it, rolling it, or smoking
it.

Instead, police who trace a sickly sweet trail of smoke back to its source
will merely issue the recreational user a warning, something like a traffic
ticket.

They might also take the drugs away.

The expected move comes after years of lobbying to reform Britain's drug
laws led by the police themselves. British police want to be freed from the
time and expense of prosecuting soft drug users in order to pursue more
vigorously those peddling heroin, crack cocaine and amphetamines.

The new policy also marks the nationwide extension of an experimental -- and
highly controversial -- drug-tolerance project in a part of south London
heavily populated by blacks.

For the past year, police in the Lambeth neighbourhood have officially
averted their eyes from small-scale soft drug use in what became known as
the "softly, softly" policy.

London police have pronounced themselves satisfied that abandoning the
active pursuit of soft drug smokers has not led to a rise in use. As proof,
they cite drug use statistics culled from questionnaires filled out by
school children.

But many parents and community leaders in Lambeth contend that local
cannabis use is indeed up, noting that questionnaires are an inexact way of
measuring an illegal activity (especially when many of the heaviest drug
users are truants as well). They argue their children already face heavy
enough social and economic burdens without having to contend with the
perception that cannabis comes with a government stamp of approval.

Local residents argued there was a tinge of racism in the decision to
undertake a blind-eye-to-smoking-hash experiment in a heavily black area.

And they complained that the relaxed policing was an invitation to dealers
from other neighbourhoods to come to Lambeth to do their deals in comfort.

But Prime Minister Tony Blair's government argues that by rolling out the
softly, softly policy to the rest of England and Wales, the appeal of
Lambeth as a legal haven for drug dealing will vanish.
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:03:39 -0700

Subject:UK: Softer Line For Cannabis Laws Up TOC

Newshawk: JimmyG
Pubdate: Wed, 10 Jul 2002
Source: BBC News (UK Web)
Webpage:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_2118000/2118953.stm
Copyright: 2002 BBC
Contact: http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/forum/
Website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/558
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?207 (Cannabis - United Kingdom)

SOFTER LINE FOR CANNABIS LAWS

The home secretary is expected to reclassify cannabis as a less dangerous
drug on Wednesday but ignore calls for Ecstasy to be downgraded.

His announcement to change cannabis from a class B to a class C drug will
form part of the government's response to the findings of the Home Affairs
Select Committee.

It will not please Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith, who on Tuesday
urged the government to abandon plans to downgrade cannabis after visiting
Brixton, which has practised a "softly, softly" approach to drugs.

He adopted his tough stance after local residents told him drug dealing had
spiralled since police relaxed their stance on marijuana a year ago.

The Select Committee said drugs policy should focus on tackling the
problems caused by heroin addicts.

It also recommended moving Ecstasy from class A to B, but Home Secretary
David Blunkett is expected to reject this.

Political gamble

The BBC's political correspondent Andrew Marr said relaxation of the law
was a big risk for the government.

He said: "This is a gamble. Nobody actually knows how it is going to affect
life on the streets and how it's going to affect crime.

"Is this going to be the start of a slither downhill to more and more hard
drugs being sold, bringing more people into the drugs culture or is it
going to help cut crime and make a big distinction between cannabis, which
huge numbers of younger people in particular smoke and the other drugs
considered to be more dangerous?

"I think it's a risk too for the Conservatives."

The government signalled its intention to downgrade cannabis last October.

Since then, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, comprising medical
experts, and the all-party select committee have both backed the idea.

Ministers said moving cannabis to class C, where possession is no longer an
arrestable offence, would give their drug policy greater credibility among
young people and help police direct resources towards heroin and cocaine.

Tougher sentencing

However, amid concern that the move may encourage drug taking, maximum
sentences for supplying class C drugs are likely to be increased for
cannabis and measures may be introduced to ensure cannabis users don't
flout the new rules on possession.

The "softly, softly" experiment in Brixton, was introduced by former
Lambeth police commander Brian Paddick.

Under the scheme, those found carrying small amounts of cannabis are given
a warning by police, rather than prosecuted.

After speaking to local residents during his visit to Brixton, Mr Duncan
Smith said the trial was simply "handing over drugs policy to criminals on
the street".

He said: "We are saying to the home secretary: Stop and think again,
because this is not the way to go about it."

The Lambeth scheme was launched to give police more time to combat hard drugs.

Last week Mr Paddick defended the project saying there was no evidence to
show his relaxed approach had attracted an influx of "drugs tourists" to
Brixton.

Figures from Scotland Yard last month showed street crime in Lambeth had
fallen dramatically.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Ariel
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:06:11 -0700

Subject:Nevada MJ Legalization Initiative Qualifies Up TOC

 From Dale Gieringer

Nevada to vote on legalizing small amounts of marijuana; store sales proposed

BRENDAN RILEY, Associated Press Writer  Tuesday, July 9, 2002 
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

(07-09) 12:25 PDT CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) --

Voters in Nevada, which up until last year had the nation's strictest 
marijuana law, will decide in November whether to let adults legally 
possess small amounts of pot.

State officials said Tuesday that a petition drive to put the measure on 
the ballot had narrowly succeeded with about 75,000 valid signatures.

