|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
UK: Charles Clarke shouldn't fret about the legal chaos over cannabis. It's not even on his boss's respect agenda Marcel Berlins The Guardian Wednesday 18 Jan 2006 Charles Clarke can stop agonising. I can assure him it won't make the slightest difference whether cannabis is upgraded back to B or stays where it is at C. He's said to be veering towards alphabetical inaction, substituting instead a public information campaign warning of the risks of the drug. That, I regret to have to tell him, won't work either. I don't know anyone who understood the practical consequences of the demotion of cannabis to the letter C. Did it make possession of the drug legal? In no way, David Blunkett assured us sternly when he was the minister in charge of downgrading. It's just that it wouldn't, well, sort of, be treated quite so, you know, criminally. So were the police now going to ignore it? Not at all, just not pursue possessors as vigorously as before. But they weren't pursuing them vigorously under letter B, were they? So what changed? And so on, in ripples of confusion. We've now been told that Brixton police have abandoned their laissez-faire, laid-back attitude (under C) and are taking a hard line (also under C). What all this means is that no one had or has the faintest idea what the practical difference was or is between B and C. And that will continue whether or not Clarke shuffles the letters round again. Did the move down to C result in a whole new bunch of adherents to the cannabis cause? No. Will a move back to B lead to lots of terrified smokers giving up the habit? No. So, rather than trying to untangle the legal and policing chaos, the home secretary will opt for informing the public - and particularly the young - about the dangers of cannabis. In theory, not a bad idea. I have no idea how much money will be spent on the campaign, nor what form it will take. It will fail. Most well-meant informational campaigns do. The trouble with cannabis is that it's just not evil enough. Young people know that taking ecstasy (or whatever this year's successor is called) can be, and quite often is, fatal. They know too that heroin and crack-cocaine kills, or can leave its users permanently damaged, mentally and physically. Even ordinary cocaine, à la Kate Moss, has well-known long-term effects, not least the disappearance of the nasal septum, as nationally advertised by the former EastEnders actor Daniella Westbrook. It is easy enough to think of scary ways to publicise the evils of those drugs. But no one actually dies of cannabis. No one overdoses on cannabis. There are no photo opportunities, as there are with heroin victims, of dead, emaciated bodies discoloured by the blotches of a hundred perforated veins, or showing the pitiful faces of lifeless teenagers who, only a few hours before, were dancing happily and energetically before deciding to take just one little tablet. But where is the warning image for cannabis users? Showing a poster of a dead heroin addict with the legend, "He started on pot"? Hardly a frightener. If you can't scare with pictures, can you persuade with facts and statistics? A recent survey showed that regular cannabis users are more likely to become schizophrenic or suffer other psychiatric disorders than the rest of the population - though the risk is still tiny, small or smallish (depending on whose interpretation you read). Try putting that on to a poster or in a pamphlet or television advert that will frighten actual or potential young users into abstinence. The other thing they have discovered recently is that the cannabis now widely on sale in our streets is far stronger than the version that the 60s and 70s generations smoked. I can envisage the advertising slogan: "Lay off the pot. It's way stronger than your parents got stoned on." Effective, huh? I can imagine the youthful riposte to that one. "Cool. More please." So what's to be done? Supporters of legalisation claim, as they do with any drug, that a legal but controlled market will result in a higher quality, less harmful product, cheaper and less subject to criminal influence. Maybe, maybe not; but it isn't going to happen. Stricter policing and more prosecutions, even for mere possession? Create a few martyrs who go to jail for the sake of a couple of spliffs? Police and courts have more important things to do. Here's my advice to the home secretary. Don't bother too much about cannabis. After all, it's not even part of your boss's respect agenda. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1688927,00.html
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!