Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 07:31:02 -0700

Subject:UK: Ministers Deal In Policies, Not Solutions Up TOC
Newshawk: JimmyG
Pubdate: Thu, 11 Jul 2002
Source: Times, The (UK)
Webpage: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,635-352745,00.html
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: Peter Riddell
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?207 (Cannabis - United Kingdom)
MINISTERS DEAL IN POLICIES, NOT SOLUTIONS

THE politics of drugs policy is all about trust. Whose advice do we
respect: experts on advisory committees; doctors; policemen; ministers;
opposition spokesmen; a drugs czar, like Keith Hellawell; or our own
personal day-to-day experience?

Iain Duncan Smith put the point starkly in the Commons yesterday: "When the
public has to choose between the Home Secretary and your own drugs czar,
who do you think they ought to choose?" Of course, it is not nearly as
simple as that. The arguments over the legal treatment of cannabis are
complicated. David Blunkett, in one of his most robust performances of
recent weeks, hardly adopted a soft or permissive attitude in his statement
yesterday. He rejected a call from the Home Affairs Select Committee to
reclassify ecstasy and to open special centres for heroin users. Nor did
Oliver Letwin take an authoritarian stance against cannabis users, as Ann
Widdecombe did when she tripped herself up in October 2000.

There are practical questions about police priorities in tackling class A
drugs and about the broader impact of reclassfying cannabis: and still much
dispute in the case of the greater relaxation in Brixton. There are also,
as Mr Letwin argued, potential anomalies in the treatment of cannabis users
and dealers. In terms of public perception, however, Mr Duncan Smith's
question is the pertinent one. Does the public trust Mr Blunkett or Mr
Hellawell, a former chief constable? A MORI poll in Feburary showed that,
by a two to one margin (about 60 to 30 per cent), the public generally
trusts the police to tell the truth. And the figures have been within two
or three points of these levels for the past decade.

By contrast a mere 20 per cent trust government ministers to tell the
truth, with more than 70 per cent not trusting them. This is an improvement
on the mid-1990s, but the same level as over the past five years. These
figures show more trust than for politicians generally and journalists.

Senior police officers are, like politicians, divided on the question of
cannabis use. Many agree with Mr Blunkett. Sharp disagreements also exist
within the police about the impact of the Brixton experiment of not
prosecuting people caught with small amounts of cannabis. In that broader
perspective, the fuss over Mr Hellawell's remarks is a side issue.

Moreover, Mr Blunkett appears to have judged pretty accurately where the
balance of public opinion lies. An ICM poll taken after Mr Blunkett first
floated the idea of reclassifying cannabis last October showed that 54 per
cent agreed, rising to 65 per cent support among the 25-to-34 age group.
The only group opposed is the over-65s. In line with Mr Blunkett rather
than the Home Affairs Committee, however, more than four fifths of the
public oppose any change in the classification of ecstasy.

This argument over the legal position of cannabis use is of more symbolic
than practical importance. No one disputes that the main priority remains
class A drugs, like heroin and cocaine, and the linked wave of muggings,
burglaries and robberies by users seeking cash to finance their purchases.
There are plenty of policies, but no solutions.
__________________________________________________________________________
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
 
 

**




web:     http://www.crrh.org/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 07:33:55 -0700

Subject:Transcript: Legalizing Pot on CNN's Crossfire, July 10, 2002 Up TOC
Following are the parts of the transcript pertaining to the marijuana
discussion from tonight's show.
ANNOUNCER: Britain goes soft on pot. Should U.S. laws change too?
(SEGMENT SNIPPED)
CARLSON: Later, lighting up a joint in Britain will still get you a ticket,
but not a trip to jail. Does that mean a lightened attitude? We'll ask the
head of the DEA.
(SEGMENT SNIPPED)
CARLSON: Still to come, if it's good enough for London, is it good enough
for Las Vegas? We'll look at the push to liberalize marijuana laws.
(SEGMENT SNIPPED)
CARLSON: And then, pull out your roach clips and head to the voting booth.
You won't believe what's on Nevada's ballot.
(SEGMENT SNIPPED)
CARLSON: But next, is it time to declare a defeat on the war on drugs?
England has, Nevada may. What about you? We'll find out. We'll be right
back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARVILLE: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live from the
George Washington University in beautiful Foggy Bottom in Washington, D.C.
Put this in your pipe and smoke it, or maybe even inhale it.
Dateline, London. English authorities are relaxing their country's marijuana
laws. In most cases police would simply confiscate the drug and issue a
warning. Dateline, Nevada. This November votes will see a ballot proposal
out on adults that possess up to three ounces of marijuana. There's a war
against drugs going to pot.
Joining us from Fresno, California is Asa Hutchinson, head of the United
States Drug Enforcement Administration.
(APPLAUSE)
CARLSON: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) thanks for joining us.
Part of the rationale, as I understand it, or as it was explained yesterday
by the British home secretary, is that look, England, Britain has a
significant drug problem, a lot of heroin addicts, problems with cocaine,
methamphetamine, ecstasy.
The idea is why waste our time going after pot smokers when we could be
using and should be using our resources to go after users and abusers of
hard drugs.
ASA HUTCHINSON, DEA ADMINISTRATOR: That's right. That is their way they
express it. But the fact is that they are still remaining a tough policy on
these other drugs, but the question is, whether you want to increase
marijuana use or not, even David Blunkett, the home secretary, says we
warned people these are harmful drugs, they're dangerous, stay off of them.

Well, if that's the case, then why would you want to send the signal that
there's less risk in marijuana and it's OK? And so I think it's a wrong step
to minimize the punishments there, because as young people see less risk in
using marijuana, marijuana use will increase, and it is still a harmful
drug.

So I think the correct policy is let's don't move that direction, because
what we're doing is effective in reducing young people and adults in using
these harmful drugs.

CARVILLE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) you're leading now the war on drugs. How goes it
with the war? Are we winning this thing, or tying it, or losing it? What's
the score out there?