Under the proposal, marijuana would be sold in state-licensed shops and 
taxed like cigarettes and other tobacco products. A distribution system 
would also be set up to provide low-cost pot for medical uses.

To become law, the change needs voter approval this year and in 2004. But 
whether it could ever actually take effect is unclear. Federal law bans 
marijuana possession, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that 
states cannot make exceptions for medical use.

The new proposal would let adults have up to three ounces of marijuana. 
Driving under the influence would still be illegal, as would using 
marijuana in public places.

"The success of our petition drive provides solid evidence that most 
Nevadans think it's a waste of their tax dollars to arrest people for small 
amounts of marijuana," said Billy Rogers of Nevadans for Responsible Law 
Enforcement.

Law enforcement groups in Nevada are expected to oppose the ballot measure.

"Three ounces is quite a bit," said Lt. Stan Olsen, lobbyist for the Las 
Vegas police. "If we legalize it, what is next? A lot of people don't use 
drugs now because they are illegal and they stand to lose in their personal 
or professional lives if they use."

Until last year, puffing on a single marijuana cigarette in Nevada was a 
felony punishable by a year or more behind bars. But the stiff penalties 
were rarely imposed. Lawmakers have since made possession of less than an 
ounce a misdemeanor.

In 2000, Nevada voters approved the use of medical marijuana.

Plan to ease Nevada's marijuana laws wins ballot position

BRENDAN RILEY, Associated Press Writer  Tuesday, July 9, 2002 
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

(07-09) 11:20 PDT CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) --

Nevadans will vote in November on a proposal to ease the state's once-harsh 
marijuana laws, the secretary of state's office said Tuesday.

A signature verification process determined that petitioners for a law 
change to permit possession of up to three ounces of marijuana qualified 
for a ballot slot -- just barely.

Susan Bilyeu, deputy secretary of state for elections, said 74,740 
signatures turned in by Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement were valid.

More than 34,000 names were tossed out in the verification process -- from 
the original petition total of 109,048. But that still left the advocates 
above the minimum requirement of 61,336 names.

The total also had to include 10 percent of the voter turnout in the last 
election in at least 13 of Nevada's 17 counties, and that requirement was 
barely met by the petitioners.

Bilyeu said the petitioners didn't get the necessary minimum in Elko, 
Douglas and Nye counties -- and were only four votes over the minimum in 
Esmeralda County and just 19 votes over the minimum in Eureka County.

Had the petitioners lost Esmeralda and Eureka counties, they would have 
been blocked from the November ballot because they would have been one shy 
of the 13-county requirement.

Billy Rogers of Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement said his group was 
confident of success despite the close margins in the two rural counties.

"The success of our petition drive provides solid evidence that most 
Nevadans think it's a waste of their tax dollars to arrest people for small 
amounts of marijuana," Rogers added.

Rogers said his organization spent well over $300,000 getting signatures, 
and now must start mapping out campaign strategies to ensure statewide 
approval in November.

Until last year, Nevada had the strictest marijuana law in the nation. 
Puffing on a single marijuana cigarette was a felony offense punishable by 
prison term of a year or more.

Such penalties were rarely imposed, and the old law didn't stop Nevadans 
from approving the use of medical marijuana in 2000. State legislators in 
2001 also passed a law making possession of less than an ounce a misdemeanor.

If the ballot proposal is approved this year and again in 2004 by voters, 
Nevada would have one of the most relaxed marijuana laws in the nation.

It still would be illegal for minors to possess the drug or for anyone to 
sell marijuana to minors, and driving-under-the-influence laws would still 
apply. It also still would be illegal to use marijuana in public.

Schools, prisons and casinos are specifically mentioned on the proposal's 
list of no-smoking sites.

Marijuana would be taxed like cigarettes and other tobacco products, and 
sold in state-licensed shops. And a distribution system would be set up to 
provide low-cost medical marijuana.Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:07:21 -0700

Subject:Recent study into the effects of pot on IQ reveals that the media are dopes. Up TOC

from Paul Chang - Jamaica NORML

Cannabis Culture Magazine
by Dana Larsen (05 Jul, 2002)
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2488.html

Recent study into the effects of pot on IQ reveals that the media are dopes.

A recent study, published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal,
examined whether marijuana lowered intelligence levels in users. The study
was largely ignored by US media, while within Canada, the results seemed to
depend on which newspaper headline you read.

Most headlines about the study said something like "Potheads become dopes"
(Toronto Sun) or "Pot does rot your brain" (Edmonton Sun). Yet a few papers
reported the opposite, announcing that "Marijuana Doesn't Make You A Dope"
(Calgary Herald) or "Smoking Pot No Risk To IQ" (Globe & Mail).

That a single study could produce such conflicting headlines says more about
the integrity of the media than it does about the study itself.

Here's how the study was done: A group of young, middle-class adults was
assembled, consisting of non-tokers, light pot smokers, and heavy users.
Light users were those who smoked less than five joints a week, heavy users
toked an average of 33 joints each week. Researchers used urine samples to
confirm marijuana use or abstinence.

