Should cannabis be legalised?

A few months ago I attended a debate between Peter Reynolds and Peter Hitchens on marijuana and whether or not it should be not only decriminalised but actively legalised and sold in shops, on the premise that it be regulated and some sort of age restriction put in place. 

I at first thought that the answer was obvious and that there was no debate needed, but when the majority of my fellow students all raised their hands in favour of Peter Reynolds' argument that yes, marijuana should be legalised, I was surprised. Of course, for students with a penchant for getting high whenever the mood suits, legalising the drug would make life a lot easier, but I was shocked that people who are apparently intelligent enough to be studying for degrees are still of that illogical mindset. In this entry I will be arguing, and hopefully persuading a few of you that no, marijuana should not be legalised because it would not only fail to benefit society in any way but would instead actively cause damage to it. 

I will present the opposition's case and (hopefully) make it patently obvious (though god knows why it isn't already) that arguments in favour of legalising marijuana are grossly misinformed and largely irrelevant products of rebellious teenagers who just want cannabis to be legalised because it would be so rad to be able to, like, buy a ten bag from Tesco dude. 

Here goes (I can sense I'm probably not going to win any fans with this already haha):

#1 Cannabis is far less dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes and they're legal
This is probably one of the most common arguments in favour of legalising cannabis. People think that because there are more dangerous substances freely available, it doesn't make sense to keep less harmful substances such as marijuana illegal. They see the solution to this apparent inconsistency as obvious: legalise marijuana. I see a different solution, and I'm pretty sure that if it weren't for the fact that the government would lose millions on imposing it, they'd have done it long ago: make cigarettes and alcohol illegal. It's the only sensible one.
I won't lie, I'd be gutted if alcohol were illegal. I regularly enjoy a drink with my friends. However, I'm not hypocritical enough to be able to preach on about the dangers of legalising cannabis while ignoring the obvious: alcohol is harmful and if the government cared about us as much as it purports to, it would be criminalised. 
If alcohol was a new drug that had only recently been discovered, my guess is that it would be criminalised before the masses had even heard about it. Look at the (fairly) recent mephedrone, or 'm-kat' case. As soon as the government got around those ridiculous 'plant fertiliser' pretences, they criminalised it, and do you know why? Because it's dangerous and our government, believe it or not, do not get kicks from releasing poisons into society. 

#2 It's good for the economy and we need to be pulled out of this recession anyway
This is a disgusting argument. People criticise drug dealers for making money by exploiting the well-being of other people but is this not the same thing? If something which has been proven to be harmful is sold to the masses because the government are feeling greedy and want to claw their way out of the recession at the expense of the consumer and we don't see anything wrong with that then we're in the midst of a very sorry state of affairs indeed. What's more, have the people spouting this argument stopped to consider the sheer improbability of the government ever being able to prevent cannabis being sold cheaper on the black market? Why, when you have a chance of buying tax-free goods from your trusty dealer, would you pay the no doubt ludicrous prices that the supermarkets would charge? I can't see it happening. Cannabis would still be sold illegally just as much as it is now.

#3 It's good for you
Okay. Cannabis has been suggested to be of some help to people suffering from conditions such as MS. However, this 'evidence' is by no means conclusive, and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society say on their official webpage that 'studies completed thus far have not provided convincing evidence that marijuana or its derivatives provided substantiated benefits for symptoms of MS.' What's more, even if smoking cannabis did help to alleviate certain symptoms of MS, does this really mean that it is good for the body and should therefore be released freely into society?

Cannabis use has been linked to mental illnesses such as psychosis, schizophrenia, depression and anxiety disorders, and there have been numerous studies that seem to support this hypothesis. Drugs given to individuals to reduce psychotic symptoms reduce dopamine levels in the brain while other drugs such as cannabis increase dopamine levels in the brain (www.cannabisandpsychosis.ca). THC, a cannabinoid found in cannabis, increases dopamine release in the brain. Suggestions have been made that frequently smoking cannabis can increase the risk of developing schizophrenia by as much as six times (Wikipedia), whereas other studies claim it doubles the risk, or, if smoked before the age of 15, quadruples it. 

