The dopey blue line

D-Notice

Is it really anyone's business if someone decides to have a joint? Surely if they're not harming anyone while they do it they should be left alone.

"It is about, first and foremost, telling the truth about the dangerousness of this drug both to potential users and their parents..." So if something is dangerous we have to ban it? I look forward to your articles calling for the criminalisation of alcohol and cigarettes...

"[The Police] decided that the issue was not their own rubbishy law enforcement but the nature of the law itself." Please can you give examples of when prohibition has worked, as you are implying by this statement.

By the way, since it was downgraded to a Class C, the amount of people using it has dropped significantly. The phrase "Forbidden Fruit" springs to mind.

steve

Well put D-Notice and thank goodness for some sense from the police on this issue.

Compost Mentist

Aw, gawd bless 'er.

She's a child of the 60s and so out of time now ....

I vote all of us several million drug-crazed hippies march to the local police station and hand ourselves in right away...and demand to be locked up for two years at least ...

Are there not more important things to deal with, Melanie ? - how about the vastly bigger problem of (legal) alcohol abuse that ties up both the police and hospital emergency rooms every weekend ?
.

Kevyn Bodman

Melanie,
I don't agree with you on drugs policy, but I'll leave that for now.

There's another point here:to what extent should the police do as they are told by the authorities? To what extent should they have discretion to decide what policies to implement?

Ian C

I suggest that D-Notice get with the latest medical input on cannabis. "Not harming anyone" is a phrase you would not use once you have.

mike

Good god who wrote this crap?

Reads like something from the dialy heil, people like this are to blame for much of the failed drug policies of this country

Andy

Now if I was reading the Daily Mail - This article would be unsurprising - but the Spectator???

Look at the history of Prhibition - and revise your blinkered views....

Complete garbage -springs to mind.... misinformation is not the way to go - educate yourself! - the Editor should be hanging his head in shame!!

Adam

Indeed, the phrase 'Champagne for the brain' also springs to mind.

Whoever tries to argue that cannabis should be banned because of any supposed harm it does needs to remind themselves that both alcohol and tobbaco are ALOT more harmful.

Anyone who argues that cannabis should remain legal based on the harm it may cause is thus a hypocrite and that includes you Melanie Phillips.

And arguing for this on a site that promotes the use of alcohol in its slogan is pure stupidity, nothing else.

I encourage people to look at the paper by the lancet that tried to classify drugs based upon a series of measures of harm.
http://transform-drugs.blogspot.com/2007/03/lancet-and-drug-harms-missing-bigger.html

They didn't get it perfect, solvents for example and GHB should probably be higher.

Rob

What a ridiculous article, devoid of fact and filled with Daily Mail type hysteria - I wouldn't be surprised to find the author a Daily Mail regular.

A look at actual proven facts would quickly show that the use of cannabis has gone down among teenagers since the drop to class C, the price has remained constant for almost 20 years, and the number of schizophrenics has also fallen since the reclassification. Medical science has also discovered there is no link between schizophrenia and cannabis use. Finally the herbal cannabis of today may contain more THC than that from 40 years ago - but it's far less psychedelic and mind-bending than it was, due to lower concentrations of the cannabinoids responsible.

I'm glad that ACPO seem to be showing the same wise approach to Cannabis that the ACMD have shown, rather than this fantasy prohibitionists persist in dragging up to win support in elections every few years.

Jo

Since cannabis has been reclassified usage has actually dropped by 25%...
Prohibition doesn't work and the legislation put in place to outlaw cannabis was founded on nothing more than racism and greed. Before making unproductive and idiotic comments such as these maybe you want to go and spend time on the front line with the police, see how many anti-social behaviour issues stem from cannabis and then compare them to those which stem from Alcohol.
Prohibition doesn't work, if illicit substances were legalized they could be taxed and controlled, it is not 'drugs' that kill people it is bad quality drugs and misinformation about how to use them. This article shows a level of both ignorance and idiocy!

Jimmy page

It hard not to feel sorry for Gordon Brown.

Poor Gordon. It must have seemed so easy 12 months ago. All he had to do was not be Tony Blair, and people would festoon the very ground he walked on with scented petals, as they stood in awe of his capacious and wide-famed intellect.

In particular, one act seemed a sure fire winner. To announce he was "minded" to reclassify the pesky weed cannabis back from Class C to Class B. A decisive act sure to cement his reputation as a firm thinker when it came to illegal substances.

Taking his cue from a near hysterical attitude from the Daily Mail, he rumbled on and on. Following the convention observed by previous politicians, he asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) to review the classification of cannabis.

The ACMD was specifically set up to look at the legal, political, social, medical, and cultural effects of drug misuse.

Alas, for poor Gordon, the ACMD is made up of people (unlike him) who actually know a bit about cannabis. Unfortunately for our hero, scientific evidence is not comprised of a hundredweight of Daily Mail headlines, but, rather inconveniently, of evidence from scientists.

Having discharged the duty asked of them the ACMD once again cut through the hysteria and hyperbole, and recommended - again - that cannabis should stay in Class C. They certainly haven't branded it "harmless". Just "less harmful" than the drugs in category B.

It seems Gordon forgot the first rule of asking questions in public : Always be sure of the answer you'll get. This is the only explanation for his continued rumblings about cannabis ... as if he was simply waiting for the ACMD to rubber-stamp his personal opinion that cannabis should be class B.

WHOOPS ! Poor Gordon took his eye of the ball. Now faced with a rather inconvenient ACMD report, he is left in a hole of his wn making. To go against the ACMD would make a mockery of their remit - although Mr Brown has rather disingenously tried to imply that he is looking at "the bigger picture", rather forgetting the entire reasoning behind the ACMD was to consider "the bigger picture". In addition it would set a worrying precedent for future administrations to ignore expert advice and proceed because they are "minded". In time we'd have no need of experts. Why bother to commision a report to recommend how to deal with nuclear waste. After all Gordon is looking at the bigger picture.

In addition, the media frenzy, centred on the Daily Mails strangely isolationist stance has generated the most open and far-reaching debate on cannabis - and illegal drugs in general - in a generation. In the past 12 months the suggestion that legalisation - as opposed to the decriminalisation called for 20 years ago - may just be a viable policy. Many prominent writers have used their coloumns to comment on the lunacy of prohibition.

Even polls of the readership of the Daily Mail, have shown a steady proportion of the public who are in favour of at least leaving cannabis users alone.

Now, with the mood of the country effectively feeling like the end of the world - credit cruch, food shortages, fuel poverty, it seems as if Gordons obsession with Cannabis is strangely out of step with the real world. With the police indicating that they will treat any change in classification in the same way as cannabis users themselves (by ignoring it), only the Daily Mail will praise him. Unfortunately for Gordon Brown, not many Mail readers are likely to vote for him anyway.

Poor Gordon will be left a laughing stock. Someone who has steamrolled his own prejudices over a committee of respected academics in a matter which hardly seems the most important thing, over the past 12 months. And someone who now looks curiously isolated as the real intellectuals start the real debate.

John L

Thank god we have experts from the ACMD that know what they are talking about unlike the author of the above. Such drivel I have not read since I inadvertently picked up the Daily Mail.
According to Government figures almost 200,000 Police hours are saved annually since Cannabis was downgraded. Not only are less people using it but less are being admitted to hospital only 724 on 06/07. Many are now going straight to rehabilitation rather then being criminalised a strategy that has some hope of working because criminalising sure doesn't work.
Yet I am 100% behind you when you ask that the truth be told to our young citizens. THis truth is that Cannabis has never killed anyone that even by the most extreme figures the risk of Cannabis induced schizophrenia/psychosis is likely to put 800 people into treatment. THats mean that the risk considering we have around 3 million users is a very small risk. Compare this to alcohol where 1 in 6 of us has a hazardous relationship to alcohol where the mental health dangers are far higher than that of cannabis leading to 126,000 in long term care with mental health problems (figures from Office of national statistics) due to alcohol along with the 8423 it directly killed last year.
If we want the truth about cannabis lets put it straight Cannabis is not without risk but it sure is safer than both alcohol and tobacco.

Monday

"They appear to have learned nothing." - What an ironic sentence to finish on.

Upgrading this Cannabis to class B will not do anything apart from cost more money, waste police time aswell as fill up jail spaces. And for what? Smoking a natural plant in your own home.

Cannabis is unhealthy - agreed. What isn't nowadays? Sitting at a computer for 3+ hours, eating fast food, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, walking through a city, crossing the road etc etc. We are adults. We take responsibility for our own actions.

The police have said it's a waste of their time. The ACMD (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs) have stated it should remain class C.

Having a non-elected PM on a 'personal mission' whilst going against Britain's team of experts is a sad, aswell as scary, truth.

Legalise it. The goverment would get full control over this 'super skunk' strength cannabis which is giving all of our kids mental illnesses (Fact: There has been NO increased figures for these mental illnesses in the past 30 years). Legalising it would remove these 'criminals' from our streets. Legalising it would bring in more taxes for the country. And i'm sure these 'yobs of Britain' who are scaring local communities up and down the country wouldn't be doing that if they'd had a smoke rather than a bottle of super strength cider!

Let's stop seeing this as a killer drug and start accepting it as the natural plant it is.

Water

As a chap who used to take cannabis to deal with the racism (from certain university lecturers) I can fully sympathise with the police. For you don’t want to demolish a child’s future over a meagre case of “experimenting”.

This said having started university at the sweet little age of an 18 year old teen-child and having subsequently matured to a 23 year old young man (who has not smoked in anyway for a very long time) I can fully appreciate Mel’s concern. She is very much right in saying that we as a society need to do something to highlight “the dangerousness of this drug” because the effects that cannabis ‘can’ have upon the psyche of a user are alarming (because we are now dealing with skunk not the cannabis from the 60’s).

But Mel is somewhat wrong in saying that the police “will refuse to arrest and charge anyone caught in possession of cannabis” because as the Acpo spokesman stated “We do not want to criminalise young people”… not people per se.

The Acpo spokesmen’s focus on ‘young people’ also sheds light with regards to Browns hopes for the reclassification, for after all Gordon wanted the change in classification to "send a tough message" to the youth of today. But in light of Mr Brown’s well intentioned thoughts on the matter it is worth mentioning Roger Howard’s words. Howard (by measure of the Guardian article mentioned above) can be seen to think that “the muddle at the heart of government over the purpose of a drug classification system … was unlikely ever to be able to “send a message to young people’”.

Now the muddle does not lie at the heart of the system, the muddle lies with Brown’s chosen means of treating this aliment. Simply thinking reclassification will resolve the dilemma is ill founded, reclassification is a constructive step but not the solution.

What we need to do is acknowledge the conditions prevalent through out society that entertain a drug culture and, as a society, work cohesively to eliminate at any level any form of sympathy towards this (and any other) non-subscription drug. Because it is through counteracting the ingrained acceptance of such drugs in society that we will slowly be able to thwart this ubiquitous fungus.

Though, as the police seem to understand, simply persecuting young children will not achieve the desired end in mind, though “education, education, education” and refusal to glamorise drug use in the public eye may do. This said young children who are not just experimenting will need to be dealt with, though rehabilitation maybe a better option for those addicted and found to be in possession on regular occasion as opposed to sending them to a prison cell. This said Brown seems to be doing a good job as regards shutting down factories where such things are produced, for in shutting does the causes you eliminate the error.

D-Notice

Ian C

I was referring to the fact that people should be able to do something which doesn't harm anyone else...

Iain Mulady

Melanie dear the reason you see so much traffic in other drugs these day is that people like you have convinced kids that pot is so dangerous they had better try those ones instead. Well done.

Water

This commonly perpetuated myth that Cannabis doesn’t harm anyone needs to be disillusioned.

Cannabis ‘can’ cause cancer isn’t that (as far as is possible with an inanimate drug) equal to hurting people?!

The effects that it ‘can’ have upon the mentality are all too often harmful.

The effects that people supplying cannabis ‘can’ have upon people within society is all too often harmful because drug dealers ‘can’ harm people and when buying and selling drugs they often do.

Derek Williams

Today has been another disaster for our Mr Brown because of this police statement, that's for sure.

So now we are to have two classes of class B, one for cannabis and one for speed? Oh and cannabis is more dangerous than ketamine (class C) is it?

Unacceptable, lethal and Brown: A situation truly worthy of Mr Bean.

Water

Derek Williams raises a good point and Ketamine is something that needs to be addressed by Brown. I’m not sure as to whether the police statement damns Brown for sure or rather provides an area for improvement.

Though ultimately the recent coverage on cannabis boils down to widespread use, Ketamine isn't used to the same degree I'm guessing.

Though it (Ketamine) must be reclassified that much is true, it doesn’t detract from Gordon’s good work as regards the Cannabis scenario it just highlights a particular area for expansion as such I’d hardly label him Mr Bean.