HUTCHINSON: Well, that's one of the great myths of this generation, that
there's not any success or antidrugs efforts. The fact is that over the last
20 years we've reduced overall drug use by 50 percent. That's 9 million
fewer drug users today than there were 20 years ago.

Cocaine use down 75 percent. And whenever you look at the fact that 95
percent of Americans do not use illegal drugs, I would say that this is a
successful approach to a very difficult social problem, and that we should
not abandon this type of successful strategy.

CARLSON: But not all drug use, as you said, is the same. I mean, shooting
heroin is much different from smoking marijuana. One is much worse than the
other for you and for society. So in a world with finite resources, law
enforcement resources for one, why not focus them all on the most damaging
drugs?

HUTCHINSON: Well, I mean, that's a good point, Tucker, and we all are
subject to limited resources. I'm out here fighting methamphetamine. We're
concerned about cocaine and heroin. So we all set our priorities.

And we understand that if law enforcement has limited resources, they can't
go after and arrest everyone. That's fine. We set our priorities. But to
send a signal that, well, let's reduce the penalties for marijuana, when
we're already not arresting them and putting them in jail, sends the signal
that marijuana use is not risky.

Young people get confused. They say, hey, it must be all right. It's going
to go up. And so if you want to increase marijuana use, harmful drug use,
then that's the signal to do, by decreasing the penalties for it.

CARVILLE: Well, look. Let's be honest. Our last two presidents have used
marijuana. I've used marijuana before. I don't want to speak for Tucker, but
I suspect he has and a lot of other people. How big a mistake is that that
we did something like that? How big of an error did make? Should I feel
guilty about this?

HUTCHINSON: Well, I don't think the job is making people feel guilty. I
think that we should discourage marijuana use, experimentation, educate that
it's wrong. In fact, more teens are in treatment for marijuana use than any
other drug, 225,000 Americans are in treatment for marijuana use. So I think
that we should discourage the use but understand that people do make
mistakes and they should not be penalized forever.

And so, you know, Mayor Bloomberg acknowledged that but he still has a tough
drug policy, and I don't see that as inconsistent. We make mistakes. We
don't penalize everyone forever. We are a forgiving society, we move on.

CARLSON: Well, you -- it almost, it sounds to me, maybe I'm mishearing --
making the case not for liberalization but for dramatically lessening the
penalties, as Nevada is considering, as England has done. I mean, you just
said that for marijuana smoking, generally people don't get arrested. So why
not just codify that? Why not just make that the law, that you don't get
arrested, and isn't that a reflection of what happens anyway? That's what
you're saying.

HUTCHINSON: Well, let me make it clear. I think it's a wrong step for
Britain to take. I think it's the wrong step for any state to move to
legalize or to decriminalize these harmful substances. The objective is to
illustrate the risk associated with it. It is illegal because it is harmful,
and that's what discourages use. What I'm saying is that obviously it's
another myth that we're locking up all the users and they're filling up our
prisons.

That's not the case. You still have to work pretty hard to get into prison
for drug use today. We're referring people to treatment programs so they can
get over their addiction problems whenever they are an addict, but it's
guided into crime problems, so we're targeting our resources on the
trafficker, on the violent offenders and on the serious problems that we
have, but let's send the signal it is illegal conduct. We ought to
discourage that behavior and usage.

CARLSON: OK. Former Congressman Asa Hutchinson, now director of the Drug
Enforcement Agency, thanks so much for joining us. We appreciate it.

HUTCHINSON: Thank you.

CARLSON: One of our viewers has fired back a thought on pot possession.
We'll get to that in a bit.

But on deck, the game was a tie, the fans were fit to be tied as the tide
turned against our national pastime.

Pronounce it. Watch it. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 
 


**




web:     http://www.crrh.org/

------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:19:57 -0700

Subject:UK: Cannabis Has Blunkett In Class Of His Own Up TOC

Newshawk: JimmyG
Pubdate: Thu, 11 Jul 2002
Source: Scotsman (UK)
Webpage: http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=746222002
Copyright: The Scotsman Publications Ltd 2002
Contact: Letters_ts@scotsman.com
Website: http://www.scotsman.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/406
Author: Alison Hardie and Paul Gallagher
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?207 (Cannabis - United Kingdom)

CANNABIS HAS BLUNKETT IN CLASS OF HIS OWN

DAVID Blunkett had to work hard yesterday to convince doubters on both
sides of the Commons that the reclassification of cannabis was a bold step
and not a dangerous experiment. The Home Secretary cajoled and harangued in
equal measure as MPs questioned his wisdom and asked if, in ten years, he
would not look back and admit: "I got it wrong".

Or, as Irene Adams, the MP for Paisley North, who received death threats
after standing up to drug dealers in the town, put it: "It is almost like
telling a child he can't have a sweet, but he can take one from a drawer
while your back is turned."

Mr Blunkett claimed his was a "winning strategy" that did not decriminalise
cannabis, but gave the police greater scope to detect and prosecute dealers
in crack, heroin and cocaine.

He said: "Let me be clear, cannabis possession remains a criminal offence.
I am determined that the police are able to control the streets and uphold
order. They will be able to arrest for possession where public order is
threatened, or where children are at risk."

But smoking a casual joint, as many have done for a year on the streets of
Brixton, the London borough used in the government's controversial
"tolerance" experiment, will become, in essence, legal.

Mr Blunkett's difficult case was hardly helped by the public implosion of
the government's former "drugs tsar", Keith Hellawell, who yesterday quit
inprotest over drugs policy and what little power he had left.

Taking the Home Office and the BBC Radio 4's Today programme by surprise,
Mr Hellawell resigned over the airwaves at the decision to relax the laws
on cannabis.

He said the move to reclassify cannabis from Class B to Class C sent out
totally the wrong message by suggesting personal use of the drug was
acceptable.

Mr Hellawell, the former chief constable of West Yorkshire Police, also
accused the government of spin and repackaging its drugs policy. He said:
"It's a softening in the law, and that's giving the wrong message. It's a
personal initiative of David Blunkett's. I don't know where he got his
advice. He certainly didn't get it from me."

