Pubdate: 18 Jan 2006
Source: Guardian, The (UK)
Copyright: 2006 Guardian Newspapers Limited
Contact:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/175
Author: Marcel Berlins
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?207 (Cannabis - United Kingdom)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)

CHARLES CLARKE SHOULDN'T FRET ABOUT THE LEGAL
CHAOS OVER CANNABIS. IT'S NOT EVEN ON HIS BOSS'S RESPECT AGENDA

Charles Clarke can stop agonising. I can assure
him it won't make the slightest difference
whether cannabis is upgraded back to B or stays
where it is at C. He's said to be veering towards
alphabetical inaction, substituting instead a
public information campaign warning of the risks
of the drug. That, I regret to have to tell him, won't work either.

I don't know anyone who understood the practical
consequences of the demotion of cannabis to the
letter C. Did it make possession of the drug
legal? In no way, David Blunkett assured us
sternly when he was the minister in charge of
downgrading. It's just that it wouldn't, well,
sort of, be treated quite so, you know,
criminally. So were the police now going to
ignore it? Not at all, just not pursue possessors
as vigorously as before. But they weren't
pursuing them vigorously under letter B, were
they? So what changed? And so on, in ripples of confusion.

We've now been told that Brixton police have
abandoned their laissez-faire, laid-back attitude
(under C) and are taking a hard line (also under
C). What all this means is that no one had or has
the faintest idea what the practical difference
was or is between B and C. And that will continue
whether or not Clarke shuffles the letters round
again. Did the move down to C result in a whole
new bunch of adherents to the cannabis cause? No.
Will a move back to B lead to lots of terrified
smokers giving up the habit? No.

So, rather than trying to untangle the legal and
policing chaos, the home secretary will opt for
informing the public - and particularly the young
- - about the dangers of cannabis. In theory, not a
bad idea. I have no idea how much money will be
spent on the campaign, nor what form it will
take. It will fail. Most well-meant informational campaigns do.

The trouble with cannabis is that it's just not evil enough.

Young people know that taking ecstasy (or
whatever this year's successor is called) can be,
and quite often is, fatal. They know too that
heroin and crack-cocaine kills, or can leave its
users permanently damaged, mentally and
physically. Even ordinary cocaine, =E0 la Kate
Moss, has well-known long-term effects, not least
the disappearance of the nasal septum, as
nationally advertised by the former EastEnders
actor Daniella Westbrook. It is easy enough to
think of scary ways to publicise the evils of those drugs.

But no one actually dies of cannabis. No one
overdoses on cannabis. There are no photo
opportunities, as there are with heroin victims,
of dead, emaciated bodies discoloured by the
blotches of a hundred perforated veins, or
showing the pitiful faces of lifeless teenagers
who, only a few hours before, were dancing
happily and energetically before deciding to take
just one little tablet. But where is the warning
image for cannabis users? Showing a poster of a
dead heroin addict with the legend, "He started on pot"? Hardly a
 frightener.

If you can't scare with pictures, can you
persuade with facts and statistics? A recent
survey showed that regular cannabis users are
more likely to become schizophrenic or suffer
other psychiatric disorders than the rest of the
population - though the risk is still tiny, small
or smallish (depending on whose interpretation
you read). Try putting that on to a poster or in
a pamphlet or television advert that will
frighten actual or potential young users into abstinence.

The other thing they have discovered recently is
that the cannabis now widely on sale in our
streets is far stronger than the version that the
60s and 70s generations smoked. I can envisage
the advertising slogan: "Lay off the pot. It's
way stronger than your parents got stoned on."
Effective, huh? I can imagine the youthful
riposte to that one. "Cool. More please."

So what's to be done? Supporters of legalisation
claim, as they do with any drug, that a legal but
controlled market will result in a higher
quality, less harmful product, cheaper and less
subject to criminal influence. Maybe, maybe not;
but it isn't going to happen. Stricter policing
and more prosecutions, even for mere possession?
Create a few martyrs who go to jail for the sake
of a couple of spliffs? Police and courts have more important things to do.

Here's my advice to the home secretary. Don't
bother too much about cannabis. After all, it's
not even part of your boss's respect agenda.

Apropos health warnings, a Parisian friend swears
he saw this while in a queue to buy cigarettes.
The chap in front of him asks for a pack of
Marlboro. The woman behind the counter hands it
to him. It has one of those prominent
black-letter warnings about smoking being
damaging to your health. He looks at it and hands
it back, shaking his head (I translate): "No, not
this." "But that's what you asked for, Marlboro."
"I don't like this one. Please can I have a pack saying 'Smoking Kills'."

Months before the French public opinion polls
came to the same conclusion, I was telling
whoever would listen that S=E9gol=E8ne Royal had a
reasonable chance of being the next president of
France. She's clever, able and has heaps more
personality than any other possible contender on
the left, including her partner and father of her
children, Francois Holland, who happens also to
be leader of the socialist party. Then there's
the next American presidential election, which
could well result in a victorious woman, whether
Hillary Clinton or Condoleeza Rice.

So I said to myself, why not wager really big
money on a treble that, come the next elections
in their respective countries, women will be the
leaders of all the top western powers - US,
France and Britain (Germany's already got one).
In the absence of a quote from Ladbrokes, I
calculated the odds: Royal, say 12-1, Rice or
Clinton, 6-1 and ... Ah. Um. Patricia Hewitt?
Ruth Kelly? Hazel Blears? True, you could get
odds on the last two somewhat more generous than
those on finding Elvis alive on the moon. So if,
say, Royal, Rice and Blears all won, the pay-off
would be huge (12x6x100,000 million). I chose to abandon my scheme.

This week Marcel watched a DVD of Rodgers and
Hammerstein's Carousel "just to make sure it's
still my favourite Hollywood musical of all time.
It is." Marcel went to the Degas, Sickert and
Toulouse-Lautrec exhibition at Tate Britain:
"Unexpectedly, I came out admiring Sickert, whom
I used to think of as second-rate."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom