|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
UK: Cannabis is bad for you, but it's also impossible to ban
Jackie Ashlie The Guardian
Tuesday 30 Nov 1999 It's far more important to educate people about what dope does to the brain than reclassify and then crack down on it. Red Leb, Moroccan black, Afghan brown ... and now Kirkcaldy Brown too. It was a surprise to find the new prime minister so keen to wade into the cannabis debate. But battle has been joined. Since signalling his desire to have dope reclassified upwards, clouds of scented smoke have been wafting through Westminster. First, there was the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, with her brisk admission about her own limited drugs past, followed by half the cabinet putting their hands up. Then there was the risible suggestion that it was all a plot to out David Cameron on his illicit history. Then came a report in the medical journal the Lancet, suggesting that cannabis users have a 40% greater chance of suffering psychotic episodes than the rest of us. And yesterday came a whacking for Gordon Brown in the press, with reports that £50m is to be cut from the drug treatment budget - a sign of hypocrisy if he is also signalling that the drugs problem should be taken more seriously? Brown must be wondering if it was worth the original high. There are two things we know for sure about cannabis: it's bad for you and it it's impossible to ban. It's bad because of the effect it has on synapses in the brain. There is too much hard scientific evidence, from neurologists and psychologists of impeccable credentials, to play the old game of "Hey, compared to fags and booze, dope's harmless". This accumulation of facts was enough to produce one of the more remarkable media about-turns of recent years when the Independent on Sunday, after a decade of campaigning doggedly for the decriminalisation of cannabis, produced a front page this spring headlined: "Cannabis, an apology". After years of recruiting people to celebrate dope, it now celebrates those who have joined its campaign to highlight the dangers of what it argues is super-powerful hydroponic cannabis, or skunk. You don't even have to base the case on modern, scary skunk. Some new forms of cannabis are stronger, but, as the Guardian's Ben Goldacre pointed out last week, the notion that it is "25 times stronger" than what 1970s dopeheads toked is a gross media exaggeration likely to ensure that young people don't listen to a word. This is less about the increasing strength of the drug than about the increasing strength of medical evidence. In this, the cannabis argument today is like the tobacco argument in the 60s. The science is there for those who want to look. But many addicts look away, and there are still enough excuses and mental alibis to see you through. The number of smokers was always much greater than the number of cannabis users, but the mental evasions aren't so different. In the old days it was, "it clears the tubes" and "my gran smoked 60 a day and is still going strong at 80". Now, it's "it calms me down" and "Sara's been a dopehead since uni, and she's right as rain". The tobacco (and indeed alcohol) comparisons are worth recalling when we consider the second thing we know for sure about cannabis - that you can't eradicate it through the police and the courts. Its use is too widespread, the drug smuggling and distribution networks far too large, and public tolerance too high. Ask any teenager whether they have come across cannabis, or know someone who uses it, and the answers would horrify most of us. If you really tried to defeat the drug by a legal crackdown, you'd be building scores more prisons and keeping the police away from much more important jobs ... and you'd still fail, just as with the harder drugs. Where the Independent on Sunday and similar campaigners originally went wrong was in leaping straight from the failure of prohibition to call for an end to any legal sanction, and therefore the arrival of the fully organised modern market in selling drugs. The law isn't the full answer, but it performs a useful subsidiary role in marking disapproval and keeping corporate power away. The crucial issue is consent. To change people's attitudes, education must come first. It's only when the link with cancer, or in this case with mental illness, is accepted that the law has any chance of being fully accepted, and therefore effective. Take the other great social change of this summer in England and Wales, the public smoking ban. It is too early to assess the economic impact. There have been reports of pubs closing down: the Scottish experience has been of few closures, and rising food sales, but the Irish have seen a lot of rural pubs closing. As one of those returning to the pub now the smoke's gone, I've found them absolutely packed, though this could be more because of the dreadful weather. But the important point is that the ban, though loathed by many smokers, has been accepted with remarkable composure. Very few cases of violence have been reported, and only a handful of examples of defiance. In contrast to the foxhunting ban, for example, the smoking ban has gone through smoothly and meekly. Why? Because, I'd suggest, there is such a widespread understanding of the risks of smoking, including secondary smoking. The argument was won before the law was imposed. Even those who curse the ban know in their hearts exactly why it's arrived. Similarly, it is much more important to educate people about what cannabis does to the brain than it is to reclassify the drug and initiate some cack-handed crackdown. If you want to change cannabis users, give them sober and honestly presented evidence, not journalistic exaggeration or political hyperbole. Then they can make up their own minds, just as millions of once compulsive smokers made up theirs. Young people aren't unable to think logically or receive detailed information. They are at least as shrewd as the population as a whole and faster than most at separating fact from spin. The same goes for other health and lifestyle problems, including heavy drinking and obesity. Government can do a lot around the margins - educating people about exercise and excess, insisting on proper labelling, raising alcohol taxes, banning advertising that targets children, providing healthy food in schools and hospitals. But it can't dig deep into our lives and force us to drink less, or eat more vegetables, or take up jogging. The nanny state has its limits. With cannabis, it's the facts, not the wagging finger, that might bring about reform. A news story about drink, drugs or lifestyle with a medical correspondent's byline has 10 times the impact of one with a political reporter's name. It's a simple lesson. It's also one that politicians - as they wade into the cannabis debate - should reflect on. jackie.ashley@guardian.co.u http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,,2137519,00.html http://myworld.ebay.co.uk/lca_corner
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!