Eleanor Blatchley
:Human Rights, Hashtags and the UK's Policy Towards Central Asia
Natalie Bennett
:Media Reform: Time to Go Back to Leveson
James Snell
:PRISM: Who Cares?
Alex Ford
:Talking to the Taliban in Afghanistan Doesn't Betray the Dead - It Honours Them
Iain Anderson
:Banking Reform - Where Next?
The legalise cannabis lobby should be reeling from recent reports that show the negative impact of cannabis: a group of New Zealanders were studied over 40 years and the results show that the IQ levels of teenagers can be permanently reduced by the drug; and a report from California describes the failed promise of "Medical Marijuana".
Perhaps it is naïve of me to expect the legalise cannabis supporters to suddenly say "we were wrong" and all go home. This doesn't seem to happen when people adopt a confrontational position they believe in deeply.
But it has been fascinating to observe how the legalise cannabis lobby has dealt with the news that their drug of choice is bad for teens. Peter Reynolds of CLEAR (Cannabis Law Reform) is a former politician who has registered CLEAR as a political party. Judging on how he has turned this potentially devastating report to his advantage I would also say that he's also a PR genius.
This is how he headlined the news (that cannabis is damaging to teenagers) on the CLEAR website: "Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College London Confirm Cannabis is Safe for Adults."
"The vital and important point about this" writes Peter Reynolds, "is that it sheds light on the appallingly irresponsible policy of prohibition. Our governments are failing entirely to provide any protection to our children against cannabis dealers. All the evidence is that where cannabis is legally available to adults through a properly regulated system, use by children falls and age at first use increases."
This is a PR case study in how to avoid the impact of a negative report: focus on a positive element within the study (a statement by one of the authors saying "I'm fairly confident that cannabis is safe for over-18 brains but risky for under-18 brains") -- and then follow up with a fresh attack of your own.
All this sounds very convincing and is useful ammunition for all those casual users who believe that cannabis should be legalised. There are scores of other arguments in favour of legalisation: it could improve the quality of the drug on the street, it would bring in tax revenue and cut out the mafia, it's good for pain relief, it's less harmful than alcohol, it's widely used already and it's not addictive.
Before I started working for Castle Craig rehab clinic I was in favour of legalising cannabis. I had experimented with it at college, believed it wasn't addictive and liked the idea of taxing the drug and cutting out the criminals who profit from it. But when a journalist in London told me that "cannabis is the number one problem drug for psychiatrists" and that it can also cause psychosis, I started researching it.
Each one of the pro-cannabis arguments can be picked apart and demolished, every one of the studies they quote can be countered with other studies, but that doesn't really get us anywhere. Much more useful is to simply look at the families around us and ask them what impact cannabis has had on their loved ones.
My impression of the pro-cannabis lobby is that they seem unable to see any harm in their drug of choice, and some people even believe that it's good for you. But these same people would be the first to recognise that tobacco is really bad for you; ingesting all that poison into your lungs causes nothing but harm. But what's the difference between smoking a joint (which partly consists of tobacco) and smoking a cigarette? How can one be bad for you and the other not?
As regards the damage to young brains, the chairman of the alcohol and drug rehab clinic where I work, Peter McCann, recently told me that "the male brain doesn't stop developing until the age of 28 so I don't see why it is only teenage brains that are affected." He also reminded me that we treat a lot of addicts whose primary drug is cannabis.
I spoke to a lady in Brighton and she told me that her two grandchildren, both cannabis users, laughed off the report about the negative effects on teens: "That only applies to people who use skunk" they told her. This is typical of people who regularly use drugs: denial is the most common feature.
A former patient at Castle Craig Hospital told me that "cannabis will change a person. It distorts your vision of reality. It's the world's best procrastination drug. It also makes you paranoid."
UK government statistics show that over 20% of the population use legal drugs - tobacco and alcohol - but less than 10% of the people use illegal drugs. If cannabis were legalised and it was promoted as much as alcohol and tobacco are, can we assume that the proportion of users would double? Surely the the number of teen users would increase too once it became legally acceptable (laws restricting their access to tobacco and alcohol don't seem to have much effect).
