|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
UK: Clearing the fog on cannabis
Jennifer Cunningham The Herald, Glasgow
Wednesday 28 May 2003 COMMENT Curative or killer? Recreation or addiction? The cannabis debate is a complicated one. As a major change in the law approaches, here are the facts you need to know. Cannabis, marijuana, grass, ganja, dope, hash, pot, weed. Whatever it is called, cannabis has a language and a ritual that has been crossing cultural barriers for thousands of years. For many, the drug is associated with Woodstock in 1969, The Beatles, and The Rolling Stones, but its use has grown to such an extent that today an estimated 3.2 million people in the UK take the drug. Among 16 to 24-year-olds, the figure is one in four and, in Scotland, recent research into tobacco smoking found that, contrary to general belief, smoking cannabis was more likely to lead to tobacco smoking than the other way round. Now the lobby for legalisation is gathering pace, partly as an acknowledgment of widespread use and partly because those who suffer from multiple sclerosis, arthritis, and glaucoma, and use it to ease their symptoms, are seen as being unfairly criminalised. In July, cannabis will be down-graded from a class-B drug to a class-C drug throughout the UK. Class B includes amphetamines and barbiturates, and class C contains anabolic steroids, benzodiazepines, and growth hormones. It will still not be legal, even for medical use. The move by David Blunkett, the home secretary, is regarded by some people as a testing of the waters before a possible decriminalisation and by others as adding to the confusion by simultaneously declaring it less harmful and still illegal. The effects of reclassification will also be felt differently in Scotland, where police will not have the same powers to caution as in England and Wales but will continue to report people found in possession of cannabis to the procurator-fiscal. Young people argue from experience that, as a recreational drug, it is preferable to alcohol because it causes a feeling of well-being rather than fights. Older users would like to see it separated from crime, arguing that a tax on legal cannabis would benefit society, while critics point to an increase in international trading in hard drugs as the downside of a legalised cannabis culture in Holland. The arguments are complex, or, as Norman Mailer put it: "One's condition on marijuana is always existential." As the move to reclassification draws nearer, The Herald brings you a clear guide to the issues. THE LAW The reclassification of cannabis followed a policing experiment in Brixton in which officers were able to caution people found in possession of small amounts, rather than go through the process of charging and reporting. The idea was deemed successful and has given rise to the belief that people with small amounts of cannabis will not be prosecuted. In fact, possession for personal use or the supply to another or possession with the intention of supplying to another remain criminal offences. In Scotland, anyone found to be in possession of cannabis will have the drug seized as evidence and may be charged. The matter will then be reported to the fiscal, who will determine if a prosecution is in the public interest. The fiscal has a range of disposals available including prosecution, fiscal fines, and warnings. Jim Orr, director of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, says the reclassification will have minor implications for their work. "For some time, the focus of SDEA operations has been to tackle the criminal networks responsible for supplying the most harmful drugs in Scotland, such as heroin and cocaine. "However, the trafficking of more than one type of drug is common. I therefore anticipate that we will continue to seize substantial quantities of cannabis alongside other drugs. "It is too early to predict what effect reclassification will have on levels of misuse. However, any person found in possession of cannabis remains liable to prosecution. "There are also significant health risks associated with cannabis misuse. The risks remain whether cannabis is a class-B or class-C drug." THE CAFES Kevin Williamson has long nurtured an ambition to open a Dutch-style cannabis cafe in Edinburgh and hopes reclassification will take him one step closer. However, Williamson, who is the drugs spokesperson for the Scottish Socialist Party, is under no illusions that even allowing people to smoke dope on the premises would be likely to result in a fine or even imprisonment, unless cannabis is legalised completely. "I am working full-time on getting this open, but as soon as I have overcome some hurdles, new ones have been thrown up," he says. "However, I believe the political situation, since May 1, is now in our favour." The SSP's election manifesto included legalising cannabis and banning alcohol advertising, but Williamson's plan for a cafe has not yet been endorsed by the SSP's six MSPs, who have yet to formulate their official position. Williamson sees reclassifying as a first step which would not make any difference to supply and demand, but will mean fewer arrests. "The government guidelines issued by Bob Ainsworth, the Home Office minister, said there would be arrests for using in places where there are minors or public disorder, but that would exclude a private house or a private club where there were no minors. It gives a green light to private clubs. "If people can sit and drink in a pub, they should be able to smoke cannabis in a coffee shop as they do in Holland. At the moment, they are going round the back of pubs or skinning up in the toilets and it's those seedy aspects we want to get rid of, along with all the hypocrisy surrounding alcohol." Like other campaigners for legalisation, he points to the obvious benefits of breaking the link with crime. "It's sold