Tory report questions downgrading of cannabis

A report from the Conservative Party's Social Justice Policy Group lists no fewer than four hundred different scientific studies that point to the links between cannabis and various forms of mental illness and destructive behaviour.  According to a report in The Daily Mail the report highlights the fact that "heavy cannabis users make up the vast majority of new patients with a serious mental illness... Eight out of ten of those experiencing the first episode of psychiatric disorder, schizophrenia or similar mental breakdowns are habitual users of the drug."

Drugs is one of five main themes of the Tory social justice review.  Other themes include family structure, employment, education and debt.  The review aims to find ways of helping vulnerable people succeed in each of these five areas of life.  This behavioural approach to poverty-fighting is inspired by William Galston's famous observation that only 8% of Americans who finish high school, marry before having a child, and marry after the age of 20 are poor. In contrast, 79% of those who fail to do these things are poor.

Added to the five themes is David Cameron's commitment to build the nation of the second chance:

"But we all know that however much we do to help people forge paths out of poverty, some will be left behind.  We must never say to those people - "You've had your chance and you must live with the wrong choices you made".  I want to build a nation that never writes any one off. A nation that says that it's never ever too late to start again. Never too late to realise those dreams you once had."

Building 'the nation of the second chance' is the subject of a policy subgroup chaired by former Tory candidate Orlando Fraser.  The group is examining how to strengthen the voluntary sector's innovative and independent character.

Comments

[Gareth]

Let's hope the temptation to revisit the embarrassing debacle of the 2000 Widdecombe-Hague 'get tough on cannabis' crusade, is resisted.

Not only do we not want to see a repeat of the shambles whereby half the shadow cabinet were forced to confess to cannabis use, there is ample evidence that middle class parents don't want to see their kids criminalised for smoking a joint.

[Annabel Herriott]

The problem with Cannabis, is that it is NOT the spliffs the old 60's rockers smoked. (Incidentally, there was a sad round up some time ago, of just how many of them have died prematurely) The "new" cannabis is a very different animal. Quite lethal! Street name of SKUNK. This mutation will definitely see you destroyed. It is ironic that the period when Nulab was merrily down grading its classification, coincided with the time the drugs trade was growing this deadly new variety.
I understand that the police are trying to locate and destroy these crops before they can be used. Perhaps a big publicity campaign to high light signs of a cannibus farm would speed the destruction. Not only are they growing the stuff, but they are stealing electricity to do so as well. It was the subject of a report in the press a while back.
During my drugs training 30 odd years ago, the police team showed us these lumps of brown "shit" and "grass" both fairly benign. It's NOT like that any more. This stuff could KILL you. You will become so paranoid, you will self harm. Alternatively, you will go on a rampage and injure somebody else.

[Erasmus]

No let's not embarrass the middle classes. Much better that Gideon and Jocasta end up eating their own excrement in some mental ward than challenge their parents' liberal assumptions.

[malcolm]

I would agree with you Gareth that the Widdecombe cannabis fiasco was a low point for the Tory party although with hindsight I think she was right and many members of the shadow cabinet were wrong.
I guess most of our political views are shaped by our own experiences. As far as Cannabis is concerned I've known two people with very severe mental problems both were heavy users of cannabis. Coincidence?I honstly don't know.But as a father now I would rather not take any chances at all.

[Andrew Woodman]

I wonder if a policy like that of speeding motorists will be suggested, whereby you can avoid points on your licence if you go on a stop speeding course, kids can avoid a criminal record if found with cannabis by going on a drugs damage course. Don't know how effective that would be though. Depends on the quality of the course.

[Gareth]

And, of course, the classification of heroin and cocaine as class A drugs has caused their comsumption to fall and the drugs problem in this country to be brought well and truly under control ...

Yeah right.

[Chad]

Based on Annabel's points, why not decriminalise the weaker varieties and seriously toughen the penalties for the stronger?

That way, surely, most people would gravitate to the lesser but still pleasant, less harmful, easily available high.

I'd love to see a similar sting to the one in Italy where they secretly tests their MP's for drugs repeated here. Come on, surely someone could easily do it.

Let's be realistic here. Most drug users are not addicts, they just take like to drugs.

[Gareth]

Annabel,

Thanks for that patronising bit of hyperbole. Skunk has been around for years and joins that list of the many, many things in this world that are bad for you. Our present drugs 'policy' (if one can dignify it with a term implying some sort of co-ordination) has been a complete and utter failure.

