Cannabis - a special case?

It’s really quite embarrassing. A policeman for thirty years, a drug specialist, headed operations on the London Drug Squad and yet, when my daughter asks me a simple question – “Why is cannabis illegal?” – I haven’t got a simple answer!

I know a heck of a lot of facts about cannabis. I know heaps about the criminal law and no-one is better versed on policing drugs. I’ve even spent some time examining the politics of drugs law, national and international. I’ve read a host of scientific reports about the medical effects and I’ve debated the subject on television, radio and on paper. After all that I have a very real problem identifying exactly why the politicians are loath to act in respect of a number of recommendations regarding varieties of de-criminalisation or full legalisation of cannabis.

For the serious researcher there are a number of detailed sites on the net arguing the case for and against legalisation and they all have references that support their case. So just what can I add to the collection? Well, I thought I might share with you the final answer that I decided to give to my daughter. It’s not an argument, not a recommendation or even a list of all the facts. Just a Dad trying to summarise the current mess and trying to sort out the few facts that actually have an impact on me, and through me, my family.

If you use the word cannabis today then everyone thinks of drug use but it wasn’t always like that. Cannabis is simply a plant that has been part of every civilisation across history. It has a number of uses that only fell into decline when the plant was ‘tainted’ by its association with drug abuse. It can grow anywhere with reasonable soil and reasonable sunshine. It has only been associated with indoor growing under lights in the last few decades since its illegality makes it more risky to grow in gardens, both in terms of arrest and lack of sunshine. Obviously, with it benefiting from sunshine there are other countries in the world that are better suited to growing the plant than the UK.

Historically it was better known as hemp, or Indian hemp. Its major uses were in the production of cloth (a rough cloth often used in sacking), in production of rope (most of those old sailing ships were rigged with hemp rope), production of paper (where hemp is an annual crop obviously less ruinous on the environment than chopping down trees) and, through its oil, the production of fuel and chemical structures in the same way as today’s nylon and fibres are used to make ‘hard’ substances in shapes for industrial uses.

Two anecdotes from history have served me adequately when considering its useful past. The original American Constitution demanded that farmers have an area under hemp production since its uses provided such a variety of input into the rural economy. When Henry Ford’s model T came off the first production line the bodywork was made of compressed hemp and the car ran on oil produced from hemp seed. The plant was central to America’s evolution. It was easy to grow, cheap to process, covered a host of uses, kind to the environment and had no history of misuse.

Relying on just those two anecdotes doesn’t diminish its longer history and many sites are dedicated to hemp’s part in many previous civilisations. I pick those two as they impress me, particularly since it is obvious that the steps to illegality were initiated by American politicians and the politicians of that country remain the most supportive of continued prohibition. This is despite the fact that the original case made for prohibition is now not only abandoned but should generate shame.

So how did one plant get from praise to condemnation? The blunt answer appears to be simply ‘race hatred’ coupled with commercial fear. I say ‘appears to be’ because that’s my guess. The politicians of that period are no longer around and the documentation they left is, to say the least, sketchy. We can only look at the timing, the individuals and their own motives, the effects of the legislation and the arguments made at the time. I’m persuaded that it was pure commercial gain that was sought and it was race hatred and colour fears that were used as the means to achieve prohibition.

It was the time of mass migrations across the (new) United States towards the new northern industrial cities. A civil war had freed slaves, and since almost all slaves were black, had freed blacks to move into northern white cities. With that migration had travelled black music, jazz, and black dancing. There was fear of that black migration and its effects on white communities (indeed that fear continued in the south for a further few decades).

At the time politicians, rather like today, were from and still involved with major national industries. Again, rather like today, those industries included the fuel, chemical and paper industries. As new fuel sources, natural oil and gas, and chemical industries, plastics and later nylon emerged and grew the residual ability of small farmers to produce this ‘hemp’ that could compete economically with the emerging national giants was perceived as a threat.

