But if I was, I think I would be more than a little angry at the
Government. Firstly, they have decided to completely ignore a report
into the effects of cannabis that they themselves commissioned, and
reclassify cannabis as Class B. The opening paragraph of the report
reads:
Dear Home Secretary In July 2007 you asked the
Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to review the classification of
cannabis in the light of real public concern about the potential mental
health effects of cannabis use and, in particular, the use of stronger
strains of the drug. I have pleasure in enclosing the Council’s report.
You will note that, after a most careful scrutiny of the totality of
the available evidence, the majority of the Council’s members consider
– based on its harmfulness to individuals and society – that cannabis
should remain a Class C substance. It is judged that the harmfulness of
cannabis more closely equates with other Class C substances than with
those currently classified as Class B.
As Tim Worstall
quite rightly points out in the article I mention below, “There doesn't
seem to be much point in reading any more of that report, nor paying
attention to it – since, obviously, no other fucker has either.”
Funnily enough there's not been so much reporting of the other stats mentioned in the report. Except for this wonderful article in The Register. Yes, the IT crowd's favourite read (possibly bar Slashdot)
and generally only interested in all things geek. They have, over the
past couple of years, been increasing the politics angle (mainly
related to issues of security lapses, privacy and ID cards), but this
seems a step into a different area.
The article is quite
compelling, with some lovely use of statistics. Like the fact cannabis
use has fallen over the past ten years, the number of people admitted
with schizophrenia has also fallen, and that the oft quoted stat that
today's cannabis is 20 times stronger than that of 20 years ago is just
plain wrong.
The second page of the article, however, has some worrying information.
Police will be able to seize high-value assets from suspected drug dealers as soon as they are arrested under plans to be unveiled this week by Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary.
As
Worstal says, “Yes, they'll take your house, your cars, your bank
accounts, anything with a realisable value, at the moment of your
arrest. No court case necessary at all, simply forfeiture to the State
on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. Even better, they won't leave you with enough money to hire a lawyer to defend yourself on those drugs charges”
More
than 30 barristers from London, Leeds and Sheffield were approached to
represent the offender, but refused because they felt the new
fixed-rate legal aid fees of £175.25 per day does not justify the
complex workload that would be involved. The case would have involved
6,586 pages of documents and a total of 4,548 transactions to prepare
for an estimated six-week hearing. The offender, who has served a
nine-month sentence for two drugs convictions, could not pay for the
legal fees himself because his assets had been frozen.
Worstall
continues: “That pretty much puts paid to the idea of innocent until
proven guilty, the right to a fair trial and all the rest of that
gubbins that our forefathers fought and died for, doesn't it? That's
what I'm worried about, the leeching away of the very things that make
us a free country in the face of this mass hysteria. It's decades since
I last felt the urge to indulge beyond alcohol and nicotine, so the
specifics of the drugs laws are an academic issue for me. But the
abandonment of even the pretence of a fair trial should worry you as
much as it does me.”
I am the Revolution, and I want my fucking country back.
HatTip Silas
