[BenElijah]

This is the text from an article I wrote a long time ago, initially for posting around my college until my anarchic ways were discovered and access to pin-tacks was denied . It's written from a UK perspective and pretty much encompasses my argument, though somewhat dumbed down. I would imagine though that it applies in the US and Europe as much as the UK. And yes, I do smoke cannabis.

****

Should Cannabis remain Banned?

Introduction

One of the most pressing issues of our time centres around an innocuous looking green substance. Leaves of which, and other elements of its parent plant have been in use by humanity for thousands of years. The debate surrounding the legalisation of cannabis encompasses crime, punishment, health, logical legal consistency, issues of liberty and the individual.

Cannabis, to assume one of the many names for the leaves or the resin of the hemp plant can be smoked, inhaled or eaten to give the much talked-about “stoned” feeling. It has been illegal in Britain since 1928, but is consumed by a huge proportion of the population, a large number of whom, particularly the younger generations use it as a matter of routine, in the same manner as tobacco and alcohol. This article will attempt to show why it should no longer remain a crime to use this substance. It will take a very simple structure, the two opposing views and a final conclusion.

For a ban

Health
The strongest element of the argument that cannabis should remain contraband is the health problems that can be caused by its use. This includes a magnification of the effects of smoking, in terms of risk of cancer and heart disease, and also addiction. Though a recent (and highly flawed) study involving monkeys given the choice to inject themselves with cannabis resin showed that it could be physically addictive, that matter is still very much under dispute and cannabis is not generally regarded as a highly addictive substance like some class A drugs. However, there is a strong case for it being psychologically addictive, where people become reliant upon it. On balance, it is clear given current knowledge that cannabis is harmful to ones health. One must also consider the significant cost to the National Health Service of treating those suffering from cannabis-related conditions, acting as a drain on society.

Crime
Another problem is the link between cannabis and harder drugs. Through a system of middlemen, called “dealers”, members of the public can with relative ease and for a cheap sum, obtain cannabis, yet this can often lead to harder, more severe, addictive and unhealthy drugs, like heroin or cocaine. It has sometimes been the case for dealers to lace marijuana cigarettes with harder drugs in order to have more of an effect or get people addicted, a point from which they can move on to more profitable drugs. This leads to various social problems, not least to addicts throwing away an often promising life for the sake of their next high, resorting to a life of crime in some cases to fund the habit. There are a few disturbing cases of people suffering serious harm or even death due to use of these heavier drugs, after having started on cannabis. There is also the concurrent problem of organised crime providing drugs of all descriptions. In this sense, cannabis is regarded as a “gateway drug” and keeping it illegal is meant to suppress this route to more harmful substances. Such a notion is the cause of arguments blaming cannabis for the various ills caused by harder drugs such as heroin.

Annoyance of Others
A further argument for the banning of cannabis is one that is often extended to smokers. General public annoyance. The term “passive smoking” is often used here, and is where non-smokers are obliged to breathe in another's smoke by being in the same area, a public building for example. This can cause significant irritation and health risks associated too. Extending from this is the problem of “stoners”; those who use cannabis and are subject to its relaxing and abstract effects. It has been argued that these people are harming the economy (such comments as “typical students” being symptomatic), and their escapism, whether or not that is a motivation, is said to be a waste of their time.

Refutation and Argument Against a Ban

Harder Drugs
The argument against the ban requires a refutation of the points above. Firstly, the connection between cannabis and harder drugs. The previous argument relies on the assumption that following, cannabis will still be primarily obtained through dealers, who would be inclined to move their customers onto harder drugs. This is somewhat implausible as legitimately obtained marijuana would be cheaper due to lawful manufacture and lower costs. It would also be of higher quality than illegal cannabis, which is often contaminated by various substances, including harder drugs. Naturally, it would be far easier to obtain, presumably in the same manner one buys tobacco now. As a result of this simple economic situation, the drug dealers would be driven out of business. The degree to which this occurs, of course, is reliant on the nature of the law on cannabis. In Belgium, you are allowed five grammes of cannabis in your possession. Drug dealers are still able to operate there by providing a greater quantity, which would not occur if the legalisation of cannabis in Belgium was more complete.

