Posted on 06/23/2002 2:22:59 PM PDT by Wolfie
Let Them Smoke Dope: Scots police forces stop arresting cannabis users
Police officers have been told not to arrest anyone caught with cannabis for personal use, the Sunday Mail can reveal.
All eight Scottish forces adopted the secret policy because they were wasting time arresting suspects with small amounts of the drug.
Last night a source close to Justice Minister Jim Wallace confirmed cannabis has effectively been decriminalised in secret.
Police have become frustrated after prosecutors binned 45,000 drug cases last year - one in five of all reported.
The source said: "There might not be a formal signed policy document from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland but that doesn't mean the policy is not in place.
"In an ideal world, every crime would be properly investigated and prosecuted. But we have to live in the real world where the possession of cannabis is no longer seen as a law enforcement priority.
"It means that if you don't have a record and there are no other offences involved you would be incredibly unlucky to be prosecuted for possession of cannabis."
Last July, police in London adopted a "softly, softly" approach to cannabis possession, in an intiative sanctioned by the Home Office.
Officers in Lambeth were instructed not to arrest cannabis users with small amounts for personal use.
Local Metropolitan Police commander Brian Paddick was later suspended amid allegations that he had smoked cannabis, which he claimed were part of a smear campaign against him.
Cannabis is due to be downgraded from a Class B to a Class C drug by Home Secretary David Blunkett this summer.
That would reduce the penalties for cannabis offences but police officers will still be required to send a report to the procurator fiscal when someone is caught in possession of the drug, even if it is a small amount.
Yesterday, David Liddell, director of the Scottish Drugs Forum, said: "Officers in urban areas are changing their attitudes to the use of cannabis.
"This could be because of the overworked legal system, but also because they want to focus on drugs like heroin and cocaine.
"Perhaps officers in rural areas will still adopt a hardline to cannabis use, but we've certainly been told that officers in urban areas are more tolerant."
One senior police officer said: "As long as there's a public desire for us to prosecute people in possession of controlled substances - heroin, speed, ecstasy or cannabis - then the courts will be under huge pressure from the sheer volume of cases.
"The fact of the matter is that these cases are regularly being binned for administrative convenience because the courts can't handle the level of work being put to them."
Last year, Strathclyde Police, which covers around half the country, reported around 12,000 people to the fiscal for alleged possession of cannabis.
The total number of drugs-related cases, ranging from possession to trafficking of Class A drugs, to reach court in 2000 was 6500 - down a fifth from the peak of 8200 in 1997.
Joe Grant, general secretary of the Strathclyde Police Federation, said: "We're are frequently hearing from officers that they're concerned and frustrated that the procurator fiscal is marking case no proceedings to expedite their workload."
Tory Justice spokesman, Bill Aitken, said: "The use of cannabis is illegal. I find it deeply distressing that there should be, on the face of it, a back door approach to decriminalising drugs."
BS.
On the vague possibility that your God does not exist, what then, is freedom just an illusion.
What if someone does not believe in your God, what then, should his freedom be taken away from him? Sounds like this is the case you are attempting to make, should we then incarcerate all those who do not believe in your particular God?
I refuse to have my liberty based on some cockamamie transitory notion that can neither be proven nor denied, am I now an enemy of the state?
However, You want to engage in narco-apologetics, be my guest. You guys will end up expanding the nanny state with your irresponsibility.
At least that would get us back on the path to being free, according to some.
Was Christ championing vice when he supplied the marriage with (excellent) wine? God didn't make the world to utterly deny it--the Manicheaen (sp?) fallacy. Of course, taking pleasures in ways, at times, or in amounts prohibited is sinful. Why is smoking pot prohibited?
How can you tell?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.