The Right To Drug Reform

[namkha]

The right to drug reform

http://www.minervanett.no/the-right-to-drug-reform/

Prohibition is not only unenforceable; it ends up violating the human rights of millions of people worldwide. Minerva interviews Ethan Nadelmann.

25th May 2012

Ethan Nadelmann is one of the pioneers in the fight for drug policy reform. From the 1980s onwards has he been one of the leading critics of current policies. Nadelmann is the founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, an organization dedicated to a drug policy “grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights”.

Minerva’s editor Nils August Andresen sat down with Ethan Nadelmann during Oslo Freedom Forum, where Nadelmann was one of the speakers, trying to persuade the audience that drug policy reform belongs in the human rights family.

You talk about finding a new drug policy as a human rights issue. Some people might find that controversial.

– At the most basic level, human rights involves the sense of freedom from persecution from the government for activities that do no direct harm to other human beings. That people should lose their job, their property, lose their freedom simply because of what they choose to consume, seems to be a basic violation of human rights.

– So much the evolution of criminal law in the West, grounded in Enlightenment notions, has been that criminal law should be largely restricted to criminalizing and punishing people for activities that involve theft or violence. But here we have the massive exception of drug criminalization that results in massive incarceration around the world for activities that often involve no harm to others, and typically involving consensual relations.

– But beyond that, we can look at the human rights of peasants around the world, who have traditionally been growing opium or coca for thousands of years, and now find their local agricultural traditions criminalized. We can talk about the violation of the human rights of people living in Mexico, or Latin America, or Afghanistan, or West Africa, or wherever gangsters have taken control because the government has imposed ineffective prohibitionist policies.

Some would say that your conceptualization of the evolution of Western criminal law and the understanding of human rights has a libertarian bias. There are others exceptions to this development, where consensual relations are criminalized – prostitution and gambling are typical examples. Would you apply the same kind of arguments to prostitution and gambling?

– My basic view is that with the respect to these kinds of activities, the obligation of the state is to minimize reliance on coercive mechanisms to the maximum extent consistent with public safety and health.

– I’m not an absolutist, I’m not a purist economic libertarian, I’m not an ideological civil libertarian; I think it is a matter of achieving the right balance.

The optimal drug policy is one which accomplishes two objectives: The first is to reduce the negative consequences of drug use – addiction, death, disease and the disruption of families and communities; and the second is to reduce the negative consequences of government policies, in this case prohibitionist policies.

– Now, what is that policy, what does it look like? Is it a fundamentally prohibitionist policy? Is it a policy of total legalization? I don’t think so. But it is a policy that reduces its reliance on criminal law and the criminal justice system as much as possible, while protecting public safety and health.

There are many different kinds of arguments for a new approach to drug policy. Over the last few years one factor that has been shifting the debate is a growing realization among many that prohibitionist policies actually do not significantly reduce consumption, at least for many drugs, and in particular for heroin. What kind of arguments do you find persuasive in the public sphere – civil liberties arguments or consequentialist arguments? Or are they two sides of the same coin?

– If you look at the repeal of alcohol prohibition in the United States in 1933, there were a dozen or more arguments in favor of repeal. There was the argument that prohibition had led to organized crime or violence; there was the argument that prohibition had led to disrespect for the rule of law; there was the argument that it had distorted the incentives of young people who began to look at bootleggers as role models; there was the argument that it violated fundamental individual rights; there was the argument that it had resulted in alcohol becoming more dangerous, because it was being produced illegally; there was the argument of hypocrisy, that the law was being enforced only against the poor and not against the wealthy.

– But ultimately, the argument that proved most powerful in the rapid repeal of alcohol prohibition, was the economic argument. It was depression. When the depression happened in 1929, people asked themselves: Why should we spend billions of dollars trying to enforce an unenforceable prohibition, when instead governments could be earning billions of dollars in much needed tax revenue?

Do you see any similarities to the fiscal problems experienced by many countries today?

– It is very similar. All the arguments are there. In addition we have the arguments of what is happening south of the American border, in Mexico and the rest of Latin America. So we have the international element of creating havoc in other societies.

