Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs From: [press 2] at [cbnewsd.cb.att.com] (barry.o.olson) Subject: Call For Stronger Drug Laws in Britain Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 23:40:30 GMT ------------------------------------------------------------------ LONDON (Reuter) - Sixties rock stars were renowned for smoking it. American President Clinton said he tried it but didn't inhale. But a new British drug law aims to crack down on the icon of hippy culture -- marijuana. An amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, currently before parliament and expected to become law in July, will increase the maximum fine for possessing the drug to $3,700. The fivefold rise is the first for 17 years. But the move against marijuana use has met unexpected opposition from police and magistrates, who will implement it. ``We don't think it will be particularly effective. There is a danger it could lead to more crime as users may commit crimes to pay for their fines,'' said Fran Edwards, spokeswoman for the Police Federation, which represents police in England and Wales. Increasingly British police have simply cautioned people possessing small amounts of drugs for personal use. In 1992, 51 percent of drugs offenses were dealt with in this way, compared with two percent in 1982 and the trend has been towards lenience. Guidelines to magistrates suggest a fine of $270 for possession against a present maximum of $750. Rosemary Thomson, chairwoman of the Magistrates' Association, is dismissive of higher fines. ``It's utter rubbish, so far out of synch with the seriousness of the offense,'' she said. ``It is not on our agenda,'' said Thomson when asked if the new law would cause Magistrates' Association guidelines on fines to go up. The attitude of the magistrates and police may make the increased fines pointless. Police will still caution most cases and magistrates will keep their old guidelines. Ironically the drive to discourage the use of marijuana has, instead, opened a debate about its legalization. Mike Goodman, director of the drugs welfare charity Release, said it had done people who want to legalize marijuana ``a real favor.'' ``Most people involved in the field find marijuana non-problematic. It gets a clean bill of health compared to heavier drugs,'' he added. Not everyone agrees. Conservative member of parliament Tim Rathbone, chairman of a parliamentary committee on drug abuse, told Reuters: ``It is very dangerous for the people who use it. It can damage their brains and their bodies.'' Marijuana is the most commonly used illegal drug in Britain. A recent survey said that nearly a third of 14 and 15 year-olds had used it. Some experts call for the complete legalization of all illicit substances. Richard Stevenson, an economist at Liverpool University, wrote a paper called ``Winning the War on Drugs -- To Legalize Or Not?'' for the Institute of Economic Affairs, a right-wing think tank. Stevenson believes that all drugs should be legalized, marketed and regulated so that they can be controlled. ``I am prepared to argue that drugs should be as legal as beer. They could be available from chemists clearly labeled and unquestionably with a government health warning,'' he said. But easy availability could increase the number of users. The idea of buying heroin as easily as a bottle of wine angers Rathbone. He said that society's experience of alcohol abuse did not recommend making heroin equally obtainable. ``Ready availability has already made alcohol by far the greatest drug threat. More crimes are committed, more families are split and more work days lost through alcohol,'' he said. Rathbone's views are shared by Steven Green, chairman of the Conservative Family Campaign, a Christian lobbying group. Green does not see marijuana as harmless and believes users will move on to 'harder' drugs like heroin and crack cocaine. ``The link between hard and soft drugs is pretty much established,'' he said. He welcomed the higher cannabis fines as a ``signal that the government is not going soft on drugs.'' The ruling Conservative Party has little intention of reversing its tougher policy. But opposition Labor politician Tony Banks has called for the setting up of a Royal Commission to debate Britain's drug laws. ``A Royal Commission should look at the whole issue of legalizing or decriminalizing soft drugs and hard drugs,'' he said. But others oppose the idea. ``It would serve no purpose. All the facts are already public that prove drugs are harmful and shouldn't be legalised,'' said Rathbone. Banks admits a Royal Commission could be a long way off. But he believes British drug laws will change within the next 10 years. ``It may be the triumph of hope over experience but at least I'm trying,'' he said. -- !!!!!! / ~ ~ \ [ O O ] Don't be a Clod; Vote Anti-Wod [ C ]