Ironic
Far from being an argument for the ban on cannabis, the fact that legalisation would shatter the link between cannabis and harder drugs is a thoroughly good justification for it! It is surely a good thing for society to be rid of the scourge of drug dealers and those that prey on vulnerable people, often resulting in them using genuinely harmful substances for no perceptible reward.

In one unfortunate case, a young woman was reduced to a coma, forcing her child to be born, which died soon after birth, undoubtedly causing the suicide of her partner thereafter. Her situation was caused by a heroin overdose, yet this case has been used to argue for a continuation of ban on cannabis. Put simply, blaming cannabis for this woman's accident with heroin is like blaming the Wright brothers for 9/11! It is a tenuous, indirect, fallacious link, an easy target no doubt. It is heroin and the supplier of that drug that must be blamed, as well as the victim for injecting it into herself.

Inconsistent?
Another argument is the annoyance of non-smokers caused by cannabis users. However, this is also a problem with tobacco, and its associated health concerns, yet tobacco is legal. There is a movement to ban tobacco from public places in order to protect the masses from second-hand smoke, yet it would still be permitted in ones home, or private property. There is no discernible distinction between cannabis and tobacco in this manner, so the aforementioned point fails to assist the anti-cannabis argument.

As for the annoyance of the general public caused by people under the influence of cannabis, one can use the argument of individuality, where one should be allowed to behave, appear and speak as one pleases, providing one is not violent, threatening, or otherwise breaking the law. Also, such annoyance is often caused by those under the influence of alcohol, yet alcohol is very much legal.

Indeed, those who are drunk often become violent, whereas with marijuana, that is rarely the case, instead stimulating creativity, artistic expression and a peaceful demeanour. It is difficult to see how this can be seen to be a negative quality, though the idealistic state of mind has historically caused dissatisfaction with the “big picture” of life, spawning liberal political and philosophical action. This, in the authors opinion, threatens the establishment and those who support it, and cannabis is an easy scapegoat. Indeed, one must also consider the great philosophers, artists, writers and musicians in recent and former history that have been aided by cannabis.

We see here aspects of the question of cannabis that are almost identical to alcohol and tobacco respectively. It seems a logical and legal inconsistency to have one illegal where others are not, where there are no apparent palpable differences in the issues around them. The author will surely be forgiven for not understanding the reason for this inconsistency, where little or no reason is given for it. It is down to the pro-ban camp to differentiate between these drugs, and thus far they have failed to provide a sufficient reason. It usually boils down to a question of physical health, a matter that is woefully inadequate to support their position.

Health issues
The health problems associated with marijuana cannot be denied. The usage of the drug can harm ones health and mental state, particularly in regular large quantities. However, it is not an entirely damaging drug, as medical evidence has shown it to be useful in the relief of those suffering from such conditions as multiple sclerosis and arthritis, to name but a few. As shall be considered later in this article, the consideration of an individuals health is surely best left to that individual, and not for a “nanny-state” to dictate what one is to do. Indeed, the drug has been used for so long in history that it is possible to infer that it cannot be entirely damaging, the harsh world of our prehistoric ancestors would have quickly abandoned such a harmful luxury.

Considering the point of the cost to society of the health problems associated with cannabis, one can presume with some justification that were the drug to be legalised, it would be taxed to a similar degree as tobacco. The revenue generated by this taxation, assuming the high numbers of people already using it illegally would continue, and grow, can be measured in billions of pounds, easily paying for the cost to the NHS, and providing a welcome boost to the governments income. This money would be diverted to schools, hospitals, the police, or the national transport system that so sorely needs investment.

Freedom of the Individual
The most powerful argument against the ban on cannabis is that of a powerful political and ethical philosophy called libertarianism (from liberty). The term is used somewhat generically here, it covers a great range of different ideologies which fit and conflict with others, but put simply, the basic premise is that the individual should be given as much freedom as practicable. It follows that a person is best able to take decisions regarding ones own life, including matters of ones health and harm, rather than have them made for them by a government or authority.

Since the latter tend to be large institutions, they cannot consider the needs of each individual as a single person can for themselves, so it follows that as many decisions as possible regarding a person should be left to that person. This is especially so where those decisions have a limited effect on others around them, for example, matters concerning ones own body, freedom of expression, view or association.


