Message sent to Dutch Tourist Board

to: nbtc4you@holland.com

I have visited The Netherlands many times and always enjoyed the fact that I could go into a Coffeeshop and enjoy a quick smoke of cannabis (without tobacco) in peace - now for "foreigners" the only alternative will be to drink in a bar, which will mean more drunken foreigners and less safety - maybe I won't be coming again - I don't come only for the cannabis, by the way, there is plenty in the UK too.

When I first visited Amsterdam in 1975, there were very few coffeeshops. I was offered cannabis and hard drugs like cocaine and heroin on the street - lost my money twice - right then I thought never again would I visit that city. Then I found a coffeeshop and was able to buy and smoke some cannabis in safety and peace.

It is a shame that the Dutch Government have taken this step - and act of discrimination for sure, even if the courts say it is not due to the fact that cannabis is still illegal to possess and supply there.

Now Dutch cities will become like many other cities: beautiful buildings and sites, great multi-cultural people, but streets with drug dealers and runners on every corner, probably a worsening hard drug problem and all that goes with it.

Alun Buffry, UK

I went to Netherlands in 1975, before there were many coffeeshops

I went to Netherlands in 1975, before there were many coffeeshops, I did not go for "drugs". But i was offered cannabis and hard drugs on the streets - so I bought some cannabis which turned out to be house brick.

Then I found a coffeeshop, a safe and friendly environment where I could buy good quality, be advised on strength, and smoke in safety.

Since then I have been to Holland several times - not specifically for drugs- - but often visited relaxing and safe coffeeshops where no hard drugs are allowed.

If this ban comes into effect, I guess I and others will be the targets of street drug dealers again, dealers that often may offer hard drugs too.

So Dutch streets will see more drug dealers - Dutch economy will see less income - drugs will be associated with crime again.

Of course those that go to Netherlands just for cannabis, may not go again, so there will be less tourists, less trade.

It seems to me that this proposed ban is just a jobs-creation scheme for street dealers.

Netherlands judge to rule on cafe cannabis ban

BBC News, April 27 2012

A judge in the Netherlands is due to decide whether foreign tourists should be banned from entering cannabis cafes.

While soft drugs are tolerated, there is growing concern at tourists visiting just for drugs, and foreign dealers selling illegally at home.
The ban is due to start in three southern provinces next month, with a nationwide one by the end of the year.
A group of cafe owners are arguing at The Hague district court that the ban is discriminatory against foreigners.
If the measure is approved Dutch residents will still be allowed into the cafes, as long as they have valid identification, or possibly hold a new "weed pass" which is also being debated.
Michael Veling, a spokesman for the Dutch Cannabis Retailers Association, is among those challenging the plan.
"It is going to cost me 90% of my turnover," he told the BBC World Service. "That is a very good reason for anyone to oppose any plan. Second it puts our customers in a very difficult spot, because why do you have to register to buy a substance that is still illegal?"
There are about 700 coffee shops, as they are called, in the Netherlands. The cultivation and sale of soft drugs through them is decriminalised, although not legal; police generally tolerate possession of up to five grams of cannabis.
Tougher approachThe BBC's Anna Holligan in The Hague says the nationwide ban is being strongly opposed by the Mayor of Amsterdam because around a third of the city's tourists visit to smoke cannabis in the cafes.
If the coffee shop owners lose their case they say they will take it to the European Court of Human Rights, on the grounds that the Dutch should not be allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of where they live.
The moves are part of a tougher approach to drugs introduced by the coalition Conservative-led government elected 18 months ago.
In October strong cannabis was reclassified as a hard drug, amid concerns that it has a psychotic effect on some users.
The move forced cannabis coffee shops to remove the more popular stronger varieties from their shelves.
In November the city of Maastricht brought in a coffee shop ban for foreign tourists from all countries, except Belgium and Germany, from where the majority of foreign customers come.

If they do no harm and pose no threat, leave cannabis users alone.

Sirs,

I read the story "Cannabis use brought on by grieving" (Carmarthen Journal, April 25).  The man Mark Phillips had apparently started using cannabis more often after his father died.  He was caught with half a cigarette containing cannabis said to have been worth £1.50 - "if it was whole, with its value estimated as "pence"."

