Reefer madness: an interlude


by Laurie Penny    
June 4, 2008 at 11:27 am

Shock, horror, disaster! Call the riot boys, summon the G8! Get your placards out! Cannabis causes brain damage!

Well, sort of. Ish. We think. But it’s been days since the last teen stabbing and it’s a slow news morning, so let’s have a moral panic anyway. Cue headlines splashed with the latest drug trials that prove next to nothing about the effects of marijuana on the human brain, as if that were the point.

Let’s take an example: alcohol is our nation’s biggest drug problem. Now, in tests that have been carried out so far, medium-to-low-level use of cannabis - a few joints a week for a few years, say - has been shown to display no correlation with changes in brain composition and chemistry. Likewise, there has been little evidence to show that a few units of alcohol a week does any permanent damage to one’s system.

But the most recent studies on THC, the active ingredient in cannabis, examine people who’ve been smoking five or more joints per day for upwards of ten years. That, my dears, is one significant fucking habit. It’s the equivalent of major, long-term alcoholism. And both addictions, taken to extreme, cause brain damage along with a host of other symptoms.

So let’s compare this to another damaging behavior: self-harm. If you carried out equivalent studies on groups of self harmers with a control group, one would probably find that the self-harmers as a whole displayed significantly higher levels of depression and medium- to high-level manic and schizophrenic symptoms than the non-self-harming teenagers. Does this mean that self-harm causes brain damage? Of course not.

Alcohol, self-harm, hard drug use, smoking, unsafe sex, smoking cannabis. All of these activities have been shown to be more prevalent amongst the depressed and emotionally disordered, and particularly amongst the depressed and emotionally disordered young. But they are aggravating symptoms, not the cause of the problem. It’s only logical that chemical escapism, offered by these drugs and addictions in their extremes, is a resort likely to be most tempting to those who have most to escape from.

The effect of the continued criminalisation - and, now, of reclassification despite leading doctors’ advice - of cannabis is simply to make users more financially and emotionally dependent on illegal drug-dealers, and less likely to seek help when , like young alcoholics, they recognise that their problems have superseded their control.

The trouble with the THC debate is that it tends to be polarised between subjective extremes. On the one hand, there are the hard-liners like Gordon Brown who just hate hippies, stoners and all their ilk; then there are parents understandably blinkered by fear for their children, and conservatives eager to jump on the latest bandwagon condemning the coping mechanisms of any social underclass.

On the other hand, there are the producers of High Times and their mates, the great semi-washed, stoning masses who may or may not be otherwise useful members of society.

The simple fact is that this country has a problem with drugs and drink: period. For Joe average dope fiend and Jill average booze hound, low-level use doesn’t often present that much of a problem, particularly if you don’t have a Facebook account. But there are heavy users, serious addicts, people who peddle away their lives to the drug, and they do have problems - problems that don’t need in-depth psychiatric studies to demonstrate their urgency.

As a nation, we’ve fostered for several generations a serious weed habit that’s growing to form a plausible second option to the nation’s favourite hobby: boozing. We’re a nation of alcoholics; we’ve been a nation of alcoholics for centuries.

We need to have an open and objective national conversation about weed. Marjunana is neither a panacaea nor about to tip us into an immediate cross-generational psychotic break, but it is a national health problem, a problem that needs to be understood and addressed. Increasing criminalisation, victimising the young and the mentally distressed and frantic media scaremongering add nothing useful to the TCH debate.

Honest and balanced reportage in non-judgemental conversation with users, healthcare professionals and families alike might just take us one step closer to understanding the real scale of harm that this drug causes. So let’s begin it.

· About the author: Laurie Penny is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. She is a journalist, blogger, student and feminist activist. She blogs at Penny Red and for Red Pepper magazine.

· Other posts by Laurie Penny

· About this article:
Print it   |   Trackback link   |   Track comments   |   send to del.icio.us   |   to Facebook
Filed under: Blog , Crime , Health , Media


6 Comments in response   ||   Add your own



at 12:05 pm on June 4, 2008
- direct link -  
1.  comment by
     john b

The NHS has an excellent health myth busting website, which successfully busts the cannabis psychosis health myth.

at 1:08 am on June 5, 2008
- direct link -  
2.  comment by
     thomas

Very good article Laurie, I’m with you on this one, but I still think you could go further in your development of the argument regarding drugs.

