Click on the logo to return to the main menu.
Click on the logo to return to the main menu. |
|
 |
|
Just over a year ago (4th October 2000) the then Shadow Home Secretary, Ann Widdecombe, announced that if her party return to power at the next election they would implement a "zero tolerance" policy on cannabis use, with automatic, on-the-spot hundred pound fines, even for first offenders and very small amounts (a caution is currently normal in these cases). This first part of this page was my immediate response to the speech, which I posted on the earlier version of this web site at the time. A few weeks after that I got an e-mail from a friend/fellow pro-cannabis campaigner, Merrick, who had a few observations to make about my response. These, and my answers, are posted on the second part of this page. They were subsequently published in a Leeds-based zine, Print Radio - thanks to Mal of Print Radio, and Merrick himself, for giving permission to reprint it all here. Also, a big thanks to Ann Widdecombe herself - for it was the media outcry over this speech which, with hindsight, marked a major sea-change in the tone of cannabis discourse in the British governmental and public spheres. When even Tory MPs were coming out as former smokers (though none from any party had the balls to state they were current users) and saying that her words had been overly harsh (read: vote-losing), you know something is up... now, in 2001, we have had the first conciliatory words spoken by the UK government on cannabis in thirty or more years. Cheers, Ann. In a week when both the Swiss and German governments have announced they are seriously examining the possibility of decriminalising cannabis, Widdecombe's "populist" (though see below) rantings about a "crackdown" on cannabis show how utterly out of touch the Conservative Party is with the thinking of both progressive governments abroad, and of the prevailing opinion at home. If these could be dismissed as the fringe opinions of a discredited party, it might not be so bad, but even though the Conservatives remain unelectable, unfortunately Widdecombe is playing to the gallery of a substantial body of opinion in this country - including in the ruling Labour Party - which believes that the "stick" is the way to legislate against drug use. So here are a few facts (not opinions) for the Conservalabour anti-cannabis mouthpieces.
Widdecombe is doing nothing more than attempting to appease some mythical "Middle England" whom she believes - because the right-wing press tell her what she should think - are unequivocably opposed to drug use. Yet around four million people in this country use cannabis. I have set down my pro-decriminalisation arguments elsewhere on this page:
Do you really think that bandying around the threat of on-the-spot fines will reduce use? That it might scare people off smoking cannabis? I think you will quickly find you are talking rubbish, Widdecombe. In fact I think you will also find that four million people have a lot of weight, particularly if they all start to think the same way - in this case, opposing you. All it would take would be a campaign of non-payment and your scheme would quickly collapse. I say the number again. FOUR MILLION. Possibly more - after all, the question is not included in censuses. And why are you climbing on this bandwagon? In what way are these four million destroying society? Cannabis use is victimless. It affects no-one other than the user. Sure, there has to be a lower age limit for legal use, but at the age of 18, are we not adults? Can we not look at the information for ourselves and make our own decision about what and what not to put in our bodies? Seems that in Widdecombe's Brave New World, we are to be treated as infants. Not even granted the intelligence to make up our own minds, but to be given the "adult" equivalent of a slap on the behind and sent to our rooms without tea if we dare to think for ourselves. Before you think this is an entirely knee-jerk reaction from a user against attempts to threaten him into giving up, I would like to add that I fully support Widdecombe's proposals to make driving under the influence of drugs illegal, akin to driving under the influence of alcohol. This is perfectly sensible, because it is here that drug use begins to affect others detrimentally. This is precisely my point. When crime has no victim, it is not crime. If a drug user robs or burgles to support a habit, or runs someone down because they are too caned to drive, then of course this is a crime. But we already have the laws to legislate against robbery and burglary (and potentially, dangerous driving). Drug use in itself should not be a crime. The ideals of individual liberty and sovereignty of the individual - so enthusiastically promoted by the Tories in the economic sphere - should be applied across the board, or forgotten. I strangely hold the opinion that a progressive society - one that is actually getting better (after all, we are always told, by Conservalabour demagogues, that "progress" is good, and attempts to "stop progress" are the province only of hippies or lunatics) would actually start deleting offences, not creating new ones. How can more and more control over the very essence of our lives be called "progress"? Are we to be treated as children in the new, wonderful future world? Ann Widdecombe, if your police come to my house after your election and slap me with a fine, I will not pay it. I urge all other British cannabis users to publicly make the same declaration. There are 4 million of us, possibly. Will you send each and every one to jail? Will you pay the court fees necessary for the process of our commital? You will soon find your so called "crackdown" is laughably unworkable. | |
