poledriver
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 11,543
The Guardian view on cannabis and psychosis: how do we protect teenagers? - Editorial
Drugs policy in the UK is not actually made in smoke-filled rooms but it might as well be. The mixture of befuddled optimism with a lack of urgency that characterises official thinking about cannabis has had dangerous results. Getting on for 50 years of prohibition, vigorously defended in principle but lackadaisically enforced in practice, have produced a situation that combines the disadvantages of tolerance and criminalisation.
Two generations of parents now know that it is not as dangerous as official propaganda told them, but this leads to a reluctance to admit that the habit has any real dangers at all. That in itself is dangerous to their children. At the moment, smoking weed is a socially sanctioned form of crime, and widely understood as victimless (as it most often is), just as driving drunk was 60 years ago. But in fact the risks of heavy teenage cannabis consumption should frighten all of us.
There are more than 13,000 under-18s in treatment for the consequences of heavy cannabis use in England, and the largest age group among them are 15-to-16-year-olds. This suggests very widespread consumption among younger teenagers in some parts of the country, since problems don’t normally develop until after smoking large quantities of powerful weed. The problems that can arise from such abuse are devastating.
Psychotic breakdowns smash up lives and can lead to full-blown schizophrenia. This is a small risk of a dreadful outcome, something well worth a proper public health campaign. Absolute proof that cannabis can drive a minority of users mad can’t be obtained for ethical reasons. But the evidence we have is compelling enough to justify a proper public education programme of sufficient power to get the message out to vulnerable users and their friends and peers.
Neither those in favour of real prohibition nor those in favour of legalisation and control want teenagers and especially young teenagers smoking. In that age group it is already causing far more problems than alcohol. The question is how to diminish this harm. Muddling on as we are is clearly not going to work. Attempts to enforce prohibition are both unrealistic and unaffordable.
Legalising such a dangerous substance is not a panacea either but it must be the least worst solution. Such a measure could be defended only if it diminished the harm to vulnerable teenagers. It is during the years when the brain is growing and being rewired that some unlucky young people are most vulnerable to the damaging effects of strong cannabis.
One of the effects of prohibition has been to drive up the THC content and thus the potency of what’s on sale, because this is maximises the ratio of profit to risk. Whether that is what consumers would choose if they could is another question. It’s not entirely fanciful to suppose that legal cannabis, intelligently taxed, would tend to be less powerful than much of what is on the market now, just as most of the drink sold in Britain is not spirits.
It might seem paradoxical to claim that the increasing evidence of the danger of cannabis to some users is an argument for legalisation. But an open and regulated market is easier to control than one whose existence cannot be officially sanctioned. That argument will take years to win. In the meantime, a public health campaign, aimed squarely at vulnerable teenagers, should be an urgent policy priority.
With comments -
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-how-do-we-protect-teenagers?CMP=share_btn_tw
Drugs policy in the UK is not actually made in smoke-filled rooms but it might as well be. The mixture of befuddled optimism with a lack of urgency that characterises official thinking about cannabis has had dangerous results. Getting on for 50 years of prohibition, vigorously defended in principle but lackadaisically enforced in practice, have produced a situation that combines the disadvantages of tolerance and criminalisation.
Two generations of parents now know that it is not as dangerous as official propaganda told them, but this leads to a reluctance to admit that the habit has any real dangers at all. That in itself is dangerous to their children. At the moment, smoking weed is a socially sanctioned form of crime, and widely understood as victimless (as it most often is), just as driving drunk was 60 years ago. But in fact the risks of heavy teenage cannabis consumption should frighten all of us.
There are more than 13,000 under-18s in treatment for the consequences of heavy cannabis use in England, and the largest age group among them are 15-to-16-year-olds. This suggests very widespread consumption among younger teenagers in some parts of the country, since problems don’t normally develop until after smoking large quantities of powerful weed. The problems that can arise from such abuse are devastating.
Psychotic breakdowns smash up lives and can lead to full-blown schizophrenia. This is a small risk of a dreadful outcome, something well worth a proper public health campaign. Absolute proof that cannabis can drive a minority of users mad can’t be obtained for ethical reasons. But the evidence we have is compelling enough to justify a proper public education programme of sufficient power to get the message out to vulnerable users and their friends and peers.
Neither those in favour of real prohibition nor those in favour of legalisation and control want teenagers and especially young teenagers smoking. In that age group it is already causing far more problems than alcohol. The question is how to diminish this harm. Muddling on as we are is clearly not going to work. Attempts to enforce prohibition are both unrealistic and unaffordable.
Legalising such a dangerous substance is not a panacea either but it must be the least worst solution. Such a measure could be defended only if it diminished the harm to vulnerable teenagers. It is during the years when the brain is growing and being rewired that some unlucky young people are most vulnerable to the damaging effects of strong cannabis.
One of the effects of prohibition has been to drive up the THC content and thus the potency of what’s on sale, because this is maximises the ratio of profit to risk. Whether that is what consumers would choose if they could is another question. It’s not entirely fanciful to suppose that legal cannabis, intelligently taxed, would tend to be less powerful than much of what is on the market now, just as most of the drink sold in Britain is not spirits.
It might seem paradoxical to claim that the increasing evidence of the danger of cannabis to some users is an argument for legalisation. But an open and regulated market is easier to control than one whose existence cannot be officially sanctioned. That argument will take years to win. In the meantime, a public health campaign, aimed squarely at vulnerable teenagers, should be an urgent policy priority.
With comments -
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-how-do-we-protect-teenagers?CMP=share_btn_tw