The anti-drug perspective gains advantage by mounting a simultaneous barrage of attacks from the health lobby and the crime lobby. Since neither is sustainable alone they work in combination to the same effect, and so until opponents of prohibition learn to conjoin counter-arguments to show the links between criminality and ill-health the ideological battle will remain unresolved.

The solution to ill-health is education and exercise; the solution to crime is toleration and taxation. The taxation pays for the education.

Wasn’t Al Capone imprisoned for tax evasion?

at 1:15 am on June 5, 2008
- direct link -  
3.  comment by
     thomas

(for the purposes of this discussion I’d categorise crimes against the person as a form of ill-health reflecting the more basic state of relationship between an individual and society, as being directly between two individuals rather than indirectly involving third parties through the social-financial transaction)

at 8:12 am on June 5, 2008
- direct link -  
4.  comment by
     Woobegone

John B : Hang on, there’s a lot more to it than that… That page is about just one study - the “myth” of a link between cannabis and psychosis doesn’t rely on that one paper. It’s not as if the NHS are completely dismissive of that paper, anyway.

To call the possible link a myth is silly. It’s a respectable scientific theory - it may turn out not to be true, but it’s a serious proposal. There is now a huge amount of evidence that early (adolescent), heavy cannabis use is correlated with a higher risk of psychosis in later life. This is established fact. Now, correlation obviously doesn’t prove causation, but there is other relevant evidence - giving cannabis to already psychotic people makes their symptoms worse, for example.

Personally I’m in two minds about the theory - all the evidence so far could in theory be explained away - but it is a pretty powerful one. For once this isn’t just the Daily Mail creating a scare (although they have, naturally, blown the truth out of all proportion).

at 1:14 pm on June 5, 2008
- direct link -  
5.  comment by
     thomas

I think I’ll return to this one because I want to ask who decides what the dividing line between the parameters of normality and abnormality are.

The ruthless and selfish drive exhibited by people with strong psychopathic tendencies is quite sought after in managers, for example, while there is a pretty clear link between schizophrenic tendencies and creativity.

So, I wonder, what personality traits do you need in order to become a high-rank politician and how strong would those traits have to be to make you stand out from the crowd?

at 1:42 pm on June 6, 2008
- direct link -  
6.  comment by
     davebones

Its skunk which is the problem. I don’t believe in victimless crime of any sort, but I know skunk is an unbalanced hybrid. Kids are waking up to this slowly I think.

Post a comment using the form below

  • We have a tight comments policy aimed at fostering constructive debate.
  • We believe in free speech but not your right to abuse our space.
  • Abusive, sarcastic or silly comments may be deleted.
  • Misogynist, racist, homophobic and xenophobic comments will be deleted.
  • Please familiarise yourself with our comments policy.

HERE AND THERE
Featured blogs

Boris - the gaffopedia


David Lammy MP -

Can we follow Obama's lead?


Lynne Featherstone MP -

What about the dads?



Recently popular
Palin, abortion and the gender agenda
(333 replies)

The 'Gordon Brown is insane' meme
(177 replies)

Pantomime dames?
(119 replies)

A-Z of right-wing online commenting
(118 replies)

Lesbian mothers and 'traditional' families
(113 replies)

Latest comments
» sally posted on Having fun with the BNP list

» Col. Richard Hindrance (Mrs) posted on Having fun with the BNP list

» Col. Richard Hindrance (Mrs) posted on Having fun with the BNP list

» Newmania posted on Voters still don't trust Tories on economy

» donpaskini posted on Having fun with the BNP list

» Letters From A Tory posted on Having fun with the BNP list

» Sunny Hundal posted on Having fun with the BNP list

» A Very British Person posted on Having fun with the BNP list

» sally posted on Having fun with the BNP list

» Akela posted on Having fun with the BNP list

» A Very British Person posted on Having fun with the BNP list

» Darrell posted on Having fun with the BNP list

» Letters From A Tory posted on Having fun with the BNP list

» Kate Belgrave posted on The great public library scandal

» Sunny Hundal posted on Having fun with the BNP list

  Last 50 // Comments feed