In 1842 cannabis became a popular medicine in Victorian England, used to treat ailments such as muscle cramps, menstrual cramps, rheumatism and the convulsions of tetanus, rabies and epilepsy. In 1890 Queen Victoria is prescribed cannabis for period pains. Her personal doctor, Sir Robert Russell, claims: ‘It is one of the most valuable medicines we possess.’
In 1901 The British Royal Commission concludes that cannabis is relatively harmless and not worth prohibiting.
In 1928 the Dangerous Drugs Act makes cannabis illegal in Britain.
In 1967 Mick Jagger and Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones are sentenced to prison for three months for smoking cannabis, although the sentences were later quashed and Jagger was given conditional discharge. A ‘Legalise Pot’ rally is held in Hyde Park, London.
In 1971 The UK reinforces its anti-cannabis stand with the Misuse of Drugs Act. The plants and its resin are classified as Class B drugs, cannabis oil Class A, while cannabis itself is defined as Schedule 1 – ‘of no therapeutic use’.
In 1997 William Straw, son of British Home Secretary Jack Straw, is arrested for dealing cannabis, following a Daily Mirror sting, he is cautioned by police. The Independent On Sunday launches a campaign to decriminalise cannabis. The Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics launches a major advertising campaign in the national press for the legalisation of marijuana for medical use.
In 2000 English Prime Minister Tony Blair agrees that cannabis should be legalised for medical purposes. The police Foundation Report suggests that certain drugs be reclassified and penalties reduced. The government rejects the recommendations.
In September 2001, Colin Davies, 44, opened the Dutch Experience cafe in Stockport, Greater Manchester. Mr. Davies is now facing six charges, including possession of a class B drug with intent to supply.
In 2001 David Blunkett, the new British Home Secretary, gives tacit support to a scheme in Brixton, south London, where police will not arrest people using cannabis. He also announces that cannabis is to be reclassified from a Class B drug to a Class C drug.
In 12 months to June 2001, 575 possession arrests: in the first 11 months of pilot (to May 2002) 1190 warnings, an increase of 107% in interventions in 11 months not 12. (MPS Lambeth Cannabis Pilot, 2002)
In 2002 the official report from the advisory council on the misuse of drugs (ACMD) comes out firmly in favour of downgrading cannabis from Class B to Class C legal status but warns that it is not a harmless drug.
Colin Davies was charged in 2002 after opening the Dutch Experience cafe last year and found guilty of three counts of possessing a Class B drug with intent to supply, of supplying a Class B drug and of being involved in the importation of cannabis. He was also convicted of permitting the premises to be used for the smoking of the drug. Davies, who had already served about a year in prison since his arrest, was sentenced to three years in prison after being convicted of drugs offences.
Frequent cannabis use increases the risk of developing depression and schizophrenia in later life, according to three studies published in Australia, New Zealand and Sweden.
In 2003 the first cannabis-based prescription medicines for more than 30 years is available in UK high-street chemists, drugs minister Bob Ainsworth reveals.
(Brownlee 2003)
ETHICAL THEORIES
There are particular theories used in ethics, which can be described as follows; Schools of ethics in western philosophy can be divided, very roughly, into three sorts. The first, drawing on the work of Aristotle, holds that the virtues (such as justice, charity and generosity) are dispositions to act in ways that benefit both the person and possessing them and that person’s society. The second, defended particularly by Kant, makes the concept of duty central to morality: humans are bound, from a knowledge of their duty as national beings, to obey the categorical imperative to respect other rational beings. Thirdly, Utilitarianism asserts that the guiding principle of conduct should be the greatest happiness or benefit of the greatest number (New Oxford Dictionary of English 2nd Ed 2003).
According to Aristotelianism, cannabis is ethical because people do not have to justify their actions as they are happy, and happiness is of the highest good. It could also be seen that legalisation would be ethical as it would be moral and virtuous to prescribe cannabis as a medication rather than making medicinal users criminals. A more modern term is Neo-Aristotelianism, which says that virtue does indeed lead to happiness, but does not have the same conception of the character that exemplifies virtue.
