In 1976 Holland relaxed it’s laws on the possession and sale of cannabis, while not legal, possession of a limited amount of the substance is only classed as a misdemeanor and the sale is allowed in certain franchises, named coffeeshops. The few remaining laws surrounding cannabis possession are now officially un-enforced, institutionally un-enforced laws in the EU equate to decriminalisation.
Holland's capitol Amsterdam has now been the subject of intense scrutiny by both sides of the cannabis legalisation debate, local and international governments and the medical sector for three decades. But can a nation’s drug policy and the health of it’s inhabitants really be dictated by pragmatism? How you answer this question independent of background knowledge, political experience or especially acquaintance with the narcotic in question will always relate to how you view illegal substances and the users of these substances. Will narcotics always be a question of legality, prosecution and police or like the Dutch is it more beneficial to view the subject as a matter of health and disease. Of course to acquit drugs users as ill patients would correspondingly result in an increase in drug use and crime, it would be counter productive to view the want to drug oneself as an biological condition to which the user is at little fault. However when the criminal proceedings cause more harm to the users than cannabis itself many believe the system should be changed.
To start talking about the debate first it’s essential to differentiate between the varying levels and intensities of drugs. In the Netherlands there are two groups, hard and soft, with cannabis being soft and alcohol hard. However the perception of cannabis in Holland is slowly changing. As botanical methods improve over the years the drugs on sale in Amsterdam are becoming ever increasingly stronger. The average amount of THC, the hallucinogen in marijuana, is around 10% but with modern techniques like freeze extraction this can be increased to around 40%, this raises questions about the changing status of cannabis and how government approved advances in the Netherlands lead to increases in the strength of illegal drugs for sale in the UK.
Another strong argument for the prohibition in Holland is that the development of a new drug under the cannabis umbrella named skunk showing strong positive correlations to schizophrenia. You may remember back in 2007 when The Independent newspaper reversed it’s stance on drugs. Since 1997 the paper had been pro legalisation until, under the sensationalist headline “An Apology” it declared that the links between mental health disorders and this new skunk strain meant a complete turnaround was required. Sir Richard Branson, head of Virgin, was a supporter of decriminalisation campaign, said "the arrival of genetically engineered skunk has merited a new look at the situation." This was four years ago and since then cannabis has been upgraded from a class C to a class B in British law, and yet still the amount of the drug being grown in the UK is reaching incredible levels, there are now almost 20 commercial cannabis factories being found by police every day, taking the total for 2009/10 to 6,886, quite a lot more than double the 3,032 discovered two years ago, and more than eight times the annual average between 2004 and 2007. If the further criminalisation of British cannabis users leads to British crime syndicates being able to export their produce to Holland then surely it’s time to rethink our policies.
Whether grown in Holland or imported the fact that Amsterdam is one of very few places where possession is legal does cause extensive drug tourism to the area. From experience drug tourists on the whole are not analogous to other tourists. It would be a generalisation too far to say that drug users are more prone to criminal activity than the general public, however the type of drug user that would travel across continent to get their fix seem to be of a more devout and excessive nature, and cannabis doesn’t come cheap. However the fact that the Netherlands have the ninth highest crime figures in the world according to the United Nations Survey of Crime Trends really loses it’s importance in the prohibition camp when our glorious United Kingdom with it’s policy of punishment is number two.
Marijuana can not be an issue that is legally or politically absolute without being detrimental to either the general public, the users of the drug or jeopardising the police force. This is a fact. Legalisation will lead to reduced drug crime, but an increase in health issues as drug producers advance in the strength and consequentially the potential danger of the drug, if Britain did legalise we would also see drug tourism, not to the extent of Holland but we would certainly be affected by it. The research between some strains of the drug and psychosis are all at this point exclusively observational, and we have already seen and will see again no doubt politicians polarising public opinions with epidemiological evidence that just does not exist at this point in time.
But is the possession of a gram of weed resulting in hours of police offence processing, only for a small fine to be given really viable in a time when the force desperately needing to prioritise how they deal with crime in the face of the police cuts? Cannabis is a victimless crime. But can law really dictate what is good for the individual. Law is crafted by individuals, be they politicians or police, I want to be the last journalist to cry nanny state and talk about political correctness gone mad, but I feel that the law should have no place in concerning itself with the choices made by an individual when they affect the individual and the individual alone.
It’s ridiculous to try and convince you with a utilitarian argument especially when talking about vice but when adding up crime figures for prohibition versus a more relaxed stance it’s clear to see that although legalisation isn't the answer a compromise is in order so that this stasis cannot continue. Thorough epidemiological evidence, and the commencement of debate upon in the House of Lords along with a brief tester period ,say three months, in which only English people will not be arrested for possession of under five grams, but also arrested if smoking in a public place. This trial does seem to be the option that would wash away the stagnant waters of the halted debate and allow for some fresh insight on the topic, which is desperately needed.
No comments:
Post a Comment