Was the use of cannabis as a drug a real threat to life in the United States? The honest answer is a clear no. Even the politicians, stirring up racial and colour unrest in their moves to outlaw cannabis talked of threats to white women by cannabis inspired rapes, the threats to normal ‘American’ life through imported music and dance and threats to ‘normal education’ by the ‘lethargy’ inspired by excessive cannabis use. Throughout history politicians have gained ground by identifying a section of society to ‘blame’ for perceived problems and then ‘dealing’ with that problem to gain those important votes and/or business improvement. The documentation and films produced at that period demand apologies in today’s more enlightened age. The most anti cannabis campaigner would today not utilise the arguments put forward in the original debate.

So what happened? Well, cannabis was made illegal in the United States and, with the emergence of international bodies formed to prevent major conflicts and international co-operation, those same politicians went out to persuade the world that the dangers of cannabis use were so dangerous that international prohibition was the answer. The United Nations were examining a host of narcotics in order to list those requiring international co-operation to prevent the dangers of widespread use. Cannabis was proposed for that list and, with little dissent other than from the United Kingdom, cannabis was added to the list. There is little documentation at the time showing that any country had a cannabis use problem other than in Egypt where the arguments similarly appear to be as much racial as medical. At the vote the United Kingdom abstained from supporting cannabis prohibition.

So it’s now illegal, since each country agreed to reflect the international requirements in their own legislation. Did we have a cannabis problem in the United Kingdom? Well not really. Did we have a problem thereafter? Well it looks like it. So what’s the problem with cannabis.

Is it dangerous? Well, it’s clear using it is more dangerous than not using it. Is it healthy? Again it’s more healthy not to use than to use. How dangerous or unhealthy is it? Pick your own report and specialist. The concensus is that its probably less dangerous than tobacco, quantity for quantity. Certainly, without any doubt, it’s much less dangerous than alcohol.

So what are the risks? Well the first major risk is that of being arrested, convicted and possibly having future limitations on employment or travel. But that risk is attributed to its illegality and isn’t really a risk of cannabis. What are the risks of cannabis use?

My reading is that there are two medical risks and one practical risk, the practical to add to that of arrest. There is a practical risk of using the drug, purchasing the drug from an illegal source, and moving on to using much more dangerous drugs. This argument is generally called the ’stepping stone’ approach or the ‘slippery path’. Just about all research shows that the users of the more dangerous drugs used cannabis as a first step in drug use. But even this is not a clear cut danger, or a clear cut falsehood. You can be pretty sure that all these drug users also used coffee before using the drug, that they all drank alcohol before using another drug or, to take it to its ridiculous level, used milk before heroin. The real question is whether the cannabis use ‘encouraged’ them towards the more dangerous drug and whether a ‘lack’ of cannabis use would have prevented then using another drug.

Again, pick your argument. For everyone who says cannabis is a first step to heroin because all (well almost all) heroin users used cannabis first there is someone else who points out that by far the majority of cannabis users did not move on to harder drugs. For everyone who says that moving to heroin is more easy for someone who has broken the law using cannabis then someone else will make it clear that if the law were different then cannabis users would not feel they were outside the law and exposed to other drug supply. I feel the answer is probably with the individual rather than with the drug. In a similar nature to the use of alcohol, there will be people who want ever more dangerous and exciting highs and will move onto whatever they choose and many others will stop at a given substance or no substance at all.

My drug of choice is alcohol and I seem to be able to make it work for me rather than against me. There will be others who have problems with alcohol and may not be as vulnerable to other drugs. Certainly any examination of any of our cities any Friday or Saturday night will show the overall problems of alcohol are far greater than anything that any other drug can inflict on society. So I accept I’m choosing to use a drug with effects far more dangerous medically than cannabis.

There are, clearly, two medical risks to cannabis use. Rather like any other drug used sensibly, there is little long term effect on activity. In the immediate time scale it does induce relaxation, indeed that could be perceived to be a benefit. That is not conducive to schoolwork or a host of other activities but the effects wears of quite quickly. There is no doubt it is a social, amenable drug without the ‘physical, violent and aggravating’ effects of alcohol.

Secondly there is evidence that some regular heavy users can go on to evolve with mental illness. As so often is the case, the specialists are split between those who claim that cannabis is responsible for the degeneration of mental abilities and those who say that the mental illness is endemic to the individual and that cannabis use (escapism) is a symptom of the mental disease. It is true to say that the risks are small but may be real.

