5 The Controversial Problems

Social Implications

The social aspects of cannabis are much more important than the medical problems. The unspoken fact is that doctors really do not know much about cannabis. It is not used as a therapeutic drug and the regular user does not come to the notice of the medical profession. The doctors see only those who need psychiatric treatment for reasons other than smoking pot, or the ex-smoker who is now a heroin addict, or the unlucky smoker who has been arrested. But most people who smoke pot have no need of psychiatric treatment and with a bit of luck will not get arrested.

It is only to be expected that public concern and individual suffering will tend to concentrate the attention of social workers and doctors on to those areas of the social scene where young people are in trouble. But we must not be misled by this. There is a far greater number of young people, including many who take cannabis, who have problems that do not give rise to anxiety, or who have no problem at all. As yet there does not exist a reliable and representative study of British cannabis users who have never been under treatment or arrest. Therefore our knowledge about the social implications of cannabis is scanty.

For every person who is arrested for possessing cannabis there are hundreds that are undetected. Any law which acts more like a lucky dip than an enforcement policy is a questionable law, especially when a particular segment of the population (e.g. coloured immigrants) are more likely to be caught. It is also alleged that the law is the cause of bad police practices and the development of a growing alienation between young people and the police. In the last two years, 7,754 people were arrested for cannabis offences and about a quarter of these were sent to prison (or borstal, detention centre or approved school). The financial cost of the administration of such a law deserves to be questioned. An analysis of the figures given in the Wootton report shows that almost 1,000 (990 under the age of twenty-one) young people were arrested in one year alone; most of them (782) were first offenders. The social cost of' criminalizing 'these adolescents must be queried.

It is a very important social fact that cannabis appeals mostly to the younger generations. The total number of users (however many that may be) is not a large proportion of the total population, but it may well be a significant segment of those under the age of thirty. It is also said that this is the drug above all others that appeals to an articulate group that is anti-authority and in revolt against the older generations. Others have suggested that cannabis is simply the latest fashion in non-conformism, and will be superseded by a new craze when the next generation arrives on the scene. But some talented young artists and composers have made claims for the positive effect of cannabis on creativity and these deserve to be examined carefully and impartially.

The rapid spread of cannabis to other middle-class users and students is an interesting sociological phenomenon. It is these people who provide the articulate arguments in favour of cannabis. They are not convinced that the law is based on scientific evidence about what this drug does to those who use it. Some of these people have carried on a well publicized campaign in favour of the legalization of cannabis. The now famous advertisement which appeared in The Times in 1967 was signed by many well-known people and quoted opinions from doctors respected in their profession. This advertisement was not a direct plea for legalization, as many people seem to assume, but a petition to the Home Secretary advocating cannabis law reform.

Subsequently the Wootton report endorsed some of the reforms suggested in the advertisement and one of them is now incorporated into the new Misuse of Drugs Bill. In the last few years more and more well-known people have suggested that the dangers of cannabis may be exaggerated and the present law may be the cause of unnecessary social distress. A report from the National Council for Civil Liberties (1969) has drawn attention to the erosion of citizens' rights in the way the drug laws are being enforced.

In the last few years the debate on the social effects of cannabis has continued in Parliament, the press and elsewhere. Some of the main arguments against cannabis are:

(1) That it can act as a stepping stone to the truly addictive drugs; the reasons for this are said to be sociological rather than physiological.
(2) That it leads to other forms of crime.
(3) That it encourages sexual misconduct and other kinds of immoral behaviour.
(4) That it encourages the development of an underground group which is divisive.

All of these major controversies are discussed in detail in later chapters.' An even greater sociological mystery is why people are so illogical about recreational drugs. If being stoned is so wicked, why is being drunk so funny? It sometimes happens that the very people who are demanding that drug takers should be severely punished are themselves taking drugs to calm them down, give them energy or help them slim.

Cannabis and Other Drugs

Public attitudes to psychoactive drugs are not very sensible or consistent. Until recently most people confused all drug users with the stereotype of the junkie. Over the last four chapters I have attempted to show that there are important variations in the way these drugs take effect. In particular there are fundamental differences between cannabis and the other recreational drugs.

Amphetamines are widely prescribed and are used by young and old. Unlike cannabis most of the misuse is with pills which have been obtained legally. Tolerance, dependence and psychosis are recognized consequences of using amphetamines. Similar hazards do not result from using cannabis.

Barbiturates are socially accepted and widely prescribed. Unlike cannabis, they are capable of producing tolerance, dependence and death. More old people use barbiturates than young people use pot.

LSD is much stronger than cannabis. Even the experienced user of LSD may find himself in difficulties because the response is so intense and variable, whereas pot permits a more dependable controlled usage. Furthermore there are reports of dangerously deluded states and possible genetic effects as a result of taking LSD, both of which are unknown to those who take cannabis.

Opiates and in particular heroin produce tolerance, whereas cannabis users do not have to increase the dose to get the same effect. Unlike heroin, cannabis does not cause physical dependence and withdrawal effects do not occur when its use is discontinued. Over-dosage of heroin and other hard drugs may result in death; pneumonia, malnutrition, infection and general ill-health are frequent consequences, but these hazards are not found in users of cannabis. The heroin addict soon gets drawn into a junkie subculture where obtaining the drug becomes a way of life. Most cannabis users do not form aberrant social groups, although some do, but even in these groups drug use is only a part of adolescent alienation and not the sole purpose of the group.

Alcohol is often compared with cannabis and indeed there are many similarities. Both are used to help a person to relax and to remove social handicaps such as nervousness or reserve. Both dull inhibitions so that caution vanishes for a while. But cannabis does not induce tolerance, does not cause physical damage to the body tissues and does not enhance the effects of barbiturates and other drugs, whereas alcohol does all these things. When taken in excess, the drinker may become aggressive but the cannabis user becomes passive. The drinker often gets a hangover, a very rare experience for the user of cannabis. But the principal difference is that alcohol is legal. Axiomatic this may be, but many of the most important differences stem from this fact. Alcohol can be drunk by people who respect the established conventions, but cannabis appeals to a group that is anti-authority. We have devised social controls for alcohol and feel that we know how to deal with it.

Moreover we are able to enforce these controls because we have learnt how to detect the presence of alcohol in the human body. We have not yet devised a chemical test to determine the extent of intoxication by cannabis.2 Even by straightforward observations, it is far more difficult to identify the man under the influence of pot than the man under the influence of alcohol. But of course the main reason why it is easier to spot the user of alcohol is because the behaviour of the cannabis user is much less disruptive to those who are near him.

Tobacco is the most widely used addictive drug in this country. Most smokers would find it extremely hard to give up the habit and even those who say they use tobacco only because they enjoy it are probably disguising an addiction which has taken control of their will power. At the 1970 congress of the Royal Society of Health, it was condemned by the Government's Chief Medical Officer as 'the biggest noxious influence in our environment'. It is sometimes said that the Government cannot restrict cigarette smoking because so much money is raised by taxation; but it is estimated that one fifth of all absences from work for illness can be connected in some way with cigarette smoking and ten per cent of all deaths can be attributed, directly or indirectly, to tobacco; therefore it is possible that the cost to the National Health Service is greater than the money raised by taxing tobacco. The short-term effects are substantially harmless, but it is now known that the long-term smoking of cigarettes induces cancer of the lung, exacerbates chronic bronchitis and is a contributory cause of coronary thrombosis. None of these dangers were apparent even after people had been smoking for hundreds of years, so this is a warning that one day we may find hitherto unknown drawbacks in cannabis. But this warning must apply to very many substances, particularly new chemicals such as monosodium glutamate (used to season food), the residue of pesticides in fruit and vegetables, petrol fumes which cause atmospheric pollution and even certain cosmetic Creams.3

It would be absurd to refuse to make use of new chemical discoveries because we are unable to provide certain proof that they are harmless. Even if we can show that a particular substance is harmful upon occasions, we still have to weigh the advantages against the drawbacks. It may be possible to grow that the contraceptive pill increases the risks of thrombosis in a very few and is the cause of less serious side-effects in others. But most people would feel the benefits of the pill far outweigh the disadvantages. It is often said that there are no similar advantages to cannabis as it has no therapeutic use, but a drug which gives so much pleasure and has so many advocates cannot be written off as valueless.

1. See chapters 9-12.

2. It js likely that a satisfactory urine test will become available before long (Christiansen, 1969).

3. One cream advertised as a bust developer might cause tumours and disturb a woman's menstrual periods, according to a report from a consultant toxicologist in the Government's Consumer Council periodical (Focus, Deceinher 1967).