What sense and what justice was there in arresting this man and taking him to court, where he was given a conditional discharge with £85 costs?

In this case, it is reported, the man was driving his car - well if that was the case and he was detrimentally effected by cannabis, he ought to have been arrested for dangerous driving.  But it seems that it was not his driving that attracted police attention but the smell.

There have been numerous studies on the effects of driving whilst under the influence of cannabis that show that there is little or no bad effect on driving skills and none at all if the cannabis had been smoked the night before as Mr Phillips claimed.   In fact, reports say that it makes drivers less tense.

Don't the police and courts have better things to do with their time - time the taxpayers are charged for?

Does the arrest and prosecution make anybody feel safer - did it prevent harm or risk of harm?   I cannot see how he could have been harming anybody else?

It's time the authorities stopped treating victimless cannabis users like this.  If they do no harm and pose no threat, they should be left alone, not criminalised.

Alun Buffry

'Cannabis use brought on by grieving'

Carmarthen Journa, April 25 2012
journal.star@swwmedia.co.uk

AN UNEMPLOYED Llanboidy man used cannabis to help deal with the death of his father, a court heard.
Appearing before Carmarthen magistrates, Mark Phillips, 30, of Old Mill admitted possessing half a herbal cannabis cigarette on March 26.
The cannabis cigarette was said to be worth £1.50 if it was whole, with its value estimated as "pence".
Prosecuting, Gerald Neave said police stopped Phillips, driving in his silver Peugeot 206 near Llanboidy.
He said the officer could smell cannabis from the vehicle.
Phillips admitted to smoking cannabis and handed over the drug. He was arrested and bailed.
During police interview, Phillips said he smoked half the cannabis the previous night, claiming it was a present from a friend.
Defending, Aled Owen said Phillips had a history of social cannabis use, which had increased after his father passed away.
He added: "In recent times he's started using it on a more regular basis after the death of his father, he finds it a way of medicating himself."
Mr Owen placed the value of a full cannabis cigarette at £1.50, adding: "The mathematics will tell you you're talking about pence."
He added: "He is trying to move away from this cannabis misuse brought on by his bereavement and is getting help through counselling."
Phillips was given a 12-month conditional discharge, and was ordered to pay costs of £85.

Man who grew cannabis as pain-relief sentence reduced but still unjustly locked up

Although I welcome the reduction in sentence, truth is that Matthews seems to have harmed nobody and simply tried to ease his pains with a plant he found effective and that he could grow in the privacy of his own home - NOBODY ELSE WAS INVOLVED.

I find it remarkable that courts, the legal profession and journalists alike do not seem to realise the difference between some form of medical dependency and addiction.

All people that take medication to treat the symptoms of illness or accident are dependent upon the medication until they either recover or it is replaced by something more effective.

The result of stopping the medication is usually a return of or worsening of the symptoms or pain.

Addiction, however, is completely different, depending upon the addictiveness of the substance and the person.

Stopping use of an additive drug is usually accompanied by withdrawal symptoms - new problems that were not there before the drug was taken.

I very much doubt that Matthews was a cannabis addict as cannabis itself is not an addictive drug.

One thing is quite obvious though - sending him to prison will not (has not) help his whether or not be was dependent or addicted!

Sending a person to prison for doing something to ease suffering of self - such being that there was somebody else involved - is simply unjust.

Had Matthews been suffering from MS, had he been living in certain parts of the country (some NH areas refuse to prescribe) - he may have been prescribed cannabis in the form of an expensive extract called Sativex, also containing alcohol that brings its own problems for some people.

And guess what!

Sativex is simply cannabis in a liquid spray form, contains all the chemicals found in the plant - but just about 20 times more expensive

Jail term cut for back pain man who grew own cannabis
By Stuart Richards, April 24, 2012, Get Surrey