Utilitarianism works on the basis of doing what is best for the greatest number of people involved. This includes working for the well being of the majority – even if it is not of advantage to yourself and accepting that it is ok to gain from your actions if it helps more people. Under this theory, cannabis could be ethical or unethical depending on whom you class as the greatest number of people. Those suffering from medical problems who could benefit from cannabis, or those using cannabis for purely recreational purposes and who may go on to harder drugs. Act Utilitarianism says assess each action for the good it does before you take any decisions. Therefore cannabis is ethical because of its medical benefits and is therefore good. It is unethical because it could lead to use of harder drugs and psychosis and is therefore bad. Rule Utilitarianism says check what rules apply and assess their impact on your decision-making. Once this has been done and you have decided which actions achieve the greatest good then you either stick to the rules or work to get the rules changed. This theory is what is currently in debate. Many people are now fighting to get the laws changed because they believe legalising cannabis will achieve the greatest good. Those that believe cannabis should be kept illegal to achieve the greatest good are fighting against the laws being changed. Hedonistic Utilitarianism says that cannabis is ethical because it maximises pleasure for the majority, which outweighs the alternatives or, it is unethical because the pleasures gained do not outweigh the alternatives. This theory has been refined in more modern terms as Pluralistic Utilitarianism that argues that people’s pleasure can be measured by their purchases and pursuits. One problem is when what a significant group of people choose as being good, is seen as being acceptable to others. This is known as Preference Utilitarianism and is probably the theory, which most fits the cannabis legalisation debate.
HEALTH RISKS & BENEFITS
Cannabis has a strong case for being legalised as it has less harmful side effects than that of tobacco and alcohol and it has beneficial medical effects. It has been said that cannabis helps in the pain relief or other symptoms caused by cancer, acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), multiple sclerosis, hypoglycemia, glaucoma, arthritis, and other illnesses and chronic conditions. The Select Committee said that the principal reason for recommending that the law be changed was compassionate. Illegal medical use of cannabis was quite widespread and exposed patients and, in some cases, their carers to all the distress of criminal proceedings, with the possibility of serious penalties. (Runciman, 1999) However there is also evidence that long-term use could cause lung disease and psychotic illnesses. Short-term users have also reported a short-term memory loss, but there is no physical dependency. If cannabis is smoked, there are risks of bronchitis, lung cancer and other chest related diseases, as with tobacco.
Staff from mental illness charity SANE, strongly believe there is a growing link between cannabis and psychosis. The Chief Executive, Marjorie Wallis, said;
"Each study that emerges is building a large body of evidence showing just how dangerous cannabis can be for those who are vulnerable to psychotic illness. For those individuals, what may be a common way of chilling out may set them on a journey of mental disintegration and damaged lives." (Cannabis reclassified, 2004)
A report by the House of Lords, summarising the harms of cannabis said:
“Cannabis is neither poisonous nor highly addictive, and we do not believe that it can cause schizophrenia in a previously well user with no predisposition to develop the disease. On the medical evidence available, moderate indulgence in cannabis has little ill-effect on health, and that decisions to ban or legalise cannabis should be based on other considerations.”
The report went on to say that cannabis was however intoxicating enough to impair the ability to carry out safety critical tasks, could have adverse psychic effects and lead to psychological dependence. It also increases heart rate and lowers blood pressure and carries similar risks of respiratory disorders to smoking tobacco. Evidence of long-term effects of cannabis will be added to as new scientific knowledge becomes available. However, this knowledge may prove that cannabis, contrary to current belief, could assist to relieve psychosis. (Runciman, 1999)
The mental health charity Rethink is calling for clear health warnings to be issued over the increased risk of developing schizophrenia, and other forms of psychosis, from cannabis use. Rethink chief executive Cliff Prior said:
"There is a strongly-held view that cannabis is risk-free, reflected in the astonishingly high rates of use amongst young people as the street drug of choice. Cannabis is not risk free. We have known for years that using cannabis makes the symptoms of schizophrenia far worse in people who already have the illness. Now there is a rapidly growing body of evidence showing that cannabis can trigger schizophrenia in people already at risk." (Doctors fears at cannabis change, 2004)
Other prescription drugs such as HRT and the contraceptive pill also have side effects such as breast cancer and thrombosis, respectively. These drugs are still readily prescribed. On August 8th, 2003, The Lancet published a report stating that using combined HRT can double the risk of developing breast cancer. Its research trial showed a 22% increased risk of women dying from breast cancer compared to women who had never taken HRT. Many people go on the pill purely to relieve menstrual cramps, would it be better to prescribe cannabis as a cure as Sir Robert Russell did for Queen Victoria, with the possible side effects of psychosis, or the pill with side effects of gaining weight, thrombosis and varicose veins?
In comparison with alcohol and tobacco, cannabis seems like much less of a threat. The lesson learnt from cigarettes and alcohol is that once something is legal, then, no matter how harmful it may subsequently prove to be, prohibition is thereafter virtually impossible.
“We will never create a drug-free society. However our hypocrisy in prohibiting, policing and punishing people in the UK for using a drug that has been defined as "illegal", while publicly embracing and heavily promoting alcohol and tobacco, is unacceptable. (Buchanan, 2003)
Research has found that the drug is far more harmful to health than smoking ordinary cigarettes, with more tar and harmful chemicals taken into the body. Around 120,000 people die every year in the UK from smoking ordinary cigarettes. (Cannabis reclassified, 2004)
GATEWAY THEORY
The 'escalation' hypothesis, or 'gateway theory' is where people believe that cannabis use can lead to the use of other harder drugs such as heroine; therefore more cannabis use will lead to more heroine use. If this were true then surely alcohol or tobacco should be made illegal because they may also be ‘gateway’ drugs to harder substances, and these are normally the first drugs that people encounter for recreational use.
Most people who use heroin will have previously used cannabis (though only a small proportion of those who try cannabis go on to use heroin). This could be because cannabis actually does (at least for some people) lead to heroin use, but there are alternative explanations. People tend to use cannabis first simply because they come across it first. It could be that heroin and cannabis use are both caused by something else in the individual's personality or background that the researchers have not taken into account. (Drugscope, 2003)
The World Health Organisation concluded in 1997 that the most plausible explanation for some cannabis users also using other drugs was:
“A combination of selective recruitment into cannabis use of non-conforming and deviant adolescents who have a propensity to use illicit drugs, and the socialisation of cannabis users within an illicit drug-using subculture which increases the opportunity and encouragement to use other illicit drugs.”
Pressure by dealers may be exercised on cannabis users to try harder drugs. Cannabis use involves people in the buying of illegal drugs, making it more likely that they will meet with an offer of heroin. Therefore it would be the structure of illegal markets rather than cannabis use itself that led most directly to heroin use. The implication is that some heroin use might be prevented by legalising cannabis, even if this meant more widespread cannabis use. (Runciman, 1999) (Drugscope)
Gateway factors, where cannabis is seen to be the gateway to other drugs are too small to be a major factor in the debate of cannabis. The choice to use drugs of any kind is down to the individual involved and their lifestyle, not because they have used any one kind of drug first which has led to the use of harder drugs. Other approaches, such as education, treatment and various types of local initiative, are more likely to be effective than a general campaign against soft drugs. (Pudney, 2002) (Drugscope)
HUMAN RIGHTS
“One important ethical condition is the way in which people respect other peoples freedom, including their freedom to make rational and informed choices” (Drummond, J & Bain, B 1994).
If cannabis was legalised, it does not mean to say that everyone would begin to use it. As with tobacco and alcohol people would have the right to choose if they wish to use it and if it were legal, there would be more information available for the person to become informed of the benefits and risks of using cannabis. In a truly democratic society a person has the right to expose their body to anything, even if it is dangerous to their health, as long as the person is fully aware of the consequences / impact. If as the medics say, that there are side issues attached to the use of cannabis, then why not legalise it and write a health warning with it as with cigarettes and let people make their own choice, particularly when scientists themselves are no wiser. The government should be able to govern the country, not our own bodies. Getting in a car and driving to work every day is a risk, crossing the road is a risk, doing a bungee jump is a risk. These are the kinds of decisions people have to make every day. These decisions make people who they are and define the lifestyle they lead.
The Legalise Cannabis Alliance said “We need to create a just and workable legislation that reduces harm from drugs without infringing upon personal privacy and the right to choose ones own lifestyle and beliefs.” (Legalise Cannabis Alliance, 2003)
Some would argue that more information should be available about taking drugs and the effects of them, but others would see this as the tolerance of illegal drug use.
If cannabis were legalised and there were coffee shops licensed to sell cannabis, like pubs are licensed to sell alcohol, then you would go there to buy your cannabis. You wouldn’t however, go to a pub expecting to buy cannabis, and in the same way, you wouldn’t go to a coffee shop expecting to buy heroine.
The Kantian theory would suggest cannabis is ethical because it gives people autonomy and shows respect of people and cultures.
MONEY & RESOURCES
The fact that it is illegal means that not just growers and merchants make a living from cannabis, but customs and police officers, gangsters, drug workers, seed merchants and grow-manual authors aswell. (Matthews, 2003) Research has revealed that Britain’s ‘cannabis economy’ is worth £5 billion a year in sales alone. If the cannabis consumed illegally now was produced and taxed in Britain in exactly the same manner as tobacco, some £16 billion in excise taxes could be raised for the exchequer. That’s enough to pay for 5p off the basic rate of income tax. (Brownlee, 2003)
Legalisation would also mean controlled monitoring of the use of cannabis. The strength of the drug could be monitored and given a rating in the same way as alcohol. If cannabis were subject to the same licensing laws as tobacco and alcohol it would be much easier to keep track of. Doctors and other researchers would be able to legitimately investigate the plants medical uses and any side effects without fear of controversy. The legalisation of cannabis may also lead to lower profits for the back street drug dealers, and therefore to the collapse of some of the gangs and gang culture surrounding drugs.
