Its strange isn't it? When something (look on www.talktofrank.com, even they stress the danger of being caught over the danger of use) so seemingly harmless can be utterly condemned by a government. Cannabis is a class B drug, meaning that even possession is a prisonable offence. Is that fair? Is Cannabis the gateway drug we're all lead to believe? Honestly I don't think it is.
Cannabis use is rife. Almost everybody knows someone who does it, and those few who do use it will certainly know someone who supplies it, or even grows it. People use cannabis because they enjoy it, and when someone enjoys something they will almost always find some way of getting what they want, illegal or not. Most of cannabis use happens behind close doors, due to it's illegality; and therefore it's effects are confined. Despite words to the contrary however, Cannabis is not without it's harmful effects, despite there being no recorded deaths, brain damage, resperatory problems and schizophrenia have all been linked to cannabis use. Although these problems pale into insignificance when compared to a substance considered socially acceptable: Alcohol.
The fact is, and this is widely accepted, that alcohol is a huge social problem. You can't escape it, go into town on a night out and the probability is that you will see some couple having a drunken argument on the pavement. Who says that argument won't get violent? Stranger things have happened. A huge amount of money (that of the tax payers) is spent on rehabilitating people who do not know their own limits when it comes to alcohol, and even more is spent on injuries inccured as a result of it. Much of the research into anti-social behaviour has pointed to the mis-use of alcohol, and government has finally stepped in. Stepped in it more like. Raising the drinking age to 21 is utterly ludicrous, what is that going to stop? Do they think that those directionless kids who drink it down the park got it legally? Or do they think that the shouty, white shirt wearing, silver bracletted, spikey haired morons who populate clubs, are not 21 already? It saddens me that a government can have such a misunderstanding of its own people.
The answer in my mind is simple. Not so simple to be without its problems, and if history has taught us anything, its that things written down can be entirely different when applied to the real world. But does it makes so little sense to restrict drinking to venues? Small pubs are losing business all over the country because of the supermarket and off-lincense wars to keep their alcohol prices low to meet customer demand, and as a result cheap alcohol is available everywhere, for anyone who wants it. Cut off this supply, either by restricting alcohol sale in supermarkets and off-licenses, or creating a situation where alcohol is much more expensive to buy for home use, and create an attitude to drinking that promotes sociality, discussion and friendliness, rather than one that, as in society in which we live, where alcohol abuse is promoted everywhere through deals on drinks and cheap alcohol.
With such a simple answer to a much more dangerous problem, would it be out of the realms of possibility to apply such a scheme to something like cannabis? If it were available in cafes, as in Amsterdam, or over the counter, the illegal supply would falter, not only would people have a different attitude to the drug, but drug dealers themselves would lose money, a substancial amount considering the use in Britain today. Confining things like alcohol and cannabis use to local venues, and creating an attitude of complacency to each substance to me sounds like a perfect situation. Theres a million reasons why it couldn't work, but no where near as many as why it could.
By Alastair
well argued my friend... I am such a visual learner. did not understand this when i heard the argument, but i read it and it makes sense.
ReplyDeleteWhat are you trying to argue here? That cannabis should be legalised, that alcohol is worse than cannabis? It's quite a weak argument to say that cannabis law should be less restrictive because alcohol is a worse substance. You even contradict yourself in saying that the two substances should be equally confined to local venues when you've already pointed out the much higher social costs of alcohol. However, while alcohol is a substance which clearlydoes need more restrictive government policy, the psychological effect of persistent cannabis use is strongly underestimated and there is no evidence to suggest that cannabis users are not the same habitual drinkers causing the drinking problems. Also, you say 'taxpayer' like you're not the cannabis smoking 'drain on society' university student that you and I both know you are.
ReplyDeleteOne other thing, I'm fairly sure that clubs are not only populated by "the shouty, white shirt wearing, silver bracletted, spikey haired morons", in the same respect that the anti-social 'hot-box' rooms are not only populated by long-haired 'wannabe hippy' idiots who don't realise the 60s died and Hendrix isn't the greatest musician that ever lived, while 'sticking it to the man' by smoking cannabis. See, we can all stereotype.
On another note, "J Lowry" is clearly an idiot.
So your whole problem with my argument boils down to the fact that you don't like students? Yeah, solid stuff mate. Come back when you actually have some valid points to raise.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, keep your nasty, ill-educated personal attacks to yourself, mkay?