A MAN who grew cannabis in his loft and used the drug as a painkiller for chronic back problems has been granted a reduction in his prison sentence.
Pro-cannabis campaigner Winston Matthews, 55, of Upfield Close, Horley, took his case to the Court of Appeal last Thursday (April 19) and had his jail term cut from 16 to 12 months.
The appeal court heard that Matthews - who previously admitted breaching a suspended sentence, three counts of cultivating cannabis and two of possessing the drug - was due to receive a deferred sentence at Guildford Crown Court in February, so he could get help for his addiction, but was instead sent to prison after saying he would "struggle" not to take cannabis.
But senior judges have now reduced the sentence, ruling that the original term was "too long".
Judge Paul Batty QC, sitting with Lord Justice Pill and Mr Justice Spencer, said Matthews was first given a suspended sentence in August 2010 after 56 cannabis plants were found in his home.
His flat was searched by police later that month, and again in December that year, and a further 42 plants were discovered during those two raids.
Matthews was told he would receive a deferred sentence, in order to give him a chance to find alternative pain relief and stop using cannabis.
But, speaking directly to Judge Christopher Critchlow at Guildford Crown Court on February 3 this year, Matthews said he could not guarantee that he would stop using cannabis to alleviate his pain.
He was jailed three days later by Judge Suzan Matthews, who said she had no other option but to send him to prison due to his "persistent" offending.
Challenging the 16-month jail term last week, Matthews' lawyers argued Judge Matthews did not take enough account of his physical and mental problems which had led to him using cannabis for pain relief.
Barrister Ben Cooper said his client grew his own drugs in order to "bypass" criminals and used cannabis because he had chronic back pain, following an accident as a teenager, and a depressive illness.
Mr Cooper said Matthews was not eligible for a cannabis-based prescription drug as it is currently only given to Multiple Sclerosis sufferers, but that he had taken steps towards finding a lawful alternative form of pain relief.
Judge Batty said Matthews did deserve to go to prison, but that the sentence should have been shorter as it was his first jail term.
He added: "Even where cultivation is for the defendant's own use then custody is almost inevitable. The courts have tried and tried again so far as this appellant is concerned to avoid a custodial sentence.
"No matter what the personal mitigation may be, the time has to come at some point when custody cannot be avoided and that time has come for this appellant.
"That said, this is the appellant's first sentence of imprisonment and we have sympathy for his position.
"We think it is possible to slightly mitigate the length of the sentence without in any way criticising the perfectly proper approach the judge took in this case."

Is cannabis "getting stronger"?

I have heard it claimed in the UK that "cannabis is getting stronger".

As somebody that smoked cannabis 40 years ago and many times since, including some of the strongest varieties of "home-grown" today, I can categorically say that it is not true.

However, it is often different: people are growing more of the stronger varieties here for two reasons: first it is illegal, and grown indoors in secret with limited space; secondly because many people, whether using for easing pain, treating symptoms or for relaxation, prefer to stronger varieties of which one has to smoke less.

Also many people seem to prefer cannabis with a high THC and lower CBD level, which has a different effect - but the overall effect is and always has been down to "set and setting" - as well as the potency it is dependent upon the mind-set of the user and the surroundings and people in which it is taken.

It's like saying "coffee is getting stronger" because that is how it is made and that is what people want to drink.

The Straight Dope: Is Pot Stronger Than It Used To Be?

Washington City Paper

By Cecil Adams • April 20, 2012

Illustration by Slug Signorino

Yes, pot is stronger than in the old days. This is bad?
People have been warning about supposed high-potency pot since the early days of the Reagan administration’s War on Drugs. Claims typically run along the lines of “Pot is now 10/20/30 times as powerful as it was when you were a kid!” This sounds more frightening than it is—it’s difficult to impossible to fatally overdose while smoking cannabis (although see below). But for nervous suburban parents, you may as well tell them rabid pit bulls are roaming the school halls.
Reliably determining marijuana potency has its challenges, starting with the fact that we’re talking about a generally illegal substance. The Drug Enforcement Administration draws its samples almost exclusively from seized imported herb and sees relatively little domestic product, which is markedly different. Cannabis potency is typically measured by its tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content, although that’s just one of several pharmacologically active compounds in marijuana. Defining terms is key, as cannabis can refer to the herb itself, the resin produced from it, or a pharmaceutical extract of the resin. Cannabis herb potency can vary widely depending on plant variety and production method—samples from more than a dozen European countries in 2003 showed THC content from less than 1 percent to almost 14 percent.
Given all these variables, it’s not difficult to find backing for alarmist claims. However, your columnist has no use for drama. Here are the facts.