Yank

Oh water, your drying up.

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.

Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood.

They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lighted up more than 22,000 times, while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.
http://www.safercolorado.org/safer-doc

meinawheelchair

comment by Water

Cannabis ‘can’ cause cancer isn’t that (as far as is possible with an inanimate drug) equal to hurting people?!

...........

you know more than these people do you?

have a look at this

By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 26, 2006; A03

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.

Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.

Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood.

They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lighted up more than 22,000 times, while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.

"This is the largest case-control study ever done, and everyone had to fill out a very extensive questionnaire about marijuana use," he said. "Bias can creep into any research, but we controlled for as many confounding factors as we could, and so I believe these results have real meaning."

Tashkin's group at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA had hypothesized that marijuana would raise the risk of cancer on the basis of earlier small human studies, lab studies of animals, and the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and generally hold smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers -- exposing them to the dangerous chemicals for a longer time. In addition, Tashkin said, previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar.

While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.

The study was limited to people younger than 60 because those older than that were generally not exposed to marijuana in their youth, when it is most often tried.

...

I think a retraction is in order in fact all the studies trying to link cannabis to anything nasty have fallen flat on their feet, check out all the many studies on cannabis, its proven benefits far outweigh anything the scare mongerers say, and thats all they have.. scare tactics with no basis in fact or reality.

Water

In response to Yank and meinawheelchair I'm not drying up at all let me show you the liquid form.

It is a fair point with regards to the research and I do not claim to be a Scientist but it is a fact that no one has proved the link between carcinogens an cannabis, though it is still up for debate as many websites entail (I will list a few below).

Though what I will say is that I have witnessed from first hand experience the mental and physical deterioration of people around me when taking cannabis. Therefore cancer debates aside it does destroy the health and I have seen this first hand.

Secondly it does damage mental health.

Thirdly its supply has the reciprocal effect of causing crime.

So the second and third points stand without a fraction of a doubt and compelling points may I add.

Water

The BBc website states with regards to Dr Melamede ""Compounds found in cannabis have been shown to kill numerous cancer types including lung, breast, prostate, leukaemia, lymphoma and skin cancer."

But he said the effects of cannabis were complex as evidence also suggested low doses of THC could stimulate growth of lung cancer cells. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4350642.stm

http://www.thesite.org/drinkanddrugs/drugsafety/drugsandyourbody/cannabisandyourhealth

Water

Found another site which says there is a link between cancer and cannibis larger then tobacco even.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUKT9240120080129

HONG KONG, Jan 29 (Reuters) - Smoking a joint is equivalent to 20 cigarettes in terms of lung cancer risk, scientists in New Zealand have found, as they warned of an "epidemic" of lung cancers linked to cannabis.

Studies in the past have demonstrated that cannabis can cause cancer, but few have established a strong link between cannabis use and the actual incidence of lung cancer.

In an article published in the European Respiratory Journal, the scientists said cannabis could be expected to harm the airways more than tobacco as its smoke contained twice the level of carcinogens, such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons, compared with tobacco cigarettes.

The method of smoking also increases the risk, since joints are typically smoked without a proper filter and almost to the very tip, which increases the amount of smoke inhaled. The cannabis smoker inhales more deeply and for longer, facilitating the deposition of carcinogens in the airways.

"Cannabis smokers end up with five times more carbon monoxide in their bloodstream (than tobacco smokers)," team leader Richard Beasley, at the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, said in a telephone interview.

"There are higher concentrations of carcinogens in cannabis smoke ... what is intriguing to us is there is so little work done on cannabis when there is so much done on tobacco."

The researchers interviewed 79 lung cancer patients and sought to identify the main risk factors for the disease, such as smoking, family history and occupation. The patients were questioned about alcohol and cannabis consumption.

In this high-exposure group, lung cancer risk rose by 5.7 times for patients who smoked more than a joint a day for 10 years, or two joints a day for 5 years, after adjusting for other variables, including cigarette smoking.

"While our study covers a relatively small group, it shows clearly that long-term cannabis smoking increases lung cancer risk," wrote Beaseley.

"Cannabis use could already be responsible for one in 20 lung cancers diagnosed in New Zealand," he added.

"In the near future we may see an 'epidemic' of lung cancers connected with this new carcinogen. And the future risk probably applies to many other countries, where increasing use of cannabis among young adults and adolescents is becoming a major public health problem." (Reporting by Tan Ee Lyn; Editing by Alex Richardson

mark

this article is so full of rubbish it's hard to know where to start.

"And upgrading would also mean that cannabis trafficking would once again surface on the policing radar, from where it so disastrously fell off when downgrading caused both police and customs officers to stop targeting cannabis imports, causing the market to be flooded, the price of cannabis to go through the floor and rocket fuel put behind the trade in other drugs."

so you don't remember operation keymer then ?

"thus equipping the latter to advise and deal with their spliff-puffing offspring before their brains are destroyed by cannabis-induced psychosis"

I'm sorry to inform you but there is absolutely no such thing as "cannabis induced psychosis" according to the latest studies from cardiff university, this is also born out by the facts ( something this article seems to be notably devoid of) such as the fact that while cannabis use has skyrocketed since the 1960's incidences of psychotic illnesses have steadily continued to fall.

why would anyone want to fill prisons with people who have never harmed anyone when there are violent offenders and sexual predators getting let out early due to overcrowding ? Nearly half the residents in british jails are in there for drugs related offences yet this doesn't seem enough for you, just how long will it take for the fact that prohibition does not work to sink into your prejudiced little mind, you could build 100 new jails and fill them all with drug users and it still wouldn't stop people from taking drugs, the chinese execute drug users but they still have addicts in china.

if anyone is psychotic it's the prohibitionists and their spectacular inability to see the real world as it is.

David in Los Angeles

From an American perspective, the types of comments here suggest that Britons overwhelmingly support legalization of cannabis usage. Most upright Americans believe in the idea of illegalization and everyone I know obeys the law. I wonder why you Britons can't seem to get lives and actually face life head on directly instead of taking time off to get high. Maybe Britain is in such trouble culturally becuase you have your heads up in the clouds instead of down squarely on your shoulders where they should be. I'm just saying.

john doe

Melanie...I find your refusal to classify alcohol and tobacco as harmful drugs, and worthy of criminalising, disturbing to say the least. It is redolent of a hysterical blind spot and mordant obsession. I read your blog regularly and admire your courage and insight regarding the Middle East and Israel but your irrational views concerning cannabis are worrying and sad. Nobody has the right to tell another what he can put into his body, especially if it grows out of the ground. Nobody has the right to criminalise a plant for goodness sake. That in itself is criminal.