[Chad]

We could learn lots from other countries with realistic approaches to drugs, like the agency in Amsterdam that will test kid's E's to make sure they are taking what they think they are taking.

Lots of people take drugs at one stage of their lives and move on quite happily or use them in moderation.

This "take them and you'll die/go mad/etc etc" approach fails because it is clearly not true.

[Deobandi]

I'm shocked to come on here and find Chad talking sense.

[anon]

It would for once be nice to move away from the hysterical hyperbole that surrounds the drugs debate. The drug responsible for blighting thousands of lives in the UK is alcohol. If we are going to have a mature debate on drugs then we need to accept that we cannot just debate illegal drugs but must also take into account the impact of all drugs. For whatever reason people are going to make choices and whether you agree with their choice or not most likely depends upon your viewpoint. Personally I would prefer a situation whereby the whole lot was legalised and controlled. The single issue that exists with illegal drugs is one of control of distribution. Illegal drug dealers do not have restrictions on who they sell to, nor in fact do they care. The global impact of our current stance on this subject is enormous. Countries like Afghanistan and Columbia are dependent upon the drugs trade to feed their families. They are not going to stop growing the stuff and it is simple supply and demand economics. People want the stuff so there is a market. The profits are phenomenal. I understand that £1000 of cocaine has a street value of several million pounds. I would prefer that the Pharmaceutical companies or tobacco companies were responsible for purchasing and supplying these drugs as at least then we would have a method by which we could control sales and limit supply.

I appreciate that I will probably be shot down in flames for this but it has to be said. A sensible approach albeit it initially unpalatable would no doubt have a longer term positive impact. After all nothing else has worked.

[Mike Christie]

I'm no expert on this, quite the opposite in fact. I managed to spend a year living in Amsterdam without being remotely tempted to sample the wares in a coffee shop.

However, I have a few simplistic musings on drugs.

1/ If a significant part of the problem surrounding cannabis is the developing of harder forms by drug dealers and of drug dealers tempting cannabis 'customers' to try harder drugs, then wouldn't some sort of legalisation and taking the cannabis trade away from illegal dealers go some way to stopping this?

2/ If part of the 'thrill' of smoking cannabis is the very fact that it is illegal and 'rebellious', wouldn't making it legal also cut down on that.

An old school friend of mine who dabbled in drugs told me he didn't want to see cannabis legalised as he could never imagine going into a shop for '20 Marlboro spliffs'.

Many things will harm you, too much of the wrong food, too much booze etc.

All we seem to achieve in our 'war on drugs' is making a lot of unpleasant people very rich and bringing misery to countless millions across the world through crime (made worse by high drug prices??) and gang warfare.

[Annabel Herriott]

Anon, I posted on this a few months ago. There is a national shortage of medical quality heroin. ie Diamorphine. Essential to the alleviation of crucifying pain that comes with bone cancer, among other conditions. I suggested then that the NHS and other countries medical services could but it all up and use it properly. Everyone would benefit. The farmers get a good price, the drug runners are nowhere, as long as the thing is controlled and policed, and I too was shot down in flames.
I believe it will eventually come to this, but how long in the future, who knows.

[Annabel Herriott]

Oops! I meant buy it all up! Typo.

[anon]

Annabel. I remember your reading your post. If I recall correctly this very approach was taken with Turkey to eliminate some of the Heroin production that occurs in the eastern part of the country. I understand that the NHS alone could quite comfotably purchase the entire Afghan opium harvest to meet this years requirement.

What I wanted to draw attention to is the simple fact that the single biggest cause of all problems in the UK remains alcohol and if we have a debate on drugs then we must include it in that debate (I think alcohol was responsible for 100K of deaths in the UK last year but would have to confirm the exact figures).

With regards to how long this takes I think that many people are waking up to the fact that the war on drugs has been fought and lost for many decades now and it unlikely to ever actually be won. By opting to legalise then we not only reduce the "fascination" (I cannot think of another word) with illegal drugs but more importantly remove a large source of funding for criminals/terrorists etc.

Additionally if we legalised it and controlled it (possibly via the NHS) then we reduce the impact of petty crime (shoplifting, burglary etc.. to pay for drugs) freeing up police resource to tackle other issues.

[James Hellyer]

Frank Field recentoly suggested that the NHS should buy Afghanistan's poppy crop, Annabel.

