DEALING WITH CANNABIS

WE SUGGESTED yesterday that cannabis should be legalised for an
experimental period. This provoked some interest in the broadcast media -
not, of course, because The Daily Telegraph is the first to propose this.
It is not. Perhaps interest arose because this newspaper is generally
conservative and the legalisation of any drug is normally seen as
"progressive". We should emphasise that our reasons are of a conservative
sort. We do not advocate the use of cannabis.

We suggest that it should be legalised only because society is being
damaged by its illegal status.

Outsiders might imagine that this newspaper would have been deluged by
complaints from readers.

We have indeed received some letters disagreeing with our editorial line
(not an unusual or, indeed, unwelcome phenomenon). But we continue to get
far more expressions of strong emotion about other issues. We feel akin to
the boy who said the emperor had no clothes.

Many have responded, "why yes, of course". This sanguine reaction should
encourage politicians to appear above the parapet.

Paul Flynn MP has put down a 10-minute rule Bill in favour of
decriminalising cannabis.

It may not be as politically dangerous to sign it as some MPs fear. If
Britain proceeds down this road, important practical issues would arise.
Some people might reasonably worry that Britain would become a mecca for
cannabis tourists.

This is an argument for encouraging comparable countries to take the same
step simultaneously.

Others may be concerned that the current, illegal suppliers of cannabis
would benefit from legalisation. On the contrary, we would expect them to
lose their livings.

They would not be able to compete.

The big tobacco companies, with their existing distribution channels,
manufacturing experience and marketing clout would surely wipe them out in
the legal market. Meanwhile, sales on the black market would continue to be
illegal. Customers would surely prefer to buy reliable supplies from a
tobacconist than continue to deal with criminals on street corners. Any
excise duty on cannabis should not be pitched so high as to aid the
survival of the illegal trade.

On the other hand, it should be high enough to offer some measure of
discouragement. It would raise substantial revenue. A quarter of 20 to
24-year-olds currently consume cannabis occasionally or regularly, so the
income to the Exchequer could run into billions of pounds. What of children?

One in three 14-year-olds has tried drugs, so they have certainly not been
protected by the prohibition of cannabis.

We would suggest that, if cannabis were legalised, it should be put in a
similar position to alcohol.

It could not be sold to children and it would be the responsibility of
parents to decide whether to allow their children to try it. There are many
more such issues.

There is no need to offer reactions to all of them at this stage.

But the problem has been growing year by year and the country - including
the politicians - should not delay in reacting to it.