Peter Hitchens is wrong to argue for banning cannabis, but he is far more thoughtful than his liberal opponents
A legalisation campaigner joins a protest in Hyde Park on International Cannabis Day
When I wrote a pamphlet advocating legalisation of cannabis in 2001, I was congratulated by friend and foe alike for my “courage.” But it required no courage. On the contrary, for the first time in my career I felt the warm embrace of the liberal establishment. Interviewers asked me what questions I would like, confided that they had lined up a reactionary nutter to argue for prohibition, and quizzed me with almost embarrassing bias in my favour.
What requires real courage—which Peter Hitchens displays in his new book The War We Never Fought: The British Establishment’s Surrender to Drugs—is to argue for a serious effort to deter drug taking, and cannabis in particular. At best, this argument guarantees ridicule, at worst, neglect by the bien pensants who dominate our broadcasting networks and to a lesser extent our press.
Hitchens’s book has not persuaded me to change my view on legalisation. But he leaves me with more sympathy for his approach than for that of the liberal allies whose company, on this issue, I keep. Above all, Hitchens is far more honest in facing up to the alternatives and acknowledging the true reasons for concern about drugs.
First, he realises there are only two logically coherent policies: prohibition and legalisation. Decriminalisation, the fashionable option of the intelligentsia, makes no sense, though it is the destination which policy in this country has moved towards for several decades. One of the book’s most interesting aspects is Hitchens’s revelation of the manoeuvring, from Roy Jenkins onwards, to all but decriminalise cannabis use.
Moves to reduce or stop enforcing penalties on cannabis users have always been accompanied by promises to crack down harder on the “evil drug dealers.” But, Hitchens argues, if sale of cannabis is evil, then its use must be evil. If a drug is inexorably addictive, enslaving the hapless user and rendering him a danger to society, then it is as important to deter the buyer as the seller. Conversely, if cannabis use is a harmless lifestyle choice, its provision can scarcely be evil.
So we can opt for one of two models: Sweden’s toughly enforced prohibition and the Netherlands’ legalisation of cannabis sale. Hitchens argues for the former. I advocate the latter. Decriminalisation is the worst of both worlds. It means that cannabis users can obtain their supplies only from illegal gangs, who profiteer and try to persuade them to move on to more lucrative hard drugs. We drive soft drug users into the arms of hard drug pushers—Hitchens’s riposte that there is no distinction between hard and soft drugs is not convincing.
But the most refreshing aspect of this book is its recognition that drug taking is fundamentally a moral issue. Most people, on both sides of the argument, pretend it is purely about health risks to users, in addition to the crime that some addicts commit to finance their habit. Proponents of tougher drug laws seize on any evidence, however tenuous, that drugs damage the user’s health. Hitchens does this too but, more importantly, he also acknowledges that he believes drug taking is morally wrong.
As it so happens, I am one of the few people who agrees with him that drug abuse—getting stoned on drugs or alcohol—is morally reprehensible. I am not sure that Hitchens’s explication of their evil—that they lead to an ecstasy which has not been merited by effort or virtue—is adequate. Surely the classical Christian case against drunkenness applies to stupefaction by any drug: namely that, as well as being degrading, it undermines the conscience and may engender more serious sins? Morally there is also a difference, which Hitchens fails to address, between drug use and abuse—a relaxing glass of wine and getting stoned.
An activity may be immoral without automatically being illegal. Adultery is socially harmful but not a crime. However, for an activity to be criminalised there needs to be broad agreement that it is morally wrong. So long as the case against drug taking is argued purely in terms of its health consequences, that condition will not be met. Indeed, if a drug is found that has no adverse health effects, those who, for tactical reasons, rely on the health argument would be bereft of reasons to denounce its use.
Hitchens and I agree that drug abuse is morally deplorable but disagree on whether that means cannabis should be banned. He favours tough laws against it. I believe this drug—which is rarely addictive or lethal—should be legalised and left to individual conscience. He takes me to task for saying that “the freer people are to exercise responsibility… the more responsibly they are likely to behave.”
But I still find him more congenial intellectual company than the liberal establishment who welcomed me to their bosom. I support legalisation of cannabis despite believing that drug abuse is morally wrong. Liberals, I discovered, want penalties lifted because they believe it is not ethically reprehensible at all. Indeed, my publisher resisted including even a brief explanation of the moral case against drug abuse. Most liberals oppose drug laws because they passionately reject the entire notion of personal morality in the sense of restraint or commitment in one’s personal life. For them morality is simply adherence to a set of correct beliefs about the ordering of society; beliefs which involve few inconvenient restraints on personal behaviour.
Hitchens and I differ on where and when the law should uphold ethics. But, the less we rely on law the more we depend on personal morality. So, however unfashionable, I am on Hitchens’s side in reaffirming this point—both on drug abuse and more widely. Society cannot be built on a moral vacuum.
Follow Prospect on Facebook and Twitter
Pete Guither
First, the Netherlands has not legalized marijuana; it’s decriminalized there. Supply is still illegal. The reason there aren’t current models for legalization is because of international treaties – that’s why decriminalization is a best effort until those can be scrapped.
You talk about the morality of drug abuse, and act as if this “liberal” group you know have no morality. And yet you ignore the immorality of prohibition – the corruption of government, the profit motives of drug warriors and drug kingpins, the careless treatment of lives and families by authority, the explosion of the prison-industrial system, and on and on.
That’s the true problem with Hitchens. He’s taking his own personal moral crusade against a subset of people who use drugs and advocating for a massive world-wide immoral war that sweeps up the “guilty” and innocent alike at great expense. And worse yet, it only exascerbates the abuse problem.
A Quiet Man
well said
John Spofforth
Missing in all cannabis comments is HEMP. Re-legalization of the entire cannabis plant
would end the Drug War, restore hemp for the many industrial uses it produces, and end
the ridiculous ban on marihuana. Cannabis criminalization began in the US by the
“Marihuana Tax (stamp) Act of 1937.” It was honcho’ed through Congress by Randolph
Hearst, who got industrialists in oil, synthetics, fiber and other industries to back his call
to criminalize cannabis. Because, they all knew a legal hemp could compete successfully
against their industries, thus rob them of the billions they could make and have made.
cannabis must be re-legalized, and the US Drug War must be told to take a hike, mate!
Chris
John
You are writing (presumably) from a Californian perspective.
Industrial hemp is grown in the UK. It has little or no THC. It has no effect on the illegal cannabis market.
Industrial hemp despite all the praise for it, is not very successful in a competitive market place.
In respect of the debate about legalisation of cannabis for what is called “recreational purposes”. Industrial hemp is an irrelevance.
Chris
Cannabis cannot be legalised because it isn’t ‘illegal’, no drug, or any other inanimate substance, is illegal. Under the terms of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 some substances, including cannabis, are laughingly referred to as ‘controlled’. Was is illegal is any act such as cultivation, manufacture, possession or supply of these ‘controlled substances. Under the terms of the MoDA the government, in the form of the home office, have the power to issue licences for the cultivation, manufacture, possession or supply of these substances. So all that needs to happen in the case of cannabis is to allow individuals to have a licence which will effectively decriminalise it. They have already issued many licences (according to an FOI request) so regarding cannabis itself as illegal is a nonsense. In one fell swoop the availability of licences will destroy the illegal cannabis farms run by organised crime overnight.
Ryan Patterson
Cannabis use results in serious mental health problems for a minority of its users.
The selfish, pleasure-seeking desires of the legalisation lobby are at the expense of this often overlooked minority and will increase their suffering over time.
Does the legalisation lobby see this truth as a merely unavoidable thing in the interest of some greater good.
Adam Wallace
While there is no evidence that cannabis causes widespread mental illness amongst its users, it is likely that among those who already have a genetic predisposition for mental health problems, cannabis can be a catalyst to psychosis.
This fact alone is not sufficient evidence to continue the prohibition of cannabis. That is as logical as saying that because a certain percentage of those who drink alcohol end up as skid row alcoholics, we should ban alcohol.
