» Thursday, May 19, 2005


Asked if there might be a Government change of policy on cannabis, the PMOS said the experts were having a preliminary meeting this week, but it would take some time to produce their opinion. Therefore, we would wait for their judgement and take that into account.

Asked if there had been any further decisions into whether there would be further grading within the cannabis classification, the PMOS said it was better to wait for the experts’ opinions before discussing any further.

Briefing took place at 9:00 | Search for related news


  1. I belie tat cannabis is a goooooooood thig and shuld be respeced.afdsgadsfga

    Comment by smashed monkey — 23 May 2005 on 3:10 pm | Link
  2. eh gad the monkeys up a tree

    Comment by smashed monkey — 23 May 2005 on 3:19 pm | Link
  3. A u-turn an cannabis policy just highlights the idiocy of the government. It’s illegal already but easy to buy. Differing strength’s mean nothing when you look at the larger picture. Soapbar the lowest strength on the market is also the most toxic. How does Tony Blair justify his stance as its full of holes. Legalisation is the only way forward. Also ask yourselves this, How many children die because of cannabis worldwide in a year? None reported. Alcohol and tobacco the most harmful of drugs are legal cannabis a safer drug is not. How come? What type of thinking is behind all this nonsense?

    Comment by Nik — 23 May 2005 on 4:08 pm | Link
  4. Idiocy and greed; the government knows that if cannabis was legalised then it’s tax take would suffer as half the country would be growing their own. Cannabis also encourages free & imaginative thought – something the government REALLY doesn’t want large numbers of people indulging in.

    It just makes you think what would happen if suddenly one day we found out that something that grows everywhere had psychoactive properties, such as dandelions, which if smoked or made into tea made people feel great, relaxed and free of stress. No doubt we’d all be subjected to pleas to destroy these unholy weeds, followed by threats and force.

    Let’s face it; if cannabis was legal, the war in Iraq wouldn’t have happened. In fact, most of the conflicts in the world would not happen – people would be too busy having a laugh, having sex, feeling good and generally living life how it’s supposed to be lived. Exactly NOT what a government fronting corporate interests wants…

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 24 May 2005 on 10:52 am | Link
  5. Peace and love? Remember Vietnam? The Mai Lai massacre? Dream on, pot heads.

    Comment by Mr Pooter — 24 May 2005 on 12:47 pm | Link
  6. What does the Mai Lai massacre have to do with cannabis?!

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 24 May 2005 on 1:38 pm | Link
  7. I also take issue with the term "pot-heads". Would it be fair to refer to every drinker as a "booze-bag" or a "drunk"? Every smoker as a "cancer-carrier" or whatever? Why should the users of a relatively harmless drug be given disparaging names? A drug, incidentally, with a symbiotic relationship with mankind that goes back to the dawn of civilization; a drug with proven medicinal properties; a drug with, as yet, no proven ill-effects. And at the same time I also think that comment shows the depth of some peoples ignorance, for they constantly (as has been proven over the decades) confuse drug users of all colours and conveniently lump them under one label, be it pot-heads, junkies, etc, without having the tiniest inkling of what exactly their drug of choice is and what it does.

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 24 May 2005 on 2:03 pm | Link
  8. PapaL – how wrong you are about the size of my inklings.

    Vietnam, where cannabis was the grunts’ drug of choice, was hardly peace and love, now was it? If the GI I knew in 1970 was anything to go by, the distancing effect it provided for him from what he did was the only thing that kept him sane. How insane is that? He was a side gunner on Hueys, as I recall.

    For the life of me, I can’t see how legalised pot would have stopped Blair’s war in any way, shape or form. A case of over-toke, PapaL?

    Comment by Mr Pooter — 24 May 2005 on 7:00 pm | Link
  9. Cannabis did not start the Vietnam war, nor was it responsible for the violence that happened. I’m sure also that cannabis was not the only drug in use; you cannot talk about the calming affects of pot when it is polluted by LSD, PCP, smack, crack or whatever. One could argue that the violence would have been worse had the troops not had cannabis to fall back on. And quite apart from anything else, Vietnam involved the Yanks; normal rules don’t apply.

    My own point was semi-joking, in that if the whole country was stoned even Bliar himself would not have cared about Iraq; indeed, one would have hoped that he’d have encouraged Bush to have a toke – and maybe then even that lunatic would have calmed down somewhat.

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 25 May 2005 on 4:46 pm | Link
  10. Is Mr pooter for real? Does he blame vietnam on cannabis use? Is he insane? How did he come to that conclusion? The man is more harmful than cannabis could ever be. Where does he get his train of thought?

    Comment by Nik — 27 May 2005 on 11:49 am | Link
  11. Nik – I was responding to this comment : "Let’s face it; if cannabis was legal, the war in Iraq wouldn’t have happened. In fact, most of the conflicts in the world would not happen – people would be too busy having a laugh, having sex, feeling good and generally living life how it’s supposed to be lived."

    If insanity is not believing that the legalisation of cannabis would stop all wars and create peace and love and mass shagging the world over – yes, I’m stark raving bonkers. Even PapaL has smelted this potty idea down to ‘semi-joking’. Perhaps it’s you who should change trains?

    Comment by Mr Pooter — 27 May 2005 on 1:19 pm | Link
  12. I guess this confusion has arisen as a result of the double-negative – probably coupled with a slight touch of the Lebanese Gold or even the Afghan Red.

    Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 27 May 2005 on 2:52 pm | Link
  13. LMAO!

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 30 May 2005 on 12:42 pm | Link
  14. Hello

    Comment by duuussskk — 11 Jun 2007 on 12:15 pm | Link
  15. Hello

    Comment by duuussskk — 11 Jun 2007 on 12:15 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)


This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Downing Street Says...

The unofficial site which lets you comment on the UK Prime Minister's official briefings. About us...


May 2005
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« Apr   Jun »

Supported by


Disruptive Proactivity

Recent Briefings



Syndicate (RSS/XML)



Contact Sam Smith.

This site is powered by WordPress. Theme by Jag Singh