Why Weed Won’t Work
Will the declassification of cannabis enable the police to channel more resources into the combat of harder drugs and the prosecution more serious crimes? Peter Hitchens would like to believe this but feels it is, "always the excuse of the police". He maintains that the more it is frowned upon by society the more this "creates an iron clad reason" (specifically for those who feel under “peer pressure” to do it, despite acknowledging the risks) for people not to use a drug he believes has never been more of a threat.
"There is more and more evidence that cannabis is more dangerous now than in the ‘Sgt Pepper era’ due to genetic modifications and the introduction of the skunk variety" For this reason, he argues, it is "amazing" that the government is choosing to make its use relatively risk free.
Of course, in chemical terms, cannabis is relatively risk free – incomparable to heroin, cocaine or even ecstasy pills where health considerations are concerned – and in fact less medically unsound than alchohol. But Hitchens claims that this is, “no excuse for introducing yet another dangerous poison into society”. In fact he believes that,” if it [alchohol] was as rare as marijuana then there would be a powerful argument for banning it as well, but as it is it’s part of our culture”.
So does cannabis necesarily lead to harder drugs? “No. It doesn’t necesarilly but anyone who seeks self stupefication lowers an important moral barrier nonetheless.” His point being that the ethical implications connected to drug use is not proportionate to the harm that any specific drugs cancause. By shifting the focus of the cannabis debate to the moral, from the purely empirical he does bring a new facet to the argument, and furthermore it is one that cannot be disputed by the medical evidencewhich is frequently cited in favour of legalisation, unless you considerthe potential damage a drug is capable of to impact on its moral status.
Part of the new legislation regarding weed involves a change in emphasis from the punitive measures for possesion, which are to be relaxed, to concentrate on preventing suplliers. Peter dismisses this logic as “silly”, pointing out, “there would be no dealers without users, no supply without demand”.
His firm belief is that deterring people from consumption of pot, with stricter punishments for carriage and use, is the only means of prevebting its use and distribution. “Society needs to send its message that it looks down on drugs.”
Loading ...