Around 750 people each year are admitted to hospital for cannabis-related problems, and when you consider that the drug is illegal and thus not freely available in every corner shop, that number seems like an awful lot and a number that would surely increase if the drug were legalised. Even if there were just one case of a person being hospitalised due to the drug, surely this would be reason enough to not pump any more of it into society?

In addition to this, a study of Australian school children found that adolescents who smoke marijuana are five times more likely to develop depression and anxiety in later life (Wikipedia, I've closed the page and can't find it again now so you'll just have to take my word for it that I'm not lying). While studies like this are not hard evidence that cannabis causes mental illness, they do provide a strong case for the argument that there is definitely a correlation between the two, and this surely is a strong enough case against releasing even more of the stuff into society and making it more readily available than it presently is. 

#4 It used to be legal, let's go back to the way things were!
Peter Reynolds says that as cannabis was legal before 1928, this must mean that it used to be okay and so we just need to return to our trusty old values. He says that for 5000 years mankind has used cannabis and that if it was so bad then at some point we would have seen sense and stopped using it. However, while cannabis may have been legal before 1928, marital rape was not criminalised until 1994 and I don't see anybody arguing that 'well marital rape was perfectly okay until the nineties so why should we stop raping our wives now?' Imagine the uproar a statement like that would create!

People wise up to harmful things all the time. Look at how popular opium used to be, and now heroin is seen by many to be the drug of the down and outs of society, a drug that only the lowest of the low will touch. Do you know why? Because we've seen the harm it's done over the years, made huge scientific advances and realised that the most sensible thing to do would be to stop using heroin. 

This is exactly what happened in 1928 when marijuana was made illegal. People realised that they'd been behaving like idiots for too long and so did something to change it. It's ridiculous to say that just because someone used to be legal than it must be okay. You only have to read the Mosaic laws in the Old Testament to see how much things change and how sometimes what used to be widely accepted is now viewed by the majority as being immoral or dangerous. 

Also 'if it was so bad we would have stopped using it'. Not necessarily. We all know the dangers of cigarettes and alcohol but yet in the UK there are approximately 40 million social drinkers, 10 million 'at risk' drinkers, 1 million problem drinkers and 200,000 dependent drinkers, with only 5 million non-drinkers (www.avon.nhs.uk). 10 million people smoke cigarettes here in the UK with a further 2 million smoking cigars and pipes. Move to countries such as China and the statistics shoot up, with around 61% of men being smokers (library.thinkquest.org). We're taught the risks of drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes in schools and yet we still choose to do both of these things. It's the same with drugs. What can I say, I have no studies to back this up but these findings would suggest that humans like to self-destruct. 

#5 It will reduce crime
People seem to think that old women everywhere are being mugged for money for criminals to spend on cannabis. They think that cannabis being illegal causes so much crime but does it really? I've already argued that cannabis being sold on the black market would be practically impossible to put a stop to, so if you're looking to reduce crime there then you're wrong, and really, what other crimes does cannabis being sold illegally cause?

If anything, legalising it would cause an increase in crime. Look what happened in Amsterdam when prostitution and cannabis were legalised. Most people are naive enough to believe that most of the sex workers in Amsterdam are independent women making a living in the way that they want to but Sarah Forsyth says in her autobiography, 'Slave Girl' that between 70 and 90% of women in the Red Light district are victims of sex trafficking, and being forced to work by pimps. 

She witnessed snuff movies being made, was forced to play Russian Roulette with other prostitutes, and asserts that in the hash cafes, you only have to scratch the surface to find hard drugs being sold under the counter or newborn porn being sold in the video shops. Of course, the average tourist witnesses nothing of this, but those in the know can buy pretty much anything in this so-called 'liberal' city, at the expense of people's freedom, sanity, health, and sometimes even their lives. One must ask, would any of this be happening if cannabis and prostitution were not accepted and actively encouraged? 