Everyone in the study had been subjected to IQ tests between the ages of
nine and twelve. They subjected this crew to follow-up IQ tests to see how
their lifetime use of marijuana might have affected their IQ. They found
that the non-tokers IQ's stayed the same or went up slightly. The light
tokers had an average IQ increase of five points, more than the non-tokers.
The heavy users had suffered an IQ loss of about four points.

The study further found that after abstaining from weed for three months the
differences between the three groups' IQ levels disappeared.

The study was led by Dr Paul Fried at Carleton University in Ottawa, who
told the media that they needed to be "very cautious" about the results.

What this study would seem to show is that moderate use of cannabis produces
an increase in IQ, while heavy use produces a decrease. Further, the study
shows that even heavy, long term use of cannabis produces no permanent harm
to IQ scores.

This study refutes most of the prohibitionist propaganda about youth and
cannabis use. That the "light users" who toked five joints per week actually
saw an increase in IQ scores indicates that cannabis may have enhancing
effects on learning and comprehension. That both the benefit to light tokers
and the deficit to heavy tokers is temporary is reassuring because it shows
that the effects of cannabis on the brain are easily reversed, even among
heavy, long-term users.

Meanwhile, a separate US study into marijuana use and cognition found
similar results. Led by Dr Constantine Lyketsos of John Hopkins University
in Baltimore, the study analyzed test results of over 1300 adults on a test
called the Mini-Mental State Examination. They compared two tests given 11
1/2 years apart. In an article published in the April American Journal of
Epidemiology, the authors found that the light and heavy toking groups had
about the same or less age-related cognitive decline than the non-tokers.

At Cannabis Culture we'd like to see further research into the enhancement
effects of cannabis use. It seems plausible that cannabis use also enhances
artistic comprehension, integration of novel ideas, pattern recognition and
holistic thinking.

       this article from:  English to French English to German English to
Italian English to Portuguese English to Spanish French to English German to
English Italian to English Spanish to English Portuguese to English  Email
this article to

This document is part of Cannabis Culture's resource archive. If you have a
submission, send it to archives@cannabisculture.com .
About CC - Current Issue - Backissues - Library - Subscribe! - Shop CC -
World News - CC Newslists - Forums - Live Chat - Budbabes - Pot-TV -
Dopefiends Bookstore - Classifieds - Advertise! - Advertisers - Seeds - Bud
Shots - Outlet Locator - Contact Us

CANNABIS CULTURE MAGAZINE
www.cannabisculture.com
PO Box 15, 199 West Hastings, Vancouver BC
Canada V6B 1H4

~  ~~~  ~~~~~  ~~~  ~  ~~~  ~~~~~  ~~~  ~

paul chang
jamaica west indies


Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:15:54 -0700

Subject:Canada: BC Culture - Please Smoke Pot Before You Read This Up TOC

Newshawk: Canadian Media Awareness Project (http://www.mapinc.org/cmap/)
Pubdate: Mon, 08 Jul 2002
Source: Peak, The (CN BC)
Copyright: 2002 Peak Publications Society
Contact: letters@mail.peak.sfu.ca
Website: http://www.peak.sfu.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/775
Author: Adrian Nieoczym, Associate Staff Writer

BC CULTURE: PLEASE SMOKE POT BEFORE YOU READ THIS ARTICLE!

Vancouver pot smokers gathered on Canada Day for a patriotic smoke-in. They
took over the lawn at the art gallery for a rally that was remarkably
different from other demonstrations held here in recent months.

There was the standard political demand (ie. legalise marijuana), but there
was no economic critique, no objections to capitalism, globalisation or
social inequality. Rather than criticise the current economic system, pot
entrepreneurs were simply demanding that they be acknowledged as fully
fledged, due paying members of the free market.

Many in the crowd of approximately 400 made the Canadian flag a part of
their costumes, celebrating identities as Canadians and as pot smokers.
There was lots of fun - everybody was tokin', talkin' and chillin'. The
crowd was diverse; teenagers with wild hair shared joints and a laugh with
adults dressed in GAP attire.

A friendly vibe of tolerance and acceptance filled the air along with a
sweet smell.

While the crowd probably represented a diversity of political opinions as
well as dress, the message of the rally was clear: pot dealers, growers and
users are Canadians too, and we want our passion - smoking weed - to be
sanctioned by the state.

Gordon Campbell and Jean Chretien, listen up: we demand our lifestyle be
legitimised as a legal consumer choice.

Speakers made a point of addressing the political and social ramifications
of keeping pot illegal, but most of the emphasis was on having a good time
and getting high, and there's nothing wrong with that. Bands played, people
danced, and merchants hawked their wares.

Dealers wandered through the masses, openly showing off their selection of
herbs, while artisans offered an incredible array of smoking paraphernalia.
A woman with pink hair, dressed in a purple cowgirl outfit, carried a
basket with a sign saying $5 a joint.

People willingly let themselves be videotaped holding mega-ounces of BC's
finest for sale.

Unlike other art gallery events, the police were almost nowhere to be seen.
The few uniformed officers that were there hung out across the street
chatting among themselves, leaning against the wall. They looked like they
might have been enjoying a little second hand smoke exposure.