Public health policy must always be decided upon the greater good, and weighed against the small percentage of cannabis users who do develop mental health problems, the evils of prohibition, [corruption of governments, the growth of organised crime, the uncontrolled availability of cannabis -and all other drugs- to young people], far outweigh any problems that are caused by its use.
It is either a fundamental error, or deliberate slur, to regard the legalisation lobby as being driven by a desire for easy access to cannabis or other drugs. As things stand at present, access to drugs could not be much easier, any person who wishes to take drugs in Britain today is already doing so. However, they are doing so under a system which maximises harm both to themselves as individuals and to the wider community. It is the realisation that prohibition is structurally incapable of achieving its intended aims, while exacerbating every one of the problems it was claimed it would prevent, as well as creating others that did not exist prior to its introduction, that the demands for reform of our drug policies, and a long overdue end to the mendacious policy of prohibition, is today the majority opinion in Britain, [YouGov poll conducted for Sun newspaper].
Steve
“As things stand at present, access to drugs could not be much easier, any person who wishes to take drugs in Britain today is already doing so.”
Just because everyone who wants to take drugs in the UK is already doing so, that doesn’t mean that drug use would not increase if they were legalised. I imagine I would be more likely to experiment if drugs were clean and legal- if there were no risks from the law, from them being mixed with dangerous substances, and if I didn’t have to seek out or deal with shady people. There’s a chance they could gain respectability and become more mainstream and widely used. I think this could be the flaw in your argument.
“It is the realisation that prohibition is structurally incapable of achieving its intended aims, while exacerbating every one of the problems it was claimed it would prevent…”
What about the central thesis of Hitchen’s book that there is no effective prohibition, that there is no serious war on drugs in this country and hasn’t been for 30 or 40 years? If that is the case, then perhaps a better course of action than legalising them to reduce harm, would be to start a serious attempt to deter drug use by punishing users. How do we know if prohibition of drugs doesn’t work if we haven’t given it a serious try? Drug use is rampant but does it have to be?
Adam Wallace
The only drug which should be made available under the type of framework you are describing, [ie, freely available to all adults above a certain age], is cannabis.
When it comes to hard drugs, I do not believe in unlimited access to refined pharmaceuticals. As you say, the chances of casual experimentation leading to addiction is too great for them to be sold freely.
On the other hand, what I would like to see is a return to the system we had in this country where hard drugs were prescribed to addicts. I think the system used in Switzerland strikes the correct balance between control and availability. There, hardcore addicts, who have a proven track record of having failed other treatment interventions, are prescribed heroin which they can consume only in designated clinics. By not allowing them to collect the heroin & take it home like any other medication, the chances of supplies being used to create new addicts is removed.
The Swiss system works extremely well. On introduction, some urban districts in that country saw up to a 75% reduction in crime. Most importantly, since Heroin Assisted Treatment began in Switzerland, new referrals for heroin addiction have declined precipitously.
Two statistics which are very telling about the nature of drug prohibition are as follows. In 1926 Britain and the USA took diametrically opposed decisions with regard to the treatment of addicts. Here a governmental committee agreed that it was ethical for a doctor to prescribe maintenance doses of opioids to an addict if by doing so they were able to live a relatively normal life, but became unable to do so if the drug was withdrawn. The USA took the opposite decision, declaring it unethical and a crime. If you fast forward from that decision to 1965 when the question was next examined in Britain, we had approximately 2000 addicts in the entire country. New York State alone estimated their addict population at around a quarter of a million. When maintenance prescribing was ended in the UK in the late 1970′s, addict numbers here were still below 10,000, today it is estimated that there are around 1 million problematic heroin users in the UK, and an unknown number of functioning users who remain hidden.
Hitchens claim that their is no attempt at prohibition is a myth of his own making. Every day in Britain police forces up and down the country conduct drugs raids, and stop and search continues unchecked. If sensible thinking people stopped and considered what the cost of following Hitchens’ half-baked ideas, he would be ridiculed and ignored. The USA, which does follow the kind of prohibition regime Hitchens is so keen on, has 5% of the world’s population and 25% of its prisoners; with 2.5 million people behind bars, the world’s largest prison population somewhat puts paid to the notion of America being “land of the free”. Across the border in Mexico, over 60,000 people have been murdered in the last five years, since the drug war there was militarised. Hitchens continually refuses to say what size of prison population he would regard as too high a price to pay for reducing drug use.
Hitchens is also completely wrong when he denies that individuals are sovereign over their own body. This was the central principle of the English Enlightenment, and the core view of philosophers like from John Locke to Mill. It is also central to the Austrian school of economics expounded by Ludwig von Mises. Though he might not realise it, [or perhaps he does], Hitchens has never really got over his Trotskyite past, and essentially proposes that citizens are the cattle of the state. One day he will be forced to realise one of two things, either that his notions on prohibition are completely at odds with his claimed support for individual liberty, or that his championing of liberty is in fact a sham, and underneath he is really a dyed-in-the-wool statist, who believes in ever increasing government intrusion into the private lives of others.
Either that or he will ignore his principles and keep on churning out fear and loathing propaganda for the Sunday Mail.
Mark
I have smoked Cannabis for over Thirty years, many,many of my friends and associates smoke Cannabis NO ONE as ever suffered from “serious mental health problems” EVER !!! This is just Government propaganda and scare mongering,and a convenient defence when in court. Don’t believe the hype !!!
Leaving Cannabis in the hands of criminals is just criminal !!!
People wont stop taking Cannabis just because the law is enforced more strongly so whats the point ?
Ryan Patterson
Hi Mark,
The law is enforced against drink-driving and that has had a terrific effect in reducing its occurrence so if the law against cannabis possession is indeed rigorously enforced we can expect to see such an effect.
I’m afraid you don’t know everyone so your assertion that no one has ever suffered from serious mental health problems from using cannabis is ill-informed.
A family member killed himself a couple of years ago after smoking dope and I can’t help but wonder if he would have made the same decision had he not used it.
As a cannabis user, your desire to gain pleasure from it outweighs your ability to realise that drug use causes suffering for some users and their families and I don’t think that cannabis users can be objective in this debate.
John R
Pete Guither ‘the profit motives of drug warriors and drug kingpins….the explosion of the prison-industrial system, and on and on.’ You blame prohibition for this, as a convenient excuse because you’re starting the story half-way through. Without the demand (from selfish users), there is no supply. Cannabis wasn’t prohibited yesterday, and users start taking the stuff knowing it is illegal.
Mark, you are suffering from what is called sample bias. Even you, surely, cannot ignore the wealth of evidence and anecdote that points to cannabis being potentially devastating to young minds. Legal or illegal, you must at least concede that taking cannabis is a risk. Why allow more people to play Russian Roulette, and more devastated families?
Peter Guither
John R, your comment that without demand, there’s no supply, is true, but useless. If everyone gave up sex, there’d be no sexually transmitted diseases, but that’s not going to happen either, so to base public policy on it would be ludicrous. (and if everyone gave up religion there’d be no religious wars).
Criminalization doesn’t stop demand. Even in countries with the death penalty for drug trafficking, the demand is still there.
Once cannabis is legalized and regulated, you can tackle those few who abuse the drug as a public health issue, which is more effective (and makes much more sense) than criminalization, which is like treating the common cold with a sledge hammer.
Mark
Enforcing drink driving is completely different from smoking Cannabis as you well know.
You will not stop people using Cannabis FACT !!!
I may not know everyone but I do know through experience that Cannabis Psychosis is a myth !!!
I am sorry for your family member,but I cant help but wonder if Cannabis had no role to play in his death,but may have give him some relief in his time of trouble.
If Cannabis cause’s “suffering” in some users then they should not use it, if they carry on using then it is their fault not Cannabis.I don’t use Alcohol, because it does not agree with me, it makes me depressed and angry.I know this, so don’t use it !!!
