|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
UK: Spliffs are bad for you, it's official Mike O'Brien The Guardian Wednesday 18 Jul 2001 I do not understand why otherwise sensible people want to make it easier to smoke cigarettes that can damage our physical and mental health and make profits for crooks. Those same people usually want tobacco advertising banned, but they are anxious to make it easier to smoke a mixture of tobacco and cannabis. Not only that, they seem to assume that those of us who oppose legalising cannabis must be social Neanderthals. Well, like it or not, I do not want British cities to be like Amsterdam, with coffee shops selling cannabis cake, a magnet for the drug takers of Europe who think social tolerance also extends to openly shooting up heroin in the parks. So far, the advocates of legalisation have dominated the national debate on cannabis. It is time for those of us on the other side to to set out why we oppose the legalisation of a drug that is both unhealthy and socially damaging. Even though 36% of people aged 16 to 29 admit to having experimented with cannabis - and the real figure is probably higher - for the majority of us, the fact that possession of cannabis is a criminal offence discourages its use. Legalisation would do the opposite. Law-abiding people would no longer have moral scruples about using it, opportunities to buy would increase and sophisticated marketing operations would make the product appear more attractive. The health and social consequences of greater consumption of cannabis are significant. The Tory MP Peter Lilley, in calling for legalisation, made much of one article in the Lancet which claimed that "moderate" consumption of cannabis had less harmful effects than cigarettes or alcohol. Numerous academics, however, as well as the World Heath Organisation, have warned that cannabis consumption can have acute and chronic effects on health. Like alcohol, even moderate use of cannabis impedes a person's ability to learn, to operate machinery or drive vehicles. Drunk drivers cause enough problems without increasing the risk by putting a bunch of middle-aged, chilled-out, cannabis smokers on our roads. There is clear evidence that excessive use can damage mental health and create long-term learning difficulties. It also risks the development of cannabis-dependent syndrome in 10% of heavy users and exacerbates schizophrenia; and when used by pregnant women, it can harm foetal development. Some clinicians say it can precipitate psychosis, decrease sperm count and cause hallucinatory flashbacks. Even if you ignore the fact that concentrations of tar and cancer-causing agents in cannabis are double that of tobacco, the plain fact is that a spliff can "seriously damage your health" in ways that are worse than tobacco. Claims that legalisation would end the links with crime are naive. Unless prices are very low, the illegal market would continue to exist. Taxing cannabis, as Peter Lilley suggests, would encourage bootlegging, while not taxing it would encourage more people to use it. Advocates of legalisation have sought with some success to discredit the notion that cannabis is a gateway to harder drugs. The case for a ban on cannabis must rest squarely on the dangers of cannabis itself. And while there is a convincing argument for allowing people with medical conditions like MS to use cannabis on prescription, the case for going beyond that remains weak. We should, however, also reject Ann Widdecombe's over-the-top reaction to every spliff, and other approaches that fall short of legalisation might be considered. It would help inform the debate if the first inquiry of the new home affairs select committee were to look at all our drugs laws in the way Lord Burns did with fox hunting. A select committee report might also help us to avoid the trap of thinking there are only two polarised positions on cannabis - in fact there are a range of pragmatic middle-way policies. The police are in practice moving toward a sensible and proportionate enforcement of the law. The experiment in Lambeth - where getting caught will now normally result in a warning - will be evaluated by the Home Office in six months. It may then decide whether to give the police even greater discretion to take an openly stated local approach. Another possibility, although not without its downsides, is having small fixed penalties for possession, rather like a parking fine. This halfway house is decriminilisation, rather than legalisation. The downside is that it would not be as effective in suppressing usage among law-abiding citizens, but nor would it encourage the greater use which would result from legalisation. We can have a healthy debate about our options on cannabis, as long as we do not ignore the fact that cannabis is an unhealthy substance. It should be discouraged.
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!