|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
UK: Up in smoke
Leader The Times
Friday 23 Jan 2004 A new stance on cannabis has made an inauspicious start The debate about the proper legal status of cannabis has lasted for decades. As it has continued, often not notably constructively, successive waves of young people have experimented with the drug and then, mostly, abandoned it. This pattern has been so pronounced that Conservative sympathisers could be forgiven for concluding that it is this substance that has convinced an otherwise right-thinking and right-wing electorate to return the Labour Party to office twice and by landslide margins. David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, hoped that by agreeing to downgrade cannabis from a Class B to a Class C drug he would secure a reasonable degree of consensus and bring this argument to a close. He was wrong. Michael Howard yesterday attacked Mr Blunkett's decision as 'absurd'and 'without logic', representing a 'massive muddle in the middle'between the only credible options 'outright illegality and full decriminalisation. There will be many readers who sympathise with the leader of the Opposition on this matter, but his criticism is harsh. As the medical evidence is contradictory and controversial, and seems to depend much on the traits of the individual consumer of cannabis, clarity is unusually difficult to obtain. Once the purist positions of libertarianism and authoritarianism have been abandoned, there is a robust pragmatic case for the shift that has been undertaken. A new theme of research, publicised in T2 a fortnight ago, suggests a link between the use of cannabis, especially the concentrated skunk variety, at a young age and profound mental health problems. That connection is amplified in a deeply disturbing account, written by Katy Holford in T2 today, about the impact of cannabis on the life and sad death of her son, George. No one who reads that story could respond by asserting that the sooner that marijuana is put on sale in newsagents the better. Robin Murray, a professor at the Institute of Psychiatry, informed The Times two weeks ago that cannibis-induced psychosis had become the 'No 1 problem'for many inner-city clinics. This is not, as Professor Murray observed, evidence that should prompt the Home Office to jettison its initiative. He asserts that while most young people use cannabis without harm, a vulnerable minority experience harmful outcomes'. Much more work is required to ascertain how large that minority might be and what damage is done to them. One of the virtues of reclassifying cannabis, rather than legalising it, is that it would be relatively easy to reconsider and reclassify again if the link between the drug and mental illness is incontrovertibly proved to be as strong as some fear. What is absurd about Mr Blunkett's stand are the details of its implementation. The nature of the advertising campaign that was launched yesterday is confusing and unconvincing. It defies reason to reduce the penalty for buying cannabis and simultaneously sharply to increase the maximum sentence that can be handed down to those who sell it. Although the Association of Chief Police Officers recommends that there should be a 'presumption against arrest'for possessing the drug, it seems that different constabularies will adopt distinctly diverse strategies towards those found with cannabis on their person. The prospect of what would be 'postcode lottery pot'is wholly unappealing. There is the real danger, therefore, that what is a cautious reform in theory will descend into pure farce in practice. Mr Blunkett needs to restrain himself from crass legislation and encourage the police to be consistent in enforcing the new regime. Smoking cannabis is a harmful habit, and disincentives must remain in place, but devoting much time and increasingly scarce prison space to its pursuit is truly absurd.
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!