Ryan Patterson
Hi Mark,
Some people stop drinking after it has already caused them permanent health problems, some may also consider quitting dope after they’ve acquired permanent mental health problems – it’s still too late.
I think the legalisation lobby’s worst trait is that their pursuit of this intoxicating pleasure will destroy the lives of some of its users and their loved ones.
How can you be certain that 30 years of cannabis smoking hasn’t affected your ability judge its impact on your life and health?
Peter Guither
Ryan, The “legalization lobby” isn’t in it for the “pursuit of this intoxicating pleasure.” People can get that with no problem while it’s illegal. What we want it the end of the destruction of prohibition and appropriate regulations, so it’s not criminals selling it to kids.
What have you got to offer? More of the same? Easy access, profitable for criminals, destructive to families…
Did prohibition save your family member?
Ryan Patterson
Prohibition of cannabis is a myth – the very word conjures up images of Capone-era, Tommy-gun wielding gangsters and bootleggers in a time where Peter Hitchens interestingly points out in his book that Alcohol consumption remained legal, only its industrial manufacture, sale and transport was truly prohibited. This is a sloppy comparison to Britain’s present stance on cannabis where laws against its consumption exist but are not enforced.
If my family member knew that possession of Cannabis could land him in severe legal trouble and likely prison then I doubt he would have bought it. He knew the worst scenario he might have faced would have been confiscation and perhaps a cannabis warning (which has no legal weight).
Truly punishing possession will destroy demand for cannabis as has been done in Sweden.
niall
As well as alcohol and tobacco currently damaging lives can it not be said that prohibition is a neutral position that does no harm; a drug conviction at 16 can be damaging and would be more likely to happen to a lower socio-economic status person (also undermining faith in the law), drugs more likely to get strong due to the ‘iron law of prohibition’, power in the hands of gangsters, 10,000 deaths per year in Mexico, human rights abuses worldwide…
I do not favour legalisation because commercial organisations will take advantage of people as is seen with alcohol, tobacco, gambling…
To oppress or exploit universal human behaviour that can occur without harm to anybody else seems wrong.
Adam Wallace
Considering that a recent YouGov poll found that the majority of people in Britain are in favour of the legalisation of cannabis, while even the most generous estimate of cannabis users in Britain puts the number at around 27%, there remains a large number of people who do not smoke cannabis but are in favour of its legalisation.
How could that possibly be, if according to you, the “legalisation lobby” is solely made up of drug users seeking easier access to their drug of choice? Could it possibly be that you are incorrect, and the truth is actually that the majority of people who wish to see an end to drug prohibition, do so because they can see that prohibition:
1]Fails to prevent any drug use whatsoever. Drugs are more available, at higher purity and lower prices than ever before.
2]Prohibition acts as little more than a subsidy to organised crime. Increased law enforcement creates a natural selection among traffickers and dealers with only the most violent remaining in business.
3]Prohibition creates harms that did not exist before its introduction. Skunk and crack cocaine are solely products of prohibition. The most concentrated, concealable and damaging forms of substances become the norm. Intravenous injection becomes routine. Drugs are adulterated with substances more harmful than the drug itself -today British heroin addicts are dying from heroin contaminated with anthrax.
4]Prohibition is the superlative engine of corruption. Entire nation states are at risk of having their economies subverted by the illegal drugs trade. The Western banking system is awash with drug profits, a hugely corrupting influence.
5]Prohibition provides the revenue stream for terrorism. Without their funding from opium and heroin, the Taliban would be forced to make peace & Afghanistan would finally be at peace. Likewise FARC in Colombia relies on cocaine to survive.
6]Prohibition clogs our legal system with drugs cases. Without prohibition our police forces would be freed to focus on crimes that actually matter to people, instead today they are forced to spend most of their time on low level property crime committed by addicts desperate for drugs sold at inflated prices thanks to prohibition.
7]Prohibition relies on the notion that I am the state’s cattle. Western liberal democracy is based on the concept that state power over the individual should properly be limited to preventing harm to others, either in person or property. What I do in the privacy of my own home is not a matter for the state so long as I am not hurting anyone else.
Prohibition is a disaster. It does not work. It creates problems which did not exist, and magnifies those which did. This is why millions of people around Britain are waking up to this fact and demanding a new approach. Trying to label this movement as being solely composes of hedonists seeking easy access to drugs is factually untrue, and will no longer work. It is a symptom of the desperation of the prohibitionists that they resort to smear tactics as a consequence of losing public support for their views.
Andrew
Hi Mark
You wrote “If my family member knew that possession of Cannabis could land him in severe legal trouble and likely prison then I doubt he would have bought it. He knew the worst scenario he might have faced would have been confiscation and perhaps a cannabis warning (which has no legal weight).” and later you add “Truly punishing possession will destroy demand for cannabis”
In my view there is no basis for this belief of yours. In Iran, drug possession is a capital offence, and according to Amnesty International, there were 360 executions carried out in Iran in 2011, the overwhelming majority of which were drug related.
Seems that the ultimate punishment has still not stopped possession.
Andrew
ooops – my comment was intended to be directed to Ryan Patterson. Apologies to Mark
Mark
Cannabis isn’t going to “destroy” lives lol, you need to get over this kind of thinking,it is silly.
You know what my Cannabis smoking has had no detrimental effect on my life. I sailed through Education, always worked and now run my own business, I have a Mortgage,a family with Two children who excel at School, I play football every weekend and am very fit for my age.
The trouble with Puritans,they always judge and condemn things they have no experience of,and rely on the misinformation of other Puritans to back up their self righteous condemnation !!!
Cannabis is the safest recreational drug used by man FACT, and the pursuit of pleasure is a pleasurable pastime,which leads to happiness
Maybe you should try it, you may be a little less uptight with the things other people do with their leisure time !!!
Ryan Patterson
Have you ever wondered if you could have gone on to an even greater potential without cannabis?
I agree with you partly in that cannabis MAY indeed be the safest recreational drug but in the same sense that a Glock 19 may be the safest handgun.
Acknowledging the occurrence of cannabis related harms is ultimately irrelevant within the context of pursuing its pleasures.
I think many ageing hippies would disagree that pursuit of pleasure brought happiness.
Pleasure and happiness are separate domains.
The number of people who ruin their lives through cannabis use will increase upon legalisation; this number will be a minority but the legalisation lobby doesn’t care about them because their pleasures are their first priority.
Mark
Im quite happy with my life thanks lol
You need to get over your problem with people seeking pleasure,concentrate on your own life
Ageing hippies I have come across seem really happy, you do have some silly ideas about people dont you lol
Cannabis reform is just around the corner (not long now) and then you will see how mistaken you are.
Your analogy of cannabis v Glock’s is as silly as your ideas about Cannabis.
Derek WIlliams
Whether something is “immoral” or not is a matter of opinion, I happen to think that drug *use* – as opposed to *abuse* is not morally wrong. That’s because I see drug use and abuse as very different things. I guess we don’t agree on this aspect.
However, the issue of what to do about drug use is much easier really. The stated aim of drug policy is “drug control”. Quite simply drug control is the one thing prohibition is not. “Drug control” can really only mean one thing in plain English: Control of the trade. This means controlling how drugs are sold (weights, measures, doses etc), controlling who sells what (licenced dealers), controlling where they are sold from (licenced premises) and other measures such as age limits for sales.
Prohibition is called drug control but it isn’t because it allows no controls of the trade, indeed it makes any such controls illegal. Instead prohibition tries to control people, each and every one of us. It tries to control what we do with specific substances in the privacy of our own homes or with others of a like mind. Such a policy is never going to work, which is why it doesn’t.
I agree that really there are only two real options: Control – which means legalisation, or anarchy which comes with prohibition. The third option – decriminalisation – only exists because of prohibition. The only thing decriminalisation has going for it is that it isn’t quite as bad as prohibition, but I agree it’s not a sensible way forward.
Holland, with its cannabis shops. is a decriminalised regime, not a properly legal one though.
Mike Killingworth
Doubtless Hitchens has an explanation of why the US Congress was wrong to pass the 21st Amendment to that nation’s Constitution.