If there were any undercovers in the crowd, they certainly were not here to
shut down illicit commerce.

One of the side effects of the burgeoning pot culture has been the
neutering of marijuana as a symbol of rebellion.

It's practically a prescription drug, for heaven's sake, and some
politicians from across the left-right spectrum are starting to openly
endorse decriminalisation - and in some cases, outright legalisation.

Estimates put the value of the marijuana industry to the B.C. economy at
anywhere between $2 billion and $10 billion, making it one of B.C.'s top
three industries. A significant amount of that money circulates in the
'legitimate' economy through the purchase of hydroponics equipment,
gardening supplies, hydro electricity, zip lock baggies and other legal
consumables. Given the depressed nature of B.C.'s forestry and tourism, pot
might very well be at the top of B.C.'s economic leaderboard. It is very
possible that pot is propping up the B.C. economy, preventing it from
taking on third world status.

The establishment is surely profiting from marijuana.

With pot advocates only demanding that they be admitted out of the
counter-culture and into mainstream capitalism, marijuana is not a threat
to our society's ruling structures. It seems pretty obvious that pot would
already be legal in Canada (especially in B.C.), except that we have to
live next door to those crazy Americans. It is clear that it is past time
to end the hypocrisy. Anti-pot laws only serve as harassment tools,
deployed at the whims of government and police, so the sooner pot is
legalised, the better.

There is something really depressing, however, about the idea of having to
go into the Pacific Centre for a dime bag. They don't let teenagers with
wild hair hang out in front of the GAP store there.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:20:33 -0700

Subject:UK: 'Smoking Cannabis Never Held Me Back' Up TOC

Newshawk: JimmyG
Pubdate: Wed, 10 Jul 2002
Source: BBC News (UK Web)
Copyright: 2002 BBC
Contact: http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/forum/
Website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/558
Author: Roger

'SMOKING CANNABIS NEVER HELD ME BACK'

'Roger' Has Smoked Cannabis For Most Of His Life. He Is A Company It
Director, Leads A Full Life And Has Never Had A Hard Drugs Habit.

I am 46 and have smoked cannabis for 33 years now, admittedly normally only
an occasional joint every other week, but sometimes more.

Despite what some people may think of cannabis users I lead a full and
normal life.

I am the UK IT director and a UK executive board member, ironically, for a
leading multi-national pharmaceutical company and have studied up to
doctorate level.

My job means that I cannot be named, despite my strong feelings on the
cannabis debate.

I grow my own cannabis and have not been dragged into the criminal
underworld through my 'habit'.

I don't know where to buy the hard stuff these days and don't even mix the
drug with tobacco.

Quite frankly, anyone who considers me a criminal needs to have their head
examined.

'Try this'

Over the years I have taken other drugs - pretty much everything going -
but I have never been a habitual user.

I don't think I have an addictive personality, but other people may latch
on to something and that can be very dangerous.

When I was younger I would go to a dealer and they would not always have
cannabis and would say 'why don't you try this instead?'.

I think that if cannabis was made legal it would take away that danger of
people having easy access to things like crack or heroin.

Policemen

I am fairly open about the fact I smoke cannabis and when people find out
many are shocked, but plenty admit they do as well.

It is far more widespread and accepted than it was in the past and I have
even noticed potted cannabis plants in the garden of my middle-aged
next-door neighbours in a nice London suburb.

I would also mention that I have smoked dope in the last several years
with, amongst others, an MP, several policemen, the chairman of a plc and
other people like me, who live full, relatively successful lives.

I go to the gym at least once a week and used to play a number of sports
and only fail to do so now through work commitments.

I think the key to the debate is whether we want to live in a society that
tells people what is best for them, or one where people are allowed to make
their own decisions.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:29:15 -0700

Subject:UK: Editorial: Soft On Drugs Up TOC

Newshawk: JimmyG
Pubdate: Thu, 11 Jul 2002
Source: Yorkshire Post (UK)
Copyright: 2002 Yorkshire Post Newspapers Ltd
Contact: yp.editor@ypn.co.uk
Website: http://yorkshirepost.co.uk/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2239

SOFT ON DRUGS

DAVID BLUNKETT likes to style himself as a tough operator.

Whether it is threatening criminals with long sentences, or police forces
with sanctions that threaten their cherished tradition of independence, the
Home Secretary wants it to be known that he is not a man to be trifled with.

So why is Mr Blunkett running up the white flag in the face of the drug
threat now facing Britain? Why is the politician who likes to portray
himself as the scourge of the criminal classes announcing a de facto
decriminalisation of cannabis which sends the message to young people that
this is a relatively harmless drug, in the face of medical evidence to the
contrary, and tells dealers that the Government is admitting defeat on this
particular front?

Mr Blunkett, of course, denies these charges.

As he told MPs yesterday, by reclassifying cannabis so that possession is
no longer an arrestable offence, he is not surrendering to the drugs barons.

On the contrary, by diverting valuable police time from the pursuit of
so-called recreational drug users, he is effectively giving officers more
resources with which to tackle the drugs that cause the most harm, heroin
and crack cocaine, to apprehend the criminal gangs that traffic in them and
to concentrate on reducing street crime.