Legalising one thing opens the gateway for a whole host of other things to make their way into society and anyone with a brain knows this. 

#6 Cannabis users are subject to so much social stigma - we need to fight against this
Peter Reynolds asserts that cannabis users are subject to so much prejudice that it really impacts on their lives and that this must be ended. He says that attacking somebody for choosing to use cannabis is the same as attacking somebody for being black, gay or disabled. I really must disagree. Racism and homophobia are in no way comparable to a person being judged for taking drugs. In the past, black people have been forced into slavery, Jews have been gassed, gay people have been  the victims of endless hate campaigns and comparing heinous crimes such as mass genocide and slavery to somebody criticising a person for taking drugs is absolutely disgusting. 

If you want to poison yourself then you must be prepared for people to look down upon you for doing so. Being the victim of social stigma is all part of the territory when it comes to drugs. Some people will have a relaxed attitude to them and others won't. It is in no way the same as being a member of the KKK or a Neo Nazi and I personally think that Reynolds should take this vile statement back. It's not harmless hippie rhetoric, it's shockingly disrespectful and Reynolds would do well to remember this. 

#7 It will keep our children safe
This is another ridiculous statement made by Peter Reynolds, who is living proof that smoking weed really does addle your brain. How the hell does legalising cannabis keep children safe? Reynolds seems to think that children won't be able to get hold of cannabis because, unlike drug dealers, shops will require ID before they hand over the goods.

I may be being naive here but I'd like to know just which would be easier for a 12 year old child to do:
a) track down a drug dealer and arrange a meeting in a secluded area away from home in order to illegally purchase drugs or
b) wait outside a corner shop and try and bribe some impressionable adult to go inside and buy some cannabis for them, just like children have been doing for decades with cigarettes and alcohol. 

Reynolds is stupid if he thinks that legalising cannabis will make it more difficult to get hold of. He's obviously never been a chavvy little boy with nothing better to do than hang around council estates all day and this statement alone is testament to the fact that he really has no idea what he's talking about. Call me old-fashioned but even if Reynolds were correct and legalising cannabis would result in a decrease of adolescent drug users, I don't see how it is really the states' responsibility. It is an issue of parenting, not of anything else, and it would make it a great deal more difficult for parents to prevent their children from smoking cannabis if it was sold in every corner shop.  

Furthermore, the pragmatics of legalising any drug are dangerous ones. Legalising cannabis implies that it is okay and will implicitly encourage people to do it. Of course, with it being illegal you do have the 'forbidden fruit' aspect, whereby people will try something just because it is forbidden, but far more people drink alcohol than take drugs and though I'm no sociologist, my guess would be that this is because alcohol is so culturally acceptable, which cannabis would be if it were to be legalised. 

In conclusion? I think it's obvious. Legalising cannabis would result in an increase in crime, an increase in the amount of people (including young people) who take drugs, and a general consensus that cannabis use is perfectly fine, which would no doubt lead to suggestions of other drugs being legalised. What will it be next, heroin cafes and shroom soup in restaurants? 

I've found that the majority of people who want this ridiculous law to be passed are teenagers who smoke weed and want:
a) a nice and convenient way of getting hold of it
b) a nice little debate in which they can show off how liberal and cool they are  

And excuse me if I don't take these people seriously. This blog has nothing to do with my personal beliefs about cannabis and drugs in general. My views on drugs are irrelevant and personal and therefore not something I'll be sharing on this blog. Even if I smoked cannabis every day, I would still not be in favour of it being legalised, because I'd be open minded enough to see the bigger picture and realise that it wouldn't actually benefit society in any way, even if it did give me personally some minimal benefits. 

Wanting something to be legalised just because you smoke it is all very well and good if you're willing to admit that you only want the legalisation to occur for your own selfish reasons, but please don't try and pretend that you have any sort of intellectual debate in favour of the legalisation of cannabis if you really just want to be able to get high in public without being paranoid that you're going to get a criminal record for it. 