– When the economic recession hit a few years ago, it helped to accelerate the change of thinking. You see both Republican and Democratic governors now advocating and signing laws that reduce incarceration. 2009 was the first year that the total number of people incarcerated dropped, for the first time in 30 years. And last year, roughly half the states reduced their prison populations a little bit. So it’s beginning to stabilize and turn.

– And with the respect to the efforts to legalize marijuana and regulate it like alcohol, you see more people in California and other states who now use the argument that we can earn a billion dollars a year in tax revenues, and that we can save hundreds of millions of dollars that we are currently spending on enforcement. Another powerful argument is that removing cannabis from the criminal justice system would allow the police to focus on more serious crimes, and that is a very powerful argument for people who feel ambivalent about this.

You mentioned Mexico. One of the differences between alcohol prohibition in the US, or the partial prohibition in Norway, the interwar period and the total prohibition against drugs now, is that back then, most of these organized crime and mafia elements would be in our own societies. The bootlegging would be homegrown, the mafia would be homegrown, the violence would be homegrown and the corruption would homegrown, whereas today, such a large proportion of these problems occur elsewhere, south of the border. We don’t see it.

In Norway, we don’t discuss this. The debate always starts and ends with the Norwegian heroin user, and never includes the Afghan villagers or farmers, the Taliban, the corruption and the violence. Is the West blind to consequences of our policies that take place elsewhere? And if so, what do we do in order to bring those questions into the debate?

– As an American, my country is notoriously indifferent to what happens outside our borders. We are a large country with an ocean on either side, with only two bordering nations and thoroughly self-involved – in a way like the French, but more so. Most Americans don’t really pay attention to the consequences of our drug policies internationally. The typical thinking has been to blame those countries for sending their drugs our way; to put the moral blame on the supplier, whether it is the peasant or the trafficker.

– That is beginning to change somewhat. The drug trade, going back centuries, has always had a transnational element, but the evolution of transnational criminal organizations has become more pronounced in recent years. When you see transnational criminal organizations in the movement of coerced labor, or stolen goods, or illegal goods, playing an increasingly significant role, it is somewhat easier to draw attention to the international consequences of our drug policies.

Both on cannabis and heroin, more and more people have joined a conversation not about whether to decriminalize and regulate, but about how to decriminalize and regulate. In Europe, these are the two substances for which prohibition creates the largest societal problems, and that’s why you have researchers studying the effects of the heroin program in Switzerland, where you prescribe heroin to registered users. But in the US, the composition of drug use is a bit different, and some of largest problems created by prohibition relate to crack and cocaine. What kind of policy do you envision for cocaine?

– Cocaine and methamphetamine, which are stimulant drugs, are the hardest one to deal with from a regulatory perspective. I think that the prospects for achieving a pragmatic solution with respect to cocaine are not very good before the population has come to accept a more pragmatic approach to cannabis and the opiates.

– Let me back up for one second and re-answer in a different context. The three major developments in drug policy that have begun to happen, and that increasingly will happen, and that will ultimately reduce the negative consequences of prohibition are the following:

– First, the decriminalization of drug possession, so that nobody goes to jail or is punished for the possession of small amounts of drugs for their own use, as long as they don’t hurt anybody or get behind the wheel of a car. This is basically the Portugal model. That is a model that has proven successful, and that has not resulted in any increase in use, but it does result in decreases in diseases, addiction, criminality and the waste of law enforcement resources. And that is a policy that should apply across the board, including the stimulant drugs.

– The second policy is the legal regulation of cannabis – basically, treating cannabis more or less as alcohol, under a strict alcohol regulation policy. And keep in mind that the large majority of all illegal drug users in the world, only use one illegal drug, and that’s cannabis. In my country, half of all drug arrests are made just for cannabis possession. So the legal regulation of cannabis would help the millions of people, typically poor and with darker skin, who are today arrested, jailed or otherwise punished, and it would produce large amounts of tax revenue.

– The third policy is one that has been contemplated in Norway, and, though there have been setbacks, will hopefully be implemented soon: The prescribing of illegal heroin to people who are addicted to heroin. The debate on this issue is no longer over the science, because there is now a scientific consensus, that is well established, that heroin maintenance is safe, reduces criminality, reduces disease and does not increase addiction. The opposition to heroin maintenance programs has no basis in science.

