The Government Were Advised To Decriminalise Drug Possession In 2016 (no surprise they ignored it)

[MidgeSmith]

It will be no surprise to anyone that the Government were advised to decriminalise all drug posession in 2016 to avoid further societal harms, but ignored the evidence:

"

UK drug advisers recommended decriminalising possession in 2016, leak reveals

Exclusive: Guardian has seen copy of 27-page report that Home Office attempted to keep confidential

The UK government’s official drug advisers privately advocated for a formal repeal of the criminalisation of personal-use drug possession in 2016, a leaked document has revealed.

The Guardian has seen a copy of the 27-page pro-decriminalisation report, which the Home Office ignored at the time but then fought a three-year battle to keep confidential after a freedom of information request.

The report sent to the then home secretary by the former chair of the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs highlighted a number of serious concerns around criminalising drug use. It is the only ACMD report not to have been published.

It said there was “little consistent international evidence that the criminalisation for possession of drugs for personal use is effective in reducing drug use”, that the UK was not required to criminalise drug use under its treaty obligations, and that criminalisation harmed people’s educational and employment prospects.

The ACMD recommended that “the Home Office reviews the personal possession offence (MDA). The review could result in the offence of possession for personal use being repealed.

The revelation comes amid growing criticism of the government’s law and order approach to drug policy, which the Scottish government said recently caused greater harm to people who used drugs. This month, the UK government unveiled plans to jail people for up to two years for possessing laughing gas unless it was being used legitimately in catering or medicine.

“The suppression of these recommendations reveals what most experts have long concluded: the Home Office has zero interest in drug policies that work,” said Prof David Nutt, who was sacked from his role as the government’s chief drug adviser in 2009 after arguing that alcohol is more dangerous than certain illegal drugs.

“Their behaviour demonstrates a desire to deny any expert evidence that would reveal their persisting criminalisation approach to be illogical, inhuman and ineffective,” he added.

The report sought to harmonise the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act with 2016’s Psychoactive Substances Act, which generally does not criminalise possession. Nevertheless, it detailed wider concerns over UK drug policy among experts. It cites the reported success of Portugal in decriminalising drugs and notes that drug use has remained stable in countries after they have criminalised possession.

Steve Rolles, senior policy analyst at Transform Drug Policy Foundation, said: “The committee clearly felt pressured into calling for a review in secret. If the recommendation had been published at the time, it would have informed lawmaking and public debate – accelerating much-needed reforms and reducing the catastrophic impacts of the UK’s failed drug laws.”

Helen Clark, the former prime minister of New Zealand and chair of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, which campaigns for reform, said: “It would be commendable if the UK government were now to accept and act on this advice.”

MPs on the home affairs select committee this year questioned the minister for policing, Chris Philp, over the report but he refused to be drawn on its contents. “Somebody FoIed it,” he said. “The advice [from the ACMD] was provided privately. It’s highly unlikely we’d want to disclose.”

Nevertheless, a first-tier tribunal in January dismissed the Home Office’s confidentiality argument, but accepted that drug policy reform discussions were “live at the relevant time”, thus protecting the report from disclosure.

It came after the information commissioner in September 2021 ruled similarly. “The commissioner is satisfied that the policy that the report relates to is live and that it is subject to ongoing review,” it said. This is despite the government repeatedly stating it has no plans to decriminalise drugs.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “This document from seven years ago was not a formal review with recommendations for publication. There is no safe way to take illegal drugs, which devastate lives, ruin families and damage communities, and we have no plans to consider legalisation or decriminalisation of drugs.

'Our 10-year drugs strategy set out ambitious plans, backed with a record £3bn funding over three years to tackle the supply of illicit drugs through relentless policing action and building a world-class system of treatment and recovery to turn people’s lives around and prevent crime.'
"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/19/uk-drug-advisers-recommended-decriminalising-possession-in-2016-leak-reveals

[Strawberry Fields]

"When Charles Clarke was Home Secretary he didn't like my advice, but at least he had the courage to accept it.”   Professor Nutt, December 2009

 

 

Amazes me how the fuckers we elect still can't see the wood for the trees.

 

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Strawberry Fields

[MidgeSmith]

Personally, I think they have agreements with higher-ups that are never disclosed as well as a desire to keep the publics head down.  We'll probably never know, but hopefully at some point it will have to give!

[Devon Cream]

That’s probably because a few of the government had ties to medical facilities didn’t want competition.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/drugs-minister-victoria-atkins-hypocrisy-cannabis-paul-kenward-british-sugar-a8356056.html

[MidgeSmith]

7 minutes ago, Devon Cream said:

That’s probably because a few of the government had ties to medical facilities didn’t want competition.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/drugs-minister-victoria-atkins-hypocrisy-cannabis-paul-kenward-british-sugar-a8356056.html

Oh yeah, its probably 66% of that and 34 of the other.  Victoria Atkins Theresa May's husband and more are all heavily invested in British Sugar who grows it, GW Pharmaceuticals (owned by Jazz) and accompanying businesses.  The Home Office has been colluding behind closed doors with the FSA and GW to determine the law and profiteering and have had far reaching effects.  They set UK recommended intake at something like 1/4 or less of that recommended by the WHO.