Mr Hellawell insisted he was not a "drug tsar", but the UK anti-drugs
co-ordinator. From the moment he took up his UKP106,057-a-year post in
January 1998, the former policeman appeared to see his role differently
from the New Labour politicians who supervised him. In the end, his
resignation was not just over the switch in policy to liberalise cannabis.
He said: "I have resigned over this issue and over the issue of spin."

His hardline approach was far from universally popular. His own deputy,
Mike Trace, said in an interview last year: "Keith had decided that
sticking to a line of 'saving the UK from the scourge of drugs' was more
popular with ministers."

Despite repeated criticism from Mr Hellawell in a round of interviews, Mr
Blunkett dismissed the attack and reminded the Commons he been demoted as
drug tsar nine months ago and changed his mind on the issue of cannabis
three times.

He also told MPs he himself had changed his mind on cannabis - and that two
years ago, he opposed moves to reclassify cannabis to Class C.

He insisted that his mind had been changed by the police. Mr Blunkett said:
"I have chosen to back the police in their request that where people are
dealing in drugs, where they are causing disorder, or where they are
threatening the lives of young people, they will be arrested and they will
get not ten years, but 14 years [in prison]."

The Home Secretary's statement wrong-footed his critics because he
unexpectedly increased the tariff for dealing in Class B and Class C drugs.

However, he faced criticism from Scotland for failing to take enough
consideration of the differences between English and Scots law when drawing
up his new proposals.

The Scottish Police Federation said downgrading cannabis to Class C would
make little practical difference - because most finds of small amounts of
cannabis came about coincidentally, as a result of police inquiring about
other matters.

While police in England and Wales will be able to issue cautions, officers
in Scotland will have to continue reporting cases to the procurator-fiscal.

Government aides insisted the stance on drugs remained firm and the new
policy would see more arrests for crimes involving Class A drugs.

Mr Blunkett appealed for a "mature and intelligent debate". He added: "It
is important to remember that cannabis is a harmful substance. I therefore
have no intention of either decriminalising or legalising the production,
supply or possession of cannabis."

THE PARENT, LEAST OF ALL EVILS

COLIN Shanks, a parent who has seen both his son and daughter become heroin
addicts, said he believed the liberalisation of cannabis laws was the right
policy.

Mr Shanks, of Cranhill, Glasgow, said: "If you look at the number of people
who are in prison for violence caused by alcohol then it seems ridiculous
to take such a hard line on cannabis.

"I don't know if cannabis is a gateway drug to heroin. I know my son was
smoking hash before he started heroin but there are lots of people who
smoke hash who have never touched heroin.

"This liberalisation will not change anything. I suppose the changing of
cannabis to a class C drug is the least of all evils. Cannabis is here to
stay but there are bigger problems, especially with alcohol."

THE ADVISER, PRACTICAL RESPONSE

DAVE Liddell, the director of the Scottish Drugs Forum, said
reclassification of cannabis was a practical response to the risks posed.

Mr Liddell said: "It is crucial that we respond to drugs issues on the
basis of pragmatism and evidence of what can make a difference.

"We need to make a clear distinction between cannabis and the drugs which
cause the greatest harm to individuals and communities in Scotland,
particularly heroin."

Mr Liddell said the approach that views all drugs as equally harmful
results in a greater likelihood of transition from cannabis to other drugs.

" It is vital that young people understand the harms and risks of opiates.
Cannabis is not a harmless drug, but the legal penalties which have been in
place since 1971 have not curtailed levels of use.

THE POLICE, STILL AGAINST LAW

NORRIE Flowers, the chairman of the Scottish Police Federation, said the
reclassification of the drug would make less difference to policing in
Scotland than it would in England and Wales.

"Cannabis has not been decriminalised and it remains a controlled drug.

"In terms of police officers working in Scotland, this will not make much
of a practical difference. We do not have the system of caution that
applies in England and Wales.

"Our officers cannot give someone a caution, they have to report them to
the procurator-fiscal and it would be up to the fiscal if that person would
be given a warning letter or a caution."

Mr Flowers said: "Sentences have been reduced in terms of possession but
increased for the dealers."

THE BUSINESSMAN, RIGHT DIRECTION

KEVIN Williamson, who hopes to establish Scotland's first cannabis cafe in
Edinburgh, welcomed the reclassification of the drug.

"I am pleased this has gone through ," he said. "I see this as a green
light to do what we want to do and open a coffee shop.

"It means that overall drugs strategy is moving in the right direction
after three decades of failure. Anything that will save the needless arrest
of 80,000 people each year must be welcomed. But although it is a move in
the right direction, I am concerned about the change in the law to increase
sentences for dealing to 14 years in prison.

"It is muddled thinking that appears to be pandering to the tabloids but we
are going to open the shop."
__________________________________________________________________________
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

 
 


**




web:     http://www.crrh.org/

------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:22:58 -0700

Subject:UK: Editorial: Dopey Policy Up TOC

Newshawk: Free the Weed
Pubdate: Thu, 11 Jul 2002
Source: Daily Telegraph (UK)
Copyright: 2002 Telegraph Group Limited
Contact: dtletters@telegraph.co.uk
Website: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/114
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?207 (Cannabis - United Kingdom)

DOPEY POLICY

Opinion is divided on whether Keith Hellawell, the former West Yorkshire
chief constable, was much good as the Government's "drugs tsar", but he
certainly timed yesterday's announcement of his resignation to perfection.
He was off, he said, because he could not accept the Home Secretary's
decision to downgrade the penalties for possession of cannabis and he was
fed up with government spin. Whatever one thinks of Mr Hellawell, his
bombshell holed the formal unveiling of the new policy and made David
Blunkett look foolish on his big day.

Even without Mr Hellawell's intervention, the Home Secretary could have
expected a rough ride over his new policy. The Telegraph has argued for more
than two years that the prohibition of cannabis clearly is not working. As
it is the least dangerous of the drugs that are generally used, we have
suggested that it should be legalised for a trial period. In itself, Mr
Blunkett's decision to recategorise cannabis as a Class C drug is a step in
that direction. But, as with the Government's earlier support for the police
experiment in Brixton, where cannabis users have not been arrested for the
past year, its thinking remains worryingly muddled.

