DRUGS

The case against cannabis

LORD O'HAGAN

Mr W. H. Brereton's book The Truth about Opium was savagely reviewed in the SPECTA- TOR because it maintained that most people who took it came to no harm apart from discolouring of the teeth. This reviewer was in turn savaged by Sir Charles Strachey who

called on the public 'to abandon the argu- ment based on the presupposed ill effects of the drug.' All this happened in 1882; no one now would agitate to make opium, or its derivative heroin, freely available. Per- haps there is a lesson for us here.

Because there is no totally satisfactory evidence on, for example, the long-term effects of cannabis, there is much room for manoeuvre on both sides of the heated con- troversy that is going on today over canna- bis. Too often, the cry 'more facts are needed' is an excuse for maintaining the status quo; but in the debate over the legis-

lation of cannabis, this cry is right. Until we know what cannabis really involves, it would be rash to change its legal status.

There would be many practical problems resulting from legalisation. For one thing, we would have to repudiate the Single Con- vention and other international agreements, turning the United Kingdom into a refuge for those in the drug business—except in the unlikely event of the world following our example. I suppose the tobacco firms could diversify into pot, but there would have to be efficient machinery to deal with legal imports from countries of which they were

illegal products; cannabis saliva does not

grow well here. Secondly, the Wootton re- port demonstrated that the consumption of cannabis can seriously distort the senses of time and space. There would have to be a 'cannabis breathalyser' to protect road-users. But there is no satisfactory method of detect- ing the presence of cannabis in the body.

One of the more plausible arguments in favour of legalisation is that of personal liberty. Why shouldn't adults decide what they consume in private? Few people would maintain that a person should be penalised for a fundamental characteristic that he or she cannot help—such as having a black skin. But it is quite wrong to claim that restric- tion of a minor pleasure is in the same order of things as discrimination against someone for what he is—a homosexual, for example.

Unless the consumption of cannabis could be shown to have negligible implica- tions for society as a whole, the infringe-

ment of personal liberty in this instance has to be accepted. (It is worth asking whether those who are keen on this point would want LSD and the rest to be freely available at the corner sweet-shop, for that is the logical conclusion of their argument.) Another much debated question is that of progression from 'soft' drugs (like canna- bis) to 'hard' drugs. In this connection the legalisers make great play with the follow- ing line of thought. As long ast cannabis is a prohibited substance, people who are not really criminals are classified as criminals by the public and by the law. If cannabis was readily available, the experimenter would not get involved in criminality. Thus the legalisers turn the tables on those who

argue about progression by maintaining that since 'hard' drugs are illegal (as they ought to be), and cannabis is illegal (as they say it ought not to be), there is a movement of people from one to the other because both are treated as criminal by society and the law. This argument begs the question of the .harmful effects of cannabis. Whether one believes in progression, whatever one attri- butes it to, the central point here is the social connection between the drugs. What- - ever part the attitude of society in general or the law does play, the people at risk are those who are keen to experiment.

The plain facts are these. In the United Kingdom, drug taking grew more widespread in the 'sixties. Cannabis convictions in- creased markedly. In 1960 there was one known heroin addict under twenty. By 1968 there were 785.

The Wootton report states that 'it is the personality of the user, rather than the pro- perties of the drugs, that is likely to cause progression to other drugs'. This statement must be squared with the figures quoted above. Until we know more about progres- sion, until we know more about the effects of cannabis itself, unless we can dismiss the surge in cannabis convictions and known young heroin addicts as a mere coincidence, cannabis must stay illegal.

Cannabis has no medical use; for one thing its effects vary greatly from one per- son to another. It is questionable whether it is of real benefit even to artists, musicians or writers. Were we to grant that cannabis is only as dangerous as alcohol, the price of legalisation would be very heavy. There are 300,000 alcoholics in this country. 75,000 people are killed each year by tobacco. To add another drug of this force to the national burden of social distress would be a lot to pay for the titillation of the 'liberated'. It is illogical to permit killers like alcohol and nicotine. It would be more illogical to encourage society to become habituated to yet another drug. The new Misuse of Drugs Bill, now before Parliament, will help. Re- search into the facts of cannabis must be done, and the results disseminated, because an informed society is the best preventive. Sir Charles Strachey was wrong, but he was wrong in the right way. He asked for a calm factual approach. The legalisation of canna- bis is extremely unlikely to do good: it is extremely likely to do harm.