Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Nigel Evans (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 19 January 2006. It occurred during Ministerial statement on Regulation of Cannabis.


Regulation of Cannabis

The initial report of the advisory council said that cannabis was harmful, and I was amazed that it came up with the recommendation that it did. It has now published another report that says that it is hugely damaging and come up with the wrong conclusion yet again. What is the compelling evidence against reclassification back to B? If the Home Secretary is looking for clarity and wants to send the right signals to young people, surely the best way of doing that is by reclassifying the drug as a class B drug. I support the Home Secretary’s advertising campaign to get across the message about how damaging cannabis can be. It is not a soft drug; it is very harmful and damaging—the new psychiatric evidence shows what cannabis can do. How much will he spend on advertising how harmful cannabis is? As he will remember, when he reclassified initially, he had to spend £1 million to get the message across that cannabis was still illegal. How much will he spend this time?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
441 c993 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Cannabis Health hazards Drugs Mental illness Misuse Research Side effects
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk