15 Legal, Medical and Social Controls

For and Against

Although this is not quite the end of the book, it is a convenient place to sum up the case for and against cannabis. No doubt many readers by now will view the author as a biased source of information. It may seem cavalier to reject the powerful body of opinion built up against cannabis over the last fifty years and to dismiss over a hundred articles describing the dangers of this drug.

The fact is that nearly all serious observers now agree that the case against cannabis is weak. All drugs have side effects of some kind. It is clear that in the short term the effects of cannabis are benign even when compared with some well-known drugs in everyday use, such as aspirin or penicillin.

Of course we cannot be absolutely sure of the long-term effects because the widespread use of cannabis is a recent phenomenon in this country. We have before us the awful warning of tobacco which is now known to be very harmful although for many years it was thought to be a mild drug. Certainly it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that cannabis will turn out to be equally harmful, but this argument is not by itself sufficient reason to ban it. The same argument could be used against all the recent medical discoveries which continue to be used very successfully against physical and mental ill-health.

I need less than a paragraph to answer the question: what will happen to you if you smoke pot? I can tell you for sure that you will not become addicted to it; you will not require increasing amounts to get the same effect; you will not produce monster children; you may find the experience rewarding or you may be quite disappointed with the effects. Whatever your background and predispositions may be, if you take cannabis, you are not more likely to commit other crimes; you are not more likely to escalate to more dangerous drugs; you are not more likely to have 'a mental breakdown; you are not more likely to become a layabout. The one serious thing that may happen to you is that you may get arrested and disgraced.

The arguments against the drug cannabis may not be compelling, but that is not to say that the case against the pot smoker is weak, or the opposition to legalization is misguided. Although , there is now a very large number of people who use cannabis and this includes a wide variety of personality types, they all have one thing in common: they are all prepared to break the law in order to get a little extra pleasure. There are other reasons, such as fashion, a gesture of non-conformism, or social defiance; all these suggest that some pot smokers are attracted to the idea because it is illicit. Whether the user of cannabis seeks pleasure or the thrill of legal transgression, he is to be distinguished from the many other people who are now convinced that the sporadic use of cannabis is not irrevocably harmful, but who do not smoke pot because they do not wish to break the law. It would be a mistake to make too much of this, but it is reasonable to suppose that among the total group of all pot smokers, one would expect to find more than the average proportion of the irresponsible, and less than the average proportion of the responsible.

I have suggested earlier that it is neither wrong nor sinful to seek pleasure for its own sake. But this requires some qualification. If several hours of every week are devoted to the quiet and sedentary enjoyment of cannabis, then the user can be accused of self-indulgence and, even though he is not harming himself or society, , he may be failing to reach his true potential.

These are not criticisms of the drug, but of the way it may be misused. Most of the problems of cannabis do not depend upon the drug per se, but upon the character and temperament of the users as well as the social setting. Doctors and social workers see and tend to write about the casualties of the drug scene, but this may give a misleading picture. The number of cannabis smokers who become casualties is probably very small, but their existence must be taken into account when weighing the balance for and against cannabis.

Legalization and Control
Many people will argue that cannabis is not a harmful drug, but legal controls are necessary. One important reason is that Britain is a party to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Although any party may denounce this treaty after six months' notice, this would seriously weaken the international control of opium. It would be possible for Britain to propose amendments, but it is very unlikely that any relaxation of the control of cannabis would be acceptable to most of the other nations.

Legalization would bring many technical problems which are far from solved. Certain essential safeguards would have to be devised if the transition from illegal blackmarket commodity to legal drug were to be made without confusion. The adulteration of cannabis would provide a difficult problem and standards of inspection would have to be agreed upon. It might be possible to make a pure form of cannabis available through a Government controlled agency as other countries have done with tobacco.

This would create political problems, even though cannabis could become a useful source of revenue for the Exchequer.

The development of synthetic cannabis would make it easier to prevent adulteration and solve the difficult problem of sources of supply. It would be impossible for the Government to allow suplies to be obtained from countries where cannabis was still illegal. But there would have to be a licensing system for manufacturing synthetics.

Distribution would be difficult. Many people would object if cannabis were sold by the large tobacco combines or the drug houses, many of which are American satellites. On the other hand government distribution, sold through the Post Office or at the Town Hall, seems an unlikely solution. Decisions would have to be made about the extent of advertising, if any were to be allowed at all. Would there be different brands of varying potency?

It would be necessary to devise a system similar to the breathalyzer so that the amount in the body could be detected. Furthermore, permitted limits of intoxication would have to be fixed; this proved to be a hard enough task with alcohol, but it would be still more difficult to obtain agreement when the drug is not so well known.

There would also have to be special measures to protect minors. This is particularly important with cannabis because it has such a powerful attraction for young people. It would be absurd to set the age limit too high, especially as the age for voting, marriage, contracts, etc., has just been lowered. On the other hand, adolescence is a time of stress and there is the danger that cannabis would be taken by immature users to avoid facing the many problems of growing up into adulthood. It would be difficult to choose the right age of consent and still more difficult to enforce this choice.

Finally it is clear that the public is not yet ready for the legalization of cannabis and would not accept the social changes it would bring. This, of course, is the strongest argument of all against making cannabis legally available.

Thus the legalization of cannabis would raise very difficult and complex problems which have not been given much thought, even by those who parade the streets with their 'Legalize Pot' slogans. This does not mean it is not a possibility in the future, perhaps before very long. But most people would agree that cannabis must be controlled at present.

But legal control is not the only possible approach. It is becoming clear that the law on cannabis is not a very effective deterrent, therefore it is a good idea to try some other method. One possibility is social control.

In the early years of an individual's life, social controls affect his behaviour through the use of power and discipline. Certain things are allowed and rewarded, other behaviour is disallowed and punished. Gradually the application of these sanctions becomes , less necessary as the individual learns that certain things are done' and other things are 'not done'. Eventually these distinctions become part of his life style so that some forms of behaviour are acceptable and other activities are distasteful. This is what is meant when a person says that a particular activity is against his conscience - such behaviour makes him uncomfortable because it does not fit in with his image of himself, and therefore he does not engage in such behaviour.

There are already powerful social controls against drug taking and these could be developed and strengthened if supported by logical reasoning. Unfortunately the present social controls are collapsing because they are seen to be founded on misconceptions and misinformation. Nevertheless it is not difficult to make out a strong case for other forms of activity that are more interesting and more rewarding than the use of recreational drugs, and this is the kind of social control that would prove successful. The attractions of cannabis are relative. If you have something better to do, you are unlikely to want to take it.

Few people are impressed by this argument. Instead of legal control, the enlightened liberal is likely to advocate medical control. `If you want to smoke pot, you must be sick, you poor boy.' Unfortunately there are serious disadvantages in this approach.

Sickness Theory

Many humane and tolerant people are now suggesting that the drug user should be treated as a sick person rather than as a criminal. This is part of an increasingly prevalent tendency to regard non-conformity and mental illness as synonymous. But if taking cannabis is a psychological disorder, then it must be one of the most common forms of mental illness known to medicine. It would be an illness from which many thousands of men and women are suffering and would constitute as big a health problem as Schizophrenia.

The reclassification of a certain type of behaviour as a disease rather than a sin or crime is sometimes a step towards a more enlightened approach, like the change of attitude towards madness (once regarded as possession by an evil spirit) or alcoholism (a matter solely for the police until recently). But medical history is full of mistakes and superstitions, like the toxicity' of menstruating women or the harmfulness of masturbation. Pot smoking as a clinical entity does not exist; to describe it as a sickness is to use the term to disguise moral disapproval.

Those who think of smoking pot as an illness will look for some predisposing psychological trait that explains why these sickmen and women have turned to cannabis. But the motives for smoking pot are so varied, the social situations in which it is taken are so multifarious, and the manifested forms of behaviour are so heterogeneous, that it is difficult to believe that one trait will ever provide a satisfactory explanation. It is a bit like saying there is only one reason why some people like a bottle of wine with their dinner, why others like to spend an evening at the local, and why others need a stiff drink soon after they get up in the morning.

An essential component of the medical approach to cannabis is that it is undesirable and that the patient is cured only when he stops using it. Although the doctor prescribes drugs for most of his patients, he makes a sharp distinction between medicines like sedatives, tranquillizers and anti-depressants which are used to diminish emotional tension, and between recreational drugs like cannabis which he regards as non-therapeutic. The doctor regards the user of cannabis as someone who is anxious to escape from realities, but the pot smoker would claim that this is the drug that increases sensitivity and awareness.

The medical profession do not know what treatment to give to the pot smoker and the success rate of 'cures' is very low indeed. From the start the psychiatric situation is unpromising. The doctor is not part of his patient's world; he talks to him in a segregated setting at intervals of several days. Yet the psychiatrist's task is to counteract the influences that work continuously and pervasively when the patient is with his trusted friends. Even with a very competent and skilful psychiatrist, there are severe limitations to this type of approach. The only medical solution that stands much chance of being successful is to keep the pot smoker in an institution away from his drug. Thus the social consequences of regarding cannabis as a sickness are similar to that of viewing it as a sign of criminality.

The idea persists that no one would use cannabis if there were not something wrong with him. But people who hold this view usually have a particular type of cannabis user in mind. They are thinking of the young people wearing unusual clothes who have opted out of conventional society. The use of medical controls in these cases makes me suspect that it is not cannabis that we are trying to control, but a whole life-style involving other kinds of behaviour as well.

Similarities with Homosexuality

It is surprising how many similarities there are between the social problems of cannabis and homosexuality. Since the 1967 Sexual Offences Act homosexuals have a measure of freedom so that private acts are no longer criminal, but they are still regarded as medical cases and they still have legal and social restrictions compared with other people in the community. The Table on the following page summarizes the many similar situations that arise when confronted with the two types of behaviour, both subject to social disapproval although both are victimless crimes.

Both groups are thought to be something they are not. Both suffer from myths built up over the years. The information about both groups has been obtained from those who were arrested or were attending clines, whereas the more typical homosexuals or pot smokers manage to avoid trouble. Both are thought to be sick and in need of medical attention. Many young people go through an adolescent phase of homosexuality and then develop an interest in the opposite sex, and many smoke pot on a few occasions and then give it up; but if either group are apprehended at this stage, they become known as perverts or drug addicts. Both groups have been the object of special campaigns by police, press and public. As this social hostility develops, both groups tend to form their exclusive coteries and lose contact with the dominant majority. Homosexual law reform was delayed for many years because any liberalization of the law was said to be condoning sexual laxity, and it was a brave MP who spoke up for homosexuals fifteen years ago; the same situation has now arisen with cannabis and very few M Ps dare speak openly in favour of cannabis law reform.

The recent history of homosexual law reform may show how public attitudes to cannabis might change. At first ignorance about homosexuality was almost universal outside the ranks of homosexuals themselves; papers in the medical journals were as inaccurate and misinformed as the reports about cannabis. Very gradually knowledge was spread, usually from a special report e.g. Westwood, 1952) or when a well-known person was arrested on a homosexual charge. Then the subject began to be mentioned  and discussed. At last the issue was raised publicly and a special commttee of inquiry was appointed to study the problem. Eventually the cautious recommendations of the committee were incorporated into an Act of Parliament.

Homosexual acts between consenting adults were made legal ten years after the Wolfenden report was published. How many years following the Wootton report will it be before these recommendations are made into law? It is to be hoped that the time lag will not be so long because already both the Wolfenden and the Wootton reports appear to be only a very cautious step forward.

The Concept of Deviance

Sociologists use the word deviance to describe behaviour which Provokes social hostility. It is not the actual behaviour of the individual that makes a person deviant, but the reactions of others to that behaviour. Although homosexuals do not harm themselves or others, they are thought of as deviant because many people find their activities distasteful. The same might be said of gypsies. A -child who is brought up in a loving home by two parents who are not married is a deviant; his upbringing and personality may be -unexceptional, but his illegitimacy will become a social handicap as he grows older.

By the same criterion pot smoking is deviant. The effects of cannabis are insignificant, but the social hostility to using pot will hove considerable effect on the smoker.

Deviance is one of the social controls discussed in the second ipart of this chapter. Social controls are part of civilized living, more efficient and less costly than legal controls. Ideally the degree of tolerance should depend upon the amount of social harm; activities which have a disruptive influence should be limited by strong social controls, while socially harmless activities should be uncontrolled. Unfortunately this is not always the case. Motoring - offences do not arouse much disapproval although they a.re potentially very harmful. On the other hand ideas of right and wrong as regards sexual behaviour have always been the subject of strong convictions without reference to their social effects.

Sometimes the social standards are found to be out of date because conditions have changed and new information has become available. In such an event it is quite difficult to change these social standards.

New knowledge may show that the social controls are too weak. A case could be made in favour of having stronger social controls against smoking tobacco or getting slightly drunk. At other times the new knowledge suggests that the social controls are unnecessarily strong. Dancing on Sundays, gambling, abortion, the censor. ship of books and plays, are all examples of where our social standards have been relaxed. Perhaps the use of cannabis is an example of a social control that is unnecessarily strong. When there is doubt and controversy, the will of the majority is oft enforced by strength and power, not by discussion and reason.

Scapegoats and Witch hunts

By now it will be clear that difficulties are caused, not only by the effects of cannabis and by the personality of the user, but in a large measure by the attitude of non-users to those who take pot. This is nothing new. Throughout history the dominant majority has sought out and punished convenient scapegoats.

If the age-old idea of the scapegoat were true and we really coold cure some of the ills of our society by sacrificing a few individuals, there might be something to be said for it and the only difficulty would be to decide who is to be next. But the sacrifice does not decrease our troubles. It increases them. Not only is it unjust an cruel to the goat, it covers up the problems instead of solving them. The scapegoat's punishment deflects the same fate from us for the sins we have committed ourselves. At the same time the scapegoat provides us with the flattering illusion that we are superior to himb (Taylor and Rey, 1953). In recent years the user of cannabis has been used as a convenient scapegoat and has been persecuted with a vindictiveness that is not related to the harm he has caused, but rather to the mythical magnitude of his wickedness.

There are signs that we have at last reached the lowest point of the drug scare and there will now be some improvement as the witch hunt dies. (Who will be the next scapegoat?) The rational arguments in the Wootton report will convince some people, while others will react against the reception of the report in Parliament. ,Even the new Government legislation acknowledges that cannabis :use is not the same thing as heroin addiction. Some magistrates are now giving less severe sentences and probation officers have shown a sensible awareness of the difficulties. The work of the people at Release and in other organizations of the underground is beginning to have some effect.

But there is a long way to go. I meet many wonderful people (whose life is spent in the service of others, dedicated to social welfare, taking away misery and adding to the sum of human happiness. And yet if someone uses a chemical crutch to find his own deeper more private happiness, these well-intentioned people are horrified. They will do everything they can to prevent the use of cannabis, assuming that the user will only hurt himself and end up on the scrap heap like the meths drinker. Of course it is inevitable that some will misuse drugs, including cannabis, but many will not. But even when we know a person is misusing a drug, we should hesitate before we arrest him and lock him up.