Since 1973, the imprisonment of those only in possession of cannabis has been at what can only be considered a record low. Sourced from the cannabis plant, the drug more commonly known as dope, weed, grass, marijuana is the most commonly consumed illegal substance worldwide. Both Uruguay and Washington D.C (in the United States) are the most recent places to legalise cannabis consumption and with this growing list of countries to decriminalise and legalise the substance the Economist Online opened up a debate asking whether legalising the substance could be beneficial for the world.
Salford University (in Manchester) was one of many institutions that chose to approach the ever controversial topic of legalising cannabis. The debate society at Salford university welcomed Peter Reynolds and Peter Hitchens to discuss and communicate their views of the benefits and costs of legalising cannabis in the UK.
Peter Reynolds the leader of CLEAR, a cannabis law reform group defended his belief that cannabis is a drug that has been experimented with by 30% of the world’s adult population, a substance of which he believes to be ‘one of God’s greatest gifts.’
Reynolds argued that with the black market for cannabis currently with an annual net worth of £12 billion, the legalisation of such a highly demanded substance could boost the British economy to such an extent. Whilst regulating it would give the more vulnerable members of society (children etc) protection from the drug, with age limits for purchase and other rules to prevent potential health risks.
However, with hallucinations, nausea and anxiety being some of the potential side effects of smoking cannabis, Peter Hitchens, a writer for the Mail on Sunday argues against the legalisation of cannabis stating that the laws set by the British government are made on the foundation of Protestant Christian beliefs, rather than money making, of which would give the possibility of social dehumanisation.
The Economist online took to debating the benefits of legalising cannabis ‘everywhere.’ Ethan Nadelmann, the founder of ‘Drug Policy Alliance.’ Explained his case for legalising cannabis internationally- “Marijuana prohibition is unique among criminal laws. No other law is enforced so widely.”
Nadelmann admits that although there are health risks with the consumption of cannabis, it is the least addictive and least damaging (long term) of psychoactive drugs.
Hitchens strongly disagrees with the casual attitude of the risks of consuming cannabis, using psychologist reports to sustain the legal belief that cannabis should not be a legal substance available on the market within the UK. Those who consume the drug since the age of fifteen and under are four times more likely to develop psychosis by the age of twenty-six.
But can it not be suggested that long term disorders are scientifically proven to be a consequence of legal drug consumption (i.e. liver disease for excessive alcoholism and lung cancer for smokers.) Reynolds explained in the defence of the CLEAR movement that the lack of the additional health costs for legalising cannabis can be proven as only 750 accident and emergency admission were recorded during 2013 due to smoking cannabis.
But could the minimized health risk truly prevent the more vulnerable in society? As Hitchens reminds the debate society and pro-cannabis campaigners that although there are age restrictions on both tobacco and alcohol this has never been something that has restricted under-aged people to consume the legal drugs. Additionally, legalising a drug still does not prevent smuggling from other countries where the drug is widely accessible for under persons and at a more competitive price.
Neil McKeganey, director of the centre for misuse research argued against Nadelmann on The Economist online stating that not only are there medical complications when legalising such a widely controversial drug but also economic ones.
McKeganey says “The advocates of legislation often cite the tax gains that they confidently announce would flow from such a shift in policy. Taxing cannabis, though, is a tricky business: charge too much tax and the buyers may revert to securing their cannabis from the pre-existing black market; charge too little and the price at which the drug is being sold goes down, the tax revenue reduces, and the number of people buying the drug and the health harms associated with that use potentially increase.”
What about cannabis for medicinal purposes?
It has been scientifically proven that the cannabis reduce painful symptoms of terminal illnesses such as multiple sclerosis, which allow for people to feel more at ease from day to day.
However, there is a lack of evidence to draw a conclusive judgement to definitely say that cannabis can cure illness. It is important to remember that the classes of drugs indicate that no all drugs can be treated as equally harmful, with heroin and cocaine considered more deadly than cannabis and alcohol considered the most harmful drug in Britain.
Another question we must ask it- Is it not most important than in order to regulate such a significant substance within Britain we must first analyze the international markets allowing for the government to achieve clarity on the most tactful way to possibly legalise the drug. Although the number of countries in the world that permit the sale, cultivation and consumption of cannabis are very much limited the decriminalisation of possessing the substance appears to be a far more popular approach.
Iran permit the cultivation of cannabis, as well as Spain, with North Korea having a lack of data of any law enforcement on the substance it is considered an unregulated and widely tolerated drug. Yet, the most accepting of the drug is yet to come as with April 2014 comes Uruguay's legislation of possession, selling, transportation and cultivation of cannabis.
However, do these facts confirm that cannabis is for the go ahead? The debate will be an ongoing one of which appears to be increasingly favourable for the British population, only time will tell if cannabis will become ok.
Eleanor's Journal:
From personal experience, or lack of, it is hard to take such a defiant stance on a matter that can be considered so critical to some peoples lives, with the increase of the legalisation of the drug it would be only fair to assume that the social acceptance of cannabis is something that deserve attention. However, with the NHS ever struggling with high substance abuse admissions is it fair on the public services budget to permit it a proven harmful drug, making it more accessible to those who are at risk of addiction?