Falling very much within these categories is marijuana. Let us also consider that each individual will have their own mitigating circumstances for using a particular substance, which can only be considered by that individual and those they know on a personal basis. To use a simple metaphor, the decision is something of a set of scales. On one side is the reason against, perhaps damage to health, and the cost of the drug. On the other may be personal factors that are perfectly valid, a desire for relaxation, escapism, pleasure, or relief of physical and mental pain.

It is therefore best placed for the individual to decide whether or not to use cannabis, based on the information one is provided, it should be considered the same as a person deciding to smoke tobacco for whatever reason, or drinking alcohol. In terms of freedom of expression, one can consider it of benefit to the individual and to society for an artist or those of an expressive profession to use marijuana when one believes it will benefit the work. While not necessarily encouraged, this must surely be accepted as part of an individuals basic right to express themselves.

Conclusion

This is not a clear cut argument. There are valid arguments for both views. However, based on the balance of evidence seen here, one can say that based on issues of crime, liberty and economics, it is irrational to maintain this present ban on cannabis, though a level of control similar to that of tobacco is required to regulate and tax the drug. The argument of health will not go away, though it is reasonably argued that this is a matter for the individual to decide, not have decided for them.

[Noumenon]

I agree with you 100%. The myth that marijuana is somehow an especially bad drug needs to be shattered. If you think alcohol should be legal and marijuana should be illegal, you are a hypocrite, plain and simple. Both alcohol and marijuana can be very harmful is consumed in large amounts, but then so can anything. Should we ban fast food because its bad for people? No, people have the right to make their own decisions regarding their personal health. Now, personally I have never touched a cigarette or a joint, for health reasons, but I don't have the right to force other people to not smoke just because I think its bad for them.

[BenElijah]

Note that I support the legalisation of harder drugs like opiates and cocaine as well, but obviously I cannot use many of the arguments used here, though the main libertarian one still stands. That point is irrelevant to my article, though it's good to get some backgrounding on the further indirect implications of what I am saying.

[Vivisekt]

That's a decent article Ben, you cover most if not all of the major pro and con points. I'll add my own take on some of the argument all the same, though. I don't feel that the anti-marijuana lobby has very much of a strong case.

The strongest element of the argument that cannabis should remain contraband is the health problems that can be caused by its use. This includes a magnification of the effects of smoking, in terms of risk of cancer and heart disease, and also addiction. Though a recent (and highly flawed) study involving monkeys given the choice to inject themselves with cannabis resin showed that it could be physically addictive, that matter is still very much under dispute and cannabis is not generally regarded as a highly addictive substance like some class A drugs.

Note that neither delta 9 tetrahydrocannabinol, nor any related cannabinoid have been illustrated to be physically addicitive in humans (physical dependancy). It is beyond not being a highly physically addictive substance (implied). It hasn't been illustrated as such at all.

However, there is a strong case for it being psychologically addictive, where people become reliant upon it.

This is, and has always been a strawman argument. Television can be "psychologically addictive", chocolate can be "psychologically addictive", driving a car can be "psychologically addicitive", visiting your grandmother can be "psychologically addicitive", and so on and so fourth. Any activity that a person finds enjoyable and or profound can potentially become "psychologically addictive", and marijuana is certianly not one of the more dangerous substance habits one can entertain (legally - such as Alchohol, McDonalds, or illegally - hard drugs like heroin).

On balance, it is clear given current knowledge that cannabis is harmful to ones health. One must also consider the significant cost to the National Health Service of treating those suffering from cannabis-related conditions, acting as a drain on society.

Indeed, smoking marijuana is harmful to one's health - the human lungs do not do well to be constantly inhailing large amounts of tar-laden smoke. Ill effects include reduced lung capacity over time, increased chance of conjestive respatory illness over time, and potentially cancer. The vital detail that many people overlook is, however, that regularly inhailing any smoke can cause these problems. It's got nothing to do with the active psychotropics in marijuana.

Then again, living in the city for a large portion of your life is just as bad, and smoking cigarettes is even worse than marijuana for each of the above ill effects, and beyond - and yet this is a legal pasttime. As for the cost to the National Health Service, if the substance was legal it would be taxed and regulated. It would easily pay for itsself as well as generating new revenue for the government to work with.

