Nimbin HEMP Embassy

When I visited the flagship stall of the Camden Mushroom Company, the wholesome-looking vendors were eager to help. They described the "shrooms" like true aficionados. I could start off light with some Mexican psilocybe cubensis, or go for a mind melt with a truffle called "philosopher's stone".

Last summer, four entrepreneurs stuck their necks out and opened England's first magic mushroom retail outlet. The founders of The Camden Mushroom Company, The Portobello Mushroom Company and Psyche Deli LLP took advantage of a loophole in British law, which says that hallucinogenic mushrooms aren't classed as a drug, unless they're processed or prepared (by freezing or drying, for example). It couldn't last, I thought.

How wrong I was. Strolling round London last week, I saw dozens of shops on Oxford Street, Charing Cross Road and Neal Street openly advertising the sale of magic mushrooms.

It was as if I'd gone to sleep in London and woken up in Amsterdam. With all these shroom shops springing up, there must be a huge market for this stuff.

But who is buying it?

At The Camden Mushroom Company's Oxford Street outlet (which operates out of a shop selling suitcases), there didn't appear to be anyone manning the stall, let alone any customers.

A prominent sign said: "Over-18s only." It also warned users not to operate any hardware more complex than a spoon.

The proprietor of the suitcase shop told me that the owner of the stall didn't start work until 12noon, but suggested I try one of the many other shroom shops on Oxford Street. A few doors down, there was a sign outside Promise Hair and Nail Extensions offering mushrooms for "ornamental and research purposes only". Again, an assistant told me that the shroom salesman hadn't started work yet.

Next stop was a shop on the Charing Cross Road. A Chinese lady started to lead me to the mushrooms, but when I asked her if she would mind answering a few questions for the press, she started yelling in Cantonese. I had no idea what she was saying, but I knew it was time to leave.

I trudged back to Oxford Street to give one last shop a try. Inside Rainbow Accessories, a discreet sign points mushroom devotees to the basement.

There, inside a silver fridge, lay dozens of Tupperware boxes filled with blackened magic mushrooms. They looked well past their sell-by-date.

But does the demand justify this proliferation of hopeful retailers?

Paul Galbraith, the co-founder of Psyche Deli, confirms that business is booming: "Over the last year we have grown from the original four friends and partners to having 11 office-based staff, and 15 based out on the stalls." Galbraith believes that the UK market is already bigger than the Dutch, with further growth to come. Psyche Deli started off buying their grow kits and mushrooms from Dutch wholesalers; now, they sell to the Dutch.

"Our customers range from wholesalers, to members of the public who buy from us retail," says Galbraith. "We sell to all types: doctors, lawyers, architects, and even the odd policeman.

The response has generally been positive, even among non-shroomers."

Interesting as it may be to imagine British bobbies off their faces on magic mushrooms, I'm not sure I'd be pleased if my nine-year-old son bought a bag of magic mushrooms with his pocket money.

And yet, legally, he could. After all, the refusal to sell to under-18s is an ethical guideline implemented by Psyche Deli; it has no legal precedent.

If an unscrupulous vendor decided to sell these drugs to minors, there'd be no comeback. And although shrooms are about as safe as drugs come, they are not risk free.

Dr Frank van der Heijden, of the Vincent van Gogh Institute for Psychiatry in the Netherlands, says that persistent psilocybin-induced psychosis is not very common, but that brief psychotic disturbances, like transient hallucinations or "dysperceptions", are more frequent among shroom users than in the general population. Mushroom use can also exacerbate chronic psychoses. The sale of shrooms is reasonably controlled in the Netherlands. Recently, the Dutch Supreme Court decided not to include psilocybin mushrooms in its list of drugs banned under the Opium Act, as long as they are still fresh.

However, as in the UK, all dried or processed varieties are strictly forbidden. "Of course, from a pharmacological point of view this distinction between fresh and processed is absurd," says Dr van der Heijden. "You just take more fresh mushrooms to get the same effect."

Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, it is an offence to possess a "preparation" or "product" of the controlled drugs psilocin and psilocybin, the active ingredients in magic mushrooms.

The courts have ruled that freezing mushrooms constitutes a "preparation". If I were to buy some mushrooms and accidentally put them in my freezer instead of the fridge (fresh mushrooms need to be kept cool), I would then be in possession of a Class A drug, for which I could get seven years in prison.