Many observers have said that the reclassification of cannabis would
effectively decriminalise the drug, but it will do no such thing. Possession
will remain an offence, albeit a minor one. More to the point, dealing in
cannabis will remain a serious offence, and continue to be punishable by up
to 14 years in prison. This is not just illogical: it could well prove
disastrous.

One of the main reasons why The Telegraph advocated the experimental
legalisation of cannabis was in order to remove a source of enrichment from
the criminal gangs that control much of the trade in it. But under the
Blunkett plan, this will not happen - if anything the opposite. By singling
out Brixton as the "cannabis zone", the authorities sent the signal that, if
you wanted a spliff, that is where you should head for. The drug-dealing
fraternity naturally then followed the market, and took control of the
streets that the police had relinquished. Local people were understandably
outraged.

The glaring deficiency of the new policy is that it risks repeating this
mistake, first in London, then across the country. The restraints on the use
of cannabis will be loosened, but the trade in it will be left to the
criminals, who will doubtless redouble their marketing efforts to take
advantage of the new dispensation and sell worse drugs, too. The proper
legalisation of cannabis would mean that its sellers would themselves be
legal, licensed and therefore controlled. They wouldn't be crooks lurking on
street corners, but known shopkeepers, like pharmacists or tobacconists. By
refusing to legalise cannabis properly and maintaining the penalties for
dealing in it, the Home Secretary wants us to think that he has not gone
soft on drugs.

At the same time, by making possession no longer an arrestable offence, he
hopes to present himself as generally progressive while reducing the
workload on the police. Not for the first time, Mr Blunkett is trying to get
the best of both worlds. Unfortunately, he seems much more likely to end up
with the worst.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk

 
 


**




web:     http://www.crrh.org/

------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:24:24 -0700

Subject:UK: MS Sufferer Feels Confusion Will Leave Her Classed A Up TOC

Newshawk: JimmyG
Pubdate: Thu, 11 Jul 2002
Source: Herald, The (UK)
Webpage: http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/11-7-19102-0-31-45.html
Copyright: 2002 The Herald
Contact: letters@theherald.co.uk
Website: http://www.theherald.co.uk/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/189
Author: Vicky Collins
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?207 (Cannabis - United Kingdom)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)

MS SUFFERER FEELS CONFUSION WILL LEAVE HER CLASSED A CRIMINAL

A MULTIPLE sclerosis sufferer who grows her own cannabis for medicinal use
said yesterday the reclassification of the drug would simply lead to more
confusion and called for it to be fully decriminalised.

Elizabeth Ivol, from South Ronaldsay, Orkney, supplies cannabis to people
with MS and other illnesses. She could still find herself charged with
dealing, despite the decision to downgrade cannabis from a class-B to a
class-C drug.

She will go to court next week when she will face one count of supplying
the drug, as well as being charged for its possession and use.

Although she welcomed signs that the government was easing its stance on
cannabis, Mrs Ivol, 54, felt reclassification would do little to make her
life easier.

"It is all very confusing because we are still going to be classed as
criminals, even if we aren't arrested when the cannabis is for personal use.

"When I don't smoke cannabis, I get muscle spasms and I lose my eyesight.
It can help anorexics because it enhances appetite and glaucoma sufferers
have also found it improves their sight.

"It is the politicians who are criminals, not us. They are stopping sick
people using something that can really help them."

However, anti-drugs and anti-smoking groups were concerned that cannabis
itself posed a serious health risk and were concerned at the effect
reclassification would have on young people, who might see it as a green
light to take the drug regularly.

The British Lung Foundation (BLF) said that smoking cannabis was at least
as harmful as smoking tobacco and might carry a higher risk of some
respiratory cancers. It is conducting a review of the published medical and
scientific evidence on the impact of smoking cannabis on lung health.

The report, A Smoking Gun? The Impact of Smoking Cannabis on Respiratory
Health, is expected to indicate that cannabis smokers are at an increased
risk of cancers and infections.

Helena Shovelton, chief executive of BLF, said: "The government spends
millions of pounds a year on smoking cessation and public education about
the dangers of smoking, yet smoking cannabis is at least as harmful as
smoking tobacco and, indeed, may carry a higher risk of some respiratory
cancers."

Ash Scotland, an anti-smoking group, warned that, as well as the possible
health risks of cannabis, the addictive qualities of the tobacco that many
people use with it when making joints can lead them to smoke ordinary
cigarettes on a regular basis.

Tanith Muller, the group's spokeswoman, added: "There are no filters on
joints and also the way they are smoked, with people tending to inhale much
more deeply, does give us concerns.

"We would be keen to emphasise that 100 times more people in Scotland die
every year from tobacco-related diseases than they do from illegal drugs."
__________________________________________________________________________
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

CRRH is working to regulate and tax the sale of cannabis to adults like 
alcohol, allow doctors to recommend cannabis through pharmacies and restore 
the unregulated production of industrial hemp.

*Campaign for the Restoration and Regulation of Hemp*
mail:     CRRH ; P.O. Box 86741 ; Portland, OR 97286 USA
email:   crrh@crrh.org
phone:  (503) 235-4606
fax:       (503) 235-0120
web:     http://www.crrh.org/

------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:25:11 -0700
From: "D. Paul Stanford" stanford@crrh.org
Subject: UK: Blunkett Opens Up Drugs Laws

Newshawk: JimmyG
Pubdate: Thu, 11 Jul 2002
Source: Guardian, The (UK)
Webpage: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,753151,00.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: Alan Travis
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?207 (Cannabis - United Kingdom)

BLUNKETT OPENS UP DRUGS LAWS

The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, yesterday announced the most
far-reaching overhaul of Britain's drug laws but ruled out the eventual
legalisation of cannabis. Simple possession will be treated on a "seize and
warn" basis only by the police in London from this autumn and by next July
at the latest in the rest of Britain.

