Image via Wikipedia In the politics of drug policy in the community an emerging concern is being expressed characterised by an anti-fun, anti-youth intolerance ranging from neo-prohibitionism to a ‘more rules is better than some rules’ debate surrounding alcohol deficits in the community. If Cannabis is not a cause of anti-social behaviour AND cannabis is displacing alcohol and other mind altering substances it can be reasonably argued its use is ”harm minimizing” AND producing a positive social outcome.
And why do those who are morally (or politically) concerned ‘about drug harms’ resist change (ie: “we don’t need a third drug!”) when cannabis is so prevalent and so benign by any comparison yet ‘in their name and mine’ its draconian sanction so damaging.
“The Advisory Council also found that cannabis use isn’t actually associated with antisocial or criminal behaviour, but the public perception is that it is, because there’s a lot of misleading information which confuses people.” – Dr Margaret Melrose, reader in applied social science at the University of Bedfordshire
Why do we make rational movement in the policy analytic standard seemingly ‘illegal to discuss’ if not downright impossible?
Blair Anderson
Related articles
- Government advisers say main aim of cannabis policy ‘must be to reduce demand’
- Call for science to rule on risk of illegal drugs
- Crime gangs ‘exploit change in cannabis law’
MildGreens's Backup Blog 