Drug culture and classification

In February 2009, the British Government received a report that they commissioned into the classification of drugs, specifically Cannabis, and decided that a trial period where the drug had been de-classified from Class-B to Class-C was to come to and end. Subsequently, the drug was now to be re-classified back to Class-B again. The decision caused much public debate and news reporting.

The BBC, through its editors blog feature of the BBC News website, opened a discussion group on the subject, which although aimed specifically at the cannabis question, received responses from all areas of public opinion on all matters of drug use. Opinions were wide ranging and covered a variety of scenarios, but I'd suggest that the majority of opinion from the BBC public was one of dissatisfaction with the decision as a whole.

There are always going to those who agree or disagree with an opinion, and if those people are putting across their sincere opinion without unfair influence, then I believe that this opinion should be considered, if not conceded. We are supposed to live in a democracy, are we not?

Drugs are illegal for a reason. That is what we are all told. That statement in itself is fundamentally flawed, because drugs are licensed and distributed by drug companies to the tune of £millions per day, globally. Of course, the reference is to illegal drugs, and they're illegal because . . . well . . . because . . . they're illegal drugs right?

There is a stigma surrounding the 'legal' and 'illegal' status of pretty much everything in life. The authorities say that illegal drugs help to fund the criminal world, and more recently, terrorism. If tobacco were banned tomorrow, the government would doubtless tell us that illegal drugs were used as a means to fund tobacco smuggling.

Both tobacco and cannabis are natural. Admittedly, smoking the dried leaves and buds of those plants is not 'natural', but then neither is slicing the back-end from a cow, frying it, and eating it with fried onions. Humans have a history of adapting their surroundings to suit their needs just as much as we have adapted to our surroundings.

What we need to consider is this. Why do we use drugs?
From the earliest medicinal drugs, the purpose has been to make us better, or at least to make us feel better. Not all pharmaceutical drugs actually make us better - some just 'hide' the effects of what's making us ill so that the body can fix itself - so they make us 'feel' better. Think painkillers or anti-inflamatories for instance. They don't fix the problem, they help the body adjust to help itself.

Another thing we need to consider is this. Why are some drugs illegal?
All drugs that are developed have to undergo strict testing and trials before they can even be considered for full deployment across the public domain. From there they are distributed to pharmacies and drug stores, and some can be purchased over the counter at non-pharmaceutical outlets, while others are strictly controlled by prescription only. Dosages are monitored and calculated within strict guidelines issued by central government, following intense study and scrutiny by official bodies or working groups made up of professionals in that specific field. Those professionals are considered to be an authoritative source of information, data, opinion and procedure for dealing with that particular substance.

Let us look at the outcome of the report given by the working group, assigned by the government, to look into the effects of cannabis and whether a re-classification was necessary. The group published a report following the governments decision to downgrade cannabis from Class-B to Class-C. The downgrading was done as a trial, and the panel of professionals were commissioned to investigate the effects of the drug, and to deliver recommendations to the government as to further courses of action necessary.

The government trial came to an end, and they reclassified the drug to Class-B again, which has caused this particular discussion in various media. The one single pertinent point is that the commissioned working group assigned this task by the government did not conclude that any recommendations should be made to reclassify this drug. In fact, they went further, to say that they did not see any reason to reclassify the drug at all. What was the point of spending all that money on a panel of experts to completely ignore their findings?

I will admit that all drugs have an effect. A drug that has no effect is called a placebo - in fact it is not a drug at all in that sense. Effects can be productive or detrimental. Effects can be pleasure or relief. Effects can be eradication or enhancement. Effects can be multiples of any, all or many other symptoms.

The point is that the law is not consistent. It either needs to be tightened considerably, or relaxed entirely, and it needs to be done across the board to level the drug playing field.

It cannot be denied that drugs, whether legal or illegal, have an effect on the mind or body. Those used for pharmaceutical purposes are licensed to do us some good, but it can be argued that recreational drugs do an element of good too. Their popularity throughout the ages is testament to that, even if the damage done is outweighed by the good feeling. That is the personal choice of the person who uses that drug.

It seems to me that drugs that are used for recreational purposes are banned on the basis that they are mind altering substances. Let us consider mind altering for a moment.