But Mr Blunkett, in confirming his decision to reclassify cannabis as a
less dangerous drug, also announced that the police will be given a reserve
power of arrest if the offence involves children, public disorder or a
"flagrant disregard for the law".

Mr Blunkett's decision to downgrade cannabis from a class B drug to class C
ends 30 years during which more than 70,000 people a year have been
arrested by the police for possessing the drug.

But he told MPs that he firmly rejected the legalisation of cannabis and
announced that the maximum prison sentence for trafficking in the drug will
remain at 14 years.

The package of measures includes a UKP183m boost for drug treatment
services over the next three years, an expansion of heroin prescription for
hardcore addicts and a limited licensing of addicts injecting themselves
under medical supervision.

The new drugs policy comes ahead of the publication today of the annual
police recorded crime figures which are expected to show a 6% increase in
the crime rate in the 12 months to March 2002. Much of the rise,
particularly the increase in violent crime, is believed to be drug-related.

Mr Blunkett said the focus of government policy now is to tackle class A
drugs that kill - heroin, crack, ecstasy.

"Cannabis is a potentially harmful drug and should remain illegal. However,
it is not comparable with crack, heroin, or ecstasy. A greater
differentiati on between drugs which kill and drugs that cause harm [is]
both scientifically justified and educationally sensible," he said.

Calling for an "adult and mature debate", the home secretary said that
decriminalisation and legalisation were not on the government's agenda,
"nor do we envisage a time when this would be appropriate".

His statement was supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers and
the Metropolitan police, who said it would enable them to concentrate on
tackling hard drugs.

The Met said that the Lambeth experiment, where police have been cautioning
rather than arresting users in order to target dealers, will be amended at
the end of this month so that the new "seize and warn" approach can be
introduced.

The reserve power of arrest for "aggravated possession" requires
legislation and so the change will not be introduced across Britain until
next July. New Acpo guidance to be issued this autumn will enable chief
constables to implement the "seize and warn" policy earlier if they want to.

The shadow home secretary, Oliver Letwin, claimed that the apparent
resignation in protest of the former drugs tsar, Keith Hellawell, as a
part-time adviser to the Home Office on international drug matters was
evidence that Mr Blunkett was intent on handing over control over cannabis
to the dealers. It was "a muddled, dangerous policy" that would lead to an
"open season for drug peddlars", he said.

But Roger Howard, of the drugs charity DrugsScope, welcomed the decision
and said Mr Blunkett should have gone further and scrapped the two-year
prison sentence that possession could still carry.
__________________________________________________________________________
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

CRRH is working to regulate and tax the sale of cannabis to adults like 
alcohol, allow doctors to recommend cannabis through pharmacies and restore 
the unregulated production of industrial hemp.

*Campaign for the Restoration and Regulation of Hemp*
mail:     CRRH ; P.O. Box 86741 ; Portland, OR 97286 USA
email:   crrh@crrh.org
phone:  (503) 235-4606
fax:       (503) 235-0120
web:     http://www.crrh.org/

------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:25:53 -0700
From: "D. Paul Stanford" stanford@crrh.org
Subject: UK: Delay In Changing Law Leaves Police Forces With Dilemma

Newshawk: JimmyG
Pubdate: Thu, 11 Jul 2002
Source: Guardian, The (UK)
Webpage: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,753076,00.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
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?207 (Cannabis - United Kingdom)

DELAY IN CHANGING LAW LEAVES POLICE FORCES WITH DILEMMA

The year's delay in reclassification of cannabis will leave police forces
with the dilemma of what to do between now and the formal change in the
law. The Metropolitan police has no intention of waiting until next July.
The force used yesterday's announcement to signal its intention to roll out
a "seize and warn" policy across the capital by late autumn.

For the commissioner, Sir John Stevens, the priority is focusing resources
on tackling class A drug dealers and traffickers, so officers will be told
to arrest cannabis users only when David Blunkett's "aggravating factors" -
which relate to "protection of children and public order" - apply.

This means that a modified version of the Lambeth experiment will soon be
the norm across London.

Regional forces with hardline attitudes and less pressing drugs problems,
such as Bedfordshire and Dorset, are likely to continue to arrest people
for simple possession until legislation is passed.

The lack of uniformity will mean that cannabis possession will be treated
differently in different areas, a position that has alarmed some chief
officers. But Kevin Morris, president of the Police Superintendents'
Association, said yesterday that this disparity already existed.

"There is a danger of forces doing their own thing, but frankly that's what
we've got at the moment anyway.

"In a number of places the cannabis laws are not enforced and officers deal
with possession informally or not at all, and in others the letter of the
law is applied.

"At least we've got an overall strategy to work towards; until then the
stop, search and seizure of cannabis would be a commonsense approach to
dealing with cannabis possession."

Forces will look to the Association of Chief Police Officers for national
guidelines on "seize and warn", but these will not be ready for at least
three months.

Because Acpo believed that Mr Blunkett was going to reclassify cannabis
without retaining a power of arrest, it was developing guidelines for when
officers could issue a court summons for possession. The association is now
playing catch-up.

A working group has been established, but its findings will have to be
ratified by the Chief Constables' Council in October before forces can be
issued with the guidelines.

Even then, forces are under no obligation to introduce "seize and warn".

But Acpo supported the reclassification of cannabis, and is hoping many
chief constables will want to introduce the policy as a preparation for the
change in the law.

Acpo admitted earlier this year that the strategy for dealing with heroin
and cocaine users had been ineffective for more than 20 years. Yet every
year officers spend thousands of hours on cannabis offences.

Police dealt with 104,400 people for drugs offences in 2000. More than
70,000 of them involved cannabis.
__________________________________________________________________________
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

CRRH is working to regulate and tax the sale of cannabis to adults like 
alcohol, allow doctors to recommend cannabis through pharmacies and restore 
the unregulated production of industrial hemp.

