In article , notme@overthere.com (Ret.)
wrote:

> *From:* "Ret." 
> *Date:* Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:18:21 +0100
> 
> "Dr John Watson"  wrote in message 
> news:6cbqalF3f7srtU1@mid.individual.net...
> >I have been unable to find a source for these claims. Can anyone 
> find a
> > link?
> >
> > My comment to this article (which I doubt will get published):
> >
> > Government statistics show that the use of cannabis has been 
> > falling for
> > about five years.
> 
> Interesting. Just where does this statistic come from? Bearing in 
> mind, following re-classification, the police virtually stopped 
> enforcing any legislation against cannabis, it is hardly surprising 
> if convictions for use have dropped. If the 'falling use' statistic 
> has not come from convictions - then where *has* it come from? 
> Personally I don't believe it for a minute!
> 
> Ret. 
> 
> 
> 
It comes originally from the British Crime Survey but that did not encompass under
16s which is why it does not present the whole picture (as the ACMD had pointed
out). Post 16 many people seem to have transferred their attention nowadays to
cocaine, excessive alcohol and other drugs, cannabis is unfashionable for that
group seemingly. Of course HMG was very comfortable with the false suggestion that
cannabis use is down which is why you have heard a lot about it and some here seem
to have believed it.

Cannabis use has widened and deepened, earlier first use, longer (lifetime) use,
earlier first regular use. Cannabis use HAS to be more than it historically was in
the 90s, to suggest otherwise it would need to be demonstrated just where the
output of the numerous commercial grow ops in the UK is going. There is no evidence
of substantial exports from the UK although that has not stopped Professor Colin
Blakemore, who seems to be a pro pot apologist, suggesting there are  such exports.

Noticed at Sat, 28 Jun 2008 11:51:00 +0100: Claude informed us:

> It comes originally from the British Crime Survey but that did not
> encompass under 16s which is why it does not present the whole picture
> (as the ACMD had pointed out). Post 16 many people seem to have
> transferred their attention nowadays to cocaine, excessive alcohol and
> other drugs, cannabis is unfashionable for that group seemingly. Of
> course HMG was very comfortable with the false suggestion that cannabis
> use is down which is why you have heard a lot about it and some here
> seem to have believed it.

Are you saying that under 16s use a lot of cannabis and when they get to
16 they start using cocaine and booze (our old friend, the gateway
theory)?

This policy of prohibition really is hopeless, as you have pointed out so
well.

> Cannabis use has widened and deepened, earlier first use, longer
> (lifetime) use,

Where is your evidence for this? As you said above, under 16s aren't
polled, so that only leaves guesswork[*].

> earlier first regular use. Cannabis use HAS to be more than it
> historically was in the 90s, to suggest otherwise it would need to be
> demonstrated just where the output of the numerous commercial grow ops
> in the UK is going. There is no evidence

Perhaps they are all getting busted. It seems that several are busted
every day, according to Google news alerts. Plod concentrating on cannabis
factories probably explains why there's so much cocaine around.

> of substantial exports from the UK although that has not stopped
> Professor Colin Blakemore, who seems to be a pro pot apologist,
> suggesting there are  such exports.

[*] I agree with you that cannabis use is larger than the BCS says. Who is
going to admit to a stranger that they are a criminal? Most of the people
I know, aged 20 - 70, are not against the occasional toke, I can only
think of 2 people who say they've never indulged (a police officer and
partner). Of course, you can't tell a toker by looking at them (despite
what the Daily Mail says).

-- 
Dr John Watson
Baker Street