BRITISH HAVE BETTER IDEA FOR MARIJUANA

Great Britain's decision to change its laws on cannabis, or marijuana,
almost to the point of decriminalizing simple possession of the plant by an
adult is not as drastic as some news stories have suggested — and may, in
fact, be so modest as not to achieve some of the hoped-for benefits of
decriminalization.

Nonetheless, it's an important step that will create a record U.S.
officials should study.

Roger Howard, chief executive of DrugScope, Britain's leading nonprofit
organization dealing with drug policy issues, told Freedom Communications
that the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act has three categories: Class A includes
heroin, cocaine and other "hard drugs," Class B includes methamphetamine
and (until now) cannabis, and Class C includes benzodiazepine and other
tranquilizers.

The policy change announced by Home Secretary David Blunkett will move
cannabis to Class C. It will ensure that for most adults simple possession
of cannabis will not mean arrest, though they may face a fine or a civil
penalty.

In the United States, under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, there are
five "schedules" for controlled drugs. Schedule I, which prohibits any use
(even under medical supervision), includes heroin, LSD and marijuana. Drugs
on the other schedules (morphine, methamphetamine and cocaine are on
Schedule II) can be prescribed under limited circumstances.

Based on science and relative dangers, marijuana has no business being on
Schedule I (see the 1999 Institute of Medicine report, "Marijuana and
Medicine," for documentation), but for political reasons it remains there.

Why has Great Britain decided to institute policies guided more by science
than political expediency?

Peter Lilley, a Conservative member of Parliament who served in the
cabinets of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, noted that three years ago
the House of Lords approved a report recommending decriminalization of
marijuana. That got the debate started.

"I had no particular interest in the issue until I talked more intensively
with my constituents," Mr. Lilley told Freedom Communications. "They
convinced me that the current law was unenforceable and, after some
research, I concluded that the arguments for maintaining the status quo
simply could not be defended."

Mr. Lilley wrote a pamphlet arguing that marijuana's legal status should be
changed so as to break the link with dealers of hard drugs.

Because the new policy does not set up legal channels for distribution of
marijuana, he fears that it might not have the desired beneficial effect.
But he is pleased to see this much of a move toward common sense.

The main difference between Britain and the United States seems to be that
some British officials have paid attention to official scientific reports.

Maybe U.S. citizens should require politicians, DEA honcho Asa Hutchinson
and other officials to read and pass a test on the 1999 Institute of
Medicine report and the 1972 Shafer Commission Report before discussing
marijuana again in public.