– In many countries, governments still procrastinate on the issue, maybe asking for more research as a means of postponing politically painful decisions. Denmark very boldly said that they are not going to do more research here, for the following reasons: First, the evidence is already persuasive from other countries. Secondly there is no reason to believe that the Danes are so different from the Swiss or the Germans or the Dutch. But thirdly, and importantly here, also because there may be ethical problems in trying to do yet another research study when you know that the group that does not receive the heroin, the control group, will actually have a higher mortality rate than the other group.

– And here I return to your question about cocaine: The great challenge – and I think the obligation of government – with respect to addicts and other heavy users, who are determined to use these drugs whether or not they are legal or illegal, is to provide a means of legal access, that minimizes the harm both to them and to the broader community. It could mean taking a very limited heroin maintenance model, and expanding that model to cocaine.

– That would mean that recreational users would still need to go to the black market. But keep in mind that although recreational users, non-addicted users, represent the majority of all users for every drug, they represent a minority share of consumption. In many countries, ten percent of alcohol consumers consume 60 or 70 percent of all alcohol. So if you can move a significant share of addicts and the heavy using population into a legal access market, you dramatically reduce the market for the gangsters, in Latin America, in Africa, in Afghanistan and in Europe and America. You reduce their profits and you reduce their power, and the negative consequences of inherently flawed prohibitionist policies.

– Another aspect here is that for cocaine, as for other substances, the dose makes the poison. Coca tea is no stronger than an espresso, but it is basically the equivalent of consuming tiny amounts of cocaine. There was a wine in Europe, Vin Mariani, the Bordeaux wine with a coca infusion, that was wildly popular in the late 19th century – popes, kings, emperors, sport stars all used it. And so far as we know, it was no more addictive than regular Bordeaux wine. Coca Cola contained cocaine until 1900, and so far as we know, there was no massive Coca Cola addiction problem then. This is to some extent the argument of Evo Morales in Bolivia: One could allow the products of the coca plant, and rather regulate the strength and the use of its different products.

– To sum it up, I would say that any drug that is currently prohibited, and is less dangerous than the combination of Vodka and Redbull, we should figure out a way to legally regulate.

What are the biggest obstacles to new policies in this field? You have often talked about the prison-industrial complex in the US. But in Europe, that is less prominent, we have neither the same private prison companies, nor as large a prison population. Of course, the police still might have an interest in maintaining policies that give access to resources that can help clearance rates and statistics. But it seems that a large part of the problem is the air of immorality that drugs carry; and that the morality question has become so important in our discussion of policies that it is very difficult even get to a discussion of the consequences of different policies and regulations.

– I would boil it down to four obstacles: Ignorance, fear, prejudice and profit.

– Firstly, ignorance: Most people believe that illegal drugs are dramatically more dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes, when virtually all scientists will tell you that that is nonsense. Alcohol and tobacco are the devils we know, they are our domesticated drugs, but the others are the devils we don’t know. That level of ignorance is profoundly problematic.

– Secondly, fear, which comes in two different forms: Every parents desire to put their baby in a bubble, and to try to protect them from all evil, and the fear that not only drugs, but even a debate over drug policy may pierce that bubble, and thereby seize their children. The other fear has to do with the vulnerability of human beings, and one’s views of human nature. If you believe that huge numbers of people are fundamentally vulnerable to drug abuse, and therefore need to be protected from their own weaknesses by government and by prohibition, it is easier to end up with the current policy. Some people fear that if you were to legalize drugs, Norway, or America, might end up as Sodom and Gomorrah.

– Thirdly, prejudice: What you call the morality questions I would call prejudice. There is an upstanding dimension to that, because there are a lot of positive values involved in the combat against drug abuse and addiction, such as self-reliance and internal strength and discipline. But when one feels compelled to legislate one’s morality, so that it be imposed upon others who may not agree, I would say that that imposition of one’s own morality ceases to be moral, and is transformed into a form of prejudice. And though maybe not so much in Norway, in many countries, the issue of drugs is so tied up with racism and the fear of immigrants and darker skinned people. In my country, and throughout much of the Western world, the ways in which drug laws are applied is horribly disproportionate in racial terms, especially if look at who ends up going to prison.