To see Merrick's home page, click here. |
A note: when the piece above was printed, it was also bundled up with some of the arguments from the decriminalisation page. Really, what Merrick is talking about below is derived from both. And he has a point too. Drew Whitworth’s article on cannabis legislation was an excellent, intelligent and clearly-thought out piece. There was one line, though, that jarred with the rest of his ideas. He said that merely decriminalising cannabis is the solution, since full legalisation would lead to commercialisation and preclude home growing. Living in a commercial society, any commodity available to us is either commercialised or prohibited. Whilst commercialisation leads many people to base their lives on materialism, and often the only quality considered is the monetary value, it’s still a damn sight better than prohibition. Decriminalisation is a pathetic LibDem-esque middle path that would retain many of the most damaging factors of prohibition. It means that the gangsters currently controlling production and supply will maintain their position; with that come the beatings and killings for control of markets, the bribery and compromising of the police and legal profession, and the adulteration of the drug itself. Anyone who smokes resin under prohibition or decriminalisation is probably also smoking plastic, shoe polish, paraffin wax and god knows what else. If legalised, production could be done above board, instantly slashing growing and distribution costs. Imagine how much cheaper it is to move a truckful by, well, truck as opposed to by small hidden packages, and that’s before we consider the cost of bribing police, customs, etc. If legalised, there could be inspectors who check on producers standards and practices (OFPOT, perhaps?), and the retailer couldn’t sell you a short measure because you would be able sue them. Perhaps most importantly of all, it could be taxed. The cannabis market in the UK is conservatively estimated at £3.5bn a year. Prices would plummet if it were legalised, so a chunky tax would be easy to add on without making a black market worthwhile. If taxed, it could raise £2bn a year. At the moment, that money is going as fatcat profits to gangsters. Prohibition is giving tax away; anyone who has to wait for, or do without, things the government should pay for is, effectively, suffering because of cannabis prohibition. Still think decriminalisation is worth it? Basically, we could give cannabis the same system we have for alcohol. Producers and outlets are licensed, but it’s pretty easy to get a license. Because it is a luxury commodity, it is taxed. Part of that tax pays to help the tiny minority of users who have difficulties caused by use of the drug. The drug is not available to people under a set age limit, and anyone supplying or helping supply children is punished. And home production is allowed. Yet, despite the fact that it’s cheaper, there’s no black market for home brew alcohol. That’s cos most of us think the commercial stuff is better. Even the most avid and prolific home brewers I know still buy more commercial stuff than they make themselves, cos it’s less hassle and it’s better quality. Drew says cannabis legalisation will preclude home growing, but there’s no reason why it should. We can all make our own wine and beer at home, and we can share it with our mates, and it’s all legal and costs a fraction of the price of the commercial stuff. It’s just that most of us can’t be arsed with it. Certainly there are benefits to cannabis decriminalisation; the 50,000 cannabis prosecutions a year will evaporate overnight, relieving a lot of unnecessary hassle for those being nicked, and freeing the money currently spent on the prosecutions to (hopefully) go to something more useful. But decriminalisation still leaves one of the largest industries in the country paying no tax, and the profits in the hands of organised crime. And decriminalisations 'personal amounts only' policy is perhaps the most absurd of the lot; it’s OK for me to have it, yet it’s bad to make it or to give it to me. That’s a staggering piece of doublethink. It’s nonsense, it’s no solution at all. Legalisation is the only sensible way to treat cannabis. Merrick Merrick and I then exchanged a couple of e-mails... edited highlights are here. My bits are italicised, Merrick's in normal text: I don't think decriminalisation is "the" solution, and certainly don't mean to imply that legalisation is undesirable at worst, less "ideologically sound" at best. I would certainly support full legalisation. I'm not really having a pop at you, it's just that I've heard a lot of people say that legalisation would be bad cos then we'd be buying it off the corporations. Which is true, but still a crock; these same people spend plenty wedge buying corporate alcohol and never make home brew. So I've wanted an excuse to pull that idea to bits and this was it, really. But you did say 'I don't believe legalisation is the way to go', which did make me think that, well, you might not believe that legalisation was the way to go.Whereas I really do think it is the way to go. Way to go, daddio. My underlying objection to cannabis prohibition is that it violates one supposed moral plank of our society: that of individual sovereignty in issues where no other person is harmed. I do believe that a widespread commercialisation of the cannabis scene would also lead to violations of our autonomy as smokers, just in different ways. I think anyone coming to cannabis smoking should do so through