[Mike Christie]

Annabel, I've seen that idea mooted before. On the face of it, it kills several birds with one stone. We deny supplies to drug dealers, increase supply of diamorphine and give the farmers of Afghanistan a legitimate outlet for the poppy crop helping to stabilise the country and defeat the Taliban.

Seems reasonable to me.

[Chad]

The first step Annabel is for politicians to accept that taking drugs does not make you an addict, any more than drinking beer makes you an alcoholic.

Most drug users don't need Cameron's "care" or got be "got off the streets", they are happy with their own drug usage.

Of course you should help the addicts just as we help alcoholics, but you should not demonise the majority, or see them as people with a problem.

Who that brave politician we be, or when they are given a national stage to make the case, it is impossible to say.

[Jonathan]

We should nationalise the drugs industry and provide all drugs through special NHS clinics subject to an excise duty. Any amount of any drug for personal consumption.
We would use the power of the market to create an NHS monopoly by undercutting the street price permanently. Drug dealing would remain illegal to perpetuate the monopoly and we would drive every drug dealer out of business and out of England. Once the monopoly was established the excise duty would rise to choke back on consumption.

Addicts would get clean needles, uncut supplies and a lower price and would not need to steal and prostitute themselves. Recreational users would get safe supplies of their little habit and not risk prosecution. Society would get the end of violent drug dealing gangs, dramatically reduced crime rates, we could halve the spend on prisons and the police and the excise duty would pay for 10% of the NHS.

All that's needed is for us to sit on the Puritans. Prohibition didn't work in the 1920s and it isn't working now. People who want to wreck their lives with drugs will go on doing so as alcoholics have done for years. You can't legislate against stupidity.

[erasmus]

Jonathan:

"We should nationalise the drugs industry and provide all drugs through special NHS clinics subject to an excise duty. Any amount of any drug for personal consumption."

Most drug users start before they are sixteen. So by your logic we should either:

a) use the NHS to supply narcotics to children

or

b) focus the activities of the drug-dealers exclusively on children the new Smack-u-Like NHS having taken over the adult market

Here's another idea. Instead of turning the British state into the world's biggest drug peddler let's actually bother enforcing our drug laws through effective zero-tolerance policing.

[Annabel Herriott]

No, Prohibition encouraged the rise of the Mafia didnt it? Since the controlled act of around 1974, we have seen the rise of the drugs baron equivilent.
In 1957 one could but amphetamine at the chemists to use as a slimming aid. I believe there might have been a very mall number of people who had a problem with it, but miniscule compared with alcohol.
I cant remember what triggered the govt of the day to over react.
History tells us that a great many Victorians includingthe Dear Queen liked to indulge. Whatever happened to that outbreak? I cannot recall Queen V ever being banged up for drinking Laudenam!!!

[erasmus]

Chad says that most drug users are happy with their drug usage.

Maybe, but then most UKIP members are happy with their UKIP membership.

[Chad]

That certainly helped the debate erasmus.

Shouldn't you be outside making sure everyone is locked up for doing things you personally disagree with?

[Chad]

..thank God I'm in a libertarian party! :-)

[erasmus]

So UKIP's policy is to legalise all drugs is it?

[anon]

Annabel if I recall correctly there was a change of policy in the mid to late 1960's when the use of drugs including LSD began to increase. Whether the prohibition of all drugs at this point increased usage or whether the 1960's themselves incouraged drug use is open to debate.

To take up Erasmus's point of enforcing zero-tolerance can you please point out where exactly this policy has been successful. In the 4 decades we have been fighting the drugs war can you name one year when this policy led to a significant reduction in usage of or distibution of illegal drugs.

This is an emotive debate which touches on the issues of personal liberty, and the right to make choices that may be harmful. I do not proport to know the answers but I can examine the facts. We have tried everything else so perhaps we must consider the alternatives however unpaletable?

[Chad]

"So UKIP's policy is to legalise all drugs is it?"

I thought this thread was about drugs?

Please keep to the subject erasmus, as it doesn't half disrupt things when people keep bringing up UKIP, no matter how well they are doing right now.

[erasmus]

The point is that we haven't fought the war against drugs -- just as we haven't fought the war against all sorts of other forms of crime and anti-social behaviour. We just throw up our hands in surrender when faced by minor crimes and then act suprised when we find ourselves faced with major crimes.

We have the laws but we don't enforce them properly.

Sweden is a good example of a relatively tough drugs policy that works relatively well. So strangely enough is Holland, which has in recent years closed hundreds of its "coffee shops" and consequently saw an improvement in the drugs situation.

