T
The420Guy
Guest
There are two good arguments for the legalisation of cannabis. One of them is
practical, one moral. The moral argument is simple: here is an activity that
gives pleasure to many and relief to some (sufferers, for example, of multiple
sclerosis); an activity whose damaging effects on the health are confined to
the user, which is less addictive than tobacco and, probably, less damaging
than alcohol. Why not let grown-up citizens make their own decisions, as they
do with alcohol, tobacco and fatty foods?
The practical argument is that the country's many, many millions of cannabis
users are already determined to ignore the laws that criminalise their
recreation - and that our legislature should take sensible account of this. At
present, smokers are forced to rely on proper criminals to supply them with
drugs, and are ill-served by a market in which you have no idea whether your
UKP15 is buying you carbonised pencil erasers, dried oregano or terrifying
genetically modified superskunk. We waste police time and money on
cannabis-related prosecutions; at the same time, we allow the criminal economy
to benefit from what would be, properly taxed and regulated, a vast source of
revenue to the Exchequer.
Though very far from conclusive, both these arguments have merit. But they are
arguments for legalisation; not for decriminalisation, the
worst-of-all-possible-worlds fudge now proposed. To legitimise consumption,
while continuing to criminalise supply, is more than just an intellectual
nonsense. In moral terms, it is too incoherent to claim any authority. In
practical terms, it worsens rather than improves the situation.
The removal of even the vestigial fear of prosecution for smokers will enlarge
demand - and do so to the sole benefit of the criminal economy. The innocent,
law-abiding dopehead will continue to be sold Oxo cubes. And the law will
continue to be an ass - and an underfunded ass at that. It makes you wonder:
what is David Blunkett on?
Pubdate: Sat, 13 Sep 2003
Source: Daily Telegraph (UK)
Copyright: 2003 Telegraph Group Limited
Contact: dtletters@telegraph.co.uk
Website: Telegraph
practical, one moral. The moral argument is simple: here is an activity that
gives pleasure to many and relief to some (sufferers, for example, of multiple
sclerosis); an activity whose damaging effects on the health are confined to
the user, which is less addictive than tobacco and, probably, less damaging
than alcohol. Why not let grown-up citizens make their own decisions, as they
do with alcohol, tobacco and fatty foods?
The practical argument is that the country's many, many millions of cannabis
users are already determined to ignore the laws that criminalise their
recreation - and that our legislature should take sensible account of this. At
present, smokers are forced to rely on proper criminals to supply them with
drugs, and are ill-served by a market in which you have no idea whether your
UKP15 is buying you carbonised pencil erasers, dried oregano or terrifying
genetically modified superskunk. We waste police time and money on
cannabis-related prosecutions; at the same time, we allow the criminal economy
to benefit from what would be, properly taxed and regulated, a vast source of
revenue to the Exchequer.
Though very far from conclusive, both these arguments have merit. But they are
arguments for legalisation; not for decriminalisation, the
worst-of-all-possible-worlds fudge now proposed. To legitimise consumption,
while continuing to criminalise supply, is more than just an intellectual
nonsense. In moral terms, it is too incoherent to claim any authority. In
practical terms, it worsens rather than improves the situation.
The removal of even the vestigial fear of prosecution for smokers will enlarge
demand - and do so to the sole benefit of the criminal economy. The innocent,
law-abiding dopehead will continue to be sold Oxo cubes. And the law will
continue to be an ass - and an underfunded ass at that. It makes you wonder:
what is David Blunkett on?
Pubdate: Sat, 13 Sep 2003
Source: Daily Telegraph (UK)
Copyright: 2003 Telegraph Group Limited
Contact: dtletters@telegraph.co.uk
Website: Telegraph
