NOT AS CRIMINAL

U.K.'S New Take On Cannabis Offers Fresh Food For Thought In The U.S.

The decision in Great Britain last week to change the 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 is an important step that will create a record U.S.
officials should study.

As Roger Howard, chief executive of DrugScope, Great Britain's leading
nonprofit organization dealing with drug policy issues, explained in one
media account, the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act includes three categories:
Class A includes heroin, cocaine, ecstasy and other "hard drugs," Class B
includes methamphetamines and (until now) cannabis while Class C includes
benzodiazepine and other tranquilizers.

The policy change announced by Home Secretary David Blunkett will move
cannabis to Class C. While retaining the option of arrest in certain cases,
it will ensure that for most adults simple possession of cannabis will not
mean arrest, though they may face a fine or 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 (methadone, morphine, methamphetamine and cocaine
are on Schedule II) can be prescribed under limited but increasingly
liberal 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 both 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," Lilley said. "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."

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

Because the new policy, while it relieves some people of the fear of jail,
does not set up legal channels for distribution of marijuana, he fears that
it might not have that beneficial effect. Nonetheless, he is pleased to see
this much of a move toward common sense.

The main difference between Great 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.