Yank

it never rains, it pores

''Secondly it does damage mental health''.water

first off, there has been no increase in the incidence of schizophrenia over the last 30 years per head of population.

let me just say that again..

there has been no increase in the incidence of schizophrenia over the last 30 years per head of population.

For there to be any validity in the claim that cannabis causes serious mental illness there would have to be a rise in the rate of those illnesses when there is a rise in the use of cannabis. It cannot be any other way, it is indisputable. Cannabis does not cause serious mental illness.

secondly, heres another scientific report about the cancer fighting properties of cannabis, from the UK's own National Cancer Institute no less..

Inhibition of Cancer Cell Invasion by Cannabinoids via Increased Expression of Tissue Inhibitor of Matrix Metalloproteinases-1

Background: Cannabinoids, in addition to having palliative benefits in cancer therapy, have been associated with anticarcinogenic effects. Although the antiproliferative activities of cannabinoids have been intensively investigated, little is known about their effects on tumor invasion.

Treatment with cannabinoids had been shown to reduce the invasiveness of cancer cells

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/djm268v1

and remember, thats from the National Cancer Institute

Even if you've been brain washed by propaganda the likes Melanie writes, you still must concede the fact that prohibition simply doesn't work, Americas complete living proof. Now Holland, theres a country with a drugs policy. They allow the sale of cannabis to anyone over 18, and because of this the adults buying cannabis don't come in to contact with hard drugs, and its working.

Holland has less cannabis smokers, less hard drug users, and Trimbos (Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction) surveys 10,000 Dutch schoolchildren every four years. The last study showed a small decline in cannabis use - 20 per cent of those aged 15-16 had tried it, and 5 per cent smoked it regularly. Less than one in 1,000 had tried heroin.

The same year the European Drug Monitoring Center found 40 per cent of British children the same age had tried cannabis, and one in 50 had used heroin.

And as we're here talking about drugs alcohol causes at least three distinct forms of dementia, and also several types of psychosis. These are illnesses you can't get any other way other than via alcohol.
There are over 130,000 hospital admissions annually in England and Wales for extreme mental and behavioral disorders caused by alcohol. The World Health Organization says alcohol is the third most serious cause of preventable early death and ill- health in Western countries. Gordon Brown was Chancellor for a decade, in which time he never once raised drinks duties in line with inflation: he cut the cost of the killer drug alcohol. Whatever else is motivating him, it certainly isn't concern for the nations' health, mental or otherwise.

Adam

"Cannabis ‘can’ cause cancer "

Both THC and CBD (cannabidiol) are anti-carcinogens. They protect against cancer. They're not carcinogens because they DO NOT CAUSE cancer, otherwise why would they both be classed as anti-carcinogens?

Secondly, CBD is an anti-psychotic as is as effective as atypical anti-psychotics in treating schizophrenia.

The chemicals in Tobbaco are carcinogenic. It has been proven countless times that tobbaco causes lung cancer. Thus, Water do you suggest we ban it?

Tobbaco is extremely physically addictive, it's arguable whether cannabis is even physically addictive at all. Please go ahead and read about it. Again why are you discriminating against cannabis users on the basis of harm? Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. If you want to ban drugs based on the harm they cause then you must place both tobbaco and alcohol in the class A category, otherwise you're discriminating against cannabis users. Your policy is not evidence based, it's mindless moralism that is based on ignorant diatribes like this one form Melanie.

The links are below, feel free to read them at your leisure.

http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bjmbr/v39n4/6164.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cbdv.200790147
http://www.nowpublic.com/thc_marijuana_helps_cure_cancer_says_harvard_study

Oh and also be sure to read the work of Zammit and colleagues who found that a genetic risk of schizophrenia is not raised by using cannabis.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/191/5/402

ie cannabis does not cause schizophrenia.

Frank Pulley

Melanie, you've let loose the ganga goons again. Hollering and hallucinating; all convinced that their magic weed makes them think more clearly, play music with more passion, or appreciate the music of others more profoundly while peacefully relaxing after a hard day's work. When under the influence and babbling incoherently (as in most of the comments on this thread) they are convinced that they are lucidly expostulating profound wisdom. They also don't seem to realise that they smell like, and look like shit when they are a few weeks into the habit. They are not in the least interested that, other than a few quacks and 'researchers' who have a vested interest in furthering the cult of cannabis, the medical profession who work on the front line of real life (rather than in cloud cuckoo land) and see the daily disasters that arrive in their casualty departments and mental health clinics as a result of cannabis abuse, all agree that it a pernicious hallucinogenic drug that causes serious health, social and family problems. It also unnecessarily, and therefore wickedly, consumes the time and resources of doctors and nursing staff at GP clinics and hospitals and leads quite often to psychotic violence.

As for the attitude of the police, well ... since Bramshill Police College was converted into a counter culture processing unit, the attitudes of what are amusingly described as 'senior' officers are all part of the output of brainwashing.

Remember the spam attacks and raw vitriol from the weed wonks on your old blog that necessiated closure of your comments section? It tickles my perverse sense of humour that when you point out the ludicrous confusion of government and legislators on the question of cannabis abuse and classification of the drug, the hop-heads always accuse you of being a champion of abuse of alchohol and tobacco? Oh dearie me! Keep up the good work and good luck.

Water

Yank its good to see it pouring we like to see the water flow.

In response to Yank and Adam, Cannabis/THC maybe classed that way and as I say I'm no scientist but I have seen Cannabis and the negative affects it has upon people first hand, that is fact enough for me. Also the two articles above despite THC classification gives me at least enough evidence that there is a strong chance that it does have carcinogenic potential, though as I said in a prior comment this is up for debate. Maybe it’s something that isn’t located in the THC but in some other part of the plant, but I’m not a scientist. Now as regards mental health, despite what any of these people say when I have talked to people about the effect of the stronger grades of cannabis (i.e. Skunk) they have readily admitted that it does have a negative effect upon mental health and I will go on my experience on this occasion. Also please look at more articles listed below.

As for tobacco and banning that, I just don’t think it would work. Just as banning Cannabis doesn’t work, but the difference between Cannabis and tobacco is once again the stigma attached to Cannabis i.e. that it is illegal. By maintaining this stigma we can hopefully save many people from starting to smoke Cannabis and as such save them for the harm it causes, because it does cause harm.

Also as I stated in a prior comment if you are also to acknowledge everything else that I said and not just hone in on a particular part you will find many compelling reasons why this isn’t just fear mongering.
As for articles on the harm of smoking cannabis here are some more:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/01/30/2150087.htm
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/longterm-cannabis-use-raises-risk-of-lung-cancer-442721.html
http://www.nowpublic.com/health/cannabis-bigger-cancer-risk-cigarettes-study

Another good article http://www.erj.ersjournals.com/cgi/content/full/31/2/227

This forum seems to give good argument for and against Cannabis: http://www.drugs-forum.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=46384

Water

Ahh Frank Pulley a voice of reason.

Norm

The majority of the members of the ACMD are openly supportive of the legalisation of cannabis. How they can be described as balanced I don't know. Secondly, it is not up to the Police which laws they enforce or how stringent they enforce them. If that is the case will they please turn a blind eye when I inadvertantly slip over the 40 mph limit because I haven't hurt anyone and statistically wont crash or hurt anyone else. No, I didn't think so. Unfortunatley the Police have retired indoors to sit in front of CCTV camera's dishing out tickets to Joe Public for all and sundry types of artificially created offences whilst leaving the villains to get on with their lives without any interference. Finally, who gave these drug users the impression / belief that they are free to choose which laws they obey? That's not who society works.

Adam

"medical profession who work on the front line of real life (rather than in cloud cuckoo land) and see the daily disasters that arrive in their casualty departments and mental health clinics as a result of cannabis abuse,"

Frank, have you ever actually taken cannabis? The worst that will happen if you smoke cannabis is you'll have an anxiety attack and that doesn't happen often. That is not a medical emergency by any stretch of the imagination. A medical emergency is what happens if someone overdoses on alcohol and has to have their stomoch pumped, something that does happen in this country. Many people have died as a result of that. That's a medical emergency and that's what our medical professionals are worried about, not abit of weed.

"all agree that it a pernicious hallucinogenic drug"

For crying out loud you idiot, I've told you this before. Cannabis is not classed as an hallucinogenic drug. I'm fed up of telling you this.

"that causes serious health, social and family problems."

This is just a fact of life, people are affected negatively by drugs like alcohol for instance. I remind you that cannabis use is lower in Holland and has recently gone down by 20% among teenagers. That's what happens when you effectively legalise cannabis. People will always use it.

"It also unnecessarily, and therefore wickedly, consumes the time and resources of doctors and nursing staff at GP clinics and hospitals"

The majority of of time used up by NHS staff to deal with drug problems are to do with alcohol.

"and leads quite often to psychotic violence."

That is a load shit. Cannabis does not make people violent, it has the opposite effect on people, this is very well documented. Note that alcohol is known to have a very strong association with violence but I'm sure the majority of people in this country would not want to prohibit use of alcohol.

By the way, heroin doesn't make people violent either. It doesn't make people want to commit violence. The reason why people commit violence, is to get hold of it.

John

My father died a horrible lingering death from his drug use, he smoked tobacco. My best friend died 10 years ago at 42 with a heart attack due to his abuse of alcohol.
Why shouldn't any adult have the freedom to choose what he puts into his body. If there are any risks or costs to this behaviour then they should be paid for by taxing the substance as we do with both alcohol and tobacco.By following Prohibtion we encourage the use of drugs by the young we encourage there supply by violent gangsters and we waste Police time in its enforcement. Holland has one of the the lowest use of Cannabis by under 18's in fact it is seen as an old mans pastime it is seen as uncool. Because its supply is seperated from harder drugs then such use is one of the lowest in the EU.
We have a tolerant model of cannabis use that recognises the freedom of adults and yet protects the safety of children. WHy on earth do not follow this example.

Dee Ranged

Melanie-

Clearly we must have more articles like this because it patently touches a raw nerve of hedonistic enslavement.

Why be surprised at police inaction on this? They are not in the business of law enforcement any more. It is more to do with political correctness.

Dee Ranged

Melanie-

Clearly we must have more articles like this because it patently touches a raw nerve of hedonistic enslavement.

Why be surprised at police inaction on this? They are not in the business of law enforcement any more. It is more to do with political correctness.

Laura

"Is it really anyone's business if someone decides to have a joint?" It is if you end up face to face with a knife weilding schizophrenic whose condition was brought on by the wretched drug. There a heaps of cases like these both on the general public and even within families for heaven's sake.

What about the parents – and they don't seem to be in short supply – who weep over their children who didn't have the constitution for the drug and end up like zombies and worse?

Does no-one care for them?

Water

Norm raises a valid point "Finally, who gave these drug users the impression / belief that they are free to choose which laws they obey?"

Adam

For your information I do not consume cannabis. Like many I have tried it in the past but not for long periods. I haven't smoked it in years.

Regardless of this, your comments are tantamount to racism. What do you say to the millions of people who use cannabis as a medicine, who smoke about 11 joints a day? People like Irvin Rosenfeld
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1NggzEkltM

? Do you say?

"When under the influence and babbling incoherently (as in most of the comments on this thread) they are convinced that they are lucidly expostulating profound wisdom. They also don't seem to realise that they smell like, and look like shit when they are a few weeks into the habit." That?

You are a fool! You stereotype drug users and that is unacceptable and IMO you should be punished for that. Many prescription meds are just if not more dangerous than cannabis. Yet do we go around stereotyping those patients, insulting them on public forums.

No we don't. And you should feel utterly ashamed of yourself.

Water, in regards to the strength of cannabis, 'skunk' which isn't actually anything new, is around 2/3x stronger than regular weed however if you really do know anything about cannabis that you haven't read in the newspaper you will know that proper resin is much stronger and has been around for centuries and was very popular in the 60s and of much better quality than you get now.

Also be sure to take a look at budder. Ooo no, it has 95%THC! Let's lock up all our children. ;-) I mean that in jest of course.

Water

Adam you stated "Water, in regards to the strength of cannabis, 'skunk' which isn't actually anything new, is around 2/3x stronger than regular weed"

This said strains of Skunk are constantly being developed as such some of them are very much new and a lot stronger then you're average strain of 'regular weed' this is irrefutable.

john doe

Clearly, many posters here are in denial concerning the social, psychological and physical damage caused by alcohol and tobacco. Millions...I repeat...millions die every year in the world from diseases related to these drugs. Why oh why is Melanie not writing about this? Her position regarding cannabis is reminiscent of tabloid alarmism and some of the comments here....Frank Pulley sticks out.....are downright fascist and totalitarian in their wilful ignorance and bigoted judgement of something they do not know or understand. Unless you have actually tried cannabis, or worked in an accident and emergency department as I have, you are in no position to discuss this.

