Hempyreumenglish’s Weblog

Some opinions against the “new wave” of prohibitionism taken from the web site of “The Guardian”

The rejection of the findings of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (Scientists warn Smith over cannabis reclassification, May 8 ) is wrong for a number of reasons. First, if the advice is not taken, why do we have an expert investigation, with all its associated costs? Second, young people often desire what is perceived to be “forbidden”, so the justification for the reclassification – “sending a message” – could well backfire.

However, the thing that concerns me most has nothing to do with pot smoking but something far more fundamental. This decision sets a scenario where fear, hysteria and misinformation take precedence over scientific reason. The council are experts who take into account the evidence for the concerns we have about an issue; if they have done their job thoroughly then, whatever our personal feelings about an issue, scientific reason must prevail. If not then we might as well go back to the witch-hunting days of Salem, where fear and hysteria ruled and scientific reason was unheard of. If we value a fair and just society, this is a very dangerous step to take.
Stuart Matousek
London

I note with some disappointment the proliferating reports on the classification of cannabis, endlessly debating its proper classification. It has become something of an obsession in parliamentary politics and the press. Sadly, while this storm of discourse proceeds, much more serious and enduring problems continue to afflict our social landscape.

To mention but two: the insidious spread of hepatitis C, which is endemic among our injecting drug users; and the continuing disaster of mass imprisonment, including such practices as the release of drug-dependent prisoners on Fridays, when services are closed. Then people wonder why we have recidivism.

If better resources had been directed toward confronting these far more serious problems, so much more might have been achieved. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that our politicians don’t really want to achieve lasting responses to these problems, but desire merely to be seen to be “doing something” – preferably something “tough”.
Sebastian Saville
Executive director, Release

Decisions such as the one regarding cannabis, with an eye to the Daily Mail and a deaf ear turned to the government’s own advisers, are just the sort of thing that helps turn whole generations against politics. A very large proportion of the population knows that prohibition and criminalisation of recreational drugs make no sense. These policies fostered crime when they were applied to alcohol in the US, and they foster crime here and now. Gordon Brown and David Cameron know this. But they are hypnotised by the irrational ravings of the tabloid press.
David Richardson
Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex

So the home secretary wants to send a message about cannabis. Now just what would this be? “We can see that prohibition hasn’t stopped the use of illegal drugs, but we’re going to continue with it anyway” or “We can see that prohibition is wrecking developing countries, poorer communities in the UK and the lives of drug users who are dependent on illegal suppliers, but we don’t care” perhaps?
Kate Francis
London

Why is cannabis use illegal? It can’t be because it’s dangerous. We don’t criminalise motor racers, boxers or people who drink themselves into an early grave. So why? I don’t know the answer, but for all my adult life I have felt that the police love to stop and search young people. The possible possession of cannabis provides a reason. I can’t be the only one who is horrified at the thought of some silly young person going to jail for years for such a harmless activity.
Jim Lynch
Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire

The government has indeed sent out a clear message to young people: it is not interested in the facts about the relative harm of drugs, only “public perceptions”. Is this likely to make it more or less likely that young people will listen to public health messages? Shame on you, Gordon.
John Tatam
Richmond, Surrey

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/may/10/drugsandalcohol.drugspolicy