• Keeping in mind that some cannabis testing before the mid-1970s is suspect due to sampling problems and poor storage methods, one study found average THC levels for all forms of marijuana, including garden-variety marijuana, high-powered sinsemilla, and barely-beats-oregano ditchweed, were well under 3 percent until about 1982, with samples collected in the 1975-1976 time frame having under 1 percent THC. Between 1975 and 2009 the potency of imported cannabis seized by the DEA rose steadily, eventually reaching 6 or 7 percent. Domestic herb on the other hand showed more fluctuation, peaking at around 4 percent in the late 1990s but dropping to 2 percent a decade later.
• Data collected by the Marijuana Potency Monitoring Project found average THC content of basic marijuana increased from 1 percent in 1980 to 4 percent by 1997, while average THC potency of all types of cannabis increased from 2 percent to 4.5 percent over the same period.
• A later study by the same group, examining more than 46,000 cannabis samples seized between 1993 and 2008, found cannabis potency increased over that period from 3 percent to 6 percent. The potency of sinsemilla, the high-test product extracted from seedless female plants, rose sharply till the late 90s and since then has bounced around 11 to 12 percent.

To summarize, all these studies show THC potency doubling or tripling since the late 1970s.
The overall numbers mask a lot of regional variation. The mean THC value of European cannabis increased only slightly from 1999-2003, hovering around 5 to 6 percent, but this may be a false result as it lumps in locally-cultivated herb with imported products. Cannabis potency is affected by oxidation—store your pot in the open air at room temperature and more than a sixth of its potency can evaporate annually. Given that imports could be months old and exposed to high temperatures during shipment, it’s easy to see why they might be less potent.
Comparing locally grown cannabis to imports, we see sharp increases in potency over a short period of time. The UK saw a nearly 100 percent increase in locally-produced sinsemilla strength from 1995 to 2002, presumably the result of techniques such as hydroponic cultivation, fine-tuned grow lighting, and propagation of female plants via cuttings.
In European studies, imported product was of poorer quality than domestic, less than half as potent in some years. In the U.S., the 1993-2008 study cited above found the potency of imported weed surpassed domestic in 2000 and has been pulling away ever since.
So there you have it—average cannabis potency has risen significantly, although not to the extent some claim. That said, averages don’t tell the whole story—there’s some truly devastating smoke out there. One variety of Dutch cannabis, nederwiet, has been tested at THC levels as high as 40 percent.
Little research has been done on megaweed. We can say with reasonable confidence that shifting from the 1.2 percent marijuana typical of 1980 to the five or even ten times more potent stuff available now won’t blow the cortical fuses. But 33 times? Gotta level with you, man. There I’m not so sure.

 

No Victim No Crime on drug use

It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on the users of some drugs.

There needs to be some equity in law based upon the concept of "No Victim, No Crime" - if a drug user - whether alcohol, cannabis, heroin of whatever, does harm to another or threatens another or their property , then there is clearly a case for arrest and prosecution.

If there is no harm and no threat, then drug users should be treated as are those that drink alcohol - and when it comes to supply, just like alcohol, it needs to be controlled and taken out of the un-taxable hands of crooks. The supply of each drug should be separated from that of other drugs, accurate and credible information given at point of source with regulations dependent on the level of risk to the users.

Drugs have been part of human life for thousands of years - and is still part of our culture today, even in the UK. It is part of human nature to want to change ones mood.

For sure, the Government needs to open it's eyes and ears and consider a new approach based upon controlling supplies and reducing harm .

Why we must lookat legalising drugs
The Sun, April 17 2012

A controversial view on global epidemic.