If I gave the frozen mushrooms to a friend, I could be arrested for supplying a Class A drug and could, in theory, get life imprisonment.

When I called the Home Office, a spokesperson informed me that the mushroom sellers are, in fact, breaking the law. "If fresh magic mushrooms are packaged and offered for sale, that is unlawful," he said. However, it's down to the local police force to decide what action they take, if any. So I phoned the Metropolitan Police to find out what their stance is on the sale of magic mushrooms. "What? They're sold through shops?" asked an incredulous Met Police spokesman. "I really don't know. I think it's a question best answered by the Home Office." I mentioned that I'd just called them. The spokesperson said that perhaps I should try the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), as they take abstruse laws and translate them into something that's intelligible to police constables. ACPO said: "You'd need to speak to the Home Office on that one." Back at the Home Office, a different spokesperson said that putting mushrooms in a bag did not constitute preparation, and that shops selling fresh magic mushrooms were acting within the law.

So if fresh magic mushrooms aren't a drug, what are they? I asked a Food Standards Agency spokesman if they were classed as a foodstuff.

He replied: "We haven't the faintest idea, but if it's a prohibited substance, it's nothing to do with us." I explained that, as the fresh mushrooms weren't classed as a drug, they must be a foodstuff.

In that case, he said, environmental health officers should be doing routine checks to ensure the food is being kept in proper conditions. Westminster City Council could not confirm that this was being done.

"The over-18s policy is one we have implemented ourselves, and it is one that we insist our wholesale customers adhere to," says Galbraith. "Many of the major wholesalers act responsibly and follow the same guidelines. We would certainly be in favour of some kind of regulation, but as the authorities have not provided this, we are keen to self-regulate." And with government departments unable to agree whose responsibility it is to monitor the sale of magic mushrooms, self-regulation sounds like the best solution.

EXTRA-HIGH CANNABIS THEORY GOES UP IN SMOKE

Pubdate: Sat, 26 Jun 2004
Source: Guardian, The (UK)
Copyright: 2004 Guardian Newspapers Limited
Contact: letters@guardian.co.uk
Website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/175
Author: Alan Travis, The Guardian
Note: The full report is available at
http://www.ukcia.org/research/CannabisPotencyInEurope.pdf
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?207 (Cannabis - United Kingdom)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)

EXTRA-HIGH CANNABIS THEORY GOES UP IN SMOKE

The effective strength of cannabis consumed in Britain has remained stable for the past 30 years, according to a European Union study published today.

The research says there is no evidence for claims that most cannabis consumed in Britain and the rest of Europe is now 10 times or more stronger than it was in the 70s.

The US drugs "tsar" John Walters and toxicologist John Henry of St Mary's hospital in Paddington, west London, are among those who have warned that the cannabis available now bears little resemblance to that on the market 30 years ago, with serious health dangers for regular users.

The EU study says that the strength of the active ingredient - THC - has remained unchanged at about 6% for most of the cannabis smoked in Britain. It says the amount of cannabis put in the typical British joint has also remained constant for 20 years at about 200mg for marijuana and 150mg for resin.

The results are based on analysis by the Forensic Science Service of cannabis seized by the police between 1995 and 2002. The study acknowledges that there has been an unknown increase in home-grown cannabis, which can be two to three times more potent, but says that more than 70% of the market is taken by the "traditional" imported Moroccan cannabis resin.

Imported resin typically has a strength of 6% THC against 30% in the "skunk" and other super-strong strains that Professor Henry and others have warned against. Sinsemilla, the unpollinated plant which produces a powerful strain, has doubled in potency since 1995, but only from 6% to 12%.

The research, published by the European monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction, is the first European review of the potency of cannabis. "There has been much speculation on the strength of cannabis available today, but little in the way of hard evidence," said its director, Georges
Estievenart. He said the concerns that had been raised were worrying as cannabis was the most commonly used illicit drug in the EU, with many countries reporting that more than 20% of people had used it at some time in their lives.

The study was complicated by the fact that not only do different types of cannabis such as resin or hash have different strengths, but potency also depends on the individual plant and on how and where it was grown.

The vintage can also have an impact on its strength with THC breaking down at a rate of 17% a year if it is kept at room temperature.

The report shows that the effective potency of cannabis in nearly all EU countries, including Britain, has remained at about 6%-8% THC in the last 30 years, with the only exception being the Netherlands, where by two years ago the strength of the average cannabis consumed had reached 16%.