*Campaign for the Restoration and Regulation of Hemp*
mail:     CRRH ; P.O. Box 86741 ; Portland, OR 97286 USA
email:   crrh@crrh.org
phone:  (503) 235-4606
fax:       (503) 235-0120
web:     http://www.crrh.org/

------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:26:59 -0700
From: "D. Paul Stanford" stanford@crrh.org
Subject: UK: Police Retain Discretion Over Arrest For Cannabis Use

Newshawk: Free the Weed
Pubdate: Thu, 11 Jul 2002
Source: Independent  (UK)
Copyright: 2002 Independent Newspapers (UK) Ltd.
Contact: letters@independent.co.uk
Website: http://www.independent.co.uk/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/209
Author: Ian Burrell, Home Affairs Correspondent
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?207 (Cannabis - United Kingdom)

POLICE RETAIN DISCRETION OVER ARREST FOR CANNABIS USE

Cannabis Is Reclassified, But The Home Secretary Refuses To Introduce
Reforms To The Regulations On Heroin And Ecstasy

Dope smokers who had rolled a celebratory joint in honour of the Home
Secretary finally relaxing Britain's cannabis laws may have spluttered in
frustration yesterday when David Blunkett decided possession of the drug
should remain an arrestable offence.

Although the Home Secretary went ahead as expected with his proposal to
reclassify cannabis from Class B to Class C, he appeared to have reacted to
criticisms that he was "going soft on drugs".

And so instead of implementing a blanket policy treating marijuana
possession as a non-arrestable offence, he announced a hybrid system, under
which police could hold some people caught with the drug, in certain
circumstances.

Those who smoke cannabis near a school or repeatedly light up in a public
place where other people object to their drug use could still find
themselves being marched to the police station.

The caveats will please police officers who have complained of having joints
waved defiantly in their faces by drug users in Brixton, south London, where
the Metropolitan Police has been piloting a softer stance on cannabis.

But they will also allow police to retain a considerable degree of
discretion in dealing with cannabis users. Welcoming Mr Blunkett's
announcement yesterday, the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo)
said: "The retention of the police power of arrest will enable the police to
have greater flexibility in dealing with incidents on the street."

Such powers will worry supporters of cannabis decriminalisation, who would
point to a recent study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that appeared to
show a minority of officers were already pursuing something of a personal
crusade against marijuana.

The study found that 3 per cent of police were responsible for 20 per cent
of cannabis possession arrests and that some police saw it as their duty to
help rid society of all drugs.

Mr Blunkett said yesterday Acpo would soon issue national guidelines to
police forces, explaining the definition of the "aggravating circumstances"
that would make cannabis possession arrestable.

Drugs agencies hope the guidance will help to create a level playing field
and end the "postcode lottery" that results from different approaches being
taken to the drug in neighbouring police divisions. Mr Blunkett said the
guidelines would "ensure that in the vast majority of cases officers will
confiscate the drug and issue a warning".

If this is the case, the changes will have a noticeable effect on the
policing of cannabis, which in the year 2000 led to 75,000 arrests for
possession, with some offenders being fined and a small minority imprisoned.

Last night Roger Howard, chief executive of the charity DrugScope, pointed
out that even after reclassification people could face being sent to jail
for up to two years for "simple possession".

He also voiced concerns over Mr Blunkett's proposals for tougher measures
against those involved in the supply of cannabis. Mr Blunkett said he would
consider a new offence of supplying the drug to children and would retain a
maximum sentence of up to 14 years for dealing, even after downgrading the
drug to Class C.

Mr Howard said people who supplied the drug to friends or grew cannabis
plants may find themselves facing a custodial sentence.

Yesterday in Brixton, where police have piloted the idea of relaxing the
laws on cannabis, there were mixed views on the project's success.

An unnamed police officer claimed the project had not worked and said that
school children who were smoking cannabis with impunity were no longer being
arrested and referred to drug workers.

But Bashir Ahmed, who runs a carpet shop, said the change in the law would
cut crime. He called for legalised cannabis caf=E9s to end the street=
 dealing.

Other commentators warned that the reclassification of cannabis should not
disguise the potential dangers of the drug.

David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers,
said the softening of the law should "not make a blind bit of difference to
school drug policies".

The changes to the cannabis laws were accompanied by a refusal to introduce
reform of the regulations on heroin and ecstasy. In spite of recommendations
to the contrary by the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, Mr
Blunkett refused to reclassify ecstasy as a class B drug and rejected the
idea of controlled "shooting galleries" for injecting drug users.

Although it was overshadowed by the cannabis reforms, the refusal to provide
safe injecting rooms will be a severe disappointment to drug treatment
professionals.

The introduction of such a scheme in Australia reportedly led to 17 drug
users being resuscitated after overdosing in the first month of the
project's operation. Supporters of the scheme claim that without such
supervised facilities such people might have died.

Drug experts were also angry that Mr Blunkett, as a politician, chose to
dismiss the reclassification of ecstasy [which was also backed by a review
of drugs laws by the independent Police Foundation] rather than allow a
decision to be taken by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

Narcotics: how they are classified Class A: (The most harmful category).
Includes heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, LSD, and amphetamines (speed) if prepared
for injection. Maximum sentence for dealing is life and seven years for
possession.

Class B: (An intermediate category). Includes amphetamines and barbiturates.
The maximum sentence for dealing is 14 years in prison plus a fine, and for
possession it is five years plus fine.

Class C: (Least harmful). Includes anabolic steroids, anti-depressants and
growth hormones. In July next year this will be joined by cannabis and
cannabis resin, which are currently Class B. Maximum sentences for dealing
in Class C substances are to be upped from five years to 14. The maximum
term for possession is two years in jail.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk

CRRH is working to regulate and tax the sale of cannabis to adults like
alcohol, allow doctors to recommend cannabis through pharmacies and restore

the unregulated production of industrial hemp.