in residential areas and overlaps with heroin and is in the hands of some pretty violent men. The health of users is affected because it is mixed with all sorts of rubbish." Reclassification will make no difference to the position of people who allow others to smoke on their premises, even if they are not supplying. It will remain an offence for occupiers or managers of premises to allow smoking or supply, or attempting to supply, or offering to supply, cannabis on their premises. The attraction of legalisation is increasingly argued, not just by lib-eral, old hippies, but by pillars of the establishment, including Richard Branson, Paul McCartney, Anita Roddick, Martin Amis, and Harold Pinter. Branson clearly sees a business opportunity. While trying to retain the moral high ground as high-street purveyor of entertainment, he said he would not sell cigarettes but would not rule out selling cannabis in his Virgin stores if it were legal. "I think it should be legalised," he said. "I think it's wrong that 100,000 young people have criminal records every year for doing something no worse than their parents are doing every night - drinking alcohol." HEALTH Like all substances in nature's pharmacy, cannabis is potentially destructive, but also potentially healing. In fact, the qualities of the drug have been known for centuries - Queen Victoria's physician, for instance, prescribed cannabis as a royal painkiller. Scientific and clinical tests are well advanced into cannabis-based medicines as a form of pain relief, and David Blunkett has indicated that, if they prove successful, he would be willing to change the law to make them available. But there are other sides to the health coin. Although its supporters like to portray it as a harmless drug, it can have a serious effect on people with underlying problems. For example, it can worsen schizophrenia and can cause panic attacks and paranoia. It can also have a dangerous effect on people with coronary artery disease, high blood pressure, and asthma, and decrease fertility in both men and women. Most of the concern, though, is about the effects of smoking it. The British Lung Foundation, although trying to remain neutral on the legalisation debate, has called for more research into the effects of smoking cannabis. "Smoking pure cannabis is 50% more carcinogenic than smoking the same amount of tobacco and people inhale it more deeply and keep the smoke in their lungs for longer," said a spokesman. "People have been told for years about the dangers of tobacco, but they think cannabis is a safe alternative. We don't want a repeat of the bombshell that hit a whole generation which was not aware of the health risks they were taking." Although people associate class-A drugs - heroin and cocaine - with dependency, there are people who become addicted to cannabis. Between 5% and 10% of drug users seeking treatment report that cannabis is their main problem drug. Studies of dependent users show that when they stop, they experience physical withdrawal symptoms, including decreased appetite, weight loss, lethargy, irritability, mood changes, and insomnia. As the Government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs noted in its report last year, however, in general, cannabis users tend to stop when they are in their thirties, limiting the long-term exposure which is the critical factor in cigarette-induced lung cancer. For information or advice call 0800 587 587 9; Illustrated Guide to Cannabis by Nick Brownlee (Sanctuary, UKP14.99). How will the change in drugs law affect young people? Reclassification will change the law, but, more importantly, according to youth worker Max Cruickshank, it will change perceptions. Cruickshank, who has run drug information programmes for many years, is worried that the change in the law will send the wrong message to young people. "As far as they are concerned, David Blunkett has already legalised cannabis and declared it safe," he says. He also points to the particularly Scottish problem of bingeing: "We Scots have a bingeing culture and consistently overdose on all our chosen drugs, legal and illegal," he says. "Reclassification of cannabis gives the green light to bingers. Cannabis smoke is much hotter than that of ordinary cigarettes and causes additional damage. There is evidence of an increase in throat and gullet cancers in fairly young people who are heavy cannabis smokers." Chris, a 16-year-old from Hamilton, doesn't smoke cannabis, but has had a joint. He thinks that cannabis should be legal. "If they sold it in shops you wouldn't have any problems with it, but if somebody goes to the pub and gets drunk, they are more likely to get in a fight," he says. Libby, 17, first smoked dope when she was 12, with a group of friends. The best thing aboutit for her was the bonding experience of shared laughter. "You hit the giggles and then you hit the munchies." She's never considered it particularly dangerous. Their first supplies came from a friend's relative who was a dealer. She now gets supplies from her boyfriend, who is 17. She likes alcohol, too - preferably vodka or Hooch - but she prefers the effect hash has on other people. Nicole is 17 and wants to join the army. She knows she'll have to get fit and has tried "hundreds of times" to stop smoking. She's down to 10 cigarettes a day and has also had the odd joint, although her drug of choice is alcohol. She first tried cannabis at 12 or 13 "because everyone else was doing it", contributing her dinner money to the kitty for a UKP10 bag, but didn't enjoy the effects apart from the giggling. She rarely smokes cannabis, but it was through that experience that she started smoking tobacco. That gives her a different argument for legalising it: it would ensure an age limit that might at least delay very early smoking. - May 28th
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!