REGULATION OF THE CANNABIS CHAIN: WHERE, WHEN AND HOW? Published on Wednesday 29 August 2012 15:13, by encod . Modified on Wednesday 29 August 2012 15:12 All the versions of this article: [English] 1 Source: Huffington Post 28.08.2012 By Amanda Feilding, Director of the Beckley Foundation To leave the third largest industry in the world — worth about $350 billion per annum — in the control of criminal cartels,people with values opposite to those of civilized society — is foolish to the point of insanity. Surely we must presume that the governments of the world, with the help of the necessary experts, can do a better job at minimizing the harms associated with drug production, marketing and use than will moral-free criminals. The time has come for our leaders to recognize what has been obvious to many of us for a long time: that the prohibitionist approach of the War on Drugs has proved to be a failure. After 50 years of escalating expenditure, suffering and social devastation, it is time to rethink our basic approach to the control of psychoactive substances. It is time to consider policy options that have until now been too taboo even to discuss — namely, control of these substances by a strictly regulated legal regime. Psychoactive substances have been used by mankind since the earliest times and are deeply interwoven with the evolution of our cultural development. It was only in the 20th century that a system of control based on prohibition began to evolve, almost by accident. By the mid-20th century this tendency had gathered force, and finally got fixated in the three UN Drug Conventions of 1961, ’71 and ’88. Signed by almost every country in the world, these Conventions have achieved the status of holy writ — unalterable and beyond reasoned debate. Although around $100 billion a year is spent trying to enforce these conventions, the many United Nations meetings that I have attended are devoted to fulsome self-congratulation, with no consideration whatever of the actual data — which would tell a story of costly failure and catastrophic collateral damage, particularly in the producer and transit countries. Before the 1961 Convention, which enacted the world-wide prohibition of the production, trade and possession of the three major plant-based drugs — cannabis, cocaine and opium — use around the world was minimal. Since then, drug-use has vastly proliferated, and has become a rite of passage for millions of young people. Prohibition has been a charter for criminals, creating profits unprecedented in history for those sufficiently ruthless and well-organized to take advantage of the system. So enormous are the sums of money available to the drug cartels that police forces, the military and politicians, especially in countries with fragile systems of government, are unable to resist. As a direct result, corruption in the 21st century is now more widespread and uncontrollable than it has ever been. And the horrific, moral-free violence and intimidation practiced along the Mexican border with the U.S. demonstrates that the power of drug-money can, in the last analysis, be greater than that of the modern state. Prohibition has created a powerful coalition of police, drug enforcement agencies, prisons, legal systems, banks and criminal cartels — all with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of the current, prohibitionist policies. Those who suffer the most from these policies are the "little fish" — personal drug-users and small-time dealers, who form the vast majority of the millions imprisoned on drugs offenses around the world. By contrast, the "big fish" go free, for instance, in 2010 $378 billion of laundered drug money was identified in the U.S. bank Wachovia, yet no individual was prosecuted, and it was not reported in the U.S. press except by Bloomberg. Meanwhile, despite the vast cost to the world’s taxpayers, and despite the terrible collateral damage from the War on Drugs, drug consumption continues to rise, particularly in those countries with relatively draconian policies, such as the U.S. and UK. Countries which have moved towards more liberal policies, such as the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain have, contrary to the predictions of the Drug Warriors, experienced not a surge but a reduction in problem use, drug-related deaths and crime. There is no doubt that humans have always had an urge to alter their consciousness by a variety of techniques, from extreme sport and meditation to the ingestion of psychoactive substances. In different cultures and times, different substances have been dominant. In most of the world, alcohol and tobacco took early supremacy, and have remained legally and socially acceptable, although they cause more harms to health and costs to society than many of the illegal drugs. There is no single, one-size-fits-all solution to the problems with which drugs and drug-use confront society. This very complex situation demands the development of subtle policy responses, adapted to local needs and conditions. However, I think one can say with certainty that the current, illegal and totally unregulated market is the worst possible solution. We need to move in the direction of a strictly-regulated market, based on the principles of health, harm-reduction, cost-effectiveness and human rights. Experimental new policies must be cautiously introduced and carefully, scientifically monitored. The