Cannabis cannot be patented and it can be grown almost anywhere meaning that local communities have the opportunity for vast new industries. There is huge potential for more jobs, lower cost of living and a higher standard of living, without increasing taxes!
Legalisation would reduce the enormous amount of money spent on enforcement and reduce the amount of police time spent on cautioning small time users, whilst at the same time increasing the country’s revenue. This would enable police to spend more time and money on hard drugs and violent crimes and open up more space in courts to try these cases rather than spending time hearing small marijuana cases. For example, in 1997 there was a case where a person was taken to court for possessing 0.02 grams of cannabis worth approximately 10p, there was only a caution given due to the ridiculous nature of the case. Surely such resources and money spent on this and other similar cases could have been spent more effectively.
The Legalise Cannabis Alliance said:
“Can we really justify punishing people for cannabis possession or growing a few plants when clearly neither individual nor society benefits through the prosecutions?” (Legalise Cannabis Alliance, 2003)
Possession of a Class C drug carries a maximum penalty of 2 years, but the penalty is rarely invoked. Why have a penalty that is not invoked? The Select Committee have mentioned that the law appeared to be being enforced inconsistently and sometimes with a very light hand. Some cases were not brought to court, and when they were, sentences were sometimes light or juries even refused to convict. They felt that this brought the law into disrepute and that rather than enforce it more rigorously it should be changed. (Runciman, 1999) This view also fits in with the Rule Utilitarian theory.
Home Secretary David Blunkett has said the change in the law is necessary to enable police to spend more time tackling class A drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine. (Doctors’ fears at cannabis change, 2004)
As long as cannabis is illegal and so widely used, it will be the drug that occurs most frequently in all enforcement activities against drug misuse, in implementing the law, the present concentration on cannabis weakens its respect. Inevitably, cannabis offences and especially offences of cannabis possession, will dominate the operation of the law in statistical terms, reflecting very large numbers of arrests, prosecutions and criminal records, sometimes in otherwise law-abiding citizens. At present, about 80,000 adults a year are currently arrested and fined for possession of cannabis (Doctors fear at cannabis change, 2004).
Despite this expense of time and resources by the courts, and especially the police, there is little evidence of the law's effectiveness as a deterrent. There has been unease and indeed skepticism, about the present control regime in relation to cannabis because it inhibits accurate education about the relative risks of different drugs including the risks of cannabis itself. It inordinately penalises and marginalises young people for what might be little more than youthful experimentation. It bears most heavily on young people in the streets of inner cities who are also more likely to be poor and members of minority ethnic communities. Evidence indicates that the way the law currently operates may create more harm than the drug itself. (Runciman, 1999)
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, there are many complex issues surrounding the debate of the decriminalisation of cannabis. The main points raised include the medicinal benefits of cannabis and the adverse side effects caused by cannabis. Is there enough scientific evidence to go off to make a decision on if the benefits outweigh the risks? Will there be an impact on society, as the gateway theory suggests, leading to more ‘harder’ drug use or does the gateway theory only exist in the illegal drug market. Should people have the right to make their own choice on the subject or is the lack of knowledge too great for individuals to make their own choice? Are the profits from cannabis sales better off going to drug dealers or into the governments hands, where a stricter monitoring and control of sales could take place?
There is no short-term solution on the subject of the legalisation of cannabis and there will have to be a lot of compromising on a lot of parts if any solution is to be reached at all. The debate of cannabis legalisation will be a long and hard one.
REFERENCES
Bradshaw, Steve (2001), Cannabis from the chemist, www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/1625124.stm
Brownlee, Nick (2003), The complete illustrated guide to cannabis, Sanctuary Publishing
Buchanan, Julian (2003), The case for legalisation,
Cannabis reclassified, (2004),
Doctors’ fears at cannabis change, (2004),
Drugscope, www.drugscope.org.uk/druginfo/drugsearch/faq_template.asp?
Drummond, J & Bain, B (1994), Managing Business Ethics, Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd
Galloway, AK (2003), The misuse of drugs act 1971 (modification) (No2) order 2003 www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2003/20033201.htm
Legalise Cannabis Alliance, (2003),
Matthews, Patrick (2003), Cannabis culture, Bloomsbury publishing Plc
MPS Lambeth Cannabis Pilot, (2002),
Oxford Dictionary of English 2nd Edition, 2003 Oxford University Press
Pudney, Stephen (2002), The road to ruin, Home office research study253, www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hors253.pdf
Runciman, DBE (1999), Report of the independent inquiry into the misuse of drugs act 1971,
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Advisory Council’s Report on the Misuse of Drugs – The Classification of cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, March 2002
Karch, Steven (1997), A brief history of cocaine, CRC Press LLC
http://www.decaturnet.org/drugfree/drugs.htm
http://www.drbongs.com/