having made an adult decision (sounds patronising I know, but I can't think of a better way to put it) Nor me I very much doubt that the advertising of cannabis products will be allowed, legalised or not, but this does not change the fact that the companies involved will have to find ways of encouraging people to take up the habit, with particular emphasis on those under or just turned 18. Why is there such a student alcohol culture, with all its damaging consequences? Because breweries supply cheap beer to student unions and nightclubs to get them hooked. Hmm, well, the NUS subsidses the beer as well, and I think a lot of it is that young people have tremendous stamina for lots of things, intoxication being one of them. And, for the first time, they're *allowed* to get wankered. Us oldies have less stamina, have no novelty factor for it, and also have jobs/kids/other ball-and-chain factors that prohibit getting fucking wrecked 3 times a week. But I take your point, and you're right. Perhaps it's idealistic to not want the same thing to happen with cannabis, it is. I may say you're a dreamer. But you're not the only one. but nevertheless it is one concern of mine. I also do believe that legalisation would result in restrictions on home-growing. It may, it may not. We've gotta fight for this like fuck. As for home-brewing (below), we should remember that it was very frowned upon as late as the 1970s Really? I didn't know that. I know that by the ,mid-80s it wsas a cosy-sized shelf of Boots, which seems fairly acceptable. whether for moral reasons or (far more likely) "tax evasion" (even now, it's only beer or wine we tend to make at home: rarely spirits) Home distilling is illegal, and for good reason; more times than not the drinker goes fuckin blind. One justification that will surely be used in the end to push legalisation past the right-wing tabloids is the finance-raising one, but this is also something that home-growing bypasses - and cannabis is probably the easiest drug of all to produce yourself. Far easier than E, for example, and the quality might even be better than stuff bought from elsewhere - just like the veg you pull out of the allotment is usually nicer than the pesticide- enriched stuff you buy from Tesco's. Hmm, well, home brew alcohol is dead easy and a fraction of the taxed commercial stuff, yet nobody really does it. Why is that? If legalisation occurs then I think it is a completely rational decision to start growing your own. Now, as you said, for many people this is just too much hassle. Fair enough, so those people buy from others. But informal markets would spring up around those people that can be bothered. In an ideal world, this would be no problem - these growers would become the "microbrewers" of the cannabis industry, Microbrewers, and, at an even lower level, a homebrewing fanatic who shares it with their mates. But we don't live in an ideal world, we live in a highly commercialised one, and playing fields are not fair. I cannot believe that the government would permit legalisation without strong restraints on home growing, they may or may not. The home-brew thing will aplly, cos it's not like E or speed or spirits where it can be made into something poisonous. All in all I don't want to give the impression that I'm _against_ legalisation. But I think a policy of decriminalisation _first_ will make legalisation, when it comes, a whole lot better for everyone: smokers, non-smokers, growers, the government and, yes, even the corporations. I think we could handle immediate legalisation, and the tax revenue would make it instantly better than decriminalisation for everyone. Going back to your first paragraph, you say "_merely_" decriminalisation - I just can't agree with the use of that adjective. I think it would be quite a step and not, as you perhaps think, just a reformist sop without any longer-term benefits It certainly leaves a lot of the big problems of prohibition in place. But my big fear is that it won't be a step to legalisation, it'll be an end in itself. Why should full legalisation follow? It hasn't with, say, prostitution. And yet brothels would mean healthier and safer sex workers, which is good news for them and the clients, and they to could be taxed like any other recreational place. But they're not. And once they've made the 'concession' of decriminalisation, anyone still complaining will look like a nutter (like what happens when there's some tokenistic gesture on environmental stuff). Thanks for your interesting and informed post. Does anyone mind if I stick it and this response up on my web site? Anything I ever write can be taken and used in part or in full anywhere by anyone for anything. No copying will ever lead to civil or criminal action. It may lead to military action; I'll do it properly or not at all. Keep warm by any means necessary, Merrick A FINAL NOTE A year or so after that exchange of views, I would say I see Merrick's point more now than I did at the time (please also bear in mind that all the above was written quickly - had I thought through the replies I'd made I might have put them differently). But my concerns about limiting home-growing haven't changed, and despite what M. says, I at least intend to start cultivation when (if?...) the law changes to allow me to do so. I remain doubtful that legalisation will be genuinely empowering for those who want to do that and not contribute to the profits of the pharmaceutical and tobacco companies who will muscle in on the trade - but as Merrick says, it's clearly irrational to campaign against legalisation purely on those grounds. Hope all this was useful and interesting. |