Moreover, by giving cannabis a class-C designation, the Home Secretary is
ensuring that it remains illegal and recognised as a harmful substance.

This would be all well and good if Mr Blunkett's move were based on solid
evidence that a lenient stance on cannabis really would help to reduce the
trade in hard drugs.

All the indications from the experiment in soft treatment of drug users
that has been held in Brixton, however, suggests otherwise. Since this
risky pilot scheme began, the crime-ridden streets of this South London
suburb have become even more of a haven for drug dealers and a prized
destination for drug tourists.

Even more worrying, the use of cannabis among the teenage school population
of Brixton is on the increase, with many children now seen smoking on their
way to school and in their lunch break.

This is hardly a recipe for improving academic standards in an area noted
for poor exam results and meagre job prospects.

In short, the consequences of this experiment for the law-abiding majority
in Brixton have been disastrous. Rank-and-file police officers, who admit
that the scheme has failed, are having to turn a blind eye to dealers
openly touting their wares on the streets.

These dealers, however, are supplying not only cannabis, but also heroin
and cocaine.

In other words, they are a gateway to drug addiction and a catalyst for a
renewed crimewave.

Yet, following Mr Blunkett's announcement yesterday, the Brixton experiment
is to be extended to the rest of London in the autumn and eventually,
presumably, to towns and cities across Britain.

The Home Secretary is right not to want to waste police time on pursuing
casual users of cannabis and to concentrate on those dealing in harder
drugs. But the police have traditionally used their discretion in this
area, discretion which Mr Blunkett is now removing and replacing with
complex guidelines for when and when not to take action, which many
officers are already saying is too confusing.

Instead of allowing police forces the freedom to tailor drugs procedures to
local conditions, Mr Blunkett is repeating his familiar failing of being
overly prescriptive. In this case, however, a set of tough edicts for the
police may translate into a soft touch for the drug dealers.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:30:12 -0700
From: "D. Paul Stanford" stanford@crrh.org
Subject: UK: Blunkett Says Drugs Proposal Is A Gamble

Newshawk: JimmyG
Pubdate: Thu, 11 Jul 2002
Source: Times, The (UK)
Copyright: 2002 Times Newspapers Ltd
Contact: letters@the-times.co.uk
Website: http://www.the-times.co.uk/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/454
Author: Greg Hurst

BLUNKETT SAYS DRUGS PROPOSAL IS A GAMBLE

DAVID BLUNKETT admitted to MPs yesterday that his proposal to downgrade
cannabis to a class C drug, which met only muted protests in the Commons,
was a gamble.

The Home Secretary said: "There are not any certainties in dealing with
drugs policies. If there were, we would have found them. And if (we had) I
would be a lot less modest than I am this afternoon in putting forward the
policy."

His comments, with a note of exasperation, came after Kate Hoey (Lab,
Vauxhall) asked him whether he was certain that in ten or 20 years his
announcement would not come to be viewed as "the one where we got it
wrong". Ms Hoey said the police experiment in Lambeth, South London, of
warning rather than arresting cannabis-users projected the message that
cannabis was "OK" and had led to more drug-dealers and people using
cannabis in the area.

Mr Blunkett said there was doubt over her claims, but it was a fact that
dealing in class A drugs and street crime had both fallen by 10 per cent
during the period.

Oliver Letwin, the Shadow Home Secretary, attacked the reclassification of
cannabis as a "muddled and dangerous policy" that sent confused messages to
the public and would do nothing to reduce drug use or criminality. There
were serious arguments for legalising, licensing and taxing cannabis or for
greater efforts to lead young people away from it, Mr Letwin said. "Instead
he has given control over cannabis to the drug-dealers with the police
turning away."

Mr Letwin, whose relations with the Home Secretary are usually cordial,
accused him of setting out to wrong-foot opponents and of buying off
libertarians with a more liberal approach, yet appeasing the anti-drugs
lobby by raising sentences for dealing.

Simon Hughes, for the Liberal Democrats, whose policy is to legalise
cannabis, supported its reclassification but said it was confusing that
cannabis use would remain an arrestable offence where it was deemed a
public order matter.

Government backbenchers including Chris Mullin (Lab, Sunderland South),
Dari Taylor (Lab, Stockton South), Brian Iddon (Lab, Bolton South East) and
Tony Lloyd (Lab, Manchester Central) urged further relaxation of
prescriptions to heroin addicts.

Peter Lilley (C, Hitchin and Harpenden), one of the first Tories to have
advocated the legalisation of cannabis, criticised the policy. He said:
"Surely steps to effectively depenalise the use or possession of cannabis
at the same time as retaining or reinforcing penalties on its supply will
do nothing to reduce demand for cannabis while continuing to drive
soft-drug users into the arms of hard-drug providers."

Earlier, Iain Duncan Smith and Tony Blair clashed over policy on cannabis
for the second week in succession at Prime Minister's Questions. The
Conservative leader said that the reclassification of cannabis was being
announced without proper debate or evidence and pointed out that Keith
Hellawell, the Government's former drugs czar, had said in resigning that
the move sent out the wrong message.

Mr Blair said there were differences of opinion on all sides and within the
community in Lambeth, but said it was absurd to say that this was being
proposed without consultation.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry StevensDate: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:30:34 -0700
From: "D. Paul Stanford" stanford@crrh.org
Subject: U.K. Police Told To Ignore Pot Smokers

Newshawk: Jane Marcus
Pubdate: Wed, 10 Jul 2002
Source: Toronto Star (CN ON)
Copyright: 2002 The Toronto Star
Contact: lettertoed@thestar.com
Website: http://www.thestar.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/456

U.K. POLICE TOLD TO IGNORE POT SMOKERS

Marijuana Downgraded To Class C Drug, Meaning Users Won't Face Arrest

LONDON (AP) - Prime Minister Tony Blair's government moved today to relax
its laws on marijuana, stopping short of legalization but guaranteeing most
users will get off with just a warning while police focus their enforcement
efforts on harder drugs.

Under the proposal, marijuana would be downgraded from a Class B to a Class
C drug, making its use and possession less serious crimes, Home Secretary
David Blunkett said in outlining the plan to the House of Commons. Police
would retain the authority to arrest those caught with marijuana, but in
most cases would simply confiscate the drug and issue a warning.

"The message to young people and families must be open, honest and
believable," Blunkett said. "Cannabis is a potentially harmful drug and
should remain illegal. However, it is not comparable with crack, heroin and
Ecstasy.''

The proposed downgrade would put marijuana on a par with anabolic steroids
instead of amphetamines and barbiturates, the drugs it is grouped with now.
Blair's Labor Party has a large majority in Parliament and the proposal is
virtually certain to pass.

Blair said the proposal did not amount to decriminalization and had wide
support among the police because it would allow them to spend more time
fighting more serious drugs.

"The power to arrest remains, but what reclassification does is allow the
police, where they think it right, to focus on hard drug dealing and drug
dealing of any description, including cannabis, and that is why the
proposals are supported by the chief police officers and the Metropolitan
Police," he told the House of Commons.

The opposition Conservative Party criticized the proposal as potentially
dangerous to the public and a government adviser resigned in protest. In
Canada, the government has allowed doctors to prescribe marijuana for
medical use in some cases, but it has resisted calls from some MPs and
municipalities to decriminalize pot for personal use.

In Britain, possession of a Class B drug currently carries a maximum
penalty of five years in jail.

Possession of a Class C drug carries a maximum sentence of two years, but
the Home Office said that penalty is rarely invoked for first-time
offenders, who normally receive only a ticket.

Blunkett said that in most marijuana possession cases police would simply
confiscate the drug and issue a warning to the offender.

But, he said, the proposed rules would give officers the power to arrest
those possessing small amounts of pot if public order is threatened or
children are put at risk.

A Home Office spokesman said Blunkett could order marijuana reclassified,
but because he wants to modify the rules to make sure officers retain the
power to arrest, the change must be approved by Parliament, which approves
virtually anything Blair requests.

Blunkett said he hoped to have the reclassification in place by July 2003.

In London, though, the change could come more quickly.

Blunkett said the Metropolitan Police would, over the next several months,
expand to the entire city a pilot project launched in the Brixton
neighborhood to experiment with ticketing marijuana users instead of
arresting them.

Oliver Letwin, the Conservative Party spokesman on law and order issues,
called the proposal "muddled and dangerous," saying Blunkett had failed to
choose between legalizing marijuana and getting serious about arresting
those who use it.

"You need to explain how, with a policy that consists of deeply confusing
mixed messages, you can conceivably expect to reduce drug dependency and
criminality in this country," he said.

Blunkett said the proposed downgrade would be accompanied by a beefed-up
anti-drug education campaign, teaching young people that all drugs can harm
them and hard drugs can kill.

His announcement followed recommendations from a House of Commons committee
and an independent advisory group. He rejected recommendations that Ecstasy
be downgraded from Class A to Class B and that "shooting galleries" be set
up for addicts to use drugs in controlled conditions.

Blunkett had said last fall that he was inclined to downgrade marijuana,
but would wait to hear from the two panels and watch the Brixton experiment
before making a final decision.

He said Wednesday that police in Brixton had arrested 10 percent more hard
drug dealers since they stopped apprehending marijuana users.

Blunkett's announcement came several hours after Britain's top anti-drug
official said he was resigning to protest what he described as the virtual
decriminalization of cannabis.

"Cannabis is simply not a sensible substance for people to take," said
Keith Hellawell, a former police chief.

"There are strains of cannabis which are extremely powerful, hallucinogenic
and very dangerous."

The Home Office said Hellawell told Blunkett last year that he supported
the proposal to reclassify marijuana, and that he had submitted his
resignation last month, effective in August, but asked that it not be
announced immediately.

With files from Canadian Press
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry StevensDate: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:31:37 -0700
From: "D. Paul Stanford" stanford@crrh.org
Subject: NV: Marijuana Petition Qualifies For Ballot

Newshawk: http://www.lp.org/issues/drug-war-task-force.html
Pubdate: Tue, 09 Jul 2002
Source: Las Vegas Sun (NV)
Copyright: 2002 Las Vegas Sun, Inc
Contact: letters@lasvegassun.com
Website: http://www.lasvegassun.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/234
Author: Cy Ryan
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)

MARIJUANA PETITION QUALIFIES FOR BALLOT

CARSON CITY -- Nevadans will have a chance to vote this November whether to
decriminalize possession by adults of small amounts of marijuana.