Gordon Neil

The vitriol of the pot-heads is a sure indication that your words have hit the mark, well done. The response of the Police is deeply troubling. The Police are paid simply to apply the law with impartiality and effectiveness . They are not empowered to interpret the law (a judicial function) nor to define what is lawful and what is not (a parliamentary function). The serious failings of those we entrust with law enforcement are now becoming too serious and too numerous to ignore. the West Midlands Force displayed arrogance and stupidity in exceeding their authority over the Channel 4 Mosque Extremism expose. The West Yorkshire Police seem incapable of or unwilling to applying existing law to tackle the large scale, exploitation of school girls by organized pedophile gangs, despite repeated attempts by the media to draw their attention to it. The Met seems singularly incapable of enforcing the rule of Law on London's streets. And now ACPO seems intent on rejecting the prerogative of parliament and deciding for themselves what will be tolerated and what will not. I think its time some serious attention was paid by the media to the way our police service is developing and the role that Bramshill and ACPO play.

Dan

So called "Recreational" drug users are simply self indulgent jerks! No morally literate person will intoxicate themselves on purpose (the young and daft are not morally literate which is why they need protecting from their own pleasure driven stupidity). The fact that alchohol and tobacco are too culturaly entrenched to prohibit is not an argument for legalising other harmful drugs, which would result in organised crime from abroard setting up here and operating overseas with impunity. We should target the USE (not merely possession) of cannabis and simply ignore the weasely protests of those who wish to invest in the drugs market. The rights of the less well-off and less educated to a stable family and safe community should trump the rights of posh hedonists to get stoned at the weekend!

Water

Dan I have to admit you raise a good in saying that "The fact that alcohol and tobacco are too culturally entrenched to prohibit is not an argument for legalising other harmful drugs".

David Lindsay

Gordon Brown's support for reclassifying cannabis as a Class B drug is obviously welcome, although Class A is in fact the appropriate status for this extremely dangerous substance, accompanied by a general crackdown on the possession of drugs, including a mandatory sentence of three months for a second offence, six months for a third offence, one year for a fourth offence, and so forth.

What a contrast with the record of David Cameron, who signed the Select Committee report that led to the downgrading of cannabis in the first place, unlike his Tory colleague on that Committee, Angela Watkinson.

The restoration of cannabis to Class B will be a humiliation for Tony Blair, but that does not matter, because Blair's party has already made him go. It will also be a humiliation for David Cameron.

So, will Cameron's party make him go, too? If not, why not?

john doe

Gordon Neil says: "The vitriol of the pot-heads is a sure indication that your words have hit the mark, well done. The response of the Police is deeply troubling."

What crass thinking...or should I say no thinking. This is the logic here....if I said all women are airheads and all blacks have a low IQ and thre was an outcry in response, then I've hit the mark.You betray an unadulterated bigoted mindset in all its ugliness.
Dan says: "No morally literate person will intoxicate themselves on purpose (the young and daft are not morally literate which is why they need protecting from their own pleasure driven stupidity.)". The contempt for others here is appalling and reprehensible...the words of a dictator who wishes to control the lives of others. And we all know where that leads. Or do we? Let me help...mass incarceration and injustice.

Water

john doe raises a good point, the wording from the other fellows may not have been the most Politically correct. Though what they are saying (in terms of the points raised) is right in so far as drugs are concerned. This said I have my reservations about how they have gone about conveying their particular messages.

Because not to go of on a tangent, they are not talking about skin colour and they are not talking about women. Please understand I consider myself to be a red blooded feminist and have the utmost respect for women and black people because they are just people like anyone else (so please don’t misconstrue).

At the end of the day drugs are bad and it his form of drug needs to be controlled. I do not think Adam wants to control other peoples lives, but maybe he wants to uphold the laws (in this case with regards to cannabis) that do uphold justified control i.e. the law and police. I don’t think they are justifying a police state by wanting the cannabis law enforced.

john doe

"I don’t think they are justifying a police state by wanting the cannabis law enforced."

I do.. and they are.

Water

Just for the record I'm not justifying a police state, though we do need the laws upheld of course I'm not denying that.

Frank Pulley

Gordon Neil

You hit several nails right on their heads – a concise and sagacious comment. With regard to the final sentence of it, though, to be fair to Melanie I should point out that she is part of 'the Media' (albeit with an gold card exemption from our contempt for the MSM). For over a decade or more she has perspicaciously and relentlessly addressed the alarming developments in policing across the board, particularly on the subject of drug abuse and its pernicious role in the cultural decline of the West in general and the UK in particular. She has many friends on the inside of the Job who deplore the politicising of policing and admire her efforts to draw attention to it.

Adam

As I do not remember having my ' idiotic ignorance' corrected previously by anyone named Adam, perhaps you will identify yourself fully so that I can address the matter properly, as there have been several 'Adams' since the very first one. If you are one of the notorious Adams family then you are probably sending your ludicrous bilge from the computer caff in HM Holiday Camp, Wormwood Scrubs, which would explain your somewhat frenzied promotion of illegal substances. Or perhaps you are the Adam I know who is a member of the Berkshire Hunt, as you certainly express yourself like one.

John Doe

I find it quite common that hop-heads opine that police doing the job that they are paid to do, i.e. enforcing the law of the land, equals 'fascism'. But as cannabis rots the brain, it does not surprise me. It just makes me sad for the ladies that gave birth to them.

john doe

I object to Frank Pulley's use of the rhyming slang 'Berkshire Hunt' when addressing Adam. The intended appellation is clear and it is obscene and offensive, lowering the tone of this blog.

Adam

I will get back to the other comments when I get a chance but I'm a finalist at the moment and am somewhat busy. This particular comment stuck out

""Is it really anyone's business if someone decides to have a joint?" It is if you end up face to face with a knife weilding schizophrenic"

You clearly know nothing about schizophrenia. Firstly, remember that it still hasn't been proven that cannabis causes schizophrenia

If we assume it does though, remember on the whole people who develop schizophrenia are not violent at all. I find your comment insulting to those that have.

Those with schizophrenia are normally very withdrawn, very scared, very confused. It's very rare they hurt anyone.