Moralists would presumably also wish to argue that 12-Step programmes are wrong to see addiction of any sort as a health issue. Doubtless they have answers as to why so few religious leaders these days agree with them, and why they (the moralists) know more about the subject than those who have extensive personal experience of addiction and then recovery.
What both Peters are really about, of course, is self-promotion…
Piers
We take these things to alter our state of consciousness. Peter Hitchens is I believe a very moderate drinker, so he barely uses alcohol to alter his consciousness these days although used to do so more. But I am sure he has other ways of adjusting his state of consciousness. A hot bath, for example, or a brisk walk on a icy winter day. Reading his favourite Victorian poets, perhaps. Getting indignant about something a liberal says. Going for a run.
All human beings use external means to adjust our states of consciousness – of course we do. Our consciousness can be considered the most fundamental thing we have. So moderate drinkers use alcohol to relax and take the edge off things, maybe enhance conversation. Moderate cannabis smokers do something similar, although I’d suggest there is more introspection involved. Both drugs seem to have some link with mental illness in some cases but both have a long cultural history of many thousands of years of use, and successful societies have thrived while incorporating their use. They are time-tested and largely relatively harmless ways to adjust our consciousness.
To suggest it’s immoral to adjust our state of consciousness in some kind of ‘unearned’ way ignores the fact that we do it all the time, mostly without realising that’s what we’re doing. A hot bath can be deliciously pleasurable, as can sex, and both can certainly change one’s state of consciousness quite significantly. I’m not sure how you can earn either.
I reserve the right to change my state of consciousness. But the negative consequences of doing so are a legitimate concern of wider society, too, and to ignore that is to ignore that society is a joint project where we agree to restrict our freedoms to live well alongside each other. Which means that though a hard and fast rule that says all drugs are wrong, including alcohol, is silly and destructive to a rich and satisfying life, banning the use of some truly dangerous substances is not silly. Only an extreme libertarian could argue thus, so if you believe in controlling people’s behaviour for the sake of other people, then you can hardly be in principle against outlawing some drugs.
Incidentally, while I’m talking about the fact we take these things to alter our consciousness, I’ve always found it amusing that wine buffs never, ever talk about the quality of the high that the wine offers. They just talk about flavour, which is fine, but ignores a more important pleasure motivating them.
Russell Newcombe
Maybe people who don’t know very much about drugs, like Hitchens and Lilley, should just talk about something else. Money. Football. Dinner Parties. Stuff like that. Leave the serious drugs talk to the experts guys, because you are both just embarrassing yourselves. Get a life, or join the club.
Russell Newcombe
I mean, it isn’t that Drug Prohibition just does not work, its counter-productive. The evidence is now available in so many reports and studies, including the Alternative World Drug Report, the World Drug Report, and Blueprint for Regulation (Transform). The evidence against prohibition is so overwhelming, that anyone who defends it is either ignorant of the facts, or is too blinded by fixed (wrong) ideas of consensual morality, to make an impartial judgement. History will indict them.
Andrew
While not carrying the authority of the reports that you have sited, The Economist has also written several times over the past years advocating a complete overhaul and relaxation of the existing drug ‘policy’.
A summary of The Economist view is found in the writing of John Stuart Mill, who wrote is his 1859 essay “On Liberty” that:
“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
Russell Newcombe
awaiting moderation here takes an immoderate amount of time LOL
Chris
Slightly surprising how many people fall for the hard drugs/soft drugs nonsense. The suggestion that cannabis is a “soft” drug stems from an initaitive by a pro pot Dutch Mayor in 1977. It has no merit in science. A life ruined by cannabis or cocaine, is still a life ruined.
Lives still get permanently damaged by cannabis. Modern high THC/low CBD types are even more likely to do it. Cannabis dependency was described as “significant” by the UK Advisory Council on the Misue of Drugs in its 2008 report.
The nature of cannabis dependency and its effect on the brain, particularly the still dveloping young teenage brain, the teratogenic qualities and link with oral cavity cancers give it all the harms of tobacco-amplified. The link with mental illness is now beyond dispute. Cannabis is never going to be legalised or decriminalised in the UK, Places where liberalisation was tried eg Alaska & Sweden, quickly changed their view. We have no need to go through that process we can learn from their experience.
damian moody
At the end of the day if there is scientific proof of the harm drugs do (and there is, including alcohol, nicotene etc) and you prioritise economic outcomes over health outcomes (or moral ones) then you embody the worst aspects of utilitarianism- others will suffer for your gain- the same raionale as drug dealers themselves- why are super baddies always painted up as ‘right-wing’- the liberal ones seem to be much more dangerous….
Russell Newcombe
Damian Moody – you sure are, and you can call me a bipolar brat. The trouble with having a moral stick up your backside – and many of us surely do – is that all that really comes out of your mouth is self-love and loathing of the rights of others to make their own choices, in case their actions somehow cost you in some way. Every action has consequences, and if you stay in bed you get bedsores and nightmares probably. I suggest you get high, break out of the moral prison you have created for yourself, and let yourself dissolve into the grace, the bliss, the Quality that few things other than drugs can provide in this dirty nasty world. over and out of it
Russell Newcombe
“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” John Stuart Mill, “On Liberty”, 1859.
Chris
Cherry picking John Stuart Mill is surely just a little silly in 2012 Russell? Have you read it or have you just picked that up from pro drug use sites? You do not seem to understand Mill in totality. Let me help you. I suggest you get a copy.
‘… the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others…’
And therein lies the key phrase. Harm to others. For the driving force in the thinking of a drug aficionado/apologist/user, is that the individual is sovereign, and the only harm that is significant is harm to that individual – harm to others can be dismissed as of secondary importance to the user.
Mill rejects this, taking direct issue with those who abuse substances and making it clear that, because of the harm caused to others by this individual action, such abuse should be repressed by law.
This was particularly far-sighted, given that he wrote it in l859, when drug availability was low and its abuse was virtually non-existent in western nations (Though later in Vitctorian times drug use did become a big problem)..
In the context of morality, law and punishment, Mill says:
‘Whenever, in short there is definite damage, or definite risk of damage, either to an individual or to the public, the case is taken out of the province of Liberty and placed in that of morality or law’.
Punishment is seen to be right ?
‘….for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others …the individual is accountable [to society] and may be subjected either to social or legal punishment if society is of the opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection.’
A.Bacon
With respect , several of these Easy Rider comments appear to be stuck in the 1970′s. The party is over, the lights are out, the budget cut bailiffs are at the door ?
The moral high ground potentially belongs to the silent majority forced to pay the financial price for cannabis-related issues ( including grown adults sufficiently demotivated by regular cannabis use becoming semi-permanent burdens on the state ) and where free-form drug culture encourages the breaking of sensible laws held in place to protect the most vulnerable in society ; in particular children, and the elderly ; the latter now afraid to go out at night for fear of encountering the former, doped out of their tiny Lord of the Flies minds ..
Cannabis is widely understood to be deeply relaxing, causing a mental and physical state which presumably might be argued to have an addictive quality in and of itself ;
( until recently, did not our medical establishment consider cocaine non-addictive ? )
a psychological condition which might contest Mr Lilley’s potentially misguided notion:
“.. rarely addictive or lethal “.
If this opinion was submitted based on scientific evidence, please may we know who his fact dealer is ? Upon which data ( DNA / demographic / age / socioeconomic profile ), and to what time-scale were these arguably tunnel-visioned trials conducted ?
Where scientists are as yet unable to provoke laboratory rats into simulated driving
on the public highway ‘without due care and attention’, the effects of anyone driving while under the influence of drugs – i.e doped – are self-explanatory. Lethal even .
Statistics suggest in extreme circumstances ( inappropriate parenting / peer-group
pressure / latchkey loneliness etc.,.) some unfortunate children lured into not just experimenting with cannabis , but inhaling on a regular basis, fail to reach their full potential as adults ( however much money spent on their education ), eventually relying instead on the highly lucrative benefits industry ; in effect, a new form of slavery
where taxpayers work to keep the idle poor .