In this sense, cannabis is regarded as a “gateway drug” and keeping it illegal is meant to suppress this route to more harmful substances. Such a notion is the cause of arguments blaming cannabis for the various ills caused by harder drugs such as heroin.

An accurate portrayal of popular opinion. Silly, in my opinion, because people wouldn't have to deal with sleezy drug dealers in the first place if the substance was legal. They could simply go to the marijuana equilivant of a liquor store. In America, at least, it is easier for a kid to get some weed than it is for him to get his hands on some beer, and this is because marijuana is illegal and therefore unregulated.

General public annoyance. The term “passive smoking” is often used here, and is where non-smokers are obliged to breathe in another's smoke by being in the same area, a public building for example.

As marijuana is a psychotropic substance, i would assume it would carry similar public restrictions to Alchohol (if not more strict in some cases). I can't imagine that smoking weed in the middle of a building or other enclosed public space where there is not a specially designated area for the activity (like a weed bar) would be legal.

It has been argued that these people are harming the economy (such comments as “typical students” being symptomatic), and their escapism, whether or not that is a motivation, is said to be a waste of their time.

Anyone who tries to escape reality by abusing a substance is engaging in an excess that is likely to be detrimental to society. This has nothing to do with weed in specific... it is another strawman argument.



You have already brought up many of those counter-points in your original essay of course, and i think that the following principle is perhaps the most important in countries like the UK and America (where liberty and personal freedom of the individual is touted):

Freedom of the Individual

In a nutshell:
1. Marijuana isn't addictive in the physical manner that cigs are.
2. You can't overdose on it like you can with Alchohol.
3. It carries no residual (next-day) psychological hangover effects like alchohol does.
4. When you smoke weed, you intake no calories like you do with alchohol.
5. The hemp plant is a comparatively amazing source of paper and rope products, an important notation to make in the face of conserving trees and the wildlife that accompanies them.
But, above all, the state has no right to tell me what i can and can not do with my own body in the privacy of my own home. And once again comparatively speaking, marijuana is a walk in the park alongside some of the substances that are legal for personal consumption right now... with or without a perscription.

Given that alone, there is no legal constitutional or even logical ground (in America at least) for the prohibitation of marijuana. Prohibition of this substance is a crime. A blatant violation of the inherent rights allocated by the nature of our government.

[BenElijah]

Vivisekt: Thankyou for the post . We come to the same conclusions, I will re-work my article to include some of your points and modify my points. I now have a new relativistic method of analysing this method I will integrate (damn I love that theory), I'll post it up in this thread when done (as to when that is, god only knows ).

[Vivisekt]

We come to the same conclusions

Indeed we did. As do most people (i find) when they do some research and then look at the question objectively. I think that it is only a matter of time before this substance is made legal, anywhere between five and twenty years.

[BenElijah]

I fear it will take a long time in the UK, and probably a longer time in America. The Western world is moving towards conservatism at the moment, so as long as people subscribe to populist inconsistent policies, and their reactionary thinktanks spout constant misinterpretations of virtue ethics and skewed utilitarian ideas (not to mention a constant stream of faulty logic, most of which is patriotic), we won't be enjoying a sunday spliff without breaking the law for a long time. It's a pity, but we have the added advantage of knowing that we're right .

[Vivisekt]

I fear it will take a long time in the UK, and probably a longer time in America. The Western world is moving towards conservatism at the moment

At the moment, were things to progress in the same fasion that they are now, i wouldn't say it was going to take place in the near future either. Then again, given twenty years, many of the people who shape political policy from the top will be on their way out, if not sitting on the sidelines or dead already. The generation that came up in the 60s and 70s went a long ways twords making marijuana less and less of a legal offense. The next generational wave, i think, will finish the job.

[1skull2hands]

i am a bushdoctor, smoking the erb eberyday! It heals, the mind and body!

To judge me, is to dehumanize, an sin, so fuck u and pass the spliff!

[Yeddi]

Firstly, the connection between cannabis and harder drugs.

Having read that i thought you potheads might find this interesting:

The claim that cannabis use will lead to the use of ‘harder’ drugs has been a major argument for sustaining the prohibition of cannabis since the mid-1960s. However, there is little evidence to support the notion that cannabis use leads to the use of other drugs.

From the Official Australian Government Website.
go here