Content area
Abstract
This thesis compares the availability and use of information about cannabis by members of two distinguished legislatures. It reviews the historical, social, legal, and moral contexts of cannabis use in Britain and the United states. It compares contemporary legislative politics in the two countries, with special reference to the relationship between the legislature and the executive, the roles ot Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members or Congress (MCs) in their respective houses and societies, and the usual sources and channels of information available to Members. It compares and contrasts the preparation and passage of the U.S. "Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970" and the U.K. "Misuse of Drugs Act 1971", giving particular attention to the way that Members became informed about cannabis, and how they were able (or unable) to use their information in the creation of the two laws. Particular emphasis is given to differences be tween the two systems. These differences are especially striking when the passage of legislation is viewed from the point of view of the participant. From the comparisons and contrasts made in this study several conclusions have emerged, chief among them that: 1) MC's had significantly more power in determining the policies and details of legislation than did MPs; 2) Source and uses of information were significantly greater in Washington than in Westminster; 3) The most important stage in both houses for Members to influence legislation was the committee stage; 4) Information was a valuable resource for MCs, but, at least in this instance, was of little uses to MPs; 5) Simply increasing sources of information will not improve the quality of legislation unless more opportunities for Members to use that information are also provided; 6) With regard to the problems now facing both countries, the availability and use of information by legislators is likely to play a critical part in future social-policy formation, and correspondingly; 7) A lack of opportunities for Members to obtain and use information is likely to impair not only the legislative process, but the future of the two societies as well.
