>From: "Peter McWilliams" <peter@mcwilliams.com>
>Subject: Jolly good show, Prince Charles!
>Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 12:17:59 -0800
>X-Mozilla-Status: 8001
>X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
>
>Pubdate: Fri, 14 Jan 2000
>       Source: Times, The (UK)
>       Copyright: 2000 Times Newspapers Ltd
>       Contact: letters@the-times.co.uk
>       Website: http://www.the-times.co.uk/
>       Author: Philip Webster, Political Editor
>
>       JAIL THREAT MAY BE LIFTED FROM CANNABIS SMOKERS
>
>       Possession of cannabis would no longer be punishable by jail under
>a controversial shake-up of Britain's drug laws to be recommended by an
>independent inquiry soon.
>
>       The most far-reaching investigation of drugs legislation for a
>quarter of a century will also call for a relaxation of the ban on the
>use of cannabis for medical purposes and is expected to propose that
>Ecstasy be downgraded from a "hard" to "soft" drug.
>
>       The report is due to be published in mid-March by a committee of
>inquiry established in 1997 by the Police Foundation, whose president is
>the Prince of Wales.  The Prince's Trust has made a financial
>contribution to the inquiry, which was set up to determine whether the
>Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 was effective.
>
>       The inquiry is chaired by Lady Runciman, a former member of the
>Government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and its members
>include senior police officers.
>
>       Lady Runciman declined to comment on the details of the report
>last night and made plain that it had yet to be completed.  Other
>sources said that several key decisions remained to be taken.
>
>       However, The Economist today publishes an account of the expected
>contents of the report; and The Times has learnt that the most
>controversial recommendation will be a proposal for the "depenalisation"
>of cannabis possession - for which 500 people were jailed in 1997.
>
>       The inquiry has found that the 1971 Act is inconsistent and
>imposes heavy demands on the criminal justice system.  It suggests that
>cannabis possession, now punishable by up to seven years in prison,
>should instead by dealt with by fines or other penalties.
>
>       The proposal falls short of the "decriminalisation" favoured by
>some members of the inquiry team, but it is understood to have felt
>constrained by the need to come up with a report that might eventually
>be embraced by the Government.  Even so, removing the threat of prison
>would be seen as moving towards the more liberal approach of The
>Netherlands, where cannabis is freely available for sale in small
>quantities.
>
>       Tony Blair and Jack Straw are extremely cautious on the subject of
>reform and are unlikely to back decriminalisation of the drug.  Only
>Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Democrats, has backed calls for a
>royal commission to consider such a move.  The Home Secretary has even
>rejected a Lords report recommending that cannabis should be available
>for medicinal use - a proposal that will feature in the Police
>Foundation report.
>
>       The report is also believed to make a new distinction between
>supply and possession, apparently suggesting that possession of less
>than two grammes of cannabis should be treated as a minor offence, but
>over two grammes could attract a charge of supply.
>
>       The report is certain to be attacked by the Conservatives.  Ann
>Widdecombe, the Shadow Home Secretary, said: "Existing penalties should
>continue."
>
>
>
>================================================================
>
>This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
>   the mailing list <LIST@mcwilliams.com>.
>To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <LIST-off@mcwilliams.com>