Turning over a new leaf

The government should face reality and admit that people want to smoke cannabis and that the law cannot be enforced, argues James Morton

Like all things that are designed to be populist and are not thought through properly, the government's proposals on the decriminalisation of cannabis users raises as many questions as it answers.First, what is the evidence that the cannabis of today is not addictive? The skunk cannabis of today is very different from the 'wacky baccy' available during the happy days of the long-gone flower power era.

Can a cannabis user become a heroin user? No, say the believers.

Yes, say those of us who have defended the latter.

It is certain that not everyone who has tried cannabis has graduated to heroin, but I doubt that there are many heroin addicts who did not start their careers with cannabis.

Any form of drug is bad for you - heroin, coffee, cigarettes, alcohol.

If you are going to ban cannabis, ban alcohol is the call.

Unfortunately, that is not an option.

We have seen what troubles prohibition caused in the US.The reason for not legalising cannabis is that more people would start using it, Sue Kellen, director of drug strategy at the Home Office, has told the Commons home affairs committee.

This seems amazing.

If nothing is wrong with cannabis then why should people not be able to obtain it? If it is decided that cannabis is not bad for the younger generation and does not lead to harder drugs or that, even if it is bad, people should be allowed to have cannabis, then legalise it and cut out the dealers.

The tax imposed should make a substantial revenue that can be devoted to the NHS where some of today's young innocent users will undoubtedly end up.

One of the arguments for not prosecuting people found in possession of small amounts of cannabis is that they are taken out of the criminal justice system with a considerable saving of time and cost.

It will probably make the crime rate seem to fall even further.

There are also arguments that since whole sections of communities smoke cannabis it will merely alienate those people if the police are continually arresting them.

It is also suggested that if cannabis use is no longer prosecuted, users will not have to mix in criminal circles.

This is patently incorrect.

Unless cannabis can be obtained openly, users will still have to buy from dealers who, in many cases will be pleased to offer them samples of other drugs.This is the curious message sent out by the government: we do not mind you having it but we do mind people selling it to you.

However, ministers cannot have it both ways.

It is just as judges used to say and possibly still do: 'If there were no receivers there would be no burglars.' And it is no use pointing to Amsterdam as a good example of the benefits of the availability of cannabis.

The city is now a home for high-quality organised crime and the Netherlands as a whole has one of the highest rates of cocaine use by under-16s in Europe.

Does anyone seriously think that children will not be tempted by the prospect of something even more illicit and dangerous to replace cannabis?There is an argument that we should be able to ride to hell on the broomstick of our own choice.

Ecstasy is already being spoken of as suitable for downgrading.

Cocaine will surely follow.

Since it is now not in a position to enforce anti-possession legislation, either the government should screw up its courage and, ignoring the example of the Netherlands, it should legalise cannabis or it should not.

It may well consider that allowing us to ride our broomsticks is the best way forward.

There will be casualties of course but in the long run they may even out.

Whole criminal empires will be toppled.

Think of the potential revenue.

To mix images bullets will have to be smoked.James Morton is a former criminal law specialist solicitor and now a freelance journalist