*Campaign for the Restoration and Regulation of Hemp*
mail:     CRRH ; P.O. Box 86741 ; Portland, OR 97286 USA
email:   crrh@crrh.org
phone:  (503) 235-4606
fax:       (503) 235-0120
web:     http://www.crrh.org/

------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:39:02 -0700
From: "D. Paul Stanford" stanford@crrh.org
Subject: UK: Decline And Fall Of 'Tsar' Stripped Of His Power

Newshawk: Free the Weed
Pubdate: Thu, 11 Jul 2002
Source: Independent  (UK)
Copyright: 2002 Independent Newspapers (UK) Ltd.
Contact: letters@independent.co.uk
Website: http://www.independent.co.uk/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/209
Author: Ian Burrell, Home Affairs Correspondent
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?207 (Cannabis - United Kingdom)

DECLINE AND FALL OF 'TSAR' STRIPPED OF HIS POWER

When David Blunkett was appointed Home Secretary in May last year, one of
his first decisions was to axe the role of drugs tsar.

Keith Hellawell, the first and probably last incumbent in the post, had been
appointed with a fanfare by Tony Blair in 1997 but found himself
unceremoniously dumped. To Mr Blunkett, the cross-departmental role of the
"UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator" had served its purpose. The Home Secretary
wanted the Home Office to take back responsibility for drugs so he could
pursue his own plans for reform of the laws. Mr Hellawell, who was retained
in a part-time international advisory role, claiming that he no longer
wanted a full-time position, was marginalised.

Commenting on the former drugs tsar's resignation yesterday, Roger Howard,
chief executive of the influential charity DrugScope, and Simon Hughes, the
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, described Mr Hellawell as "out of
touch".

It was a sad indictment of a man who had laid the building blocks of the
Government's drugs policy.

The former chief constable of West Yorkshire was responsible for drawing up
a 10-year drugs strategy, the first real attempt to take a long-term view of
the problem.

The radical approach was responsible for focusing public attention on the
subject of drugs and raising its profile within the political arena.

Mr Hellawell, who reported directly to the Prime Minister and earned
UKP106,000 a year, won admirers within the drugs prevention industry as he
lobbied hard for extra resources for treatment centres and information
programmes.

His most important legacy was in helping to drive forward a big increase in
drugs education in British schools, aimed at reducing long-term demand for
illicit substances.

But the long-term approach did little to endear him to government political
strategists, who despaired at the lack of tangible success. Stories began
appearing, suggesting that unnamed ministers believed that the drugs tsar
should be deposed.

When Mr Blunkett arrived at the Home Office, he switched Mr Hellawell to a
two-days-a-week advisory role on international drugs issues. Drugs experts
have been at a loss to explain his achievements in this role.

An exasperated Mr Hellawell tendered his resignation at the end of last
month, apparently asking for the decision to be kept secret. But yesterday
he exacted his revenge on Mr Blunkett in a piece of news management that
must have impressed even New Labour's spin doctors.

He revealed his resignation on national radio hours before the Home
Secretary was to make his most important pronouncement on drugs policy.

Mr Hellawell said Mr Blunkett's new policy would "virtually be
decriminalisation of cannabis and this is giving out the wrong message". He
continued: "Cannabis is simply not a sensible substance for people to take.
There are strains of cannabis that are extremely powerful, hallucinogenic
and very dangerous. It's moving further towards decriminalisation than any
other country in the world."

Iain Duncan Smith said Mr Hellawell's departure was "a personal blow for the
Prime Minister and punches a huge hole in the Government's drugs policies".

But Danny Kushlick, director of pro-legalisation campaign group Transform,
said he was "delighted to see the back of Mr Hellawell" and added: "His
statement that the UK has gone further in decriminalising drugs than
anywhere else in the world shows just how ignorant he is of what is
happening outside his office. In fact, half a dozen European countries have
decriminalised possession of all drugs."
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk

CRRH is working to regulate and tax the sale of cannabis to adults like 
alcohol, allow doctors to recommend cannabis through pharmacies and restore 
the unregulated production of industrial hemp.

*Campaign for the Restoration and Regulation of Hemp*
mail:     CRRH ; P.O. Box 86741 ; Portland, OR 97286 USA
email:   crrh@crrh.org
phone:  (503) 235-4606
fax:       (503) 235-0120
web:     http://www.crrh.org/

------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:43:10 -0700
From: "D. Paul Stanford" stanford@crrh.org
Subject: CO: Activist Gelt Pleads Guilty To Pot Charge

Newshawk: http://www.lp.org/issues/drug-war-task-force.html
Pubdate: Thu, 11 Jul 2002
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Webpage: www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E723717,00.html
Copyright: 2002 The Denver Post Corp
Contact: letters@denverpost.com
Website: http://www.denverpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/122
Author: Mike Soraghan

ACTIVIST GELT PLEADS GUILTY TO POT CHARGE

WASHINGTON - Ben Gelt, who ran a gun-control campaign all the way to the
White House, found himself in a less illustrious landmark in the nation's
capital Wednesday as he pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana.

Gelt, 21, son of Denver Councilwoman Susan Barnes-Gelt and former Colorado
Democratic chairman Howard Gelt, stood in District of Columbia Superior
Court to plead guilty to possession of 16.8 grams of marijuana in his dorm
room at American University.

Gelt will serve no jail time and a drug-trafficking charge was dismissed in
exchange for his plea. He will serve six months of unsupervised probation
in Colorado, at the end of which he can have his record wiped clean. He
also was ordered to pay $150 into a crime victims' fund. He was accompanied
to court by Barnes-Gelt.

"I'd like to apologize for this humongous mistake," Gelt told District of
Columbia Superior Court Judge Mildred Edwards. "I'm wanting to not be
around any illegal activity again in my life."

Gelt, now enrolled at the University of Colorado, got some high- powered
support from U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, a Boulder Democrat, who wrote to the
judge about Gelt's political activism. Gelt was inspired by the 1999
Columbine High School massacre to become a student leader in Colorado's
gun-control movement. Gelt and a friend organized nearly 100 Colorado
students to travel to Washington, where they lobbied Congress and had a
private meeting with then-President Clinton.

"As Ben faces his own difficult time in life, I hope you will consider the
contributions this young man has made - and most importantly - what those
contributions say about his character and spirit," Udall wrote.

But Gelt got a lecture from the judge about hypocrisy in fighting to stop
gun violence while smoking marijuana, which she said fuels gun crime in the
streets. She said marijuana is at the root of more gun crimes in Washington
than cocaine or heroin.

