Tuesday 21 April 2009

Stagg's debate about legalising cannabis is stone mad

Sunday Tribune 19 April

It might have been the greatest economic plan ever conceived. Then again, it might not. Last week, I suggested raffling the country's toxic assets to raise money. I suggested we call this lottery The Blotto. As stupid ideas go, I thought it couldn't be beaten. It has.
Labour's Emmet Stagg has now suggested that the government legalise cannabis and tax it. The country should go from stoney broke to stoned and broke. Hurray.
Last Tuesday, he debated the idea with campaigner Grainne Kenny of Europe Against Drugs. 'Debate' is not the right word – it was more of a 'scrap'. Grainne lit into him, firing off facts about health, etc, while Emmet countered by calling her a fanatic.
He said he didn't know of anyone who died from cannabis use and that "drinking too much milk" is bad for you. Grainne boiled over, accusing him of not having done any research.
He called her a dictator. Grainne dug into him again. At the end, it was clear that, in Stagg's mind, he had beaten the 'mad oul wan' (my words, not his).
The mad oul wan is my mother, by the way. She told me she was annoyed with herself for losing her temper. As a hack, I've never commented on the drugs debate or defended Grainne before – she's capable of defending herself.
I will say, though, that her passion comes from the experience of quietly helping families with drugs problems. She sees hardships that most politicians only read about.
To tell you the truth, the drugs debate is not something I lie awake thinking about. I have other things to worry about – like paying bills. Stagg's comments have forced me to go on the record here and give an opinion. It's just that, an opinion, and it may be wrong. I don't agree with legalisation. This is not because the mammy says drugs are bad for me, but because I believe it's illogical.
I drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes and I accept the evidence that both are bad for me. I would expect anybody who smokes dope or promotes its legalisation to say the same.
Cannabis abusers, for example, run the risk of becoming psychotic. Here's a statistic: the number of teens presenting with mental health problems rose 22% (between April 2003/2004) after the UK downgraded cannabis. It has since 'upgraded' it again. As Stagg points out, this country already has problems with alcohol and tobacco.
Department of Health figures released last week show that one in five of us have been assaulted by a drunk. Over a quarter of us binge drink once a week. Cigarette smoking kills 7,000 people a year according to the Irish Cancer Society. Cannabis also intoxicates and can cause lung cancer. Where is the logic in legalising it, and increasing its usage, when we already have a problem with legal drugs?
Why would a government that is effectively outlawing cigarettes legalise cannabis? To beat the drug dealers? That's illogical too. The dealers will just sell other drugs. Do we then legalise cocaine? Or ecstasy? Or heroin?
At what age can you start smoking cannabis? Stoners don't generally make good students, so do we limit its use to those who have finished secondary school? Age restriction doesn't work with alcohol, so it won't work with cannabis. Do we bother with age restriction at all?
How much cannabis can you smoke before you are legally intoxicated? How many units/joints will put you over the limit? Will we have a 'joint' Oireachtas committee to look into all of this?
Of course, not all cannabis smokers will become psychotic or get cancer. They won't all graduate to heroin. The fact remains, however, that some will. Cannabis is not a harmless drug and anyone who says it is is either lying or hasn't done their research.
We need a debate on this issue by people who know what they're talking about. Stagg's contribution, last Tuesday, was devoid of any revelations other than "too much milk's bad for you". Children of Ireland, put down the Avonmore and toke on this. I suppose it will be our patriotic duty to get stoned, seeing as how we're doing it for the economy.
Stagg sounds like a man who has heard the words 'election' and 'coalition' blowing in the wind. He wants to raise his profile with young voters and win a portfolio before he retires. If not, and he really believes his drug tax will help the economy, then we can forget about ever electing a credible alternative to this government.
Every day we learn more about the ineptitude that has left us facing a future full of social problems, like rising drug abuse. The country needs hope. We need to know that someone out there has a solution. We don't need Stagg's nonsensical economics undermining that hope.
Eamon Gilmore must now clarify where his party stands on the only issue that concerns me and thousands of prospective voters today – the economy. Is Labour in favour of taxing drugs to fix it? Is that the best your party has to offer us? Is that it?
God help us if it is.

dkenny@tribune.ie

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

"Why would a government that is effectively outlawing cigarettes legalise cannabis? To beat the drug dealers? That's illogical too. The dealers will just sell other drugs. Do we then legalise cocaine? Or ecstasy? Or heroin?"

Yes, at least then the drugs can be controlled and monitored, much of the health problems with drugs are caused by the conditions in wich they are made, even cannabis can be tampered with, or worse sandblasted.

"At what age can you start smoking cannabis? Stoners don't generally make good students, so do we limit its use to those who have finished secondary school? Age restriction doesn't work with alcohol, so it won't work with cannabis. Do we bother with age restriction at all?"

I started when i was 16 quit for a while then started smoking again at 18, i have smoked cannabis every day for the past 2 and a half years and i still managed to pass my degree and find a decent job, leading me to assume your statement is completly baseless.
The age restriction should be 21,