The Secretary of State's Office said today an initiative petition to change
the Constitution has enough signatures of registered voters to put the
issue on the ballot.

Deputy Secretary of State Susan Bilyeu said a statistical sampling showed
the petition had more than 74,700 verified signatures and it qualified in
14 of the 17 counties. The petition needed 61,336 names and 10 percent of
the voters in 13 of the 17 counties.

It did not qualify in Elko, Douglas and Nye counties, Bilyeu said.

Meanwhile the district attorneys in Nevada may vote Thursday whether to
oppose the petition. Churchill County District Attorney Arthur Mallory, who
is president of the DA's association, said it is meeting to draft its
legislative program, and that issue may be discussed. Carson City District
Attorney Noel Waters, who is vice president, said he has not seen the
petition but added, "There is a wholesale conflict with federal law." He
was referring in part to the plan that sets up a distribution system,
including licensed shops to sell the drug.

In California the federal government cracked down on businesses that sold
the drug.

The petition would allow people 21 years and older to possess up to three
ounces of marijuana without being charged with a crime. It permits the
Legislature to set up a distribution system to supply low- cost marijuana
to the medically needy.

It would also allow for a regulated system "of cultivation, taxation, sale
and distribution" of the drug to those who could legally possess it.

The proposed constitutional amendment, which would have to be passed by the
voters this year and again in 2004, would prohibit smoking of marijuana in
a vehicle, public place or casinos. Distribution, sale and possession of
the drug would be prohibited in jails, prisons or public schools.

Advertising of marijuana on television, radio, in newspapers, magazines and
billboards would be prohibited.

There would be a tax on the drug, similar to the one on tobacco products
other than cigarettes.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Terry LiittschwagerDate: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:32:31 -0700
From: "D. Paul Stanford" stanford@crrh.org
Subject: UK: Hash Is A Part Of Student Life

Newshawk: JimmyG
Pubdate: Thu, 11 Jul 2002
Source: Guardian, The (UK)
Copyright: 2002 Guardian Newspapers Limited
Contact: letters@guardian.co.uk
Website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/175
Author: Gerard Seenan, The Guardian
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?207 (Cannabis - United Kingdom)

'HASH IS A PART OF STUDENT LIFE'

There is nothing like the presence of proud parents to make the average
student reticent on the subject of drugs, but for some of Glasgow
University's new graduates cannabis is not a real drug anyway.

"It's a part of student life," said Tom yesterday. "You don't need to seek
it out; and, also, you would have to have lived a sheltered existence to
have never come across hash at some point during your four years here. It's
a drug, in the way a pint or a fag is a drug, but not in the way smack is."

For Tom - who did not want to give his second name, in case his opinions
marred his parents' joy at the degree scroll he was carrying - the home
secretary's plan to lower the classification of cannabis from class B to
class C is not sensible.

"It's just a cop out, isn't it?" he said. "The police are not going to lift
you at a party for having a half Q [eighth of an ounce] just now, so what
difference will this make? It would make far more sense to legalise it
completely."

His friend, Graeme, agreed, while also being reticent about his surname.
"Playing about with the classification is just tinkering around the edges.
Why doesn't he just admit you can't do anything about people smoking blow,
and there's no point in trying? At least if you decriminalised cannabis you
could concentrate resources more on the others."

Student Nazir Ahmed was not impressed with the move either, though for
different reasons. "There are loads of students who spend half their lives
sitting around smoking and never doing anything. Cannabis is an easy drug
to get into, and it can be destructive because of that."

Michael O'Donnell was a bit confused about what the reclassification
actually meant.

"It's difficult to know what they'll mean now, about 'intent to supply',"
he said. "If, say, me and my mates all chipped in for an ounce, because
it's cheaper, and I went and got it, then I would be technically supplying
- - which is just nonsense. They won't be treated as criminals for smoking
it, but I would be for going to get it."
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Terry LiittschwagerDate: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:32:58 -0700
From: "D. Paul Stanford" stanford@crrh.org
Subject: UK: Police Fear Muddle Over Cannabis Laws

Newshawk: JimmyG
Pubdate: Wed, 10 Jul 2002
Source: Guardian, The (UK)
Webpage: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,752582,00.html
Copyright: 2002 Guardian Newspapers Limited
Contact: letters@guardian.co.uk
Website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/175
Author: Nick Hopkins and Nicholas Watt

POLICE FEAR MUDDLE OVER CANNABIS LAWS

The country's most senior police officers are frantically drawing up
national guidelines for a "seize and warn" cannabis policy because of fears
that the home secretary's plans for reclassification - due to be unveiled
today - are likely to cause widespread confusion.

Chief officers are concerned that forces are being left in limbo over how
to deal with cannabis users, and that some will be tempted to introduce
their own initiatives.

Mr Blunkett intends to push through his commitment to downgrade cannabis
from class B to class C, a category that does not give police an automatic
power of arrest for simple possession.

