In article , tvaerskaegg@aol.com
(Svenne) wrote:

> *From:* Svenne 
> *Date:* Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:32:15 GMT
> 
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:55 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), Claude@aol.com
> (Claude) wrote:
> 
> >> If the government does go against the recommendations of the 
> ACMD >> and
> >> the ACMD resigns in protest, it will blow a gigantic hole in the
> >> governments and the prohibitionist sides credibility. Their talk 
> of
> >> 'evidenced based policy' will bring about howls of laughter 
> amongst
> >> those to whom it most matters, that is young people who come into
> >> contact with drugs. All warnings will be regarded as Reefer 
> Madness
> >> scare propaganda, no matter what core of validity they might 
> >> contain. 
>  
> >> The authorities will be regarded as a joke who cannot be taken
> >> seriously, as they very largely are already.
>  
> >Except that every member of the ACMD is replaceable. The ACMD is 
> so discredited now,
> >that a substantial number of resignations (I know some who would 
> stay) might be
> >healthy and good for it. 
> 
> I'm sure the government would like the chance to stack the ACMD with
> Yes-Men and committed prohibition ideologues. And you might well
> consider the ACMD to be discredited. But I think you are missing the
> point.
> 
> There is a problem for the authorities in getting their anti drug
> message across. They might well get Daily Mail readers to believe 
> all
> their wild scare stories and exaggerations, but those people are
> already inside the prohibitionist camp and don't need scaring away
> from drugs. 
> 
> The problem for the authorities is credibility with the people who 
> do
> matter, that is the people who do come into contact with drugs and 
> who
> are likely to use them. 
> 
> The government and the prohibitionist industry have low credibility
> with them already. A large number of people who use and who come 
> into
> contact with drugs know that drug information from authorities 
> cannot
> be trusted and that what thay say cannot be taken seriously. A large
> scale resignation by ACMD members would damage that already 
> low credibility even more. The word would be out that the government
> doesn't even take its own scientific advice. 
Government can listen to science but in the end the wider social consequences (as
the Government has discovered) are what they get measured on.

>The experts told the
> government that cannabis is not so dangerous, but the government has
> its own agenda, it rejected expert advice and the experts resigned 
> in
Experts on cannabis? The ACMD is not made up of experts on cannabis. There are none
there. Nor are there any experts on the illegal drugs market. What on earth gave
you that idea? The real UK scientific experts (6 of them) on cannabis, tried to get
to see Blunkett at the time and he refused to see them (or his gatekeepers in the
Home Office stopped it). He was being guarded in case he heard the truth. He was
manipulated. He was easy to manipulate since he cannot research for himself. 
> protest. The government are scare mongering liars. Don't believe 
> them.
> 
> That word would not only be out on the street, it would be part of
> reporting in the more liberal press. It would become a paradigm of 
> the
> drug debate. The official scare stories about the horrors of 
> cannabis
> would be even more easy to dismiss with a knowing laugh.
> 
> I would not necessarily regard reclassification to class B, or even
> class A, as a bad thing. The law would be completely unworkable as
> well as being counter productive. It would instantly create millions
> of criminals and increase disrespect for the law besides damaging 
> the
> prohibition circus.
It would not create any new criminals. I agre that immediately it would have only
marginal effect on use. 
> 
> We would have the grotesque situation in which a large percentage of
> the British population would, according to the government and the
> Daily Mail, be criminals deserving of imprisonment for many years.
> These millions of outlaws would regard the law as a joke and 
> policemen
> as their enemy.
> 
> That is truly surreal and worthy of lighting up a spliff in
> celebration.
> 
> All Hail Discordia.
> 
> Svenne
>

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 21:57 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), Claude@aol.com
(Claude) wrote:

>Experts on cannabis? The ACMD is not made up of experts on cannabis. There are none
>there. Nor are there any experts on the illegal drugs market. What on earth gave
>you that idea? The real UK scientific experts (6 of them) on cannabis, tried to get
>to see Blunkett at the time and he refused to see them (or his gatekeepers in the
>Home Office stopped it). He was being guarded in case he heard the truth. He was
>manipulated. He was easy to manipulate since he cannot research for himself. 

You miss the point.

You don't see what the perception of the government ignoring the
recommendations of the ACMD and the ACMD resigning in protest would
be.

It's all in the smoke and mirrors. As a prohibitionist, you should
know that.

>> I would not necessarily regard reclassification to class B, or even
>> class A, as a bad thing. The law would be completely unworkable as
>> well as being counter productive. It would instantly create millions
>> of criminals and increase disrespect for the law besides damaging 
>> the prohibition circus.

>It would not create any new criminals. I agre that immediately it would have only
>marginal effect on use. 

Reclassifying will have no effect on use, either marginally or in the
long term. What the government does makes no real difference to use.
They are not in control. What it will do is seriously criminalise a
significant segment of the population.

When the government reclassifies, the police will invest resources in
arresting users. Large resources if the reclassification is to mean
anything and the pit bulls of prohibition and the opposition are to be
kept off the governments back. Which is really only what the
government wants anyway.

Lots of police resources wasted that could be used against real crime,
lots of arrests, lots of people given criminal records, alienation of
significant numbers of people who have suddenly become outlaws,
increased disrespect for the law and distrust of government and
authority. It is in this area that reclassification will have its
biggest effects.

Best of all, lots of bright young things at University given criminal
records for "youthful indiscretions" and never being able to become
prohibitionist politicians.

So I don't really see reclassification as necessarily a bad thing. It
will further damage a corrupt and tottering system. Hopefully fatally
damage it.

And self inflicted damage, too, the best sort of all. I shall roll a
big spliff in celebration.

Svenne