So if its not as dangerous as some other regularly used drugs, and its not a gateway to other drugs, and its got a host of commercial uses, why is it still illegal? Well it isn’t quite.

The Home Office is already licensing some farmers to grow the crop again. Because there are many strains of cannabis it’s easy to grow types that have a low THC content and can be sued for fodder, for paper pulp and for oil/seed production.

OK, I’ve used an abbreviation, THC. The plant has a load of properties. It is high fibre for the rope and sacking, it’s green vegetable for fodder, it’s oil from the seed and it also has a chemical called THC. This varies according to the type of cannabis and is mainly in the growing tips and buds of the plant. When harvested cannabis is dried the THC can be concentrated by turning the plant into a solid (cannabis resin) or into cannabis oil. With more illegal use of the drug a collection of strains have evolved that have ever greater levels of the chemical THC that is sought by users. We are at the point where some of these levels could be far more dangerous than expected by an unprepared user.

Now that’s an argument for continued prohibition if you are of that mind, or of legalisation if you feel that a legal, controlled market will best protect the innocent from using a stronger product.

You may well ask where that all leaves us. Well three things are going on at the moment.

Firstly even the politicians have now got around to accepting that cannabis can help in the relief of pain and in some illnesses. There have been a number of enquiries that show the potential and some hospitals and research labs are now using cannabis in treatment. Some countries have progressed further than this and allow medical registration of cannabis use when a doctor certifies that its use would be beneficial. That will progress but it’s causing a problem for the judicial system.

Secondly policing is responding to the changing social view of cannabis use and is moving to greater use of cautioning rather than arrests and prosecution. This took place in earlier cases of street bookmaking, abortion and homosexual relations. The difference was that in all those cases it was clear that political moves were heading to ultimate legality but in the case of cannabis the politicians are hedging their bets, heading for more tolerance but not (yet) legality. That makes it difficult for police, wanting to reflect public opinion and greater tolerance but having to retain arrest potential for some circumstances where the politicians have doubts.

Thirdly, and finally, the ‘politics’ of cannabis use are changing. I think we all accept that most politicians have but one aim, that of reselection. They are not going to say or do anything that gives ammunition to opponents. So staying out of the drug debate is a safe and understandable political move. But that safe position is becoming less tenable. Lobbyists for legalisation of cannabis were, starting in the sixties, generally of liberal social position, were aiming for more cannabis use and could be said to be on the ‘fringes’ of the majority of society. Today that is far from the case. The legalisation arguments come from all quarters of society. There is no profession safe from the debate and no profession holding a hard position for prohibition. We are in an era of personal rights and, with that, of personal responsibilities. It is no use demanding that an individual makes up their own mind, practically, morally and responsibly, on topics unless the legislation empowers them to make those choices.

Whereas a few years ago a politician would avoid having an opinion on cannabis, we have moved to a point where most are ‘happy’ to encourage an open debate on the subject. The debate is, however, hardly open when the individual members of parliament are herded into a ‘party’ position and not allowed to have individual thoughts. The next phase will be when the party managers come to the conclusion that it would be beneficial to be seen as a legalisation party, the political position will change when the majority public position demands it. All major parties are flirting with this change at the moment.

So I guess we end up thinking that cannabis remains illegal, not because of anything about it as a drug, but for political reasons. Should you use it? Well I’ll go for not using it simply because it is a drug and not using any drug would be more healthy. Would I argue that it’s dangerous? Not at all, obviously in appropriate moderation. Would I argue that it’s beneficial, well in some medical cases, very much so. Would it be better to use than alcohol, almost surely but alcohol doesn’t bring with it, at least in that moderation, the risk to jobs and future. Do people commit crime to pay for cannabis? Hardly, the price is as low today as it was before any policing intervention, its certainly cheaper than alcohol or much of the other entertainment agencies. Should it be legalised? Yes, without a shadow of doubt. I’m as ashamed today of the level of integrity of our politicians as the United States should be of those original politicians with their blatantly racist approach to justify prohibition.

So why is the cannabis argument special? I suppose because its by far the least dangerous of all the currently controlled drugs and, secondly, that neither medically or morally should it have been made illegal in the first place. I hope that helps!