A FORMER British MI6 chief has joined growing calls to end the "war on drugs" and consider legalising them.
The battle has left tens of thousands dead in Latin America but failed to reduce drug-use around the world.
Here Nigel Inkster, of the International Institute For Strategic Studies, argues that we need to rethink our approach to narcotics.
PRESIDENT Santos of Colombia wants independent experts to look at alternatives to the war on drugs, including making them legal.
This is precisely what research by the International Institute For Strategic Studies has led us to conclude in our new report.
Our investigation has shown that the so-called "war on drugs" undermines international security.
Consumer countries of the developed world have seen whole communities devastated by epidemics of drugs misuse and crime. Addicts of drugs such as heroin have been marginalised and stigmatised and many otherwise law-abiding citizens criminalised for their consumption choices.
But the vulnerable producer and transit countries of the developing world have paid a far higher price.
I have seen at first hand the serious unintended consequences of banning drugs. The huge profits to be made from supplying them have led to a massive global black market dominated by powerful international criminal groups.
Producer countries such as Colombia and Afghanistan have been shaken by high levels of drugs-related violence for the past 30 years as criminal groups fight each other and the state.
More recently, they have been joined by Mexico and Central America where drug-related murders have reached horrific levels.
And as traffickers look further afield to avoid law-enforcement, fragile states in West Africa have become part of the global narcotics supply chain, their institutions comprehensively corrupted.
For many years, senior politicians have not been willing to challenge the effectiveness of the global ban on drugs. But that is now changing.
The presidents of Latin American states such as Colombia and Mexico have begun to question publicly why they should bear the brunt of the West's "war on drugs”"
Nigel Inkster
They are calling for a fundamental rethink of the current approach, based on an open discussion in which expertise and evidence would replace the emotion and ideology that have so far dominated the debate.
While demand for drugs exists, there will be people willing to do whatever it takes to meet that demand. It is time the international community recognised that and moved away from talk of winning a "war on drugs" towards treating the issue as a problem to be managed with minimal collateral damage.
The UK has a potentially significant role to play in supporting an independent review of all policy options and has been at the forefront of efforts to address the trafficking of narcotics.
The UK's drugs consumption relies heavily on those who produce and supply narcotics in Latin America and Afghanistan and as such, it is in all our interests that the policy we adopt increases the security of those at both ends of the supply chain.
Nigel Inkster is Director of Transnational Threats And Political Risk at the International Institute For Strategic Studies.

Man who tried to grow cannabis in his shed for medical reasons unjustly punished

What an atrocious waste of police time and public funds and what a terrible injustice even taking this man to court.

Although a curfew is not exactly a harsh punishment, it is still too much.

This man does not appear to have done any harm or posed any risk, growing his medicinal plants in his private dwelling.

Now I guess he will have to do without the natural and safe pain-relieving effects of plants and turn to risky and expensive pharmaceutical preparations.

Surely the Misuse of Drugs Act was not meant to stop people growing plants for their own beneficial use.

We need to see the law changed and the medicinal value of raw and natural cannabis recognised in the UK as it has been in so many other countries.

Man tried to grow cannabis in his shed for medical reasons
Thisislancashire, April 16 2012

A MAN who attempted to grow 80 cannabis plants in his garden shed was cultivating the crop in order to deal with a medical condition, a court heard.
When police visited Derek Doherty’s home in Parkfield Avenue, New Bury, they found a propagator tray full of seedlings hidden behind a partition in the shed.
Joseph Allman, prosecuting, told Bolton Crown Court on Friday it was an “extremely amateurish set-up” with no high-wattage lighting, ventilation or irrigation usually associated with cannabis farms.
Scrap dealer Doherty, aged 41, told police he usually smokes five cannabis cigarettes a day and spends up to £20 a week on buying the drug.
Richard Dawson, defending, added that the attempt to grow the drug, which was to be for his own use, was “doomed to failure.”
He said: “In a cold, dark outside shed, in all likelihood the plants would have withered away.”
The court heard that Doherty, who pleaded guilty to producing cannabis, has received a caution for a similar offence a few months earlier, but was using cannabis in order to help alleviate pain in his leg caused by a road traffic injury.
Judge John Appleby sentenced Doherty to be electronically monitored and observe a 7pm to 7am curfew for four months.

Invasion of privacy - the law demands justification

“There is such a thing to the RIGHT TO A PRIVATE LIFE and the criteria by with authorities can justify interfering with that Right are clearly specified in the Act: it must be in the interests of law AND to protect public health, public order, national security or the Rights of others - law itself is NOT enough.

How does the SUSPICION that a person MAY be growing cannabis (breaking the law) pose such risks and how can the invasion of people homes be justified in terms of Human Rights.

If there is no known or potential victim, then how can there be a crime?

And at what cost?”

Cannabis factory find prompts Hull City Council to plan more inspections
Hull Daily Mail, March 27 2012
ROUTINE inspections of council-owned commercial premises could be stepped up after the discovery of Hull's biggest illegal cannabis factory to date.