different substances need different regulatory controls, especially tailored to their specific characteristics, and individual countries should be free to pursue policies conforming to their particular circumstances and needs. It will never be possible to eliminate problematic drug use but, in my opinion, more scientifically-based policies could greatly reduce these harms. Indeed, improving our drug policies is one of the key policy challenges of our time, because so much of the harm and suffering comes, not from the drugs themselves, but from the policies that seek to control them. In 2006, I realized that although cannabis accounted for 80 percent of the world-wide use of illegal substances, it was, amazingly, never mentioned at international meetings such as the U.N. General Assembly. It was the elephant in the room: no one wanted attention brought to the fact that this relatively harmless substance was the mainstay of the massive and costly War on Drugs. I therefore convened the Global Commission on Cannabis, consisting of the world’s most respected drug-policy analysts, to give an overview of the potential harms of cannabis and the effectiveness of current prohibitionist policies, and to provide alternative policy recommendations both inside and outside the current conventions. The Commission also provided a new Draft Framework Convention on Cannabis Control, a blue-print of how a country might control a regulated market. The Commission’s Report, co-published with Oxford University Press, has been very influential among policy-makers around the world. A subsequent report commissioned by the Beckley Foundation, entitled Roadmap to Reform the UN Drug Conventions, sets out methods by which an individual country, or a group of countries, might adapt the conventions to better suit their individual needs, e.g. by clear decriminalization of personal drug possession, and by the legal regulation of one or more controlled substances. Cannabis is the obvious first candidate for experiments in regulation, as it is most widely used, creates minimal harms and is the most socially accepted of currently controlled drugs. As the production and sale of recreational cannabis is prohibited by the U.N. Conventions, they would need to be amended to permit such an experiment. Until that happens, any partial experiment with regulation must be carried out in the legal grey area of latitude within the Conventions, as is now happening with the Cannabis Social Clubs in Spain, where cannabis is sold on a not-for-profit basis to club members. There are various possible forms of regulation, from the medical marijuana model favored in the USA, to a loose model of regulation similar to that used for alcohol, to a strict regulation, as is currently being applied to tobacco. I and many experts favor the last option, because it offers maximum protection to the user while recognizing the individual’s freedom of choice and human rights. In this model, the state would license private producers and vendors. There could be three forms of producer: i) cannabis social clubs, already tried and proved to be successful in Spain; ii) smaller farmers; and iii) larger producers — maybe run along the lines of GW Pharmaceuticals in the UK — where cannabis is grown organically from cloned plants, and so the ratio of the main constituents (THC and CBD) can be controlled and labelled. Licensed vendors would be required to undertake harm-reduction measures, including the provision of information and education, and enforcement of minimum age restrictions. Advertising would be banned, and the product would be subject to a sales tax, among other regulatory controls. Legal regulation would bring about many advantages such as: The product’s purity and potency, including the ratio of the main ingredients — THC and CBD — could be controlled and clearly labelled. Users would not be criminalized, so they would be able to access advice and treatment without fear of prosecution. Also, lives would not be unnecessarily stigmatized with a criminal record. Police and court time, and prison space, would be freed up for more serious crimes, thereby bringing about substantial savings in government expenditure. Substantial tax revenues would be collected, which could be spent on the provision of improved education and treatment. Creating a legal, strictly-regulated market in cannabis has great economic benefits, particularly important in these times of economic hardship. Recent findings from a Beckley Foundation-commissioned Report on a Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Regulated and Taxed Cannabis Market in England and Wales indicate that a minimum of over U.S. $1.6 billion could be generated per year if such a market for cannabis was set up in the UK. I expect that this figure would be similar, if not greater, in an equivalent Spanish market. This revenue would come from a variety of sources: firstly, roughly $170 million would be saved on law enforcement costs, due to police not needing to waste time on arresting citizens for cannabis possession. The judicial system would save $155 million by not having to sentence users, and without the need to imprison them, $135 million would be saved. With these people not being incarcerated, they can remain a productive part of society, generating an additional $16 million. Finally, taxation of the cannabis product itself would produce around $1.2 billion for the