"You can't have a double standard about this anymore," Edwards said.
"People are dead in the District of Columbia because of marijuana."

Gelt said after the hearing he was surprised by that.

"There's not a lot of street crime around American University, so it's hard
for someone from my socioeconomic background to realize that," he said.

Gelt was arrested as part of a sting operation at the private university.
Prosecutors said Washington police served a search warrant on his room Feb.
21 and found three bags of marijuana in his desk after he told them where
to look.

Prosecutor Tony Quinn, citing Gelt's political work, questioned whether he
was getting special treatment in being allowed to serve probation without
orders to check in with a probation officer.

But Edwards said she was giving Gelt the same second chance she would give
any first-time offender.
__________________________________________________________________________
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

CRRH is working to regulate and tax the sale of cannabis to adults like 
alcohol, allow doctors to recommend cannabis through pharmacies and restore 
the unregulated production of industrial hemp.

*Campaign for the Restoration and Regulation of Hemp*
mail:     CRRH ; P.O. Box 86741 ; Portland, OR 97286 USA
email:   crrh@crrh.org
phone:  (503) 235-4606
fax:       (503) 235-0120
web:     http://www.crrh.org/

------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:47:38 -0700
From: "D. Paul Stanford" stanford@crrh.org
Subject: prostitution, medical marijuana, and invite

Hi all,
     And Good Morning! (Wow, England isn't arresting pot smoker- how are 
they buying it there if sales are still arrestable offenses?) Since the US 
federal government has been raiding medical marijuana clubs in California 
(and elsewhere, no?) due to their being in violation of federal law, I've 
been wondering: Has anyone ever heard of a federal agency raiding a 
licensed by the state house of ill repute in Nevada because prostitution is 
against federal law? Or is it against federal law?
     Am I onto something here that could be used legally, or am I barking 
up the wrong tree? I never thought of this before. I could swear 
prostitution is against US federal law, but I could be wrong.

     On another note, in cooperation with Andria at Drug Scope UK, and 
publisher of Users Voice in London, and with a ton of help both spiritual 
and technical from the brilliant, and thus as expected crazy folk at 
Mindvox.com, Drugwar has a new email list. We'd like to invite you all, and 
all your friends, relatives, enemies, pets, politicians, and anyone else 
who might not fit one of these catagories, to join us as we discuss, plot, 
plan, ramble and more, attempting to figure out how we got this far into 
such a pointless and destructive war, how it's possible that we remain 
embroiled in aforementioned war, and how in the heck do we get ourselves out.

As our calm, rational, and utterly brilliant tech design guy/friend Patrick 
put it last night:
"if you wanna subscribe to drugwar, the address is:
drugwar-subscribe@mindvox.com
This just opened roughly 3 minutes ago, the list will go wherever whomever
takes it, but primarily it is being run by Preston & Andria, and/or Andria
and Preston.  Although I'm sure I'll provide occasional thoughtful
insights, and brief introspective moments of reasonable discourse.

Its purpose is to provide you with an up to the minute hotlist of the
best spots to cop on planet earth.  No wait, that's the Drug Database &
Beeper/Cellphone eXchange, coming Any Minute Now.
Mostly the purpose of the list is to move the more Drug War related
conversations and materials..."

We look forward to many spirited postings, debates, arguments, cooperation 
and more, at least until we end this stupid, evil war. Join us!
Peace,
Preston Peet
ptpeet@nyc.rr.com
Editor in Chief http://www.drugwar.com
cont. High Times mag/.com


Peace,
Preston

CRRH is working to regulate and tax the sale of cannabis to adults like 
alcohol, allow doctors to recommend cannabis through pharmacies and restore 
the unregulated production of industrial hemp.

*Campaign for the Restoration and Regulation of Hemp*
mail:     CRRH ; P.O. Box 86741 ; Portland, OR 97286 USA
email:   crrh@crrh.org
phone:  (503) 235-4606
fax:       (503) 235-0120
web:     http://www.crrh.org/

------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:49:35 -0700
From: "D. Paul Stanford" stanford@crrh.org
Subject: Drug War is huge problem for public education!

To the editor
         Morally bankrupt people like news editors will probably
dismiss out of hand my assertions that the War on Drugs is, by far, the
single biggest problem facing public education.  The fact is that none of
the major party candidates running in Benton County are putting forth
initiatives to even modestly reduce the harm done by this totally
indefensible policy. And all of them will make the absurd  - and
unchallenged [by news editors] claim to care about public education!
         The War on Drugs does a quadruple whammy on public schools:
1] Loss of tax revenue due to the higher crime rates
2] Money diverted to police and prisons for increased crime
3] Additional money needed by schools to deal with drug abuse problems and
dysfunctional parents
4] Diversion of children to private schools who don't have to dealwith
the victims of this ridiculous policy from schools whose communities are
being destroyed by drug prohibition.
         The War on Drugs doesn't even attempt to solve any problems and
even the news media won't dispute this fact; its primary function is to
find and punish wrongdoers.  Despite this undebatable fact, all the
endorsements by the teacher Oregon Education Association are going to major
party candidates who fully support this damaging policy.  Do they really
care about the welfare of public education or just about ensuring a
bigger share of the budget pie?  No one who disagrees with me is willing to
face the light of public debate.
JT Barrie
Philomath, OR
541-929-5392


Are you asking your elected officials the following question: Why do you
deliberately support a policy which does nothing but hurt people - which is

the War on Drugs?

CRRH is working to regulate and tax the sale of cannabis to adults like
alcohol, allow doctors to recommend cannabis through pharmacies and restore

the unregulated production of industrial hemp.

*Campaign for the Restoration and Regulation of Hemp*
mail:     CRRH ; P.O. Box 86741 ; Portland, OR 97286 USA
email:   crrh@crrh.org
phone:  (503) 235-4606
fax:       (503) 235-0120
web:     http://www.crrh.org/

------------------------------
End of Restore-Digest V2002 #131
********************************