Pulley I suggest you stop insulting people.

Water, for me this issue is very simple. The law must not discriminate and currently it discriminates against cannabis users. Liberty is something to be taken very seriously. Only in extreme cases should we deny someone of their liberty.

One instance would be where the harm their liberty caused to others was so great that we have to. Cannabis is a very safe drug, which largely causes very little harm to its users or those around them and relatively to both alcohol and tobbaco this harm is very small. Thus there is no reason to deny people their liberty on the grounds of harm caused, especially if we allow both alcohol and tobbaco users their liberty.

The fact we lock cannabis users up (especially those who're growing cannabis to avoid having to buy it from drug dealers) is a disgrace! We even lock up people using and growing it for medicinal purposes. That is disgusting, to take someone's liberty away over that! It's sickening.

This is a human rights issue, people have the right to use drugs, especially if those drugs cause less harm than those that are currently legal or if they need to use those drugs of medicinal purposes.

Lastly you say both alcohol and tobbaco are "entrenched" in society so therefore we can't ban them. It may surprise you but there are around 3million people who consume cannabis in the UK, the number of which has been increasing since we introduced the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. There are less people using cannabis in Holland yet it's legal. Clearly making cannabis illegal has very little effect on use, it only makes it more dangerous to use.

And the reason we don't ban alochol is because we don't want the problems which are created when we prohibit it, a little like pohibition in America during the 1930s.

Water

Hey Adam sorry about the delay in the response, I’ve been doing other things.

Your comment: “Water, for me this issue is very simple. The law must not discriminate and currently it discriminates against cannabis users.”

My response: Your objection seems to be largely grounded on the premise of discrimination… now; this is where things become complicated, hence why I do not consider this to be all that simple.

Give me some time chap and I'll respond to the rest of it got some uni work to do.

Dan

John Doe, You refer to my 'contempt for others'. No my contempt was for self indulgent jerks, it is not contempt to view the young as generally more impulsive, more naive, more easily led, etc than those who are older and hopefully wiser because that is to treat them as they are. Nor is it contempt to be concerned for the long term health and happiness of the young. If I were happy to see peoples neighbourhoods dragged down into sloth and crime just so long as I can get my dope and indulge my grubby habits unencumbered by 'fascist' busy-bodies then I would be showing contempt for others. Moreover far from being a dictator I am woried about the ever more intrusive, expanding, activist state; but it is your moral outlook that is causing it. Civilisation rests on the virtue of self-restraint and the more we abandon responsibility for ourselves the more the government will step in to do it for us and the less free we will be in the long term.
Adam, your 'human right' to get wasted is trivially unimportant compared to the rights of the honest citizen to live in a peaceful and stable society. Still if you think its worth it why not organise a mass demonstration through the streets of London, DEMANDING the BASIC HUMAN RIGHT to get whacked off your t*ts. What a pathetec sight that would be!

john doe

Dan: everything you say is applicable to alcohol but you do not deal with that. Most crime is committed under the influence of alcohol. &0% of murders in fact. You know nothing. You are a bigot and a hypocrite. People get 'wasted' and 'whacked' out on booze, not cannabis, all over the country, trashing each other and the sorry towns they live in. Cannabis has nothing to do with all this social devastation and ugliness. Your bigotry and denial is part of the degeneracy and decadence that is bringing the UK down into a quagmire of mindless vulgarity. I am fully aware that my words will fall on deaf ears as you, and it seems many others, are fossilised in prejudice and ignorance. That is not going to change. JUST SAY KNOW.

Water

To Adam

Your comment: “Liberty is something to be taken very seriously. Only in extreme cases should we deny someone of their liberty. One instance would be where the harm their liberty caused to others was so great that we have to. Cannabis is a very safe drug, which largely causes very little harm to its users or those around them and relatively to both alcohol and tobacco this harm is very small.

Thus there is no reason to deny people their liberty on the grounds of harm caused”

My response: I don’t deny that liberty is of course very important. This said, the effects that cannabis can have can be very terrible (or extreme I just tend to stay away from that word), hence why I think it is necessary to put dampers on this drug.

I’ve seen Cannabis drag many people into a stupor (hence why it isn’t safe) whereby they neglect their responsibilities on a daily basis and become more content to fund this (seemingly harmless) drug then pay bills and pay attention to their kids and what have you . These are reasons (for me at least) to support the prevention of this drug being legalized along with very many compelling reasons that have hitherto been mentioned.

This is not to say it makes everyone who uses it incompetent, no not at all, but I have seen it make to many people loose their proverbial grip for me to endorse its legalization.

There has been research put forth (very respectfully may I add) by others which supports your claim that Cannabis isn’t harmful. Though there has been research put forward that shows cannabis to be harmful (please look above I’m not being condescending I just don’t want to repeat myself). So there are points for and against I don’t deny that. Though the aforementioned points against (and from what I have seen first hand) it is enough for me at least to consider it dangerous.

Your comment: “The fact we lock cannabis users up (especially those who're growing cannabis to avoid having to buy it from drug dealers) is a disgrace!”

My response: I don’t agree if it is illegal you just don’t do it, though as I stated above we don’t need to always lock people up rehabilitation is an option. By all means I quite applaud people like you who exercise their democratic right to speak about laws they find unjust. Though I do not condone this law being broken on such grounds as growing the stuff and ultimately given warnings I can see why the police would be justified in locking someone up though a jail cell shouldn’t be the first port of call, that’s too harsh.

Your comment: “We even lock up people using and growing it for medicinal purposes.”

My response: If by medicinal purposes you mean that they have been given a prescription then I can see why a degree of latitude maybe in order. But you can’t of course just start saying this is for medicinal use and start growing it without its use being given the proper warrant.

Your comment: “This is a human rights issue, people have the right to use drugs, especially if those drugs cause less harm than those that are currently legal or if they need to use those drugs of medicinal purposes.”

My response: This is a human rights issue yes, but this does not mean that those individuals that define what is right and wrong by virtue of the law are always wrong come time a human rights issue occurs. I think the law is justified on this occasion and that humans have sufficient rights in this scenario albeit that it equals the right not to indulge. Now with regards to other legal drugs I agree they are bad. Though for me it’s not a reason to justify legalization just because there are other mistakes being made, either you agree or you don’t that’s the end of it really. As far as I am concerned people need to be educated about not drinking so much and smoking tobacco because causes a terrible strain on the NHS but this does not mean we then go and legalize another drug.