But to offset criticism that the government is soft on drugs, Mr Blunkett
plans to give police the power of arrest when there are "aggravating
factors", such as someone blowing smoke into an officer's face or being
caught carrying the drug near a school.

This surprise move might require primary legislation that could delay
reclassification for several months.

In the meantime, the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) has been
asked to provide guidelines advising police when they can deal with
cannabis users by seizing the drug and giving a formal warning, rather than
by arresting them. Acpo is unlikely to report before October.

The Metropolitan police is known to be seriously considering a "seize and
warn" option for the whole of London.

"The concern is that there is no clear guidance over when 'seize and warn'
can be used," said one senior police source. "If officers are being told
they can use their discretion, then they need to have firm guidelines to
ensure that this is not abused.

"It is going to become an issue of leadership and supervision. Without
proper guidelines, then there could be differences in interpretation. What
is accepted in London might not be accepted in towns like Chelmsford."

The confusion over the reclassification of cannabis came as Iain Duncan
Smith launched his strongest attack on the government's drugs policy during
a tour of Brixton, the testing ground for the new initiative.

Mr Duncan Smith said: "It is quite wrong surely to hand over drug policy to
criminals on the street. We are saying to the home secretary stop and think
again because this is not the right way to go about it."

The Met is weighing up the fate of the controversial Lambeth cannabis
experiment. Since July last year, officers in the south London borough have
been cautioning rather than arresting people caught in possession of small
amounts of cannabis so they can concentrate on arresting class A drug
dealers and traffickers.

The Met commissioner, Sir John Stevens, is now preparing to reintroduce the
power of arrest pending the change in the law, but wants to take advantage
of the extra flexibility that reclassification was designed to bring by
giving offi cers the opportunity to "seize and warn".

There has also been surprise that the home secretary is considering
doubling the maximum sentence for cannabis dealing from five to 10 years in
prison.

Police fear that by attempting to soothe critics of reclassification, he
has come up with a fudge that will send mixed signals over the status of
cannabis.

Danny Kushlick, of the drugs campaign group Transform, said it was "a
classic case of mixing party political rhetoric with pragmatic reform.

"The government's own strategy makes it clear that the focus of enforcement
ought to be on heroin and crack dealing. The UK has adopted the worst of
both worlds, whereby use has not been completely decriminalised and
suppliers are being increasingly pushed outside the law."
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:33:51 -0700
From: "D. Paul Stanford" stanford@crrh.org
Subject: MN: UK: A Free Country

Newshawk: Got Ten Minutes? Let A Editor Hear From You
Pubdate: Wed, 10 Jul 2002
Source: Daily Telegraph (UK)
Webpage:www.news.telegraph.co.uk/news/
Copyright: 2002 Telegraph Group Limited
Contact: dtletters@telegraph.co.uk
Website: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/114
Author: Charles Moore

A FREE COUNTRY

'IT'S a free country" is an old expression, but is it true? You won't find
a democratic politician who says straight out that he is against freedom,
but it is almost equally hard to find one who actually stands up for it in
practice.

Whichever party is in power itches to make new laws that curtail our
liberties. The Left will be keener to control, say, guns, the Right to
control, say, drugs, but all parties share the desire to control.

It is time to take a stand against this desire. The Daily Telegraph does
not support the doctrinaire libertarian argument which states that freedom
is the only good. Clearly, all states have a need for order, and the price
of one person's freedom can be too high for somebody else. But we do
believe that there should always be a presumption in favour of freedom.

The burden should not be on people to prove why they should be allowed to
do something, but on the authorities to prove why they shouldn't. Thus, why
shouldn't people be free to hunt, or smoke cannabis, or build an extension
to their house, or travel without an identity card, or read pornography on
the internet, or adopt children? There may be reasons to prevent any or all
of these things, but the restrictors should be the ones who have to make
their case.

Earlier this week, Parliament solemnly debated whether there should be a
law to prevent people having messy gardens: no one said that it was none of
their business. There should also be a presumption that the authorities
should stop taking more power over people and should start handing power
back. Why should trial by jury be curtailed, or the assets of people
suspected of profiting from crime be seized, or the Customs and Excise have
the power to enter your house? Why should the police be able to subject
drivers to random breath tests, or to spy on the public through CCTV, or
the Government keep information on you that it shares across departments,
or tell you whom to employ, or intercept your electronic communications?

The cant phrase always used to justify the restriction of freedom is "The
innocent have nothing to fear". It is almost always untrue. The innocent
suffer unfairly from every intrusion and restriction; indeed, their
innocence is no longer presumed.

Today, The Daily Telegraph starts its "A Free Country" campaign. Week by
week, and in major individual investigations, we shall examine how freedom
is being taken away, whether by Westminster or Whitehall or Brussels or any
other authority. We shall try to annoy the control freaks, whether they are
Right, Left or Centre, and we shall welcome allies for freedom from all
quarters. The Conservative leadership contestants hardly breathe a word
about freedom. The Labour Government's Queen's Speech is a shopping list of
attacks on our liberties. There's plenty to do. Libertad o muerte!
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth
End of Restore-Digest V2002 #130
********************************