Now how about an example of a liberarian drugs policy that has worked well in practice?

[Ted]

The key problem with Cannabis is that there are a large number of users - occasional & habitual - which makes use of the criminal law unpopular. I've tried it whereas I'd never try "Hard" drugs - almost everyone I know has tried it and some remain users (not habitual but occasional). So many citizens are criminals in law.

Cannabis, like alcohol and other drugs, does have sometimes severe physical and psychological effects and is for some, particularly habitual users, a dangerous drug. Decriminalisation would probably result in a group of permanently damaged individuals but continued criminalisation without enforcement damages the overall "war" against misuse of drugs. Enforcement would criminalise many otherwise law abiding citizens. There is a point where criminal law becomes ineffective or obsolete - laws against Blasphemy being an example - and the cannabis laws have been close to this for many years.

It seems to me better that we retain the current flexibility in enforcement - basically ignoring personal users - but that we need to highlight through a more effective educational programe the very real dangers of cannabis use and rob the drug of its "peaceful" mystique. It was reported that cannabis use has fallen recently - associating it with mental ilnesses, taking away the romantic and showing the reality will be the most effective way to reduce use.

[Erasmus]

Chad: "I thought this thread was about drugs?"

yes and I asked you what UKIP's policy on this precise subject was -- a perfectly straightforward question related directly to the thread

[Gareth]

I doubt UKIP does have such a policy but, if they did, it would at least show that they had given some consideration to the problem. All this guff about 'zero tolerance' and 'enforcing the existing laws' wholly fails to take account of the explosion in drugs use in this country in the last 20 years, despite the resources hurled at preventing importation.

We can't keep drugs out of high security prisons FFS, what chance have we of keeping them out of an island like ours?

[Chad]

No problem Erasmus - I just try to avoid answering UKIP questions here as I then get accused of hijakcing the thread etc.

[James Maskell]

"As with primary schools, we will still want to offer sex education (along with drugs education) but on an optional basis. Although the objectives of current sex and drugs education are supposedly harm reduction and prevention, the result has been the opposite. Based on the assumption that children will experiment, they supposedly encourage them to do so safely. Pupils should be taught the value of self-respect, as they cannot respect others until they respect themselves."

UKIP Policy on education, August 2006

[Chad]

Sound bloody realistic and sensible to me.

I think the shift to a medical insurance approach would help people have more control over their choices, as they would need to bear the cost/responsibility of those *bad* choices, and that includes drug usage, alcohol, smoking etc, imho.

[Michael McGowan]

So what's your proposed solution, Gareth....other than snide barristerial remarks? It must be such a delight to have all the answers.

You seem to think you have some monopoly of liberal opinion. Ted strikes me as pretty liberal but rightly points out that the dangers of cannabis have been relentlessly downplayed by certain journalists. I have some sympathy towards decriminalisation but I can't help noticing the double standards of metropolitan liberals who seek to legitimise drug use but demonise tobacco and(increasingly) alcohol.

[simon-M]

The finding that most patients with serious mental illness smoke dope is not new. For years there has been a difficulty in estabilshing causality. In a nutshell, does smoking dope cause schizophrenia, or is it simply that people who are at high risk of developing schizophrenia in the future exhibit personality traits (ie risk taking behaviours) which make them more likely to smoke dope. A third possible explanation is that schizophrenics find that smoking dope helps them manage their symptoms.

Its a real shame that despite the mountains of published research in the field, the nature of the relationship between cannabis and schizophrenia hasn't been fully established.

Myself, I'm tempted to think that all 3 of the above explanations for the link play a part. I'd be tempted to play it safe for now and stick to a pretty stiff anti cannabis line.

[Chad]

Why Simon? Honest question.

Because you don't do drugs yourself? Cost to the NHS?

Why would you conclude that it is best to keep cannabis usage illegal?

[sjm]

've gradually been won round to the idea of legalising consumption, because it reduces the cheap thrill of doing something illegal. But what so far no-one has mentioned here is the insidious glamorisation of heavy drinking and drug-taking by pop culture for many decades now.

No, I'm not advocating State censorship, but heavens, I'd like to see some self-censorship. We see 'celebrities' more than happy to lecture us on green issues and poverty in Africa - let them try, through their own lifestyles, to demonstrate the attractions of restraint in all aspects of their lives.

And just in case anyone cites the pre-war bad behaviour of actors etc, at least it was covered up as far as possible, not publicised as an enviable lifestyle.