Social mobility ? Downhill all the way into a dependency culture which they, and their children if , as often the way , caught in the cycle, cannot live without. Addicted even.
Would a change in the law help children ? Thus far, criminality would not appear to have been a factor , other than to limit exposure to the drug . Were it to be legalised
would more children have their potential compromised , taxpayers footing the bill ?
Ian Duncan-Smith’s thankfully here today, here tomorrow, stalwart attempts to
challenge the destructive status quo deserve much applause . Perhaps
Prospect might ask I D-S to contribute some legal thoughts from the coal-front ?
Astonished
This has to be a spoof comment. Or a really sad case trolling on this comment pages.
Russell Newcombe
Hey AB, sounds cosy living in your own reality-bubble – do you get one for voting Tory? You talk of others’ lack of evidence while offering none yourself. I can’t even be bothered pointing you to all the right references, because you have so clearly made your mind up. Must be great to feel right all the time – but just for free: check out the UN World Drug Report, the Alternative World Drug Report, the recent IDPC reports, Transform’s report (eg Blueprint for Regulation), the IDMU website et cetera, on and on.. Pleasant dreams.
Chris
How many of those were financed by the George Soros legalize all drugs finance machine Rusell?
IDPC & Transform seem (at least partially) to be.
I have made a bit of study and it looks very much to me that if Soros withdrew his massive funding there would not be much of a worldwide drug legalization campaign.
Why does he do it? How is the human race better off with more drugs addiction?
A.Bacon
Ref. Chris
You make another excellent point . Always interesting to see who pays the piper ,
outside democratically elected governments with a mandate from the electorate
of the country who voted them into power .
George Soros might do better by making a donation to mental health charities such as The Samaritans , MIND etc and funding NGOs / MSF support overseas growers to produce useful Soya crops instead of mind-bending narcotics ?
Your previous point , related to mental-health decay , was too sadly illustrated by
Ryan Patterson’s earlier comment regarding the suicide of a family member .
The rose-tinted-specs effects of cannabis may deter users from fully understanding their need to seek urgent help in times of crisis to prevent such tragic events – as well as any friends and family from noticing the fatal depths of their inner distress ?
Ideally, fragile teenagers need a safe haven at home to act as a buffer from any adversity the world presents during this crucial learning period where they have
not yet developed the emotional or intellectual capacity to cope with anxiety
It could be that cannabis dulls the users apprehension of danger , and regular doses may retard development , the user subsequently held in a ‘confused’ teenage mind set limbo , possibly ‘addicted’ to getting high to obtain an altered state , rather than achieving contentment and natural gratitude for life that comes with growing up
If none have already written, it would also be interesting to read any theologian or headmasters or head mistresses point de vue on this subject
Russell Newcombe
Everybody has to get its funding somewhere – I guess you would tell me that funding off bankers or governments is less ‘corrupt’ somehow than funding from an independent rich guy. Anyway, if you do deeper research, you will find funding for the drug policy reform movement comes from many sources (even the UN): call us Legion, for we are many. And how is the human race better off without drug use (don’t believe in addiction)? This world is a shit-hole with drugs banned, it could only get better with them legally regulated. The evidence is overwhelming: only the willingly blind or corrupt could ignore it
Chris
Everybody has to its funding from somewhere (sic).
Interesting. I have done more checking. Soros appears to have thrown millions of dollars into legalization, the more digging one does the more he seems to have spent. Why?
You have not addressed my question, I want to understand your position.
How would humanity be better off with more drug use, more drugs related harm, more addiction, more drug damaged (in utero) babies.
You want to change things, you and those like you, surely need to make your case? Is it so weak that you cannot spell it out?
At the moment I see no intellectual coherence in what you have to say.
Even Professor Nutt does not seem to agree with you. I found this:
“Addiction is driven by a complex set of internal and external factors. The external factors are well understood: the more access to the desired drug or behaviour e.g. gambling, the more addiction there is”.
(Professor David Nutt-Blogging on 28th February 2011)
Astonished
The funding issue extends to areas other than who is financing the studies sited.
A major cost to society is that of law-enforcement and imprisonment of those who have broken the existing laws prohibiting possession, consumption and distribution.
In the USA these costs were stated by President Obama in the “NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY Report of 2012″, where he stated that “Illicit drug use in America contributed to an estimated $193 billion in crime, health, and lost productivity costs in 2007, the year for which the most recent estimate is available”.
Clearly this is a cost that, in these economically challenged times, is unaffordable, but this cost is also clearly showing that the existing policy is simply not working.
Time for a re-think and adopting a different approach??
Russell Newcombe
Medical/disease models of drug use are just that: models. They are not facts. Mill’s philosophy, like all philosophies, has its good and bad points, and he was writing at a time when synthetic drugs had just started off, so his views are limited by historical socio-cultural context (like Freud, Darwin and Marx). You can twist Mill’s words to fit any argument if you are selective, as two of us just did – thanks for playing the game. Yeah you have to get your funding from somewhere – personally I would rather be funded by individual millionaires and even gangsters (and I’ve had funding from both) than government bodies – the corrupt representatives of ‘democracy’, which is only worth two cheers (while no other political system is worth more than one). Science is a tool which we can use for liberation, not a cage to lock ourselves in, and lock other people out. Try being multi-dimensional. I believe in science and magic – they are both knowledge systems generated by the almost ineffable ‘thing’ called Quality. Its not something you think, its something you feel. My consciousness is not generated by my brain, even though I accept that many people think that’s where it comes from. Guess we will have to agree to disagree – just like we do with all the various gods. Over and out of it.
Chris
Russell, I was not playing the game, I was showing up the intellectual shallowness of your position. I was not breaking sweat to do it either. You need to educate yourself rather more. To think you were critical of others for not knowing much about drugs.
You have not engaged with my questions, you have not justified your position.
You just look very foolish.
Russell Newcombe
AB, you already coming across like a headmaster, so I don’t think we need one. Maybe you can get me suspended or expelled for breaking the rules of the medical/disease school of thought. Using cannabis and loving it: wonder who else might benefit from some?
Russell Newcombe
Several arrested handcuffed men are inside a police van; East coast of USA 1923:
Sleazy guy: “I’m in the hooch business – a wholesaler – they have me with quite a haul … almost five cases … I got a still in my basement”.
Nookie: “Is it worth it? I mean there’s got to be easier ways to make a buck”.
Sleazy guy: “If there are, I haven’t found any”.
. . .
In courtroom, USA 1923:
Prosecutor (Miss Randolph): “Mr Thompson enjoys the dubious distinction of being the premier bootlegger in Atlantic City, New Jersey … multiple violations of the Volstead Act. We request a fine of $2,000 and a sentence of one year in a federal penitentiary”.
Nookie Thompson: “Jesus Christ!”
Defender: “Your honour, my client is being charged with possessing one pint of liquor.”
Judge: “$5 dollars … Miss Randolph, I sympathise with your desire to bring purpose to your life. However, this courtroom is not the place to do it. Next!”
Boardwalk Empire S03E06
seems like Americans just don’t know how to learn the lessons of history.
Russell Newcombe
BTW guys: you don’t have to answer a question if you don’t want to – for instance, because you think it is pointless, simplistic, twisted or puerile etc.. So feel free to ignore any of my questions, I am not easily offended – you can ignore the answers too should you wish, as many do because they conflict with cherished belief systems . I am both foolish and wise: I know my Fool. I sense that some people on here think they are wise only, and are confined to one belief system only. They do not know their Fool, and so transform into the archetypal Fool. For instance, I believe in both science and magic – different but equally useful information systems for changing the world. If you can’t handle the cognitive dissonance, keep out of the metaphysical kitchen. When drugs are legally regulated (and I strongly predict that they will be), the world will become a better place – not just because crime and disease will be under more effective control, but because the use of psychedelics, in particular, will expand the consciousness of many humans beyond its present typically ratcheted stasis.
