Hannah Cann tells us why she loves political correctness.
Do you have swine flu? No. Do you know anybody who does have swine flu? Probably not. So what's all the fuss about?
Can't afford ethical clothing but can afford a night out at Ziggy's? Jennifer Heyes discusses where students' priorities should really lie.
Three of The Yorker's blogs team have had a hard think about what general rules they live their lives by and written them down in the form of their own Personal Philosophies.
The entire basis for the change in classification seems to rest on Gordon Brown's own beliefs and his desire to "send a tough message" to users. This tough message means that simple possession of a small amount could result in up to five years jail time. Who in their right mind would think that putting extra pressure on our already overflowing prison system with people who are in the main harming no-one but themselves is a good idea? When pressed on the issue, some spin doctored numbers are thrown at the public in order to try and convince them that it's all for their own good. Let's just look at those arguments shall we?
When I go to a pub, I'm hardly going to order a pint of whiskey or a shot of Fosters, am I?
The main point made is about stronger varieties of cannabis being available that are allegedly much more likely to induce mental illness. Statistics from last year showed that mental health admissions had almost doubled since 1996 - pretty shocking right? Now consider that these numbers (510 and 946 respectively) are a tiny minority of the estimated 3 million regular users: that percentage increase is rendered pretty meaningless, far less than 1% of all users. "Still," you may say, "over 400 extra nutters is still a bad thing." And you'd be right, but then there is limited evidence that these psychoses are being caused by cannabis use. Moreover, during the same time period there has been a decrease in the number of cases of schizophrenia.
Of course with all these stronger varieties (the dreaded skunk, etc.), are people going to continue to smoke the same amount as they would of the milder ones? Really? When I go to a pub, I've got many drinks on offer to me, but I'm hardly going to see beer and spirits as equivalent and order a pint of whiskey or a shot of Fosters.
A secondary worry is that reclassification to Class C made it easier and more acceptable for people to get hold of and use the drug. With respect to the ease of buying it, it was easy enough while it was still Class B and has remained so throughout the past four years. If someone, anyone, wants to get hold of it, they can do so with relative ease; everyone knows someone who knows someone. As for being more acceptable and worries about user numbers increasing... well, it may surprise you to learn that the estimated number of users has actually decreased since reclassification to Class C.
Indeed, Gordon Brown is going against all these findings from a report that he requested from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), who stated quite clearly in the introduction to that report that "cannabis should remain a Class C substance". Not only that, but the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) have stated that they will not take a tougher approach when dealing with cases of possession when the drug is reclassified as Class B.
So let me get this straight. Since the downgrading there has been no significant increase in the number of cases of psychosis, no conclusive evidence that any increase is linked to cannabis use, less users being criminalised and being sent to over-filled prisons and a decrease in the number of users. Are there any credible arguments for the upgrade?
You must log in to submit a comment.