This is mainly due to the increasing availability of intensively produced home-grown cannabis in Holland.

The EU report says that while herbal cannabis is most common in the Netherlands, Austria, Belgium and the Czech Republic, Britain remains in a group with Germany, Ireland and Portugal where the market is still dominated by imported cannabis resin mainly from Morocco.

The authors say that they are concerned about the growth of higher potency intensively cultivated home-grown cannabis appearing in Europe. The report concludes it is possible that regular use of such higher potency cannabis could lead to health problems such as panic attacks and minor psychological problems, but as yet this kind of cannabis remains relatively rare.

MULLING OVER THE SWAB SQUAD

Pubdate: Sun, 27 Jun 2004
Source: Age, The (Australia)
Copyright: 2004 The Age Company Ltd
Contact: letters@theage.com.au
Website: http://www.theage.com.au/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/5
Author: John Elder
Cited: Australian Drug Foundation http://www.adf.org.au/
Facts: Cannabis and Driving http://www.drugwardistortions.org/distortion12.htm

References on Drugs and Driving
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/contents.htm
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Test)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?224 (Cannabis and Driving)

MULLING OVER THE SWAB SQUAD

Duff Beer is the brew favoured by Homer Simpson, which he drinks at home on the couch as a fun way of passing time.
Curiously, the director of research at the Australian Drug Foundation is a man named Duff - Dr Cameron Duff - who kind of declared this week that drugs, notably party drugs, are the new beer.

"Drug use seems to have become a leisure activity in its own right," he said, citing a foundation survey of 380 peppy Melbourne nightclubbers.

In short, pillin' and chillin' are now "mainstream".

Dr Duff made a careful call for national policy makers to "rethink" their approach to managing the heartland's latest hobby.

His comments made news, but inspired no outrage.

Consider, on Friday night a real-life Edna Everage called Radio National talkback to say that expelling school students found smoking weed wouldn't deter other students from bonging on.

"Kids smoke marijuana," she said. "It's just a fact of life."

She could well have been talking about the quality of lamingtons at a church fete, such was her shrugging tone.

Certainly, John Howard isn't slapping his forehead with amazement and a Homer-like, "Doh!" But the random drug testing by Victoria Police of 9000 motorists over the next 12 months might do it.

The world-first experiment begins in four days - at least that's when the police officially get their powers to conduct the testing. The first roadside swabbing is actually some weeks away; the technology isn't in the hands of the police yet.

The sampling of drivers won't give us a definitive picture of Australia as a stoner nation - yet it promises to make a compelling one.

When the drug test kits turn up, and if they hold up, we'll know if drug-driving exceeds drink-driving's popularity. More fatal accidents involve drugs than drink - and drink-driving is very
popular indeed.
Consider the recent blitz on the West Gate Bridge: a boozer at the wheel caught every four minutes.

She could well have been talking about the quality of lamingtons at a church fete, such was her shrugging tone.

During the drug trial, drivers will be tested for cannabis and speed - and not the full range of popular party favourites, including the top whiz, ecstasy. It's presumed that a good number of E-users will be nabbed, because speed is widely used to cut the huggy drug - one bound to invisibly confuse the trial's analysis and resulting profile.

Also confused are the subscribers to marijuana com.
A newspaper story about the drug test trail was posted on the site last month, birthing a discussion board featuring many people with dope-related nicknames - some outraged about their bodies being invaded (by the swab), but many more of a mellow disposition who considered the
police campaign a reasonable idea.

Bongwater writes: "Yeah, I'm for it if it can show recent traces, like within the last four hours. But if it can't tell when you used a drug, then it is ridiculous and shouldn't be allowed."
Smoking Joe Lee, likewise: "I don't like the idea of anyone driving while intoxicated but... when testing for alcohol, there is an agreed-upon level that says, 'You're wasted!' Will the swab system work in a similar way?"

Put your dreamy minds at ease, fellas. I called George Svigos, media adviser to Police Minister Andre Haermeyer. George says the swabs will pick up the good stuff within two to three hours of
smoking it.

A helpful tip: stock up on munchies before twisting up. No more late night dashes to the 7-Eleven.