Chris
“When drugs are legally regulated (and I strongly predict that they will be)”.
But Russell dear chap this is weasel words, illegal drugs ARE regulated and it is not altogther succesful. Even then, most of the population do not use them and of those that experiment in youth, most give up when they grow up.
I equally confidently predict there will be hardly any change is policy whatsoever, as long as people like you cannot defend your position or argue your case.
If this display here is typical of you, your confidence in change is misplaced.
Politicians will not do what you want unless you are are able to explain why they should.
30 years wasted?
Russell Newcombe
Chris, I am not sure which country you live in, but I guess it must be one which I haven’t heard of – because most of the psychoactive drugs worth taking are not legally regulated, they are prohibited, with governments abdicating responsibility for supply and linked activities to gangsters (unless you can get a doctor to prescribe some of them for a specified medical condition, eg. painkillers). Most of the population use legal-licensed drugs like caffeine and alcohol, because they don’t want to break the law and/or don’t have access to banned drugs. People like me will always defend our corner, because we are part of a large range of international and national organisations which are campaigning for the legal regulation of drugs. My confidence in change is well-placed, and its happening as we speak. You need to keep up with the literature – I am paid to, but do it in my free time too. I explain myself all the time to politicians and other professionals, and they return their responses to me. Where do you get all these odd ideas about me, you don’t know me or my activities at all (patently!), and I don’t know you. Chill out Chris, you seem unhappy. Hugs & kisses from a drug-lover: mmmwwwaaaa!
Chris
Russell
Most drugs of abuse are regulated not prohibited. In the UK by the Misuse of Drugs Act (as amended) and by the Medicines Acts. Heroin, Cocaine, Methadone (which causes an astonishing number of deaths), Benzos, etc. Even extracts of cannabis are legal in some circumstances eg Sativex and substances like Marinol/Drobinol.
For someone who claimed what seemed like omnipotence on drugs and who chided others for lack of knowledge, you seem profoundly ignorant. I am astonished you sound off about the subject. Your 30 years have been wasted. Your cock=eyed view of the world, influenced no doubt by your personal use. You would think more clearly if you stayed off it.
I have checked out what Soros proposes, it is the legalization of anything and everything that humans might possibly conceive of to be used “recreationally”.
How would such a proposal improve the human condition? You need to answer that to get your way.
Inevitably it would lead to more personal and social harm and not just harm to the user either, all those around the user/addict suffer, the unborn can suffer, workmates suffer, the public purse suffers, the common wheal suffers That is why your misplaced quoting of Mill was so silly.
Your position has crumbled.
Astonished
This is a very judgmental comment. My personal view is that none of us are capable of deciding whether another person’s day/week/month or even, as you suggest, the period of 30 years, have been wasted.
How are we to even fairly judge our own lives let alone that of another? What is the measure? Personal growth and inner peace and contentment are in the final examination not for any other person to assess, let alone make a conclusion from their contribution via the comments column of a respected magazine.
The judgement of others is a tremendous restraint on society’s advance towards harmony, as each of our judgements is only via the prism of the values of our upbringing and education. And who is to decide which of those values are positive and which are negative?
A.Bacon
The Telegraph published an impressive piece by Ian Duncan-Smith today. Here is an informal case study in how the law can nurture social mobility. A working class man
( say, long-distance lorry driver, son of an unskilled labourer, born into tied
accommodation ), with a wife who works part-time ( say, domestic servant ) and enjoys cherishing the two children they had, which they felt they could afford.
Motivated by an innate desire to do the best for their family, when the fortunate opportunity arises ( employment / income / saved deposit / references support their mortgage application ) they buy a home. Their children ( both male ) attend
local state primary school ; neither are academically inclined, but both have
an intelligent work-ethic, inherited from their parents
However, at secondary school, there are rumours of pro-cannabis parents ( who, perhaps, have not had to work so hard for the home comforts they enjoy ) readily gambling with their children’s potential by allowing them to indulge in the demotivating drug . Our couple are concerned. The well-travelled lorry driver has witnessed how cannabis can devastate working class communities ( to quote guitarist Ronnie Wood ; ‘ the middle class experiment with drugs – the working classes get stuck in ‘ ) but cannot afford to remove his children from the school without selling the family home ( say, sited near his age-disabled parents , for
whom the couple are also ‘registered carers’ )
How does the man avoid his children’s future falling foul of the cancerous spread of drug culture amid naturally inquisitive schoolchildren ? Distracted elsewhere, the Headmaster appears to be ignoring the issue
The Law. Our man quietly informs his sons that if he scents a hint of cannabis – even
on their clothes – even if they don’t actually smoke it themselves – he will march them
straight down to the local police station. He doesn’t mind if they are his own sons ( as their plaintiff cries suggest ) this will, without doubt, be what happens. The sons, who instinctively know their father loves and respects them, also know , given the continuity of his parenting to date , that if they disobey, he would be unlikely to change his mind.
The illegal status of the drug supports a loving father trying to protect his family unit,
without resorting to violence ( which anyway might have the reverse effect ), and by example, further enable social mobility within two generations
Deterred by the shame of a potential criminal record , and anyway eager to please their demonstrably loving parents, the sons successfully avoid the cannabis trap, and as adults start up their own businesses as local craftsmen , contributing to the
local community in which they have grown up. Both marry, their wives also work part-time in between cherishing their children ; both have bought homes of their own, their children also do well at school ; this second generation will likely study at degree level
The grandparents – our couple – have paid off their mortgage , are in robust health , and lead relatively stress-free, contented , lives in retirement, spending much
of their leisure time with their mutually adoring family. Rejoice
Derek WIlliams
The interesting thing here is the concern for young kids smoking cannabis. The reason this is interesting because protecting children was not why the prohibition law was introduced; preventing the use of drugs by children was never supposed to be the purpose of the prohibition law, it was supposed to prevent adults from doing so. Before prohibition there was no problem with kids using cannabis, even in culture where that use was endemic, it has come about since the misuse of drugs act has come along, indeed it has come about largely because of the misuse of drugs act.
Indeed, isn’t it interesting how many kids use cannabis these day, some 40 years after the act was introduced – up from near zero to perhaps over 50% in some areas? Locked at that way just another example of how the law has been a total and utter failure, underage use being what prohibition supporters chillingly call an ”unintended consequence” – oh sorry, didn’t mean that to happen.
Considering it’s supposed to be a “controlled” drug, it is very easy for kids to get hold of, but then we know why that is, because we should have learned from experience it was going to happen. Did you know that one of the slogans used to end alcohol prohibition in the USA was “protect the children”? The reason for that was the same as the problem we have now with cannabis; prohibition spread drug use to young kids. Ending the prohibition of alcohol massively reduced the problem, as it would for cannabis.
The only proof of age a dealer needs is a £20 note – perhaps even a £10 note. As it’s all an underground supply industry the dealer can’t lose his licence to trade and unless he gets caught – which most don’t – we don’t even know where he is.
The story you quote was a theoretical one – the way things are supposed to go, let me tell you it doesn’t work like that. I know it doesn’t, because it didn’t.
I’m now in my late 50′s, but back in the 1970′s I had been brought up to be anti-drugs, I was aware of the laws, the danger of getting caught, parental disapproval and all the rest. What happened when I was presented with the temptation? Curiosity got the better of me, as it does with many young people now. The law taught me to be devious, to avoid getting caught, it did nothing to prevent me dabbling and it did much to put me at great risk.
The idea that the law is a deterrent is a myth. Oh it might be for some, but for a great many it is not. It’s a one-trick pony – if the deterrent effect fails, there is nothing left to offer protection for the vulnerable person beyond punishment. The prohibition law threatens punishment on the people it claims to be protecting and expects the target people to understand that twisted logic. You may see a value in it, but I know it’s delusional because it failed with me and it failed with most of my friends and continues to fail with many, many young people today.