– Finally, there is profit. In our country, the prison industrial complex is important here. And maybe I should add a fifth element here, which is not so much profit as power. In the United States, with our adversarial system of justice, prosecutors have assumed a level of power in our society, in law making, law enforcement and culture that is extraordinary. So prosecutors are now the principal obstacle to needle exchange programs, overdose prevention programs and other harm reduction programs. This is very different in Europe, where the police in many countries became the leading champions of heroin maintenance. Has that happened in Norway yet?

No, not at all. The police in Norway is one of the main obstacles to heroin prescription reform.

– But if you look at Switzerland, it was the police who championed this. In Germany, there was an issue of Der Spiegel 15 years ago, where a majority of German big city police chiefs supported heroin maintenance. Why? Well, from their perspective, it reduces black market, it reduces acquisitive crimes by drug addicts, and it gives a nod to the public health people. So in many European countries, the police became leading champions of heroin maintenance. That needs to happen in

Norway too for it to succeed, I believe.

Are you optimistic as we go forward that we will be able to reform the drug policy field? In the United States, we will probably see a number of cannabis law changes and ballot initiatives in the years to come. And recently, we have seen Latin American presidents openly discuss legalization. Where are we headed?

– What vice president Joe Biden said in early March when he went to Mexico and Honduras, and what president Obama repeated at the summit of the Organization of the Americas in Caragena last month, and which has now become official State Department policy, is that the United States government now supports a debate about legalization, and is willing to look at those areas where US drug policies are doing more harm than good. That’s a new stated policy.

– Beneath the surface, however, the US is doing everything to disrupt, to derail and to diminish this debate. But formally, the government acknowledges that this is a legitimate subject for discussion. And though they say that they are firmly against legalization or decriminalization, that simple change in posture has opened up room for a more vigorous debate in Latin America.

When you mention Joe Biden: A few weeks ago, in the run up to Obama declaring his support for gay marriage, Joe Biden talked about how the TV series Will & Grace has been an agent of change in how the public views gays. Do you think that in a few years time, we will see Biden talk about how The Wire changed the way people look at drug policies? Or more generally: What are the agents of change that we should be looking for in how we talk about drug issues?

– There was an exchange between the Attorney General, Eric Holder, and David Simon, the director of The Wire, where Holder praised the series and talked about the need for a new season. And Simon responded that he would be prepared to work on a new season if the Department of Justice was equally prepared to reconsider its misguided, destructive and dehumanizing drug prohibition.

– But talking about Will & Grace, there is a tremendous similarity between the gay rights movement and the marijuana reform movement. First of all, they both involve the same principle. A few years ago, I went to see Barney Frank, a gay congressman, who also sympathizes with drug reform. And as I was leaving the office, I told him: “You know, congressman, with gay rights and marijuana reform, it is about the same principle.” He looks at me, and asks how that is. And I say: “Well, that nobody should be punished for what they put in their bodies if they don’t hurt anybody else, whether it is a penis or a joint.” He enjoyed that, and I think he agrees. But the principle here is the right to be left alone, and not be demonized and criminalized for once personal choice.

That sounds like a quote from the Gospel: It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles the body, but what comes out of the mouth.

– The second similarity concerns the importance of people coming out, both famous people and ordinary people. In the struggle for gay rights, that movement accelerated tremendously when AIDS hit. In that sense of crisis, all sorts of people began to speak out. 40 years ago, everybody in America knew a homosexual. They just didn’t know that they knew a homosexual. Therefore, their image of the homosexual came from the newspapers or the media, or the caricatures, or the people arrested in the men’s room, or the flamboyantly homosexual people.

– Now, everybody in America knows a homosexual, and they know that they do, and it may be their cousin, or their colleague or their boss, and it is normalized, and the notion of discrimination becomes more and more illegitimate. Similarly, everybody in Norway today knows a cannabis consumer – and often even other drug consumers. But many still don’t know that they know them. And therefore their image of the illegal drug user is shaped by the media. The people who get arrested, the people who become addicted, the dramatic imagery you often see from television.

– But this is now starting to change. 30 years ago in American sitcoms, if you had a gay person, they would be flamboyantly gay. And then 10 years ago, they would be Will & Grace gay. And now, they are just ordinary characters who happens to be gay. With cannabis smokers, 30 years ago, they would be Cheech & Chong. But now, marijuana is increasingly just a background in movies. There is hardly a sitcom in America in the last 15 years that has not had one episode that involves medical marijuana. So a similar change is happening. If you look on public opinion polls, you’ll see that support for cannabis legalization between 2006 and 2010 rose even more quickly than support for gay marriage.

– So maybe the politicians are not yet stepping up. But opinions are changing. So I remain optimistic. And in a few years – my guess would be that Washington state would be the first – some governor will do for marijuana legalization what Andrew Cuomo did last year for gay marriage. And I, for one, will count that as a major victory for the human rights for all the people who are prosecuted, jailed and punished for what they chose to put in their body.

Edited May 26, 2012 by namkha

[Arnold Layne]

Interesting stuff, don't agree entirely, but its all good.

Ta namkha ~ again

[namkha]

Ethan Nadelmann's 15 minute talk at Oslo Freedom Forum on drug policy reform as a human rights cause

[Bhang Buddie]

it ends up violating the human rights of millions of people worldwide.

Reminds me very much of this, from the 24th of July, 1967

The law against marijuana is immoral in principle and unworkable in practice.

"All laws which can be violated without doing anyone any injury are laughed at. Nay, so far are they from doing anything to control the desires and passions of man that, on the contrary, they direct and incite men's thoughts toward these very objects; for we always strive toward what is forbidden and desire the things we are not allowed to have. And men of leisure are never deficient in the ingenuity needed to enable them to outwit laws framed to regulate things which cannot be entirely forbidden. ...He who tries to determine everything by law will foment crime rather than lessen it."- Spinoza

The herb Cannabis sativa, known as 'Marihuana' or 'Hashish', is prohibited under the Dangerous Drugs Act (1965). The maximum penalty for smoking cannabis is ten years' imprisonment and a fine of £1,000. Yet informed medical opinion supports the view that cannabis is the least harmful of pleasure-giving drugs, and is, in particular, far less harmful than alcohol. Cannabis is non-addictive, and prosecutions for disorderly behaviour under its influence are unknown.

The use of cannabis is increasing, and the rate of increase is accelerating. Cannabis smoking is widespread in the universities, and the custom has been taken up by writers, teachers, doctors, businessmen, musicians, scientists, and priests. Such persons do not fit the stereotype of the unemployed criminal dope fiend. Smoking the herb also forms a traditional part of the social and religious life of hundreds of thousands of immigrants to Britain.

A leading article in The Lancet (9 November, 1963) has suggested that it is "worth considering ... giving cannabis the same status as alcohol by legalising its import and consumption ... Besides the undoubted attraction of reducing, for once, the number of crimes that a member of our society can commit, and of allowing the wider spread of something that can give pleasure, a greater revenue would certainly come to the State from taxation than from fines. ...Additional gains might be the reduction of inter-racial tension, as well as that between generations."

The main justification for the prohibition of cannabis has been the contention that its use leads to heroin addiction. This contention does not seem to be supported by any documented evidence, and has been specifically refuted by several authoritative studies. It is almost certainly correct to state that the risk to cannabis smokers of becoming heroin addicts is far less than the risk to drinkers of becoming alcoholics.

Cannabis is usually taken by normal persons for the purpose of enhancing sensory experience. Heroin is taken almost exclusively by weak and disturbed individuals for the purpose of withdrawing from reality. By prohibiting cannabis Parliament has created a black market where heroin could occasionally be offered to persons who would not otherwise have had access to it. Potential addicts, having found cannabis to be a poor escape route, have doubtless been tempted to try heroin; and it is probable that their experience of the harmlessness and non-addictive quality of cannabis has led them to underestimate the dangers of heroin. It is the prohibition of cannabis, and not cannabis itself, which may contribute to heroin addiction.

