52% intelligent. 9% modest. More monkey than bear.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

everybody must get stoned



A couple of years ago, the British Government took the decision to downgrade cannabis from being a Class 'B' drug to being a Class 'C' drug.

On the face of it, that was no big deal. It remained illegal to own it, illegal to supply it, and illegal to grow it. Both possession and supply remained criminal offences with a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment for possession and 5 years for supply. The only real difference was the maximum length of sentence, and the fact that the police would no longer have power of arrest for possession (although they retained it for supply and trafficking).

The change in the law caused all the usual fuss, but that soon died down and I forgot all about it. The people that I know who regularly use cannabis continued to use cannabis, and those who didn't use cannabis continued not to use it.

Big deal.

And yet suddenly the issue burst into life again this week when Charles Clarke, the British Home Secretary, announced that he had decided against reversing the decision to downgrade cannabis to a class 'C' drug.

Oh really?

Apparently there had been some serious misgivings as a result of studies that showed that there were strong links between cannabis use and mental illness. One study in New Zealand, suggested that regular cannabis use increased the risk of developing psychotic symptoms later in life. Another, from Maastricht University, suggested that taking the drug "moderately increased" the chance of psychotic symptoms in young people, but added that it had "a much stronger effect in those with evidence of predisposition for psychosis".



So Clarke has decided not to reclassify cannabis, but has instead ordered a wholesale review of the way that drugs are classified. It's a move that has been welcomed by the Liberal Democrats, but loudly condemned by the Conservative party, who have pledged to reverse this decision should we ever be unfortunate enough for them to come back into power.

Blah, blah, blah.

I'm sick of this. I'm sick of all this posturing and all this hand-wringing. The Government only reclassified cannabis as a Class 'C' drug in an attempt to appear 'groovy' and to try and win a few votes. They stopped a long way short of actually decriminalising the drug. Now it looks very much as though they have had their arms twisted by the police and drug and mental health charities into reluctantly leaving things the way they are. The first sign of any opposition to their policy, and the Government couldn't apologise fast enough. They are terrified that they will lose the middle-England votes that would cost them an election. Those ordinary people who believe that cannabis is a "gateway drug" to a world of intravenous heroin use. Well it stands to reason, doesn't it? Most intravenous drugs users also smoke cannabis - ergo cannabis is the first step to a life of addiction. The fact that most intravenous drugs users also eat bread, drink beer and shop at a supermarket seems not to be relevant.

It makes me bloody angry. The battle-lines in this debate are so bloody arbitrary. Cannabis is illegal. Alcohol is legal. Heavy drinking is thought to kill up to 33,000 people in the UK every year. Over 9 million people in the UK drink at levels that put their long-term health in jeopardy. Alcohol is a factor in 30% of sexual offences, 33% of burglaries and 50% of street crimes. 70% of attendances in Accident & Emergency departments between midnight and 5am on weekends are alcohol related.

Do I need to go on? Should I mention smoking?

Alcohol is legal because it has always been legal. Although politicians huff and puff about binge drinking and longer licensing hours, they will never seriously consider banning it.

Cannabis has only been illegal in the UK since 1928. Why is it illegal? What serious grounds are there for cannabis to remain illegal as long as drugs like alcohol and tobacco are openly on sale?

It's not the fact that it's illegal that particularly pisses me off, it's the fact that no politician will ever attempt to change the law as long as they perceive that it will cost them votes. Like so many other things, it's a political football. I'm sick of politicians pretending to care about people and their welfare, when it's apparent that all they actually care about is staying in power. I know that's hardly news, but it's pissing me off.

As Bill Hicks said:

'And on the seventh day, god stepped back and said "There is my creation, perfect in every way... oh, dammit I left pot all over the place. Now they'll think I want them to smoke it... Now I have to create republicans."'

*sigh*

I need to chill the hell out.

Gotta light?


