Talk:Cannabis classification in the United Kingdom

Title

I understand that rescheduling has been taken over as a term from cannabis rescheduling in the United States. The word makes sense in the US because of the use of schedule to refer to a group of drugs that are dealt with in a similar way under law. In the UK, a group of such drugs is referred to as a class, as in class A drugs, so should this article be called cannabis reclassification in the United Kingdom? Gareth Hughes 23:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A google test shows "reclassification" is more commonly used to describe downgrading it from Class B to C. Rad Racer 23:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

British ISP decision favours godless anarcho-communist drug abusers versus big name anti-soviet military factory in USA.

British ISP arbitration body decision favours illegal drug use website against Lockheed Martin's facility trade mark: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/02/lockheed_martin_domain_case/

This is crazy! Without the famous creations of the american Skunk Works factory, like the U-2 and SR-71 spyplanes, soviet communism would have won the Cold War and godless russkies would have summarily executed all drug abusers long ago, in britain, USA and else throughout the former "free world" sphere. Considering this, I hope british ISP officials will get first-hand experience in siberian gulags some day and that will prompt them to change their opinions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

I can't say that Cannabis is a Drug because it's a herb in true.

There is two situations: First, you growing up your herb for you. Second, you growing up herb for sell.

In the first situation, it's can't be a crime. Just because, it's a form of life that I can consume, like Tea. In the worst hipoteses it's a violation on me, for me, by me.

In the second situation, it's a traffic issue. It's a matter of getting money underlaw.

The situation is that, the user get arrested because he can't growing up a herb! It's like the governament wants us to buy with a dealer when they say "You can't have this veggy on your home".

If you think about, you can say in the case of a free-growing(for own use) situation, no body will buy that with drug dealers. That's just stupid repression.

Other drugs don't work like that. Because they are processed with other things; like Cocaine or Heroine. This drugs are very different than Cannabis. Cannabis is a herb, and when you use that you get something 100% natural. If you have your own herb of course.

Hugs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.43.52.94 (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Opium and coca are also herbs, and 'narcotic' without any real processing. Laurel Bush (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC).

opium and coca are herbs but to make the potent drugs, chemicals must be added, this is completely unnatural to the body whereas untampered cannabis is a fully naturally occuring plant with fully natural side effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.70.46.14 (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Layout

I think it may be good if the layout of this article is changed:

- Start with a section on class B (1928-2004), with reasons for the original classification.

- Then have criticisms post class B (1928-2004), with reasons against the original classification.

- Then a section on class C (2004-2009), with reasons for the downgrading.

- Then have criticisms post class C (2004-2009), with reasons against the downgrading.

- Then have a section on class B (2009-present), with reasons for the upgrading.

- With the final section being on the current criticisms. Probably with reasons against the upgrading.

Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by J05HYYY (talk • contribs) 06:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes and this article should be renamed "Cannabis classification in the United Kingdom" instead of "Cannabis reclassification in the United Kingdom". --86.130.39.56 (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I broadly agree with that. I've moved the page as suggested by 86.130. The article needs a lot of tidying too, a lot of the "criticism" section looks like original research which is a big no-no. If criticism is to be included it needs to come from a source which discusses it as criticism and not be your own opinion. Smartse (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the whole section criticising the upgrading, whilst the facts are probably true the way they were used was inappropriate, mainly as they were being used to form a synthesised opinion that hasn't actually been written anywhere else. If you want to have this section try searching the Guardian's website around the time it was upgraded. Smartse (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I wrote that whole section, so I will cite myself. It needs to be in there to maintain neutrality. References for the other criticisms aren't there ... so maybe I should remove them now? --J05HYYY (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've reverted your edit. Firstly citing yourself in an article is a classic case of original research. As I said above I'm sure there are articles out there that would be suitable for such a section but the fact that Gordon Brown said skunk is lethal has nothing to do with criticising the reclassification. You could use some of the articles in Cannabis (drug) but any information in this should be specifically about the reclassification of cannabis. You are right about the other criticism section, but it says where the info came from and it doesn't violate policies like no original research. If you disagree with me, try posting at WP:CANNABIS for a second opinion. Smartse (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOR#Citing_oneself --86.172.127.137 (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal 13th January 2009

I don't think the following text belongs in a Wikipedia article. The first part is one editor's uncited opinion on the reasons for the Nutt episode. The second part has references which may be of use, but is fundamentally a post on a webforum, i.e. not a reliable source or a notable commenter.

This is because Professor Nutt concluded that LSD, Ecstacy and especially cannabis are unharmful after a lengthy study into she subject, Professor Nutt had a lengthy career in studying the effects of drugs and is considered one of the top experts in the subject, this is why his being sacked caused an uproar from both the public and the press as well as the fact that the British Government has never ignored the advice of it's scientific advisory board especially it's chief advisor. After Professor Nutt was sacked 5 other members of the Scientific board resigned in protest.

Criticism

On 22 October 2009 Joshyyy Brumington "retired expert smoker in the field" and supporter of sensible drug policy in the UK, criticised the government for moving cannabis back to a class B drug.

As of yet, the government have not been able to give a legitimate reason into to why cannabis is a class B drug (beyond giving out the message - that "this is unacceptable" ).

The home office website says there "is a new potent form of cannabis called skunk", which apparently, "is a much stronger version of the drug", although it is noted that one of the earliest strains of "skunk" to appear was that of "SKUNK #1", which has been inbred since 1978 and that high potency cannabis has been around for potentially even longer.

The home office goes on to say that that skunk "accounts for 80% of cannabis available on our streets" but people often confuse all types of herbal cannabis for "skunk" . The other 20% of cannabis on our streets is mostly hash, which is a concentrate of the drug.

After the move to class B, several newspapers commented on the risks of psychosis between "skunk" and hash, claiming that "skunk smokers are several times more likely to suffer from psychosis", "due to "high levels of the psychoactive ingredient delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, known as THC". Despite this, hash oil can contain more THC (up to 70%) than even the strain "super skunk" (up to 20%) and on top of this, potentially, the most common form of hash in the UK, "soap bar", can often contain many more adulterants than the 'usual' herbal cannabis (due to the appearance and manufacturing processes involved) .

AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

References

United Kingdowm classification?

To quote from the Wiki page on Scots Law

"The United Kingdom is a quasi-federal state that, judicially, consists of three jurisdictions: (a) England and Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) Northern Ireland.[4] There are important differences between Scots Law, English law and Northern Irish law in areas such as property law, criminal law, trust law,[7]"

The article makes it sound like classification was UK-wide which is not the case. Scotland never reclassified, as for Northern Ireland I don't know. But something should probably be added about this to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.196.207 (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Watch the edits on this page

Watch the edits on this page - imagine those in complete ignorance judging someone in court with only wiki to cite, then them trusting some BBC quote, I doubt there's any big books they'd bother to read and even if so, still no real knowledge unless you are a user.

&to below, the class is a in different categories dependant upon county according to this page, so are we admitting UK GOV enforce discriminate laws based on location?

UK gov won't publicly say it's legal ever, when they do change the class sativex would actively object to keep their share of UK bdsm NHS - pedos think it's perfect, scare kids into thinking what they don't need is important and illegal and needed, give them no other real opportunities later on in life if they just, send them an article citing it's illegality once every now and then. The "law" leaves everyone vulnerable & no one wins — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.80.31 (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)