The present system of controls has strongly discouraged the use of cannabis preparations in medicine. It is arguable that claims which were formerly made for the effectiveness of cannabis in psychiatric treatment might now bear re-examination in the light of modern views on drug therapy; and a case could also be made out for further investigation of the antibiotic properties of cannabidiolic acid, one of the constituents of the herb. The possibility of alleviating suffering through the medical use of cannabis preparations should not be dismissed because of prejudice concerning the social effects of 'drugs'.

The Government ought to welcome and encourage research into all aspects of cannabis smoking, but according to the law as it stands no one is permitted to smoke cannabis under any circumstances, and exceptions cannot be made for scientific and medical research. It is a scandal that doctors who are entitled to prescribe heroin, cocaine, amphetamines and barbiturates risk being sent to prison for personally investigating a drug which is known to be less damaging than alcohol or even tobacco.

A recent leader in The Times called attention to the great danger of the "deliberate sensationalism" which underlies the present campaign against 'drugs' and cautioned that: "Past cases have shown what can happen when press, police and public all join in a manhunt at a moment of national anxiety". In recent months the persecution of cannabis smokers has been intensified. Much larger fines and an increasing proportion of unreasonable prison sentences suggest that, the crime at issue is not so much drug abuse as heresy.

The prohibition of cannabis has brought the law into disrepute and has demoralized police officers faced with the necessity of enforcing an unjust law. Uncounted thousands of frightened persons have been arbitrarily classified as criminals and threatened with arrest, victimisation and loss of livelihood. Many of them have been exposed to public contempt in the courts, insulted by uninformed magistrates and sent to suffer in prison. They have been hunted down with Alsatian dogs or stopped on the street at random and improperly searched. The National Council for Civil Liberties has called attention to instances where drugs have apparently been 'planted' on suspected cannabis smokers. Chief Constables have appealed to the public to inform on their neighbours and children. Yet despite these gross impositions and the threat to civil liberties which they pose the police freely admit that they have been unable to prevent the spread of cannabis smoking.

Abuse of opiates, amphetamines and barbiturates has become a serious national problem, but very little can be done about it so long as the prohibition of cannabis remains in force. The police do not have the resources or the manpower to deal with both cannabis and the dangerous drugs at the same time. Furthermore prohibition provides a potential breeding ground for many forms of drug abuse and gangsterism. Similar legislation in America in the 'twenties brought the sale of both alcohol and heroin under the control of an immensely powerful criminal conspiracy which still thrives today. We in Britain must not lose sight of the parallel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MEDICAL OPINION

"There are no lasting ill-effects from the acute use of marihuana and no fatalities have ever been recorded. ... The causal relationship between these two events (marihuana smoking and heroin addiction) has never been substantiated. In spite of the once heated interchanges among members of the medical profession and between the medical profession and law enforcement officers there seems to be a growing agreement within the medical community, at least, that marihuana does not directly cause criminal behaviour, juvenile delinquency, sexual excitement, or addiction."

Dr. J. H. Jaffe, in The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, L. Goodman and A. Gillman, Eds., 3rd Ed. 1965

"Certain specific myths require objective confrontation since otherwise they recurrently confuse the issue, and incidentally divert the energy and attention of police and customs and immigration authorities in directions which have very little to do with the facts and much more to do with prejudiced beliefs. The relative innocence of marijuana by comparison with alcohol is one such fact, its social denial a comparable myth."

Dr. David Stafford-Clark, Director of Psychological Medicine, Guy's Hospital. The Times, 12 April 1967.

"Marijuana is not a drug of addiction and is, medically speaking, far less harmful than alcohol or tobacco ... It is generally smoked in the company of others and its chief effect seems to be an enhanced appreciation of music and colour and together with a feeling of relaxation and peace. A mystical experience of being at one with the universe is common, which is why the drug has been highly valued in Eastern religions. Unlike alcohol, marijuana does not lead to aggressive behaviour, nor is it aphrodisiac. There is no hangover, nor, so far as it is known, any deleterious physical effect."

Dr. Anthony Storr, Sunday Times, 5 February 1967

"The available evidence shows that marijuana is not a drug of addiction and has no harmful effects ... (the problem of marijuana) has been created by an ill-informed society rather than the drug itself."