The iPhone Brigade

As I sit in the airport, annoyed because my headphones are broken and I've finished the novel I was intending to occupy myself with on the three hour flight ahead, my friend and travel partner, Ieuan, said 'Let's just play Monopoly'.

What?! I expressed my confusion, to which he replied 'I've got a two player option, duh' and that's when I realised. He hadn't secretly bought a game of Spanish Monopoly at our local supermarket. No. He was talking about his iPhone, 7 by 5 centimetres of pure genius with an app (excuse me?) for any occasion. It hadn't occured to me that playing Monopoly on the plane would be an option. Armed with my own phone, that cost me less than ten pounds and has been a faithful companion over the twelve months that I've had it for, such things as being able to take photographs, access Facebook or play games on one's phone seems absurd to me, and so far away from my own reality that I don't feel as if I'm missing out at all because the whole concept of 'let's play Monopoly on my phone' seems beyond ridiculous to me.

33% of people that read this blog do so from an iPhone, Android, or other similar pocket robot. I must say, although hearing of any person reading my blog is always a good thing, I'm not so sure that people should be reading blogs on their phones. Phones are for phone calls (the clue's in the name) and text messaging. Not pictures and videos and god only knows what else. They're definitely not for blogs.

iPhones may be wonderful in so many ways but they have without question ruined pub quizzes, and how the hell are you supposed to cheat on your spouse with a phone that displays incoming messages for all to see? They also make stalking a hell of a lot easier (no, I didn't want my entire family to know how drunk I am right now but thanks for checking me in on Facebook), and not to mention make the most banal things appear exciting somehow. Oh here's a sandwich. Instead of eating it I may just show it to everybody on Instagram just to prove what a bloody good sandwich maker I am.

I've also heard of something called WhatsApp, which tells people when you have read their texts, and thus makes it impossible to ignore somebody that is annoying you, but also means you have to stop what you are doing right now and reply straight away to the texter in case they get the wrong impression and come to the conclusion that you are an ignorant piece of shit who hates them. I dread to think how many needy girlfriends have had their relationships ruined over WhatsApp.

More worryingly (in my opinion), is the fact that iPhones make constantly being in touch with people almost imperative. When I'm alone, I like nothing more than to make a cup of coffee, or pour a glass of wine, and chill out to do some creative writing, read a good book or watch an old film. I'd hate to be constantly monitoring Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr and Blogger, as well as keeping in touch with all my friends and feeling the need to take pictures of everything that I am doing so my Instagram followers aren't disappointed. I can't imagine the stress of it. I'm hopeless enough replying to texts as it is. No matter how hard I try, I just can't have a text conversation. I'll read a message off somebody, get distracted and put my phone down, and before I know it six hours have gone by and the person in question is wondering whether or not I'm alive and still friends with them. Lord only knows how my poor, technophobic brain would cope with all the added stimulation that the possession of an iPhone would bring.

Not only that but this way of keeping in touch with everybody, all the time, often means that you neglect the people you're actually with in the physical world in favour of replying to your friends in cyber space. I've seen too many people sat in groups but choosing to text rather than pay attention to the friends that they have apparently chosen to spend time with. And playing games! I can't think of anything ruder than to be sat with a couple of friends and playing whatever the iPhone's version of Tetris is. You may as well stand up and say 'You're all boring me so much I'd rather be somewhere else' and get it over with. The sad thing is though, that not only do people do this, but it is accepted. Getting your phone out and texting on a date in a restaurant? That's fine. At the cinema? Go for it. What will it be next, church? Funerals? Where do we draw the line?

Google Plus intimidates me enough, even though my friend Liam insists it's a must if you're serious about promoting your writing (or whatever other little bit of you you're desperate to put out there), and that's only an extension of a site I've been using since I knew what the internet was. No, I don't think I could cope with an iPhone. Give me an old Pay As You Go Nokia any day of the week.