Councillors want to tighten procedures despite warnings from one officer that checking for criminal activity could be viewed as "intrusive and offensive" by some tenants.

Three Vietnamese men – Toan Nham Vo, Dat Truong and Vuong Van Vu – were each jailed for a two and a half years in January after being caught growing more than 2,700 cannabis plants at the council-owned unit in Fountain Road just before Christmas.

The plants could have produced more than £2 million of cannabis.

Police officers took almost ten hours to clear the factory of plants, along with more than 320 lightning units, 283 transformers, 14 filters, 17 extractor fans and eight propagators. The operation was spread across ten rooms.

The unit had been empty, having previously been used as a skills training centre.
In a report, the council's assistant head of property, Nick Howbridge, said: "Historically, incidents of criminal activity in the 1,700 commercial properties leased by the council are rare and there have been less than a handful of cases over the past decade.

"Previous instances have involved a cannabis factory, sale of illegal cars and drug smuggling through hiding it in pallets."

In the report, Mr Howbridge said vacant units are inspected every three months while all units are reviewed annually as part of a statutory valuation process.
But he said introducing more inspections to check on possible illegal activity could cause problems.

"Our tenants are likely to find checks for criminal activity in their businesses both intrusive and, in some cases, offensive
.
"A much more formal approach or inspection to check criminal activity is likely to carry resistance and a poor response from our tenants."

Councillor Simone Butterworth, chairman of the council's value for money scrutiny commission, said reviewing the inspection regime was necessary.

She said: "We still want to see what can be done in terms of having more informal inspections of properties."

No Justice for Medicinal Cannabis Grower in pain

A very sad day for British Justice locking up a man that has clearly done now harm to anyone, just for growing a plant to ease his terrible suffering - like so many cannabis users now a victim of the law.

Given that he was growing cannabis for his own use and nobody outside his house would have been involved, I must ask what Right the police had to raid him in the first place?

We all have a Right to a Private Life, irrespective of what we choose to do in it, so long as we do not harm or risk public health, public order, national security of the Rights of others. How was Winston Matthews doing that? He wasn't.
The fact that what he was doing was against the law is not enough to give the police the right to interfere with hsi private life - Human rights law is quite clear on that.
It must be in the interests of law AND of protecting public health, public order, national security or the Rights of others. How was arresting and punishing Matthews justifiable then?
And how much did all these raids and court cases and days in prison and medication going to cost the public?
All in the name of what? Hardly Justice!

Pro-cannabis campaigner fails to overturn sentence

By Ben Endley
March 26, 2012

A PRO-CANNABIS campaigner who was jailed last month after repeatedly refusing to stop growing the drug has failed to convince a top judge he was too harshly punished.

Winston Matthews, 55, was handed a 10-month sentence at Guildford Crown Court on February 6 after he admitted producing, cultivating and possessing the drug - which he insists is his only relief from chronic back pain and hepatitis C.

Scores of cannabis plants had been found growing at his home in Upfield Close, Horley, by police and Matthews was also given another six months for breaching the terms of an earlier suspended sentence - making a total 16-month term.

Matthews, a former member of the Legalise Cannabis Alliance (LCA), stood for election as MP for East Surrey in 2005 however few voters shared his pro-cannabis stance and he finished in last place with 410 votes.

At London's Appeal Court on Thursday (March 22), his barrister, Ben Cooper, argued the sentence did not take enough account of his troubled background and the fact he was using cannabis to "self-medicate" in the privacy of his own home.

The barrister said Matthews had "stood for Parliament on a cannabis footing" and had been using the drug to deal with his pain for many years. Mentally and physically dependent on the drug, prison was "extremely hard" on him, the court heard.

Mr Cooper added that Matthews, who fractured his spine in a workplace accident when he was just 16, never supplies cannabis to anyone else, grows his own to avoid drug dealers and every leaf he cultivates is for his own personal use.
He found cannabis "far more effective" in relieving his pain than conventional medicines and, having turned his back on other substance abuse, "only uses cannabis because he wants to live a pain free life.

"He was using cannabis on a fairly large scale on a daily basis but he simply cultivates enough plants to keep him going", he told Mr Justice Haddon-Cave.