Prohibition is a vile regime, utterly unworkable in practice and devoid of logic. There is no justification for it. If drugs are dangerous they should be controlled, which means the trade should be properly regulated. The only way to do that is through a legal regime for sales, which means an end to prohibition.
Drug law reform isn’t “liberalisation”, it’s restoring order from the anarchy we see today, it’s an end to the delusional belief in something unworkable.
Chris
Derek, the simple reason children use cannabis and tobacco and alcohol (remember smoking behind the school bike sheds do you?) is because adults use these things, creating what kids perceive as an attractive “adult” behaviour Use is cultural. Your use encourages use by others. More use by adults encourages use by kids.
It has nothing much to do with illegality.
Drugs use being illegal does enable avoidance of use by most people, Your proposals would normalize drug taking. Because we have two enormously harmful substances normalized in the UK, is no reason for normalization of more substances. That way lies disaster.
You need to get over it but no UK government will legalize sales of cannabis because you and people like you cannot demonstrate the public good that would come from that.
You might consider how little harm there is from alcohol in countries where for cultural (religious) reasons it has little use, yet is produced, e.g Morocco.
Derek WIlliams
Hi Chris
OK, I accept that to some extent kids will seek to imitate adults in their drug use and a degree of “smoking behind the bike sheds” is always going to happen. However, what has happened with cannabis use is something very different.
When I was a teenager in the early 70′s there were no adult cannabis users, indeed it was something which adults generally frowned upon. Back then it was very much a part of the “alternative culture”. Mind, we were older teenagers, it wasn’t a kids thing then back then. We knew as kids that if we drank or smoked and got caught we would be in trouble with adults – not police, not the law, it was the pressure of trouble from the established social norms that regulated the use of these drugs by kids.
The cannabis culture exploded in the 1970′s and 80’s almost under the radar. Because it was illegal it had no places to take place in, so it happened behind closed doors. Thing is it happened, not as young people imitating adults, but entirely under its own steam.
Forty years later we are now two generations into this underground culture change. The secret use has carried on much as before under the belief amongst people not involved that the law was deterring young people, whilst all the time use grew and the age of first use got younger and younger and the established users got older. Cannabis use is now firmly embedded in UK culture, a minority pastime maybe, but a significant minority none the less.
What I find really sad about all this is the experiences I and my cohort had have not been passed down to the next generation. We haven’t been allowed to lean, as a culture, about cannabis use, being open about it has been repressed so social norms have not been allowed to develop. What we have now is way, way more than smoking behind the bike sheds as a result.
Two things I would say you’re not taking into consideration with your simple claim that normalisation leads to increased use:
1: A legal regime of supply does not imply a commercially exploitable supply. There is no need to allow advertising, branding or any other form of commercial promotion. Back in the 70′s I was subjected to much alcohol and tobacco advertising which constantly told me it was a desirable thing to be doing. We can stop all of that and still have beer and stuff for those who want it, same goes for cannabis.
2: And probably most important, not all use is abuse, not all use is harmful., some I would argue is a positive thing. Most of us enjoy a drink without harm and most of us don’t abuse alcohol. The same goes for cannabis. Some forms of use are harmful, some do need to be the focus of effort, but responsible social use is possible and is the norm. Even now, under the harm maximisation regime of prohibition, the vast, vast majority of cannabis users do not suffer any harm and much of the harm that does occur is easily avoidable by proper control of the trade.
One other point, there is no correlation between the level of enforcement / severity of the prohibition and levels of use as you seem tot think. A higher proportion of kids in the USA use cannabis than they do in Holland for example – and that was true before the recent changes..
Prohibition might reduce the level of use through deterrence, but when it fails it fails totally and in failing it creates a range of problems which in and of themselves are serious issues for society. I would argue that prohibition was a well-intentioned failure, but a failure of massive proportions.
Chris
Derek
The extent of use of all drugs is deeply cultural. social stigma is part of containing normalization. In the Netherlands cannabis user is lower because of social stigma and stronger family/religious influences. Anti Cannabis messages are stronger, users are more often perceived (as I perceive them) as losers (just like I perceive alcoholics) stigma is important in controlling and limiting anti social behaviour in human society..
I may duck out of this conversation shortly. An interesting education for me. Having checked out the UK cannabis legalization movement, it seems to have been taken over by a very odd character called Peter Reynolds. Do some digging about him. Even the legalize cannabis movement seems to mostly detest him, he is standing in Corby.
How he can help achieve your objective is beyond me.
Derek WIlliams
Chris. yes, you’re right, drug use (as opposed to abuse) is deeply cultural and UK culture has changed somewhat in the past 30 – 40 years for many reasons. Cannabis use is now a firmly established part of our culture for good or bad, it isn’t going to go away. So seems to me we have no alternative but to learn how to live with it because that’s the only real option.
In fact you seem to accept my point that what you call “social stigma” and I call “social norms” are a greater limiting factor to drug use than the law is, so why can’t you agree that is the way to go? Probably where we differ is that cultural norms can’t be imposed by governments, they have to grow through experience and you don’t seem to like that idea.
I’m interested that you say you have “checked out” the UK cannabis law reform movement. I’d be interested to know what you consider that to be exactly and who is representative of it. You seem to have very rigid and inflexible views on the subject, so I suppose you saw what you expected to see when you looked. In fact the strongest argument for cannabis law reform is a law and order argument, coupled with harm reduction and child protection.
What I would say though is please accept my experience as being real – because it is. You think prohibition deters use, I can tell you with utter certainty that it does not do so in a very large number of cases and when it fails, it fails totally and catastrophically. My real life experience trumps your belief I’m afraid.
Russell Newcombe
Derek: precisely. First I read your comments, listened to your words, and contemplated them. Unfortunately, most people in the ‘addictions field’ care more about their own personal lives than the lives of the people they are paid to help, whatever blather they pump out to justify their wealth. So your insightful comments will mainly fall on deaf ears and blind eyes: “see no evil, hear no evil, talk no evil”. We evolve, but we are still surrounded by monkeys.
Derek WIlliams
Hi Russell
As I’ve more or less said the current drugs regime is built on a lie – the false claim that prohibition is in some way drug control. The term “controlled drugs” is a bit like the old (I think) Python joke: “24 hour rapid cleaners? That’s just the name of the shop luv, it’ll be ready next week”. Sure, there’s a lot of people making a living from the prohibition industry – it’s not just the drugs advice people, there’s the private prison and “security” firms, drug testing companies and of course the whole public surveillance industry.
The thing to always remember about this fiasco of a drugs policy is that much as politicians might like it to, reality isn’t going to go away. Prohibition is a hugely expensive millstone which depends on ever greater repression and ever greater expenditure. Eventually something will have to give, it’s only really a matter of time.
Prohibition is not drug control and prohibited drugs are not controlled drugs. Simples.
Chris
I appreciate your engagment Derek..
I do think you only look at matters from the user point of view. The use of illegal drugs iS limited but embedded, I agree it wll never go away. That does not mean society has to compromise any more than it already has.
Legalisation has the ability to reduce the harm from an individual episode of drug taking, (known quantity, known quality, known strength) but that inevitably would come at the cost of more use as societal norms changed.
Even now many people experiment with drugs then give up as personal responsibilities take over and they grow up.
So legalisation would affect the culture around use and all these things are harmful in varying degrees, to everyone. Just like tobacco & alcohol in fact. For many people all thse things are extremely damaging.
The current regime has costs yes, but there are wide social and personal costs from more use. Your option is not risk or cost free and in the end, the public health of most people should not be dominated by a cost issue.
If you want to use , use, but please do not proselytyse. WHY DO THAT WHEN YOU KNOW SOME PEOPLE INCENTIVISED TO USE, WILL SUFFER?
Derek WIlliams
Chris, you agree that cannabis is embedded in our society, that is a reality we have to accept and deal with. You say it’s limited, maybe, but it’s at such a level now it really is “normal”, it isn’t an insignificant number. Did you realise there are more cannabis users than regular Christian church goers for example? The government claims there are 2 million regular cannabis users whilst the CofE estimates 1.7 million regular church goers. The 2 million figure is generally regarded as something of an underestimate as well.