 

They're why CBD flower availability and law has been a bit up and down and why the US FDA are looking at CBD in a different light too.  GW have published articles against CBD being freely available stating numbers of deaths attributed to cannabis, namely CBD & THC.  Yes, we all know the number is zero, but they have claimed deaths, though when you look into it, the deaths were actually related - if to cannabinoids at all - to synthetics and extracts made by GW among others!!!

Even on the left wing, Jacqui Smith - who put cannabis back up to class B when it had been class C for a while (on Gordon Brown's behalf, who apparently had been promised by the Daily Mail that they would get behind him if he made punishments for cannabis harsher) is now on the board of a Medical Cannabis company and freely admits it was wrong to have made it class B again.

 

We have been ENTIRELY stitched up by the establishment / money at the top who want to maximise their profits, sympathised with by equally invested and historically racist banking and media industries.

Edited September 19, 2023 by MidgeSmith

[Devon Cream]

Fooking hypercritical tossers the rich and powerful can do what they please with no one to answer too . And us the stupid fookers get worked and robbed to fund them then get bent over and shafted for a few plants for own use while they make millions they need stringing up .

Edited September 19, 2023 by Devon Cream

[MidgeSmith]

Just now, Devon Cream said:

Fooking hypercritical tossers the rich and powerful can do what they please with no one to answer too . And us the stupid fookers get worked and robbed to fund them then get bent over and shafted for a few plants for own use while they make millions they need stringing up .

If I had my way, they'd be the first against the wall... come the revolution.  Sadly in England we don't do that.  The rest of the UK actually seems to have more revolutionary spirit or 'balls' as I think of it.

[Boojum]

The one time we actually managed it the puritan religious fundamentalist nutters that took over were so fucking bad we ended up asking the monarchy to come back

 

E2A That's the problem with revolution, it's generally just replacing one set of cunts with another (often worse) set of cunts, revolution is an apt term cos it just goes round in a circle with cunts at the top

Edited September 19, 2023 by Boojum

[MidgeSmith]

Just now, Boojum said:

The one time we actually managed it the puritan religious fundamentalist nutters that took over were so fucking bad we ended up asking the monarchy to come back

 

E2A That's the problem with revolution, it's generally just replacing one set of cunts for another (often worse) set of cunts, revolution is an apt term cos it just goes round in a circle with cunts at the top

Healthy to actually do something, but yeah ultimately.  Whomever you put in charge, its the government.

[latigid aikon]

46 minutes ago, MidgeSmith said:

Oh yeah, its probably 66% of that and 34 of the other. 

66% making money from cannabis and 34% are cunts like Pritti Patel who have strong ties to the alcohol and tobacco industry.

[Boojum]

Although she may have ties to alcohol and tobacco I genuinely think Priti Patel is one of the few whose prohibitionism is a belief, a 'moral' fight and not just about personal enrichment. I think she's one of the most dangerous of the whole Westminster mob, she's a full-on authoritarian and they are the most dangerous, I've said it before is she ever gets the top job then the country is well and truly fucked

[Larry Badgeley]

A Home Office spokesperson said: “This document from seven years ago was not a formal review with recommendations for publication. There is no safe way to take illegal drugs, which devastate lives, ruin families and damage communities, and we have no plans to consider legalisation or decriminalisation of drugs.

 

Even though no one has actually died from Cannabis use as opposed to the thousands who have died through Alcohol

 

 

 

'Our 10-year drugs strategy set out ambitious plans, backed with a record £3bn funding over three years to tackle the supply of illicit drugs through relentless policing action and building a world-class system of treatment and recovery to turn people’s lives around and prevent crime.'

 

And how's that going?

[Boojum]

Just now, Larry Badgeley said:

backed with a record £3bn funding over three years

 

 

Nice to see the tax revenue being spent wisely in these times of austerity

[MidgeSmith]

2 hours ago, Larry Badgeley said:

A Home Office spokesperson said: “This document from seven years ago was not a formal review with recommendations for publication. There is no safe way to take illegal drugs, which devastate lives, ruin families and damage communities, and we have no plans to consider legalisation or decriminalisation of drugs.

 

Even though no one has actually died from Cannabis use as opposed to the thousands who have died through Alcohol

 

 

 

'Our 10-year drugs strategy set out ambitious plans, backed with a record £3bn funding over three years to tackle the supply of illicit drugs through relentless policing action and building a world-class system of treatment and recovery to turn people’s lives around and prevent crime.'

 

And how's that going?

Come on Larry, there're plenty of safe ways to use Class 1 carcinogens.  You can leave them in the bottle or pouch, ban them erm, bury them underground.  Christ you bandy around nobody dying as if that means those drugs are safer.  Safer for the proles maybe, but not safer for the investments of the elites! You'd never make it to government.  Also, stop analysing results, you'll only make the truth seem more... obvious.

I mean how the fuck can they avoid stabbing each other to death on the benches over how noxious they all are? I wish they would.

[Clean Green]

Harm maximisation is what they want. Same as COVID lockdowns and the fact that a low income family with an old diesel car have to pay ULEZ charges, whilst a millionaire who just bought at 5.8l V12 Ferrari doesn't.  Attack the poor and disabled and keep their health and wellbeing suppressed.  That's what the Tories do, along with lots of hand shaking, back slapping and shady deals to make much money as they can.  As soon as you realise that they're the criminals and among  most socially and financially corrupt organisations in the country, the easier it is to break free from their bullshit and live life as you wish to.  They're not going to come and give you it back, so take it now and live it.