...Now I know my ABCs!

But does Jacqui Smith? Today she announced the reclassification of cannabis up to a Class B drug – against the advice of the government’s drug council and undoing the reclassification to Class C under Tony Blair’s reign. Legislature on drugs is an infamously contestable topic with each political party throwing their respective hats into the ring. The Conservatives certainly want cannabis at Class B, the Lib Dems want to listen to the scientific advice which means that they want it at Class C, while the Greens were daring enough to declare in their recent manifesto that they want a legalised, regulated market for cannabis, much like in Holland. Personally, I don’t even know my own stance on this, but here’s the story so far:

In January 2004, cannabis was reclassified down from Class B to Class C. This meant that arrests were no longer possible for possession, only for distribution (under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, one can again be arrested for possession). This move was not because cannabis has gotten any less potent over the years, but it was aimed to free up police time dealing with “less harmful” drugs like cannabis so that they can focus on more harmful drugs such as heroin, coke and crack. So there is an argument that the reclassification down to Class C was always designed as a temporary measure, the government’s hands were forced due to practicalities. Just like releasing criminals from jails early to relieve insufficient prison space, only a supply-side policy such as building more jails or lowering crime (and in this case, hiring more police officers or lowering cannabis consumption) will be successful in the long run.

Another argument is that the modern formulations of cannabis are getting stronger, with the level of THC ever increasing. This is of particular concern because a “new” strain of cannabis called skunk is currently dominating the UK market, with 70% to 80% of samples seized by the police. I put “new” in inverted commas because skunk has been popular long before the 2004 reclassification, and it’s incredulous that the government has only caught on in 2007. Psychosis is a commonly stated argument but the scientific research on its links with cannabis use is murky at best and opinion is clearly divided. Last year a review declared that frequent cannabis use increased schizophrenia by 40% but other experts say that despite rising use of cannabis, schizophrenia has seen no dramatic increase.

The government’s official research council on the matter, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, say that cannabis should remain a Class C drug since the health risks were not as serious as those of Class B substances such as amphetamines and barbiturates. On psychosis, they’ve said that the evidence pointed to a “probable, but weak, causal link between psychotic illness, including schizophrenia, and cannabis use”. But in the population as a whole, cannabis played only a “modest role” in the development of these conditions. With such uncertainties, it seems counter-intuitive for Gordon Brown (and the Conservatives, in fact) to go against the advice of the body specifically set up for this very purpose and declare that they know better than the experts.

Finally, one can swing the other way and desire the decriminalisation or legalisation of cannabis. While being illegal, cannabis will always be supplied through the black market and fund criminal activity. But if it is legalised, the transactions can be dealt openly by firms and be taxed and regulated like any other legal drug such as alcohol and tobacco. The main issue of “not knowing how strong your drug is” will evaporate since the drugs will be controlled and tested for safety, you’ll always know what’s in your drug when it’s standardised, branded and sold over a counter. From 1919 to 1933, the United States banned alcohol but what followed was a disastrous example of the economic hypothesis that “wherever there is a demand, a market will thrive”. The production of alcohol was driven underground by the mafia who bought off the police. In addition, “moonshine” (home-brewed alcohol) was sold on the black market, but due to the unpredictability of its potency, many people ended up blind or worse, dead.

However, one thing the government did dutifully note was that the ACMD report neglected the social effects and signal it would send out to the community. To me, the economic argument for legalisation is sound but this is also what I am concerned about, the dynamic consequences, especially on children. Some people do actually obey the law(!), and some even base their morals on it (re: Catholics leaning on the Vatican’s prohibition of contraceptives). So by declassifying cannabis, one could be sending out the message that it is an acceptable practice. As much as I accept “taking responsibility for your mistakes” I don’t want a generation of youngsters making decisions they’d regret in the future, when it’s too late. That said, the ACMD did find that despite the downgrading of cannabis from Class B to Class C, usage has decreased by 20% over the last 3 years so whether classifications even factor into our cost-benefit analysis is questionable. Finally, the step down from Class B to Class C is vastly different from the step down from Class C to decriminalisation. “Legal” has a special meaning to it due to human psychology – just as “free” means more than price equals zero.

To conclude, in an area where the facts are so uncertain and I’m completely out of my depth, I’d happily listen to the council appointed specifically for this purpose and keep cannabis at Class C if that is what they prescribe. To go against the experts’ advice and claim you know best seems arrogant to me. But one thing is for certain, I don’t want drugs to be a battlefield entrenched in politics, a haven where certain parties can flex their muscles and show off how “tough” they are on this issue. We have to look at the facts involved rather than letting this be another piece of cannon fodder in the race to power.