The Independent on Sunday ran with this article leading, at least in the rural village where I obtained a copy. If you can’t be bothered to read it all (and I don’t blame you) it is an apology for a cannabis legalisation campaign that the Independent ran in the 1990s, which retracts the earlier position, citing increased evidence of a link to mental health problems and a vast increase in the potency of cannabis available. If they hadn’t allowed their former editor, Rosie Boycott, at least some space to express the counter-argument, I would have been utterly appalled at the sloppy journalism and sloppy thinking behind this piece. Even she fell victim to a certain extent.

This naturally raises certain questions:

Firstly, was their original support for the legalisation of cannabis only contingent on cannabis below a certain strength being available, and only a minimal number of
people mentally damaged by excessive usage? If so, where are these thresholds?

Secondly, does the availability of stronger cannabis, and the evidence of an increased risk to mental health weaken the overall case for legalisation?

Thirdly, who has been leaning on the Independent? My guess would be someone linked to Cameron, but perhaps I am just acquiring the conspiratorial mindset of a blogger….think about it. Cameron needs to appear tough on drugs for the Tory old guard, despite his youthful indiscretions, but he really wants to target the Independent demographic, and win them back from Labour…

The figures that the Independent cites as reasons for reversing its position include a jump in THC content from around 9% up to possibly 25%, and 22’000 people with mental problems linked to cannabis use, over half of these under 18. These figures, to me, strengthen the case for legalisation. Obviously cannabis supplied by drug dealers cannot be monitored, nor can it be restricted to over-18s. There is no information about THC content beyond ‘This is some really prime shit’, and there is no possibility of a health warning. Yet the Independent article doesn’t deal with this objection. Even if we take greater harm=more illegal to be the guiding principle of drug policy, (which is clearly false, as demonstrated by the recent classification of magic mushrooms as class A) legalisation of cannabis would be a means to reduce any harm it causes. And to pay for treatment of those that it does harm.

This is less important than the ‘boundaries of the state’ objection. Why should the state be telling any adult what they can and cannot do to their own bodies? The usual objection here is along the lines of ‘what about heroin and crack? Surely you can’t allow people to do that?’. But why not? If someone, in full knowledge of the effects of any given drug, choses to take it, whose business is it to stop them? The state should minimise the social harm that this might cause, but this certainly isn’t best served by marginalising drug users, forcing hard drug addicts into the hands of exploitative dealers, and ensuring that the only supply of drugs available is expensive and sometimes dangerously adulterated. In terms of legislation to put to the voters, this might not go down so easily, but the Observer argues quite persuasively for the decriminalisation of possession of non-addictive drugs

The arguments for the legalisation of cannabis are well rehearsed, and the Independent’s change in stance absurd. But the real kick in the teeth is this July
Having banned smoking inside, cannabis can never be legalised on the Dutch model. Nothing less than total legislation will do now, and this door is barred by the UN Convention on Narcotics

In rushing to play international copycat, we have ensured that a measure of justice and safety for the 5 million adults estimated to smoke cannabis in Britain will remain out of reach for much longer.

Filed under: crime, davidcameron, health on March 19th, 2007