We've all heard of the little boy who cried wolf, and yet government "experts" continue to serve up "evidence" which points a multitude of fingers at cannabis, laying blame for mental health issues, cancer scare stories, in fact, medical conditions which affect every part of the body, and all of which blame cannabis use as a direct cause of personal harm.

But this evidence flies in the face of what millions of UK citizens know.

Know as fact, from actually using cannabis daily, as opposed to government ministers who simply pay to have white papers created which will lets face it, say whatever the government wants it to say.

A cynical outlook maybe but I too speak from personal experience.

While all this carries on here in the UK, across the world there are a lot of different stories being told regarding cannabis.

United States
In the US, currently 12 states have decriminalised cannabis (marijuana) for use by patients who have a doctors recommendation that the drug can and does improve the quality of life of sometimes terminally ill people.

Every day doctors, medical professionals who should lets face it know what they're talking about, speak out regarding the beneficial nature of cannabis as a clinical drug, and yet here in the UK, politicians and law-makers simply refuse to even acknowledge this information exists.

An outright government veto, which completely devalues their theories in the eyes of UK citizens who choose to use cannabis over other, government supported drugs such as alcohol, or tobacco.

Belgium
In Belgium, a law was passed recently which allowed its citizens to possess upto 3 grams of raw herbal cannabis, and the growing of a single, female cannabis plant for personal consumption. In light of this "policy change", has Belgium fallen to rack & ruin?

Hardly. 

Holland
But what has happened as a result of this government policy, is the illegal market in cannabis has all but faded away, as organised crime seeks pastures new to ply its trade, and the same apply's in Holland, which has for over 30 years, allowed the personal possession and consumption of a small amount of cannabis.

But while cannabis is freely available, the amounts of people who choose to consume the drug, are consistently lower in the Netherlands, than in any other country in the European Union, which begs the question, "What is it that Holland is doing so differently to the rest of us, which sees organised crime unable to gain a foothold in the Netherlands?"

"Why is it that residential properties are being rented out wholesale, and turned into cannabis factories in the rest of Europe, but not in Holland, or Belgium"?

Prohibition - the driving force
According to the UKCIA, (http://www.ukcia.org ), a cannabis activists group in the UK, there should be a more pragmatic approach to cannabis law.

"People use cannabis, they want to buy it and as there's money involved someone will supply it. That is the nature of capitalism, the driving force of our society.

A pragmatic approach to law reform doesn't claim cannabis is harmless - indeed we wish to draw attention to the potential risks because they should form the basis of the regulatory approach.

As with all things we must have reliable and firm data on which to base our laws and to do that we have to be able to measure and quantify the supply side. Prohibition makes this impossible.

Pragmatic cannabis law reform is a campaign for drugs policy toward cannabis based on proper control and regulation of the commercial supply coupled with effective harm reduction measures, (as exists currently in other EU member states).

As long as the demand exists for a commercial cannabis supply there will be one. The issue is therefore how, not whether, we manage it."

So the problems lay not with the substance itself, but with the way it is policed. Prohibition actually encourages and aids the criminal element to supply the demand, so rather than continue with harsh sentencing, longer prison sentences, higher fines, as the Dutch blue-print has proven over 30 years, we need to go the other way. To take cannabis out of the hands of organised criminals once and for all.

Polak Vs Costa
This is the theory which was presented to the UN Commision on Narcotic Drugs, (UNODC), which convened recently in Vienna.

According to their website, "UNODC recognizes the need to promote strong partnerships with civil society organizations in dealing with the complex problems of drug abuse and crime which undermine the fabric of society. The active involvement of civil society and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) is essential to help UNODC carry out its global mandates."

Not so silent partners
According to the Executive Director of UNODC, (the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime), "I value the fact that you have spoken out on important issues. We don't need silent partners, we need dynamic outspoken ones"!

But that clearly didn't apply during the 51st Session of the UN Commision on Narcotic Drugs which took place in Vienna, in March 2008.

Executive Director of UNODC, Antonio-Maria Costa, was fielding questions at the meeting of the NGO forum. Questions asked by Non-Government Organisations (NGO's) from around the world, when a Psychatrist in the employ of the Health Service from the Municipality of Amsterdam, Mr Frederick Polak, who was attending as a representative of a European NGO (ENCOD), asked a question which is central to the argument of whether drug prohibition generally, or the prohibition of cannabis specifically, plays a part in reducing the widescale use of cannabis as a recreational substance, or whether it in fact, adds to the problem it has been created to fight?

The question Mr Polak asked was a simple one, and yet, to this day it remains unanswered even though Mr Polak has recently travelled to New Orleans in the US, and Vienna in Austria, covering many thousand of air-miles, to ask it in person.

The question? In Mr Polak's own words;

"My name is Frederick Polak from the European Organisation ENCOD, (http://www.encod.org ). I doubt what you say that you are open to be challenged.

I had a bad experience in that respect with you sir, which was at the New Orleans conference you mentioned, where I put a very simple question to you - twice. Twice I put the question to you and you refused to answer."

"You started to stray away, and talk about other things but you did not answer the question, so I'll do it again now if I may."

"Its a simple question. In Holland we have a situation which sees cannabis available to everyone who wants to use it, and who is an adult over 18 years of age."

"So there is no restriction on its use, and on the possession of small quantities, yet the levels of use of cannabis in Holland are lower than in the countries surrounding us and I said to you, this must be a problem for you, and I would like to know how you explain this (situation) because this is contrary to the theory of drug prohibition?

This is contrary to how the whole system is working? And I would like to know how you understand this, and you refused to answer this question, so I put the question to you again today."

In laymans terms Mr Polak was asking Executive Director Antonio-Maria Costa, why it is that even though the Netherlands allows the free use and possession of cannabis for consenting adults, the Netherlands continues to show the lowest amounts of drug users in the European Union and further afield?

A pragmatic approach to cannabis enforcement, proving once and for all it works.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The very organisation created and tasked with finding solutions to the United Nations drug problems, simply could not answer.

Because the answer goes against everything the United Nations forces upon us as national drug policy.

So as Great Britain gears up for an increase in anti-cannabis law enforcement, and our full-to-bursting prisons prepare to receive even more people for commiting a crime which only 100 kilometres away in Holland, is perfectly acceptable, we are already aware that this reaction to a UK social issue, made worse by the very laws set in place supposedly to alleviate the problem, is doomed to failure before it even becomes law.

By Ian Malley