Take a few deep breaths and note the question mark. It’s not a statement of fact nor is it an expression of an opinion. It’s merely a question that may or may not be worthy of consideration and maybe even a conversation.
It’s often argued that drug laws and in particular those relating to Class C drugs like cannabis, are among many simple and arguably insignificant pieces of legislation we have lying around that are just a pain in the neck and more trouble than they’re worth.
Everybody knows that a large number of people have for years been cultivating and using cannabis. The authorities seem to have reached a point where they operate to a finely tuned balance with the existing legislation. They turn a bit of a blind eye to personal use, occasionally sort out and charge some low end but troublesome dealers, and reasonably regularly swoop on the gangs and the larger operators to keep them in check. The checks and balances have evolved without our help and without legislative changes.
It certainly looks as though anybody who wants to partake of some cannabis can easily get their hands on it and while they are operating outside the law, the law seems only to care enough to do anything about it if it becomes troublesome.
The message from the legislation however remains clear: It’s not legal and you partake at risk of prosecution; a disincentive and boundary between what society deems right and wrong. It also sets boundaries in particular for our youth.
Blurred boundaries inevitably change attitudes and are often the thin end of the wedge. The argument that because many people already choose to use cannabis, therefore it should be legalized or decriminalized, is a very weak one. Follow that to its logical conclusion and it won’t be long before we’d be under pressure to legalize other classes of drugs, running red lights and who knows what else.
Without passing comment on whether it was right or wrong or sensible or otherwise, there are many examples of changes in legislation resetting societal standards. For example, lowering the legal age of maturity from 21 to 18 gave a whole group of individuals rights that assumed a level of knowledge and experience they didn’t have then and still don’t have today. It could be argued that much of the climate change nonsense we’re dealing with today, is driven by society giving too much credence to those who are not mature enough to process the facts – but that’s another subject for another day.
Change is not necessarily a bad thing. Nor is it necessarily a good thing. Unintended consequences however are usually not so good and it’s those we need to be thinking deeply about.