He does not qualify for prescription of cannabis-based drugs often given to multiple sclerosis sufferers and needs specialist help to "break his cycle of offending", Mr Cooper added.

However, refusing to release Matthews on bail or grant him permission to appeal, the judge said he had indicated at the Crown Court that he "would continue to cultivate cannabis come hell or high water".

Observing that Matthews is "something of a campaigner in this regard", the judge added: "He is a recidivist and he's not above the law just because he has personal reasons for using it".

Concerns over online drugs poll - comment

"legalising cannabis" is about law and Justice - we must ask first whether the possession or small scale cultivation of cannabis poses any threat or does any harm to others - in itself - not speculate. For instance, when it comes to unsafely driving whilst under the influence then that would come under driving laws just as over-the-limit drinking does: alcohol is not banned despite accidents, fights, destruction of property etc - and anyone proved guilty of that can be dealt with by the authorities irrespective of whether they are sober, drunk or high on pot. It would not be seen as just by many people to punish everyone that drinks alcohol because of what a minority of others do.

Likewise with illness: cannabis is actually far less risk to health than aspirin, tobacco, alcohol and it is surely not Just to punish users because they or others get ill?

Cannabis, like alcohol, is widely used in the UK - by millions - and those unable or unwilling to grow their own are exposed to drug dealers and crime - lack of information, availability of other drugs, contaminated cannabis that poses health risks of its own.

Imagine if the only source of alcohol was illegal dealers or manufacturers, that criminals control the supply! Oh yes, they tried that in the US and had to legalise alcohol again.

And the cost to the taxpayer of chasing over 3 million regular users, thousands of growers and dealers, only to find that however many or fined or locked up, there is more and more cannabis on the streets.

Then there is the ridiculous situation where people like Winston Matthews in Surrey are imprisoned for growing cannabis to ease the terrible pains of illness or injury - nobody else involved.

Consider the cost to the NHS of providing pharmaceutical drugs, often with their own risks and side-effects, to people that claim cannabis is more effective. Now Pharmacists are producing whole-cannabis extract containing about ten pounds worth which they sell at over £120 a can of spray to people in desperate need whilst they risk prison if they grow their own.

Of course there is the cost of potentially criminalising millions of our youth - for a crime without victims.

Not forgetting of course, that if it is legal to grow cannabis then it is legal to grow hemp - a valuable source of fibre, foodstuff, oils and environmentally-friendly fuels - local hemp could avoid the problem of transporting fossil fuels around the world and ease up on pollution.

And what of the negative impact: less profit for giant petrochemical and pharmaceutical companies, less work for the police and courts .. less money for drug dealers.

I voted in favour of legalising cannabis also realising that it is not cannabis that needs legalising because it is not itself illegal - it is the possession, cultivation and supply that is illegal and need legalising - the law is aimed at people, not drugs - the "war on drugs" is a war on drug-users, not substances.

I have studied the pro's and cons: I hear the cries that cannabis causes problems in a minority of users, and poses risks to others if people drive whilst high - but all those risks are made worse by the failed prohibition.

I would advise anyone seriously concerned about those risks to use the WWW and search for evidence, because there are several reports out there claiming cannabis has little detrimental effect on driving skills and poses only a small risk to a small percentage of people predisposed to certain mental health condition eg http://tinyurl.com/79zcjmj”

Leicester Mercury, March 23 21012
Concerns over online drugs poll

Regarding the online poll about the legalisation of cannabis, I was rather perturbed to see that so many seem to be in favour of a change in the law.
Admittedly the respondents are a self-selected group and not necessarily representative of the general population but their influence may be important.
In addition to the concerns about mental health, progression to other drugs, etc, I do wonder how many of those wanting to decriminalize cannabis have considered its detrimental impact on daily functioning.
Very recently, a research paper in the British Medical Journal found that cannabis use doubles the odds of having a motor vehicle crash.
So I would suggest if the rules concerning so-called "recreational" drugs are to change then it will also be necessary to consider implementing drug-driving legislation in order to keep the remainder of the community safe from the increased threat of road accidents.
Personal use of drugs has wide-reaching effects beyond those on the individual and this must not be forgotten.
Eleanor Mather, Earl Shilton.