Guy's Hospital Gazette, 17, 1965

"I think we can now say that marijuana does not lead to degeneration, does not affect the brain cells, is not habit-forming, and does not lead to heroin addiction."

Dr James H. Fox, Director of the Bureau of Drug abuse Control, U.S. Food and Drug administration. Quoted Champaign, Illinois News-Gazette, 25 August 1966

"Cannabis is taken for euphoria, reduction of fatigue, and relief from tension, ... (it) is a valuable pleasure-giving drug, probably much safer than alcohol."

Dr. Joel Fort, Consultant on Drug Addiction to the World Health Organisation, Lecturer in School of Criminology, University of California. From Blum, Richard Ed., Utopiates 1965

"(Smoking cannabis) only occasionally is followed by heroin use, probably in those who would have become heroin addicts as readily without the marijuana."

Dr L. Bender, Comprehens. Psychiat. 1963, 4, 181-94

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The signatories to this petition suggest to the Home Secretary that he implement a five point programme of cannabis reform:

1. THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PERMIT AND ENCOURAGE RESEARCH INTO ALL ASPECTS OF CANNABIS USE, INCLUDING ITS MEDICAL APPLICATIONS.

2. ALLOWING THE SMOKING OF CANNABIS ON PRIVATE PREMISES SHOULD NO LONGER CONSTITUTE AN OFFENCE.

3. CANNABIS SHOULD BE TAKEN OFF THE DANGEROUS DRUGS LIST AND CONTROLLED, RATHER THAN PROHIBITED, BY A NEW AD HOC INSTRUMENT.

4. POSSESSION OF CANNABIS SHOULD EITHER BE LEGALLY PERMITTED OR AT MOST BE CONSIDERED A MISDEMEANOUR, PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN ukp10 FOR A FIRST OFFENCE AND NOT MORE THAN ukp25 FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT OFFENCE.

5. ALL PERSONS NOW IMPRISONED FOR POSSESSION OF CANNABIS OR FOR ALLOWING CANNABIS TO BE SMOKED ON PRIVATE PREMISES SHOULD HAVE THEIR SENTENCES COMMUTED.

1.Jonathan Aitken

2.Tariq Ali

3.David Bailey

4.Humphrey Berkeley

5.Anthony Blond

6.Derek Boshier

7.Sidney Briskin

8.Peter Brook

9.Dr. David Cooper

10.Dr. Francis Crick, F.R.S.

11.David Dimbleby

12.Tom Driberg, M.P.

13.Dr. Ian Dunbar

14.Brian Epstein

15.Dr. Aaron Esterson

16.Peter Fryer

17.John Furnival

18.Tony Garnett

19.Clive Goodwin

20.Graham Greene

21.Richard Hamilton

22.George Harrison, M.B.E.

23.Michael Hastings

24.Dr. J.M. Heaton

25.David Hockney

26.Jeremy Hornsby

27.Dr. S. Hutt

28.Francis Huxley

29.Dr. Brian Inglis

30.The Revd. Dr. Victor E.S. Kenna, O.B.E.

31.George Kiloh

32.Herbert Kretzmer

33.Dr. R.D. Laing

34.Dr. Calvin Mark Lee

35.John Lennon, M.B.E.

36.Dr. D.M. Lewis

37.Paul McCartney, M.B.E.

38.David McEwen

39.Alasdair MacIntyre

40.Dr. O.D. Macrae-Gibson

41.Tom Mashler

42.Michael Abul Malik

43.George Melly

44.Dr. Jonathan Miller

45.Adrian Mitchell

46.Dr. Ann Mully

47.P.H. Nowell-Smith

48.Dr. Christopher Pallis

49.John Piper

50.Patrick Procktor

51.John Pudney

52.Alastair Reid

53.L. Jeffrey Selznick

54.Nathan Silver

55.Tony Smythe

56.Michael Schofield

57.Dr. David Stafford-Clark

58.Richard Starkey, M.B.E.

59.Dr. Anthony Storr

60.Kenneth Tynan

61.Dr. W. Grey Walter

62.Brian Walden, M.P.

63.Michael White

64.Pat Williams

[LEGALIZE]

nice brothers and sistas thubms up