***update***

I've just re-read this post, and I'm a little annoyed at myself for putting up something that patently has nothing new to add to this debate. I was thinking about what I had written as I got ready for bed, and as I was cleaning my teeth, I had this horrible vision of how posts very similar to this one have probably been published on weblogs across the internet for years, and how I wasn't really saying anything much at all. I'm also pretty sure that most people reading this will probably largely agree with me. We're all fairly liberal (note the lack of capitals there), we have a social conscience and we recognise that it is ridiculous that alcohol is legal and cannabis is illegal. So what? Shall we all agree together?

Sorry. I'm not taking this out on you.

The thing is that I've been watching Charles Clarke (now there's a man who looks like he never went to the right kind of parties) on TV all week, and he's really been irritating me with his posturing on this. I realise that this is what politicians do, but for some reason I found the whole stupid circus especially ridiculous this week. It made me think of Bill Clinton smoking but not inhaling, and all the fuss that was made during the Conservative leadership campaign when David Cameron refused to acknowledge or deny that he may (or may not) have tried illegal drugs (gasp!). Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Gah!

Maybe I should have spent the time telling you all about my comical inability to roll a competent jazz cigarette (or indeed any other kind of cigarette).

Maybe I'll tell you about that another day.

Cannabis is supposed to be good for the WT's, by the way.... or so I've heard.

12 Comments:

  • At 10:37 pm, Blogger Ali said…

    >I'm sick of politicians pretending to care about people and their welfare, when it's apparent that all they actually care about is staying in power. I know that's hardly news, but it's pissing me off.

    Me too. Thanks goodness we're all self-medicating so heavily, or some of us might actually get off the couch and do something about it.

     
  • At 10:43 pm, Blogger Mark said…

    they never realise how many votes they would get if they wanted to legalise it. and that smoking dope doesn't equate to being a crack peddler. by the same logic, everyone who owns a "Grand Theft Auto" will be performing driveby shootings in eight months times.

    "doesn't making natural things illegal seem.... unnatural?" - Bill Hicks

     
  • At 11:08 pm, Blogger swisslet said…

    Any suggestions Yoko?

    Surely I've done my democratic duty. I voted and I've written to my MP.

    Surely there can't be anything else I can do?

    I think the real reason the government don't need to legalise cannabis is that they already put all the medication that they need to make us apathetic and docile into our drinking water.

    ST

     
  • At 11:45 pm, Blogger Ali said…

    >they already put all the medication that they need to make us apathetic and docile into our drinking water.

    Hahah - I am sure you're right about that. The lady hormones, you mean?

    ?:)

    As to what more you can do about it - how about running for local election yourself? I'd vote for you.

     
  • At 12:01 am, Blogger swisslet said…

    hmm. three things:

    1) what party should I be attached to? I don't fancy any of the current ones much, should I start my own?

    2) If I do it, do you fancy helping me decide on some policies?

    3) to vote for me, won't you have to live a little bit nearer to me?

    Otherwise, great. Let's do it!

    ST

     
  • At 12:15 am, Blogger Jenni said…

    I've just read your update, and I don't think you need to feel bad for posting just the same thing that people might already be thinking or have already said. The point is just as valid whether it's the first time or the fifty-first time we've heard it.

    And I don't think you should start your own party, unless you can get a slew of other people to run at the same time, or you call yourself a Satanist like the candidate in Minnesota. Otherwise, you just won't get enough media attention to get in office. Then you'll be back where you started, only out campaign expenditures and loads of time, in addition to being pissed off. Better to join one of the existing parties and then branch out once you're an incumbent.

     
  • At 1:01 am, Blogger Ali said…

    >hmm. three things:

    1) I think you'd be best off finding your closest match (think Venn diagram rather than jigsaw puzzle) and stretch to fit.

    You'll be needing a gimmmick. I think there is a profound gap that Screaming Lord Sutch once filled. If perms are to be the new hairstyle of 2006, then I think ZANY! is due for a revival.

    2) Yes, why not? But I am rather infantile, corruptible and power crazy - worth bearing in mind if you plan to rely on consulting with me to any great extent.