DRUG FIRMS TRYING TO MAKE PAINKILLERS LESS ABUSABLE

Pubdate: Mon, 14 Jun 2004
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Page: A07
Copyright: 2004 The Washington Post Company
Contact: letters@washpost.com
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/491
Author: Marc Kaufman, Washington Post Staff Writer
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/oxycontin.htm (Oxycontin/Oxycodone)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?232 (Chronic Pain)

DRUG FIRMS TRYING TO MAKE PAINKILLERS LESS ABUSABLE

Efforts Include More Tamper-Proof Pills And Compounds That Suppress the 'High'

Millions of Americans suffer from intense but poorly treated pain that could be helped by today's broad array of morphine-based prescription painkillers. Millions of others abuse prescription narcotics, using them to get high rather than to ease pain, and many become addicted.

This dilemma -- that legal painkillers are both under-used and abused - -- has become a pressing issue since the introduction in the mid-1990s of the extended-release opioid OxyContin. The drug has provided enormous relief to many pain sufferers and could help many more, but it has also become a drug of choice for many addicts, who promptly discovered how to disable the extended-release aspect of the drug to get high on the enhanced dose.

With the problem now clearly identified, dozens of researchers have embarked on a difficult and high-stakes race to find ways to keep the benefits of prescription painkillers available to pain sufferers while eliminating or reducing the possibility for abuse.

Officials at Purdue Pharma, the makers of OxyContin, say they and at least 19 other companies are actively working on ways to make nonaddictive or less addictive pain relievers. Some are working on compounds other than opioids, but most are trying to reformulate the large array of prescription narcotics already available.

Charles Grudzinskas, who has worked on these issues with industry and then the National Institute on Drug Abuse, said his recent search of patent applications found 450 issued since 1998 for ways to reduce the abuse potential of pain-killing drugs.

"There's a whole biology we're starting to pull apart," said Grudzinskas, who will chair a session this week on the "Quest for Non-Abusable Opioid Analgesics" at the annual meeting in Puerto Rico
of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence, a group that has focused on addiction and pain relief since the 1930s. "We're making progress, but this is very hard -- like trying to thread a needle
without any glasses on," he said.

The reason is the unique set of demands placed on potential drug producers seeking a less abusable painkiller. Drugs based on morphine, which is derived from the poppy plant, are the gold standard for relieving severe post-operative and chronic pain, and recent research has increasingly found that when used properly by pain sufferers, addiction is seldom a problem. Researchers and drug makers do not want to reduce the effectiveness of the drugs as they make them more abuse-resistant; in fact, they say, it would be unethical to do so.

Individuals respond quite differently to opioids, however, and with even greater variability to opioids that have been combined with another compound. As a result, some combination drugs that might
reduce the abuse potential of painkillers are also likely to reduce their effectiveness.

And finally, any effort to make OxyContin or Lortab or other painkillers less prone to abuse has to make them unappealing to addicts while not causing them undue harm. It is a challenge unlike
any other in drug formulation.

Nonetheless, industry, the federal government and academic researchers are actively involved in the effort because the need -- and potential profit -- is so great. With doctors increasingly wary of prescribing painkillers to patients because of the possibility of abuse -- and the growing fear that the Drug Enforcement Administration will come after them if they prescribe the high dosages that some doctors now believe are appropriate -- that need is only expected to grow.

Purdue Pharma of Stamford, Conn., for instance, has concentrated on adding a compound that blocks the brain receptors that normally capture the opioids and relay their effects onward in the brain. The compound would be added in contained, or "sequestered," form and would pass inertly through a patient taking the painkiller properly, but it would become an active antidote to the opioid if the pill were opened and crushed for a quick high. The added compound would, in effect,
cause the abuser to go into withdrawal rather than feeling euphoric.

"We are very committed to making pain relief that can't be tampered with and abused," said David Haddox, Purdue Pharma's vice president for health policy. "It's our number one priority."

Harvard Medical School professor Clifford Woolf has proposed adding capsaicin, the substance that makes chili peppers hot, to the painkiller in sequestered form. The drug would deliver the expected relief, but it would give an abuser snorting, chewing or injecting it a very unpleasant surprise.

Officials at Endo Pharmaceuticals of Chadds Ford, Pa., another major producer of painkillers, said they are experimenting with new ways to chemically encapsulate the opioids in their painkillers to make it far more difficult for abusers to extract the narcotic.

"We call it the Fort Knox approach," said Endo senior medical officer Bradley Galer. "We want to tweak the formulation, so if the abuser crushes a pill and takes some of the powder, the opioid would still be in extended release form and there would be no sudden burst of drug."