government’s pocket. All of this revenue could be invested into facilities for treatment of problem drug users and education, or used to reduce the national debt. As to the where? when? and how?, in the past year or two there has finally been a shift in attitudes to global drug policy. About 30 countries have now undertaken some form of decriminalization of drug use. Former presidents, especially in Latin America, and other distinguished public figures have declared that current prohibitionist policies are no longer fit for purpose, and have called for an end to the taboo on consideration of alternative options. The Beckley Foundation’s Public Letter calling for such a debate has been signed by 7 former presidents, including Jimmy Carter, 12 Nobel Prize winners, and by prominent intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky. Earlier this year, the letter was, for the first time, signed by a president in office, namely President Otto Pérez Molina of Guatemala, who has asked the Beckley Foundation to provide him with reports outlining alternative policy options, including regulation, to tackle the violence and corruption in Central America created by the illegal drug trade. Other Latin American presidents, such as President Santos of Colombia, have also expressed the need to explore policy alternatives. The President of Uruguay has recently proposed the introduction of a regulated market for cannabis. Momentum and critical mass are gathering behind the calls for fresh approaches. The producer and transit countries of Latin America have suffered enough from the policies developed by consumer countries and maintained by the greatest consumer of them all, the United States. There is hope at last of escape from the folly of the present, failing prohibitionist regime, and of the implementation of subtler policies based on science and pragmatism rather than ideology. This post was adapted from a talk given for the Rototom Social Forum. More Sharing ServicesShare | Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print Reply to this article Sections Czech (cz, sk) Dansk (dk) Deutsch (de) English (en)ACTION APPEALS AGENDA BULLETIN CAMPAIGNS CANNABIS SOCIAL CLUBS DOWNLOADS EU LOBBY CAMPAIGN MEMBERSHIP NEWS2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 PRESS RELEASES REGIONAL ACTIVITIES SHOP STATEMENTS STUDIES WORKING GROUPS Español (es) Français (fr) Italiano (it) Magyar (hu) Nederlands (nl) Norsk (no) Polski (pl) Portugues (pt) Română Suomi (fi) Svenska (sv) Türkçe Syndicate the whole site In the same section 25.1. Public Hearing Bundestag: Cannabis Social Clubs 7 REASONS WHY WE DISLIKE THE NEW HUNGARIAN DRUG STRATEGY ALTERNATIVE WORLD DRUG REPORT BELGIUM’S ANSWER TO THE WEEDPASS: CANNABIS SOCIAL CLUBS BRANSON: LEGALISING CANNABIS WOULD SOLVE SPAIN’S DEFICIT PROBLEM CANNABIS MADE IN THE UK CANNABIS TRADE RESURGING IN COPENHAGEN AFTER LEGALISATION PROPOSAL IS REJECTED CHEWING OVER KHAT PROHIBITION CHICAGO DECRIMINALISES POSSESSION OF USER AMOUNTS OF MARIJUANA CHILEAN SENATORS PROPOSE DECRIMINALISATION OF CANNABIS CULTIVATION CIA-PENTAGON DEATH SQUADS AND MEXICO’S WAR ON DRUGS CND Statement by UNAIDS: The time for pilot projects is over. Colombian President Would Legalize Drugs - if World Accepts COPENHAGEN CITY COUNCIL: IS IT OK IF WE SELL JOINTS? COPENHAGEN WANTS TO CONTROL CANNABIS MARKET Cop’s Marijuana Legalization Question Gets 1st Place in White House Video Contest CROATIA TO DECRIMINALIZE DRUG POSSESSION CYPRUS POLICE RAIDS PEACE CAMP AND SEIZES ONE GRAMME OF CANNABIS CZECH PARLIAMENT TO APPROVE REGULATION FOR MEDICINAL CANNABIS DANGEROUS HEROIN WITH TRACES OF ANTHRAX FOUND IN COPENHAGEN 0 |20 |40 |60 Agenda From 1 August 00:00 to 31 August 23:30 : AGOSTO MES DE LA PACHAMAMA [Español] From 14 September 10:00 to 16 September 19:00 : I FORO SOCIAL INTERNACIONAL DE CANNABIS [English] [Español] [français] Wednesday 26 September 13:00-18:00 : DRUGSDEBAT IN ANTWERPEN, PERMEKE, DE CONINCKPLEIN [Nederlands] Friday 19 October 10:00-16:30 : LE CANNABIS AU PARLEMENT EUROPÉEN , STRASSBOURG, FRANCE [français] From 9 November 11:00 to 11 November 17:00 : CANNAFEST, PRAGUE, PRAGUE [English] Latest comments Most recent forum messages 7 August – MAJORITY OF DANES WANT TO LEGALISE CANNABIS 4 August – EU READY TO END DRUG PROHIBITION 15 July – CANNABIS SOCIAL CLUBS SURGE IN UNITED KINGDOM 14 July – MAASTRICHT COFFEESHOPS WILL CONTINUE TO REFUSE THE WEEDPASS 6 July – SWEDEN TURNS TO HOME-GROWN CANNABIS 2 July – DEATH PENALTY FOR MARIJUANA IN MALAYSIA 30 June – ANDRZEJ DOŁECKI IS A POLITICAL PRISONER! 22 June – SWEDEN TURNS TO HOME-GROWN CANNABIS Encod Web Site Encod.org Encod Österreich Encod Deutschland Facebook Youtube Twitter Site Map | Private area | WebMail | |
Friday, August 31, 2012
Friday, June 15, 2012
Monday, June 11, 2012
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Monday, April 16, 2012
FREE WINSTON JAIL BAYER AG - MIDI Musical Intercourse
http://youtu.be/ZimfRH4J81U
Please take a few minutes to look at the Winston Mathews case and the
campaign to obtain his release from prison. Winston Mathews a disabled
man from Surry, was found to be guilty of growing 'one cannabis plant' at
his home in Horley, Surry.
Winston had found that all the Pharmaceutical drugs he had tried merely
aliviated one part of his problem but caused another problem (side-effect),
for which he was prescribed yet another pharmaceutical drug to counter
said side-effect.