An altered state of mind - a change of mind?
People have altered states of mind all day every day - moods.
Go have a lunchtime beer and then try to concentrate on your work all afternoon.
Have a few beers in the pub in the evening, then drive home - bad idea.

We have out of date laws, not just in the UK, but worldwide on this particular subject. Alcohol and tobacco are legal drugs of choice for many people. Caffeine in tea and coffee is also a drug. Amyl Nitrate is sold in the UK and used by millions, completely legally. All completely legally, subject to some certain usage laws; drinking and driving for instance. The adult population is given the choice, and some rules to abide by, but in the main, these drugs are regulated to allow consumption within those parameters. Why not all drugs?

We know that alcohol causes liver damage, brain damage and other related conditions with moderate use. Not excessive use, but moderate use.

We know that tobacco causes lung damage, throat damage and other related conditions with minimal use - not even excessive use in this case, but minimal use.

It is being said more and more that caffeine is responsible for certain brain conditions and damage there is being addressed by the removal of the drug from coffee and tea, but it is the consumer choice whether they want decaffeinated or regular.

Amyl Nitrate causes brain damage, and a warning is printed on the label advising that it should not be inhaled directly from the bottle - I've never seen it used any other way to be perfectly honest.

We are presented with various substances in health food stores that promote 'natural' remedies and the 'natural high' is being promoted as a herbal alternative to the illegal drug problem. What is unnatural about cannabis, cocaine or heroin. Each one is plant derived.

OK - I'll stop right there - I am not advocating the promotion of heroin. Let me make that absolutely clear, but I am including all illegal drugs in this post, and so naturally, I am considering heroin in that context.

Back to the top then - governments have used the 'drugs are responsible for funding crime and terrorism' style comments to advocate the illegality of certain recreational drugs for decades.

If this is the case, and use of the drug in question causes damage, then I see it as no different from alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. If those three drugs were made to be illegal drugs tomorrow, the supply of those drugs would be driven underground. We are already seeing the smuggling of alcohol and tobacco into the UK from cheaper sources, some from legitimate outlets and others from black market sources. Even some UK retailers have been reported for selling contraband stock.

Making cannabis the same as other class B substances is wrong. Plain and simply wrong. It may as well be class A and have done with it. It is the illegality of the drug that creates the initial attraction. Why is it illegal? What does it do that is so good? That is the way people think. What does it do that is so good? Remove the illegal status from the drug and immediately, it is levelled to the same as any other drug on the market. Most of the population and for sure those who use it would admit that it is only the 'illegal' tag carried by such a drug that forms their opinion of it anyway. Being an illegal drug removes it from the whole process of licensing and legitimate production, meaning that anyone with any knowledge of the business can produce the drug to whatever level of quality they like, or more likely, to whatever level of quality they are able.

Other drugs, such as cocaine and heroin are cut down with all sorts of substances, none of which are checked, controlled or delivered through any quality control checks whatsoever. I'd like to suggest that more cannabis has been consumed in the UK so far this year, 2009, than aspirin.

All drugs should be regulated. All drugs should be licensed. In fact, if you dig deep enough you will find that all drugs are already licensed, regulated and in use in medical facilities nationwide. Heroin is available under prescription, and is used as a pain treatment in extreme cases. Cocaine was used by dentists until quite recently, and I doubt it has been completely removed from the shelves in one form or another. So, the point here really, is down to personal choice.

The population of this country should be allowed to choose. I chose to drink alcohol when I was around 14 years old - illegal for me to do so at the time, but I'm 43 now, so I think I can safely say I got away with that one. I've been smoking tobacco since around the same time, and still do, although there are fewer and fewer places I'm allowed to do so.

License the production and distribution of recreational drugs, with an element of control applied, and allow the public to decide if they want to use it or not, rather than making every user an automatic criminal. There would be revenue associated with it, and that revenue would be directed away from the current criminal fraternity.

I won't drive my car if I've had a drink. If I intend to drive my car, I won't have a drink. I'm an adult. I make informed choices. Let us all make the choice.

To some, particularly children, illegal is attractive. Some people never grow up, and illegal is always attractive. Remove the illegality from their lives, and those activities lose their appeal.

I realise that this does not address the issue of addiction, but that is a whole new subject, and nothing I've listed in this post is immune from that particular topic.

Here's hoping for a free and democratic world, where the people have the choice.