[Ted]

Michael,

I am pretty liberal but the more I have read of the relationship between mental health & cannabis use the more I think there needs to be a way of reducing usage (I don't think in a free society you can ever enforce bans - it means regular drug testing of everyone, more cameras, more police etc).

It needs a viral campaign that associates the drug with naffness, failure, with shambling incoherent wasted individuals - perhaps use of YouTube & MySpace to make it unfashionable. It was jazz then Flower Power and Reggae (with images of happy Rastas, Cheech & Chong etc.) that created the "peace, man, peace" image. It can't be dealt with by normal Gov't campaigns and earnest MPs, Teachers etc but needs to be insinuated into popular culture.

[Michael McGowan]

Sim, good point. What you are highlighting is that many modern "liberals" are in fact hypocritical puritans. They get a big kick out of bossing other people around, telling them how to run their lives and what they can and cannot say and believe. Regulating pleasure is a particular fetish, with tobacco having taken the place of the Demon Drink. At the same time, such people want a complete lack of restraint to indulge their own vices .....which are by definition superior.

[Michael McGowan]

Ted, I agree with you. My brother is a hard-pressed South London psychiatrist who sees all these endemic problems, and worse, every day of the week. The links between mental illness and regular drug use (especially hard drug use) are simply too well-documented to be ignored, even if the evidence is often circumstantial.

However, how do you deal with hard drugs? You cannot rely on enforcement alone but total decriminalisation seems fraught with risk too?

[George Hinton]

There's too much wishy washy liberal thinking about drugs and the impact on society.
Drugs are bad, full stop.
Skunk and the stronger versions of weed are lethal when compared with the stuff that was smoked 20 years ago by many liberal thinkers and commentators.
This seriously needs to be addressed and dealt with. Bods like the North Wales Chief Commissar, Richard Brunsdon, need to get a grip on drugs and dealers not car drivers.

[Chad]

"Skunk and the stronger versions of weed are lethal when compared with the stuff that was smoked 20 years ago "

Is is me or do I remember skunk being available 20 years ago, making that statement complete crap?

[Stuart Raven]

There are ways of dealing with drugs and the degenerates involved with them.

They've been tried - successfully - in places like Singapore.

I say crush the menace of drugs before they totally destroy society. If we need to make a few choice examples let's do it.

But I suppose that might pose a few problems for David Cameron.

Know what I mean?

[Stuart Raven]

There are ways of dealing with drugs and the degenerates involved with them.

They've been tried - successfully - in places like Singapore.

I say crush the menace of drugs before they totally destroy society. If we need to make a few choice examples let's do it.

But I suppose that might pose a few problems for David Cameron.

Know what I mean?

[Stuart Raven]

There are ways of dealing with drugs and the degenerates involved with them.

They've been tried - successfully - in places like Singapore.

I say crush the menace of drugs before they totally destroy society. If we need to make a few choice examples let's do it.

But I suppose that might pose a few problems for David Cameron.

Know what I mean?

[Chad]

Are you a Conservative Party member Stuart?

[Stuart Raven]

Hi Chad. Yeah I'm a member of the Scottish Party in Ayrshire.

Can't say Im very enamoured with the current leadership

[Jimbo Jones]

having seen my brother sectioned for a short period following a psychotic episode triggered by cannabis use and knowing of other people severely harmed mentally following cannabis use it is a problem. Medical evidence shows that cannabis use can be a catalyst to scizophrenia and it needs to be made clear in a public campaign that cannabis can lead to depression, mental illness and isolation from society. most people come out after using drugs unharmed but its not so simple for those that are damaged by them

[Gareth]

Michael,

Aside from invective, ("snide barristerial remarks?" etc. etc.), your principal rhetorical tool seems to be to label your opponents ("metropolitan liberals") and then tar them with views they don't have but which, for the sake of your argument, you would like them to have:

"the double standards of metropolitan liberals who seek to legitimise drug use but demonise tobacco and(increasingly) alcohol."

and:

"What you are highlighting is that many modern "liberals" are in fact hypocritical puritans. They get a big kick out of bossing other people around, telling them how to run their lives and what they can and cannot say and believe."

It's a truly bizarre way in which to conduct a discussion, a bit like playing scrabble with yourself: you make your argument then you make up the other side's argument as well!

In any event, I'm not insulted by being called a 'metropolitan liberal'. Quite the reverse in fact.