Make cannabis a Class A Drug, say Conservative Police Commissioners...

If it's clear they don't intend to supply it then it would be a bit iffy to charge someone with intent to supply or punish them in the same way as someone who clearly does intend to supply it, even if the person who clearly doesn't intend to supply it has a large quantity.
 
Last edited:
If you grow your own, you will harvest it and prepare it. If you harvest it and prepare it, you will likely have a relatively large quantity of it post harvest.

If you get caught with a kg of it, it's far more likely you will be charged with possession with intent to supply than just possession.
One, two plants on a cylce can perfectly be argued as for personal use only - especially if there are no scales, baggies, bundles of cash etc. in the property at the time.
 
whether it's class A or legal makes almost no difference to me...it's pretty easy not to get caught smoking it or in possession of...the almost zero tolerance approach to drug driving limits (a regular smoker could be 'sober' but still over the limit) is the only thing that made me stop, so I guess that law 'worked' in a way!
 
The argument "As someone who's never used Marijuana, I say restrict it because things I don't understand that others enjoy are bad..." always amuses me greatly.

The facts are people will always smoke weed whether it's illegal or not. Just legalise it and make some money from a relatively harmless drug.

You don't have to have used something to be aware of the outcomes of somethings use.

Have you ever inserted a uranium pellet in your backside? Don't knock it till you've tried it!
 
The punishment for intent to supply, which being a producer and/or having large quantities on hand often plays a role in is the same as actually supplying. Up to 14 years.

you can grow up to 9 plants in your house, get caught, say it’s for personal consumption and only get a warning provided it’s your first time caught , been like this for years.
 
whether it's class A or legal makes almost no difference to me...it's pretty easy not to get caught smoking it or in possession of...the almost zero tolerance approach to drug driving limits (a regular smoker could be 'sober' but still over the limit) is the only thing that made me stop, so I guess that law 'worked' in a way!

This was deliberate politics. Drugs which are legal, such as diazepam, have limits set based on what would impair your driving. Drugs which are not legal have limits based on the lower limit of quantitation that can reliably be achieved by all labs.
 
Last edited:
hmm, am I right in thinking that a regular smoker would be over the limit 24/7 then? sure I read the limit was 400k times lower than the equivalent limit for alcohol! (no idea how that was worked out)

so in some fairytale UK if it was made legal the drug driving limits would probably be changed?
 
A group of Conservative police commissioners are calling for cannabis to be reclassified from a Class B to a Class A drug.

David Sidwick, the Police and Crime Commissioner for Dorset, (BBC Article) said...

If cannabis is indeed a "gateway drug", as David Sidwick would have us believe, then that is only because it's illegal and new users regard it as safe for experimentation. If it were legal then its users would not have to associate with the drug dealers who sell it and who also have other much more dangerous/addictive drugs to sell. If cannabis was sold legally by licensed establishments then there would not be other illegal drugs available there too, so the gateway argument is actually another argument for legalisation.

Putting it into class A (along with heroin and cocaine) would be rather ridiculous given that the reason more potent strains, like skunk etc, were developed in the first place was because it was illegal! The dealers desired a strain that produced a high concentration of THC as quickly as possible, since that maximised their profits and minimised the risk that their grows would be found and confiscated. Skunk has a high THC/low CBD ratio, which increases the risk that genetically susceptible heavy users will experience psychotic episodes. Cannabis strains commonly available in the 1960s and 1970s had roughly equal ratios of THC/CBD and they were less likely to cause psychosis. Medical cannabis strains (used for centuries in Indian traditional medicine) have high CBD/low THC ratios and were actually used to treat mental illnesses. (CBD is known to be an antipsychotic and so it counteracts the unwanted psychiatric side-effects of THC.)

How can making it even more illegal solve the problem? The reason this drug's common street form has become more dangerous is because it was prohibited. Drug dealers do not follow ethical standards of behaviour, they only seek to maximise their profits. If the government truly wants to limit the damage done by cannabis then it should legalise, regulate and tax it. That way, its availability can be controlled and those that use it can be protected from dangerous product, in the same way that any other legal industry has to provide a safe good quality product or be prosecuted. The tax revenue raised from its legal sale would be very helpful and the money saved on law enforcement and prisons would also be welcome.
 
Back
Top Bottom