Winston like many others , have found that smoking and/or eating cannabis
has given him a better quality of life, a feeling of natural & healthy well-being
that was not forthcoming with prescribed chemical drugs prescribing previously.
Like other countries of the E.U and some 14 states of the USA, cannabis is
available to citizens through Compassionate Clubs or Dispensaries in America
and via Coffee-Shops in Netherlands to Cannabis Social Clubs (CSC) in Spain,
and throughout Europe. Yet, here in the U.K we are so much more oppressed
than most other member-states within the European Union in my opinion.
That conculsion comes to the fore of one's mind when arriving back in the U.K
from Europe and after walking through airports that were more relaxed,
like train stations, where you may not even need to show your passport that is
ready & in hand.
To arriving at Heathrow Airport and are greeted by the large & motionless
machine touting police-officer standing with peak of his cap obscuring his eyes
& his automatic weapon across his chest handled so as ready for action if needed.
A menacing site and makes one feel that they are coming home to a prison island
after bearing in a more tolerant society, wherever in europe. Not so long ago it
would and was percieved to be the opposite & proud to be seen as such a just
and tolerant society.
And today each and every one of us is photograhed by cctv over & over again,
and that argument that goes ' if you have done nothing wrong then why would
you be worried about it' , that is absolutely a very niave statement & would easily
be shown to be so.
A society where the police & CPS there by the government the to prosecute people
like Winston Mathews ( Horley,Surrey), imprisoned for 16 months for 'cultivating' one
cannabis plant, for peronal use ( or 'Percy'), this was not disputed by prosecuting counsel.
His own Counsil 'failed' Winston Mathews, at the 'appeal hearing' his barrister actually
told the Judge in Winston's absence, that Winston was 'both physically and mentally
dependant on cannabis'. This is total rubbish. Winston would not have condoned this.
As the Judge said, 'at last hearing', "Winston himself said", "I will grow cannabis again,
'come hell or high water'"
Winston Mathews is a well informed individual on a variety of subjects, and is perhaps
some thing of an expert on cannabis both its botanical aspects and its cultural &
political history. He had some knowledge in Human Rights, and legal aspects
around cannabis and the law. And anything he did not know he knew someone
who did.
Human Rights (H.R) Under the H.R Act, Section: [FactCheck] it states that we must
be given 'a right to a private life', meaning basically, it is not enough for an officer
of the law to 'suspect that a person made be doing something illegal inside their
home' as long as there is not any one else being harmed, disturbed, offended, etc;
then the law, the illegality of what is thought to be occurring within a residence,
is not enough to go busting down peoples front doors, just because someone thinks
wrong doing is in process. However, if someone telephones the police then they are
duty bound to investigate. No one complained about Winston Mathews. on the contrary.
In many cases to find nothing or a little 'percy' at best.
In Winston's case the police knew he was somewhat dis-abled, yet when they
arrived at Winston's home & Winston opened the door to them, and he asked
to see a 'warrent to search his premises', at this point apperently two officers
forced forward and picked Winston up from his his in a Rugby tackle and
forced him backwards through the air and Winston with broken back.
So where is the 'Public good' in all this.? There is no victim. Apart from Winston.
He was managing his condition better for the past years and been happier than
previously.
Living alone as he did mean't that going to prison was not the end of it, the
police would now have to inform his landlords that he had grown a cannabis-
plant whilst living in one of their properties. The Rubbarb at the end of his garden and
whose leaves can kill a human if eaten, weren't mentioned in court.
The cannabis plant 'just one plant', could mean that he would come out of prison with
no home to return to, however, this has been averted by his friends who have chipped in
making sure his rent is paid and his dog is fed.
Winston's barrister should not have said ~quote "both mentally &
physically dependant". Winston would be the first to explain to people that cannabis
was not addictive. It is a 'euphoriant' but unlike most other chemicals, it is not
toxic, it is natural, it is safe, but just like anything, an informed account of cannabis
is preferable if one is thinking of trying it.
Winston is not dependant on cannabis any more than he is on a cup of tea,
he did not drink alcohol, but he loved his cups of tea.
Winston was also campaigned for cannabis Coffee-Shops in the U.K and did manage
with Chris Baldwin and Nol von Schiak of Willy Wordel's, Coffee Shops
situated in the town of 'Harlam', nr.Amsterdam, Netherlands, open a notorious Coffee-Shop
for some 7 months.
The shop would be busted by police one day, the next day the shop would be open for business.
This went on for some time, indeed while this was going on another second shop
was opened.
Until eventually Chris Baldwin was imprisoned and Winston was
given a suspended sentence. As for Nol, well I would hazard a guess he went home to
the Netherlands & his Willy Wordel's Coffe-Shop's, and well worth a visit if your over there.
irrahayes
please write to Winston Mathews at Highdown Prison A8167ck
Highdown Lane
Sutton,
Surrey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)