So yes, it is normalised. The cannabis supply industry is massive and very profitable and all that profit goes to organised crime. Not one penny goes to hospitals, schools or anything good.
Sure, I agree if there were no users this would not be happening, but there are. That is the reality and we must deal with life as it is, not as we might like it to be.
We live in a society driven by the laws of supply and demand. If I were allowed to organise things I wouldn’t allow capitalism to run it, but I’m not and it does. The law of supply and demand will always function, you can’t stop it and yet that is precisely what prohibition tries to do. Clamp down on supplies and all you do is increase the profit to be made. The result is a worldwide war that’s been running for 40 years and hundreds of thousands if not millions have died in its name, indeed whole countries are now “narco states”, legitimate governments overrun by corruption. The problems caused by prohibition are not small, not a minor inconvenience.
I agree drug use is probably best not to be encouraged, but as it is going to happen then it should happen as safely as possible – and that means as safely as possible for the user and everyone else in society. Good, decent people – like me frankly – who are tempted to use what is to be honest a very enjoyable substance need to be made aware of the dangers and held to account for behaving badly under the influence, but beyond that I’m afraid we demand the right to make our own mistakes in life. Thanks for your concern about my wellbeing, but my life is my own.
For the record cannabis never hurt me at all, I used for a great many years, eventually deciding it had run its course almost 10 years ago when I hit 50. Was it actually good for me? Of course I can’t say that but it did lead me to some good times, interesting people and a wonderful musical culture you seem to have missed out on.
Another big problem with prohibition is that it prevents any real solid science. Science depends absolutely on the ability to measure things, if you can’t measure it. you can’t do science on it. Because it’s illegal the cannabis using culture can’t be measured directly and all estimates of the levels of use are really little more than best guesses. So when prohibition claims to produce the lowest level of use I ask how do they know that? Fact is they don’t. I would argue the lowest level of harm – which is the real measurement we need to focus on – would occur when those who want it can get it, but where there is no promotion or marketing. Thing is under a legal regime we would know everything about the scene, who uses, what they use, how often, where they get it from, the works. Knowledge has to be better than ignorance.
Russell Newcombe
Astonished: Chris is judgmental, he likes to insult people more than debate with them, that much is fairly obvious by now, and I will not engage in intelligent debate with someone who prefers to close down constructive debate by repeatedly resorting to insulting people he hardly knows. Lets hope he can find his mojo, because from here, he feels, sort of, alone. Love & peace Chris.
Chris
I am “judgmental”!
Now who was it who wrote this:
“Maybe people who don’t know very much about drugs, like Hitchens and Lilley, should just talk about something else. Money. Football. Dinner Parties. Stuff like that. Leave the serious drugs talk to the experts guys, because you are both just embarrassing yourselves. Get a life, or join the club”.
Judgemental was that by any chance Russell?
Hitchens has done an enormous amount of research on the history of the war on drugs policy and has just publisheda book. He is courteous to a fault, he engages with his opponents, he answers questions, he makes his case.
Peter Lilley, while not as versed also engages and years ago wrote a considered booklet about cannabis.
I do not have to agree with either to apprecaite the effort they have put in but the contrast with you is susbstantial. you do not engage with the questions.
I suspect it is because you cannot. You lack the arguments, you lack the intellect.
You brag about 30 years of work but your case is pathetic, it is weak it is trivial. If you cannot engage with worthy opponents here, you would do more for your case by doing nothing. You sound ridiculous. Leave the arguments to those who have capability.
Russell Newcombe
I rest my case (see previous comment) – here only.
A.Bacon
I do hope Chris is able to duck back in again . This commentator would have left pages ago, were it not for his patience, and thoughtful, intelligent contributions .
The story recorded earlier is in fact true ( albeit, the subsequent closure of many
local police stations, and mixed messages from previous governments to go softly on cannabis abuse means this may not be easily replicated today ) but this does not detract from the idea that it reflects the aspirations if not always the lifestyles ( regular employment not always an option )of the silent majority. Incredibly hard-working folk, infused with common sense , too time-pressed by their immediate professional and familial responsibilities to engage in politics, other than shake their heads in wonder
If cannabis were legalised in Britain, the next forbidden fruit would be even more
destructive choices ( cocaine / morphine ). If all drugs were legalised, the welfare
bill to support the fallout would bankrupt the country. Just because the monster is
out of his cave does not mean we should invite him into our drawing rooms for tea.
British cannabis culture took root among the flower pot children , tolerated by liberal parents usually still shell-shocked by Britain at war ( whom, as a survival tactic to protect themselves often learned to attenuate the sounds of their own distress , thereby compromising their ability to read others ). This culture was fanned by trendy musicians both here and abroad appropriating the black man’s burden from jazz and blues singers ( whom, at the time – unlike the trendy musicians – had a great deal
to feel blue about ; today, thanks to the explosion of drug-culture decimating whole
communities , they still have great deal to feel blue about )
To suggest that what suits another country , say, America , would suit Great Britain
is ludicrous . The special relationship apart , we are different people with different values. Apologists who argue that drugs-trade related violent crime would recede if cannabis were legalised need perhaps to examine their own consciences. Had they not persistently indulged their selfish desire for illegal drugs , the criminals would not have gained such momentum in the first place. We should lead by example, not subjugation, and emphatically not by a group of trendies who think they know best .
Derek WIlliams
A bacon – that story may have been true, but it isn’t THE truth. As I said to Chis a similar backgorund didn’t prevent me from using cannabis, I just kept it a secret and didn’t tell those who I knew wouldn’t approve. Please understand my story is not unusual. By the sound of it I also date fromt he same time frame as that story BTW,
As I said to Chris I know how it played for me and many other people I know and because of that, I can say with absolute certainty that it doesn’t work reliably enough to built a policy around and the cost of it failing is huge.
Chris
Derek
“Thing is under a legal regime we would know everything about the scene, who uses, what they use, how often, where they get it from, the works. Knowledge has to be better than ignorance.”
Would we indeed, now how do you make that out, do you believe the criminal suppliers would just stop? Why on earth would they? There is so much price elasticity with drugs and criminal supply would/could, always undercut legal supply.
If you have stopped using I just do not see why you find it necessary to campaign.
I am afraid you just keep on with “user arguments” you do not see the whole picture.
Derek WIlliams
Chris
Legal markets can be measured by any number of standard sampling methods, companies do it all the time. If it weren’t for prohibition we would be able to measure the cannabis market just like any other and yes, we would know everything about it.
Don’t be so sure about the illegal supply hanging on, why would it if the profits isn’t there? It really is a brutal profit driven thing, if the money goes, so does the criminal involvement. Yes, it does depend on how much tax is applied for legal supplies, but for most people the option of being able to buy a known product with the protection of consumer law is worth a premium.
I have stopped using and I do still see the need to argue for law reform because I’ve seen the harm prohibition causes, I’ve seen people hurt by it.
I’ve never abused drugs, never done heroin for example, but I’m not exactly inexperienced in the darker side of the drug trade, I’ve seen more than enough of it. You should know I’ve lost several close freinds to heroin over the years. I saw how they got there as well and prohibition did absolutely nothing to prevent it happening and much to make it possible. When people get into hard core drug abuse the legal status of the drug is totally meaningless. Hells teeth once you’ve seen junkies stabbing themselves with a blunt needle you realise the law isn’t going to deter them.
Please Chris, don’t hang on to the idea that deterrence works, it really honestly doesn’t.
I have known a lot of people who grew to hate cannabis because of the effects it had on them and I’ve know people whose lives have been wrecked by cannabis prohibition, but I have never seen anyone badly hurt by using it. Yes I’ve heard the psychosis stories, but there has always been mental illness and it’s always affects the same age range in the same way and to much the same degree as it does these days.
I’m afraid I am talking from real, solid and direct experience over a long time period, I am reasonably well informed, honest.