SPLIFFS ARE BAD FOR YOU, IT'S OFFICIAL

Legalising Cannabis Will Benefit Crooks And Harm The Rest Of Us

I do not understand why otherwise sensible people want to make it easier to
smoke cigarettes that can damage our physical and mental health and make
profits for crooks. Those same people usually want tobacco advertising
banned, but they are anxious to make it easier to smoke a mixture of
tobacco and cannabis. Not only that, they seem to assume that those of us
who oppose legalising cannabis must be social Neanderthals.

Well, like it or not, I do not want British cities to be like Amsterdam,
with coffee shops selling cannabis cake, a magnet for the drug takers of
Europe who think social tolerance also extends to openly shooting up heroin
in the parks. So far, the advocates of legalisation have dominated the
national debate on cannabis. It is time for those of us on the other side
to to set out why we oppose the legalisation of a drug that is both
unhealthy and socially damaging.

Even though 36% of people aged 16 to 29 admit to having experimented with
cannabis - and the real figure is probably higher - for the majority of us,
the fact that possession of cannabis is a criminal offence discourages its
use. Legalisation would do the opposite. Law-abiding people would no longer
have moral scruples about using it, opportunities to buy would increase and
sophisticated marketing operations would make the product appear more
attractive.

The health and social consequences of greater consumption of cannabis are
significant. The Tory MP Peter Lilley, in calling for legalisation, made
much of one article in the Lancet which claimed that "moderate" consumption
of cannabis had less harmful effects than cigarettes or alcohol. Numerous
academics, however, as well as the World Heath Organisation, have warned
that cannabis consumption can have acute and chronic effects on health.

Like alcohol, even moderate use of cannabis impedes a person's ability to
learn, to operate machinery or drive vehicles. Drunk drivers cause enough
problems without increasing the risk by putting a bunch of middle-aged,
chilled-out, cannabis smokers on our roads. There is clear evidence that
excessive use can damage mental health and create long-term learning
difficulties. It also risks the development of cannabis-dependent syndrome
in 10% of heavy users and exacerbates schizophrenia; and when used by
pregnant women, it can harm foetal development.

Some clinicians say it can precipitate psychosis, decrease sperm count and
cause hallucinatory flashbacks. Even if you ignore the fact that
concentrations of tar and cancer-causing agents in cannabis are double that
of tobacco, the plain fact is that a spliff can "seriously damage your
health" in ways that are worse than tobacco.

Claims that legalisation would end the links with crime are naive. Unless
prices are very low, the illegal market would continue to exist. Taxing
cannabis, as Peter Lilley suggests, would encourage bootlegging, while not
taxing it would encourage more people to use it. Advocates of legalisation
have sought with some success to discredit the notion that cannabis is a
gateway to harder drugs. The case for a ban on cannabis must rest squarely
on the dangers of cannabis itself. And while there is a convincing argument
for allowing people with medical conditions like MS to use cannabis on
prescription, the case for going beyond that remains weak.

We should, however, also reject AnnWiddecombe's over-the-top reaction to
every spliff, and other approaches that fall short of legalisation might be
considered. It would help inform the debate if the first inquiry of the new
home affairs select committee were to look at all our drugs laws in the way
Lord Burns did with fox hunting.

A select committee report might also help us to avoid the trap of thinking
there are only two polarised positions on cannabis - in fact there are a
range of pragmatic middle-way policies. The police are in practice moving
toward a sensible and proportionate enforcement of the law. The experiment
in Lambeth - where getting caught will now normally result in a warning -
will be evaluated by the Home Office in six months. It may then decide
whether to give the police even greater discretion to take an openly stated
local approach.

Another possibility, although not without its downsides, is having small
fixed penalties for possession, rather like a parking fine. This halfway
house is decriminilisation, rather than legalisation. The downside is that
it would not be as effective in suppressing usage among law-abiding
citizens, but nor would it encourage the greater use which would result
from legalisation. We can have a healthy debate about our options on
cannabis, as long as we do not ignore the fact that cannabis is an
unhealthy substance. It should be discouraged.

Mike O'Brien MP was a Home Office minister until last month