Also come time it is used for medicinal purposes, well you have through go through the certified channels and that’s all that there is to it. Your doctor prescribes that’s his/her job and that’s it.

Your comment: “Lastly you say both alcohol and tobacco are "entrenched" in society so therefore we can't ban them”

My response: I did not say that, I said Dan raises a good point in saying that. Though to clarify my position on the matter I do happen to agree with him. As for the point that ‘we can’t ban them’ I think the government can, I just don’t think it would work were they to do it.

Your comment: “It may surprise you but there are around 3million people who consume cannabis in the UK, the number of which has been increasing since we introduced the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971”

My response: I’m by no means ignorant I know the numbers have increased since then.

Your comment: “There are less people using cannabis in Holland yet it's legal. Clearly making cannabis illegal has very little effect on use, it only makes it more dangerous to use”.

My response: Personally I think usage in England regardless of what has happened in Holland would increase and as such the negative effects (as detailed above) would increase. As for it being clear in that making it legal has very little effect on its use as regards prospects for England because you can’t judge future drug use in England based on the results based in another country, because its illogical England is England it is not Holland.

It makes it clear with regards to Holland but these facts are not to do with England and personally I do think numbers of users would increase here in England and the negative effects also in turn. Just because a particular place has been successful does not justify taking the risk in this country, hence why many many other countries haven’t taken the same step.

As for making it more dangerous by keeping it illegal, well then those people who take it should stop (unless it has been prescribed legally) and the danger is forgone because they are no longer breaking the law and fraternizing with nefarious individuals.

Your comment: “And the reason we don't ban alcohol is because we don't want the problems which are created when we prohibit it, a little like prohibition in America during the 1930s”.

My response: If it was banned it would lead to the effects you stated I don’t deny that (I think some one mentioned this above). But through education hopefully we can educate people to the extent that they put down the bottle. So for these more ‘culturally entrenched’ drugs education is the only perceivable option for now.

But as regards that which is already illegal (i.e. cannabis) and not justified by the legal system (for me) keeping it illegal makes for a better option as opposed to justifying its use on the grounds that:

(a) Purely and simply because the acceptance of its use in Holland has been successful does not mean we can make the assumption that over here it will be successful as well. For me it is too much of a risk and not a risk worth taking.

(b) There are other imperfections as regards legal drugs and as such we should make this further mistake.

At the end of the day what is simple though is that you either agree or you don’t, the means by which we reach these conclusions is (admittedly) simply intricate.

Dan

John Doe writes: "Dan:everything you say is applicable to alcohol but you do not deal with that". How should I deal with it? I am personally teetotal but I have already acknowledged that it is far too late to prohibit alchohol, which if it were invented today would be banned immediately. But why do you wish to exacerbate the problem by legalising other brain rotting poisons? Because they give you a buzz I suppose. Alchohol could and should be made more difficult to obtain but only if there was the political will to do so, which currently there is not. The moral and spiritual poverty of our country is heartbreaking. I hope that when the sixties throwbacks who run our quangos and public services have all been peacefully retired off then we will stop taking our freedom for granted and start protecting it. As for my being a fossilised biggot, no I'm just a former self indulgent a**hole who finally grew up.

Water

Also drink isn't what the article has to do with.

john doe

Dan: You assume that because I defend the right of any human being to ingest a God given plant without being punished by irrational control freaks then I consume cannabis. Wrong. I don't.
The UK is a thoroughly addictive society...the list of dependencies is endless: TV,sport spectatorship, sex, shopping, mobiles,gambling,alcohol,tobacco, and many more. All soporifics rooted in the fear of loneliness and death. All 'brain rotting' and spiritually crippling in their own way. Leave cannabis alone and focus on the real soul murderers in this society.The whole population is amusing itself to death and tranquilised by the trivial and you demonise an innocent weed. To call it brain rotting is irrational and misinformed.You need to broaden your concept of addiction and be more aware of where the real psychological and spiritual damage is taking place. Do you really think that cannabis is responsible for the rampant violence in British society, the disintegration of the family, the number of single mothers and absent fathers, the number of teenage pregnancies, the urban wastelands, the fall in educational standards, the obsession with wealth and celebrity, the emotional pornography of reality TV, the emotional and intellectual illiteracy,the obsession with football, the historical and geographical ignorance, the glorification and glamourisation of alcoholism,the crime rate,the rate of heart disease. I could go on and on..it's that bad. Leave cannabis alone.I know that it helps people relax, detach from the media brainwashing, appreciate nature,gain insight,ease pain, and deal with all this dreadful horror and madness that we have created.

Nick Kaplan

John Doe; whilst I sympathise with the argument for drug legalisation (on balance I think the benefits outweigh the costs) the issue is far less simple then you make out and some of the arguments you make actually work in favour of the opposite side. First and foremost this is not a simple issue of Liberty (as a libertarian I certainly believe individual freedom should be maximised). The reason is that for liberty to exist people need to be both free to do an action and free to not do it. The problem with drugs is that as they are addictive it is questionable whether one can really choose to stop taking them, so it is not a clear cut issue of maximising freedom. The other main argument you seem to make is that illegal drugs cause less harm than legal ones such as tobacco and alcohol, surely this is not an argument in favour of legalisation but of further prohibition? Is it not the case that these legal drugs cause more harm because they are more accessible as they are legal? The case you should be making concerns economics and crime. The crime caused by illegal drugs is largely theft, muggings etc (in fact I have read reports suggesting 2/3s of all property crime is drugs related). The reason for this is simple; illegal drugs are very expensive. This is simply due to the fact that there is a high risk involved in the supply of illegal drugs which means such drugs cost far more than they should (the cost of growing/ producing cannabis are minimal yet the price is extraordinary). If such drugs were legalised and taxed not only would they be cheaper, hence reducing property crime, but the government could also collect revenue from those who take drugs which could be invested into rehab clinics and government advertising against drugs (as drugs are bad the government should campaign against them whilst allowing people the freedom to use them and the opportunity to get off them). Thus legalisation can solve the problem of liberty in that people would be provided the chance to get off those drugs and in addition it would resolve the current ludicrous situation in which those sensible enough not to take drugs must pay for the rehab of those stupid enough to get addicted.

Dan

John, "Addiction" (the hoax of the century) is a condition of moral ambivalence between the desire for a cheap thrill and ones own better judgement, and that is all it is.

I disagree with you on dope, it does much more than just 'help people relax'. It is part of the problem.

I agree, we are a civilisation in decay.