    3) I think that could be arranged. Come to Sunny Lambeth!! :)

     
  • At 2:17 pm, Blogger Alecya G said…

    I'd vote for you were I, you know, English. But I'd vote for you all the same.

    You know, i know you feel like you ought to add to the debate, and not jsut whine, but really, you have a right to do that. Of course, it also helps that you are well spoken and not doing the typics "Man, I just wanna have my dope, man...I ain't hurtin' anyone man..." Then I might object.

    I feel much the same way around here - there are so many more things they could be wasting thier time on. [Although, our prosecuting attorney the other day just had a statutory rape case tossed out of criminal court because they were also having a legal battle over the custody of the baby...screwed up, I tell you]

    So what's this about a jazz cigarette? You can't roll one? Hrm.

     
  • At 3:13 pm, Blogger John McClure said…

    I want to see a new show on TV in the middle of the afternoons aimed at the people who are really watching TV at that time. It would be called "Can't Roll, Won't Roll" and feature famous people who can't roll spliffs being shown the finer points of knocking up a Camberwell carrot by dope-addled teenagers from Peckham.

    I agree that there's a double (or even triple) standard at play when you can buy cigarettes and booze freely if you're old enough, and yet not buy dope without risking getting a criminal conviction that would say the same thing on your record as if you'd been caught selling bumps of heroin to toddlers...

    However, the argument put forward by Hicks and many others that the cannabis plant is a natural thing and as such we're free to enjoy it as we like has two enormous holes in it.

    Firstly, it assumes we all take the word of a Christian God as being the definition of what is OK and what isn't - and whether you're a God botherer or a fan of Cypress Hill, you'll know that Genisis 1 v12 says "I have given you all the seed bearing plants on earth to use"

    All manner of things are natural and would do you immeasurable harm were you to ingest them, or dry them out, roll them in paper, set fire to them and inhale the smoke.

    Which leads me to the second problem with that argument. Even if you bypass the first problem and say that OK, you can use anything natural, where is the line? What's natural about making alcohol, or tobacco, or cannabis? The processes are as contrived, harmful and ridiculous (and therefore presumably objectionable) as taking a lump of coal out of the earth and burning it to provide energy.

    Saying that there is no proven medical problem for people's mental health here is ludicrous and clining to the same nonsense argument as smokers who say that the link between smoking and cancer has never been proven to their satisfaction.

    I'm not arguing against the legalisation of dope, or against people who chose to use it - there woud be hypocracy beyond even my standards in doing so - and I couldn't care less what the politicians have to say about it all (unlike you ST, I've long since stopped expecting or hoping for them to do anything better) but I am sick of the sort of sloppy argument put forward by the defenders of the drug.

    It IS harmful.
    It IS a lead on to other drugs (At no point while you're playing GTA does the game ask you if you'd like to try something more exciting, like really nicking a car).
    It IS possible to get addicted to it and dependent on it.

    But so are other things (like booze, like fags) that aren't illegal. So legalise it, regulate it, and for heaven's sake tax it!

     
  • At 9:33 pm, Blogger bytheseashore said…

    It *can be* a lead on to other drugs, but that depends more on the individual than the narcotic. I can't find the Hicks quote but I know he said something about how drugs should be banned for stupid people. For example those who jump out of windows because they think they can fly. I think Hicks' point was that anyone with half an intoxicated brain who thought they could fly would start from the ground and levitate.

    Obviously smoking's harmful but I can testify that cannabis sorts out toothache in minutes. Attempting to lick the gummed strip on a Rizla when you've just come out of the dentist and can't feel your tongue, though...

     
  • At 9:38 pm, Blogger swisslet said…

    If it is a lead on to other drugs, is not at least some small part of that the fact that in order to get it, you are forced (usually) to deal with some lovely people. The kind of people who ALSO sell cocaine, crack, heroin...

    Now, if you could buy it in your cornershop......

    ST

     
  • At 1:48 pm, Blogger Robin said…

    Do you think there's a chance that if everyone got stoned, we might find a comedian other than Bill Hicks funny?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home