Follow Rupert Wolfe-Murray on Twitter: www.twitter.com/wolfemurray
Marijuana is classified as a level 1 drug with no medical benefits, in the same class as heroin and this is just flat out wrong. Marijuana has many benefits and has never killed a single person. Forget about smoking it and concentrate on all the OTHER uses it has.
http://www.indiegogo.com/theweedsong
"Cannabis is much more dangerous than it used to be "
Err no.., the media and politicians have spun this story which is by and large utterly false. I'm afraid your attitude is one of cultural manipulation. Anyone who has taken cannabis regular for the past 30+ years will tell you this.
Then there is that whole "oh its much stronger than what it used to be back in the 60's" Well thats trash too as the UK gov didn't start taking samples for comparison until the late 90's!!!.
Just for anecdote sake i remember in the 80's before the flooding of tougher strain and easier to grow indoor cannabis into the market. The quality of cannabis was very high especially resins unlike today.
I have smoked cannabis for over seven years of my life. So in all arguments sake a large amount of you will think that I should be for the legalization of the plant. That however is incorrect. And to be reading the comments bellow, I'm quite amazed at the way some of the arguments have been put forward.
"Cannabis was put on the earth to help humans evolve" - this is a nice statement.
But also something that I find very hard to wrap my head round. Because I don't think that I've ever seen one fundamental break through that has changed the world directly by the use of cannabis. We can argue that Bob Marley was exactly that break through. But the drugs were only part of the involvement, they didn't create or play the music that pushed forward the Rastafarian movement.
A side note on this. Many things have been placed on this planet that we have learnt to harvest, grow, make into every day commodities. But the amount that we smoke is one. Tobacco.
By saying that it was placed on the earth to help humans evolve, you would then argue the context that next to every plan that grows would be a king-skin, a lighter, and some mixer to fill it? We weren't born with the knowledge of how to make fire, and until later years discover that it was even possible to have this effect given by a plant.
"So we have to make it as safe as possible, legalizing it" - In some respects, that would make acquiring the drug safer. But in no way shape or form the use of it. The damage of the drug, if evident to the user or not, is still there.
How many of us first had an Alcoholic drink before we came of legal age to buy it? How many of us knew the older kids that were telling us stories of how they went out drinking and had an amazing time? So how many of us asked for someone else to buy it for us? When we knew we would get in trouble for being caught with it? It's a question I leave you to answer yourself.
"Opens ones mind" - Some of the longest philosophical debates I have had
When we sit down, take the time to prepare and roll a joint/bong, we have already started the process of clearing our mind from everything. If its been a stressful day, it fades into the back ground, as all our concentration goes onto the task at hand. Once we've lit up, we don't actually have the ability to think clearly, because that initial rush of THC to the brain, makes different receptors fire at different rates. It doesn't mean that you've opened your mind, it means that you've just changed the track of thought.
But what if the same could be done, if a human being, just like you, sat down and cleared their mind in the same way? Focusing on just one point, leaving the rest of their day behind them. Allowing for their mind to drift away into the silence. Its what thousands of people do. And it hasn't taken them the use of smoking a plant to be able to open their mind.
The whole concept I understand, but when I look back at myself, I know that I've done it without, so why did I ever do it with?
" "SMOKING CANNABIS WHILE UNDERAGE DECREASES YOUR IQ" on every joint or packet thereof until kingdom come. Couldn't ask for a better anti-cannabis PSA."
Its easy for us to avoid an issue, especially when we don't want to see it. We walk away from anything that we may find threatening or harmful to save ourselves, but when we can't see the direct harm that its doing, we tend to believe that it doesn't exist. Think of the smoker that says "I won't give up until it becomes a problem, or until I see some damage" sounds extreme? Now just think of the justifications that you have heard when you've asked a smoker why they wont quit.
All in all ladies and gentlemen, I've seen first hand the real power of this drug, and so have many of you, I don't doubt it. I'm not making any sort of personal attack on anyone, but simply sharing a point of view and helping others see another side of an argument.
Being open minded is about listening and understanding another point of view, so please. Do exactly what you believe that it does, and try to understand, don't send the hate.
I don't actually smoke anymore, but would if it was around.....but take this scenarion, if I grew one plant at home for personal use only, and occasionally enjoyed smoking a joint at home, maybe watch a film or relax with friends.....do you believe I should be arrested and potentially put in jail? it's beyond absurd.
.