A variation on that idea, under development by a company that wants to remain anonymous, would reformulate painkillers into hard-to-open, gummy pills that squish, rather than split open, when hammered or cut. If perfected, they would deny abusers the narcotics they seek.

Frank Vocci of the National Institute on Drug Abuse said his agency is actively supporting further research into the basic science of how opioids work in the brain, and how they and other analgesics can be made less susceptible to abuse.

Another line of research supported by NIDA involves efforts to create a synthetic cannabinoid (the family that includes marijuana) that relieves pain but does not produce euphoria. The research, led by Alexandros Makriyannis of the University of Connecticut, was reported last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Other efforts are underway to develop nonaddictive, and potentially very powerful, painkilling agents from puffer fish and sea snails and
other shellfish.

Despite the money and effort going to this kind of research, experts doubt any breakthroughs are imminent. "To have a medication that's devoid of abuse potential and has good analgesic effect is highly desirable, but I know nothing at this point that would do it," said Vocci of NIDA. "We hope compounds will become available with reduced abuse liability, and that they will push the more abusable compounds out of the market. But this is such a complicated field that I see no single, absolute solution or silver bullet."

"If this was easy to do," said Martin Adler, executive director of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence, "it would have been done long
ago."

Swiss parliament legalises Absinth, but not cannabis

From: "Joe Wein" joewein@pobox.com
To: "DRCTalk" drctalk@drcnet.org
Subject: Swiss parliament legalises Absinth, but not cannabis
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:57:46 +0900

On Monday evening, 14 June 2004 the Nationalrat, the lower house of the Swiss federal parliament, voted 102 to 92 against accepting the draft drug law reform bill of the federal government. This effectively kills the bill more than three years after it was drafted by the coalition government.

Ironically, on the same day the cannabis reform bill died, parliament lifted the 96 year old ban on Absinth, a potent liquor (55-70% alcohol by volume, i.e. 110-140 proof). Following a gruesome murder case in 1907, the liquor was banned after media frenzy that looked a lot like an early precursor to Harry Anslinger's "Reefer Madness". While cannabis-reform foes warned that the government's reform bill would "trivalize" the risks of addiction and health risks, they decided to legalise one of the most potent forms of alcohol available. Alcohol abuse kills some 4000 Swiss per year.

Interestingly, Absinth originates from the French-speaking part of Switzerland, where opposition to Cannabis reform ist strongest.

The reform draft sought to exempt use, possession and personal use cultivation of cannabis from criminal sanctions. Commercial cultivation and dealing were supposed to be put under an expediency principle, so that people would not be prosecuted as long as they abided by certain rules, such as no cultivation for export or sales to non-residents of Switzerland.

The result was expected by many, after a similar result last autumn. Since then the upper house had confirmed its support for the bill, but the health committee of the lower house voted narrowly against it (13:12).

All 51 voting members of social democratic SP and the 15 Greens voted for introducing the draft. In the centrist FDP and the Liberals, only a majority of 21 to 18 voted for it, with one abstention. The half-hearted support from the FDP plus a U-turn by the centre-right CVP, which voted 23:3 against, led to the defeat. The 52:2 opposition by the nationalist-populists of the SVP came as little surprise. The CVP had been supporting cannabis reform for several years, but changed its tune last year after losing votes to the SVP.

The media echo to this failure has been quite negative. Editorials in leading national newspapers blamed politicians for avoiding to deal with the failure of existing policies. The bill was meant to provide not only for quasi-legal cannabis but to enshrine the "four-pillar-policy", with harm reduction as a central element of drug policy. Currently, a heroin prescription trial operates on a temporary basis only until the end of 2004.

The revised law was meant to provide a permanent basis for such policies, but opposition to cannabis reform has jeopardized this.

"It's a pity, this is not the help that we had expected," commented Jean-Pierre Monti, general secretary of the Association of Swiss Police Officers. The refusal to decriminalise Cannabis and cutbacks on funding and staff would not make the job of the police any easier.

A leading teachers' federation (LCH) and a federation of police officers were critical of the failure to allow the reform bill to enter parliament. A spokesman of the teachers' federation said his organization was "not happy at all" about the move. The organization had supported the reform bill, because it does not see criminal sanctions as an effective means of protecting youth. It has called for an integrated approach that does not pretend this is a problem the police could solve.

Thomas Zeltner, director of the Federal Office of Health expressed his regrets at the decision. he now expects that the failure to pass the reform will cement regional inequalities in how the present law would be applied, from relatively tolerant German-speaking cantons (states) in the east to more repressive policies in French-speaking cantons.

This is not the end of the road for reform yet. Switzerland is famous for its form of direct emocracy, that makes liberal use of the initiative process to pass or defeat laws. Had the reform bill been passed by the Nationalrat, opponents of the bill would certainly have gathered enough signatores to challenge the law at the ballot box.

Now the reverse is going to happen: On the same day parliament defeated the draft, a committee called "Pro Jugendschutz gegen Drogenkriminalität" ("For Protection of Children and Young People, against Drug Crime") announced its plans to gather the necessary 100,000 signatures this summer to pass a reform measure, entirely bypassing parliament.

According to the group, numerous members of parliament have already expressed there interest in supporting the initiative. The initiative's website (in German only so far) is http://www.projugendschutz.ch/news.html. The organisers expect the campaign to cost about 1,000,000 Swiss francs (US$800,000 / EUR 660,000), much of which is needed for paid advertisements in the media. In addition, there is a need for many volunteers to help gather signatures.

Joe Wein

--

http://www.drogenpolitik.org

http://www.cannabislegal.de

=====

Swissinfo

June 15, 2004

Parliament rejects decriminalisation of cannabis

Smoking a joint will remain illegal in Switzerland after parliament threw out government proposals to decriminalise cannabis.

The House of Representatives refused by 102 votes to 92 to debate amendments to the drug law - the second time it has dismissed the proposal.

It was the fourth attempt since December 2001 to vote on a government proposal aimed at decriminalising the production and consumption of cannabis for personal use.

The other parliamentary chamber, the Senate, has twice come out in favour of a more liberal drugs policy.

But in last autumn's session, which came just ahead of parliamentary elections, the House of Representatives dismissed the proposal outright.

Monday's debate was touted as the last chance for the bill and its rejection means that current drugs legislation - which is 30 years old - will remain in force.

Blow

The decision comes as a blow to supporters of a more liberal drugs policy, including the interior minister, Pascal Couchepin, the centre- left Social Democrats and the Green Party.

Thomas Zeltner, director of the Federal Health Office, said he regretted the decision.

"[The rejection of the bill] leads to fears that certain cantons will be tempted to make their own laws, which will create inequality in the country," said Zeltner.

"We can continue to live with the law, but it does pose problems," he added.

The Social Democrats said in a statement that they were disappointed by the decision, especially as it came on the same day that parliament agreed to lift a century-old ban on absinthe.

The party said that it condemned the "denial of reality which raises doubts about whether we have a pragmatic and efficient public health policy".

Updating the law

Couchepin had argued that it was time to take into account the current situation in Switzerland - some 500,000 people are estimated to smoke dope regularly.

"One cannot act as if they do not exist in the name of an unattainable ideal of abstinence," Couchepin said during the debate.

Under the government proposal, the consumption of cannabis and possession of it for personal use would no longer have been a criminal offence.

Limited trade in the drug would also have been allowed, but the import and export of cannabis would have remained outlawed.

Police officials and teachers said they were disappointed that parliamentarians had thrown out the proposal.

Michel Graf from the Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Drug Addiction criticised the "lack of courage by politicians" and the "missed opportunity for a real debate".

In the end, the rightwing Swiss People's Party and a number of parliamentarians from the Centre-right tipped the balance against revision of the law.

Here to stay

Ruth Humbel Näf from the Committee for Social Security and Health - which was in favour of keeping the status quo - said that young people could only be protected if cannabis remained illegal.

She argued that Switzerland would have become a centre for the trade in drugs had parliamentarians supported the bill.

But the issue is not destined to disappear following Monday's decision.

The Christian Democrats said they planned to launch a parliamentary initiative to revise the law according to the four pillars of Switzerland's drugs policy: prevention, therapy, repression and harm reduction.

The proposal also advocates punishing cannabis consumption by imposing small fines.

The Committee for the Protection of Young People Against the Criminalisation of Drugs is also planning to launch a people's initiative for a "reasonable cannabis policy and efficient protection of young people".

The committee is made up of young Social Democrats and Greens and also includes some supporters of the Christian Democrats and Radicals.

swissinfo with agencies

Copyright © Swissinfo / Neue Zürcher Zeitung AG

Back to THE CANNABIS NEWS INDEX