January 26th, 2009

The Lady’s not for turning (oh yes she is)

Posted in The Job - Comment by 200

So the government has reclassified cannabis from a Class C back up to a Class B drug. Given that they only declassified it a while ago, you’d have thought that someone might be saying ‘well, we made a mistake & have rectified our error’.

I’ve been listening to the radio today & also seen a few TV news reports & have yet to hear a government minister saying that they cocked up. (that’s if you think they did, of course, when the downgraded it originally)

So what will happen now? The reclassification means that anyone caught in public with cannabis will be subject to a warning (so, no change then). A second possession would mean an £80 ticket & a third would mean an arrest & possible prosecution. The maximum term of imprisonment goes up from two years to five. This is practically meaningless since very few people ever go to prison for possession of cannabis & nobody gets the maximum sentence for anything, let alone possession of weed.

The government are so concerned about the damage to society caused by cannabis that they have neglected to actually put in place the legislation to allow police to issue fixed penalty tickets for cannabis possession, so anyone caught on their second possession can’t be given a ticket yet anyway – talk about joined up legislation; getting the powers to do something in time for a change in the law doesn’t seem like rocket science to me, yet it’s obviously too difficult for the justice department.

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs recommended leaving the classification as it was (Class C) but Home Secretary Jacqui Spliff – herself an old user – decided the change the law, again.

The sum total of the reclassification will be, er, nothing.

You can skip to the end and leave a comment. Pinging is currently not allowed. RSS 2.0

8 comments

  1. constableconfused says:

    Arghh!

    Why do we classify things? If it is illegal it’s inherently wrong. That’s why you can go to the shops and buy cigarettes and alcohol Because it’s legal.

    If you want weed, brown or white or whatever your cocktail is you have to phone someone and arrange a drop.

    If it was all the same there would be no different penalties and Ms Snitch would not be home secretary.

    I give up. If you can’t buy it in a shop and pay taxes it’s wrong. Gene Hunt for prime minister is what I say.

    January 26th, 2009 at 22:55

  2. Blueknight says:

    The downgrade was handled badly by the Govt. The net result of it was that a large number of people wrongly thought it had been legalised.
    Did that mean that more people introduced themselves to it because they thought it was allowed? -Possibly.
    Did the downgrade create so much confusion that even Police Officers were unsure of their powers in any given situation? -Definitely

    January 26th, 2009 at 23:08

  3. James says:

    And the winners are… the criminals yay!

    Changing a letter on a page really achieved something.

    Maybe a better bet would be to recognise that not all spliffs are equal, legalise (and tax) the weaker (better) stuff, sweep the rug out from under dealers, and reclassify skunk derived weed as hard drugs and treat accordingly.

    January 27th, 2009 at 11:49

  4. Tony F says:

    I think that all ‘recreational’ drugs should be legalised, in the way that alcohol is.

    This would, in one fell swoop:

    Remove dodgy, Cut with strychnine, stuff off the streets, and bring control to the quality/strength of the substances.

    Remove the income from a huge number of scrotes who will crawl out of the woodwork and hopefully fuck off back to their own countries.

    It will be taxed at a huge rate, and will help top up the country’s coffers.

    It will take the ‘mystique’ and ‘glamour’ away from hard drugs. If sold at sensible prices, many petty thefts and lots more serious stuff would be reduced.

    I appreciate, there would be an initial ‘take up’ of people trying them for the first time, but I suspect with careful negative advertising, it would not be that many.

    January 27th, 2009 at 18:36

  5. Plodnomore says:

    I have just read that schools in the North East are issuing booklets to pupils about cannabis. However, rather than informing the kids of the dangers, these booklets give information on how to roll joints, not to use too many papers (skinners) and how best to take the drug. The booklet is 20 pages long but it is only on page 14 that it advises that takining cannabis is against the law. Come on. how many kids, least of all those from the North East (where I grew up) will actually read up to 14 pages of any booklet? No doubt this is another cunning plan by the Schools Minister Ed Balls(up) to completely destablise the future generation of this country. I can only assume that Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’ has been moved from the fiction shelves in the local libraries to the Philosophy shelf.

    January 27th, 2009 at 20:42

  6. MarkUK says:

    I’m in agreement with Tony F. Heroin, for instance, is dirt cheap to produce. Even with a high rate of tax, it would still be a lot less expensive than the current price, made high simply because it IS illegal.

    Lower price = fewer thefts to pay for your habit.

    Sure the NHS would probably end up treating the addicts. I’ll tell you a little secret – they already do! What they won’t end up doing is treating the addicts for all the side effects of contaminated junk and needle sharing.

    The cannabis fiasco is ridiculous. Cannabis is now Class B, whereas GHB is still Class C. If it’s the strength of the stuff that’s a problem, then we could obviously solve all our drunkenness problems by banning spirits – after all, they’re 10 times the strength of beer.

    January 27th, 2009 at 21:44

  7. Simmons says:

    While Im in agreement with most of you.

    I feel that the government needs to FINALLY take a stand on this issue.

    They say its illegal but then don’t have any criminal repercussions for it.

    Pick A Side..

    January 27th, 2009 at 21:59

  8. pav says:

    i don’t believe that there is something like “recreational” drug, and I don’t believe in grading also.Unlike tabacco & alcohol with its units per body mass etc., drugs mingle with your brain proportionally with its stenght and particular brain. nowadays “skunk” as genetically modified and chemically enchanced drug has nothing in common with mammas and pappas woodstock 68 or else home grown weed.Apatrt from sniffing a glue, weed is the first level to became junkie.why people do this? because they can and want to.whether it is peer pressure , curiosity or something else, society will pick the bill.as 200weeks had mentioned, junkies are responsible for 8 from 10 bulglaries, they need money for drugs. if it is well known, why then Gov. won’t give them drugs, or make them cheaper/more accesible?because it is morally wrong, one could say.no,no, the reason is the same as in case of euthanasia.to cut it short, you dont approve some things because they set bad example.up until 1961 you could be prosecuted for a failed suicide.why?bad example.unfortunately morality does change,law with it, and law enforcement as well.is it time to give junkies free drugs?is it time , for the sake of peace and quiet,to let people gradually kill themself and show others how to do it?where the fuck is 6’2 hairy arsed PC to slap unruly teenager? yes , i know he can’t slap anyone.but maybe he should be less cinic, stop moaning, and try to put in one or two words ,which may, or may not,change someone.
    I’m not a PC,or even Queen’s subject, but I think your blog sir,is most interesting I’ve read.I love ” tea and medals”, and three ambitions.with this kiss straight into hairy arse, I would like to finish this comment,as I have to hop into pond and eat some swans.

    January 28th, 2009 at 23:54

Leave a comment