British Medical Journal kirjoittaa kannabiksen kieltolaista näin:
-------
Liberalising control does not increase use
The justification for cannabis prohibition is that it is supposed to reduce demand and supply, thereby reducing use and thus overall adverse health consequences. But demand, supply, and use have all varied widely over time, quite irrespective of controls. Evidence suggests that use is not increased by less intensive control. In the 11 American states that effectively decriminalised cannabis use in the 1970s, use has not risen beyond that experienced by comparable states in which it is prohibited.11 Similarly, the Netherlands for all intents and purposes decriminalised cannabis 25 years ago, but the prevalence there has remained roughly parallel to that in Germany and France and well below that in the United States.12
* The major barriers to reconsideration of the punitive prohibition of cannabis are political, not scientific or legal *
There is an increasingly widespread view that international attempts to control cannabis by prohibiting its use have failed and cannot be remedied. Numerous professional associations in medicine, public health, law, and criminology have recognised this failure and the enormous collateral costs of prohibiting cannabis and have recommended consideration of less harmful regulatory alternatives.13 The Single Convention (1961), the treaty providing the major legal framework for international prohibition of cannabis, states that "a party [government] shall, if in its opinion the prevailing conditions in its country render it the most appropriate means of protecting the public health and welfare, prohibit [the use of cannabis]."14 Where is the compelling evidence that protection of public health and welfare is "most appropriately" served by the present laws on cannabis? Regulation of cannabis would not breach any nation's international treaty obligations. The major barriers to reconsideration of the punitive prohibition of cannabis are political, not scientific or legal.
* The belief that more intensive law enforcement will achieve better public health outcomes represents a triumph of hope over experience *
All drugs have risks. Cannabis is not harmless, but adverse health consequences for the vast majority of users are modest, especially when compared with those of alcohol or tobacco. Attempts to restrict availability of cannabis by more intensive law enforcement have been expensive, ineffective, and usually counter productive. The belief that more intensive law enforcement will achieve better public health outcomes represents a triumph of hope over experience. If we discovered that a drug we had been using failed to relieve patients' symptoms and produced unpleasant side effects, would any of us increase the dose?
It is time to acknowledge that the social, economic, and moral costs of cannabis control far exceed the health costs of cannabis use. The search should begin for more effective means to reduce the harms that can result both from cannabis and from our attempts to control it.---Alex Wodak, Craig Reinarman, Peter Cohen
-------
Liberalising control does not increase use
The justification for cannabis prohibition is that it is supposed to reduce demand and supply, thereby reducing use and thus overall adverse health consequences. But demand, supply, and use have all varied widely over time, quite irrespective of controls. Evidence suggests that use is not increased by less intensive control. In the 11 American states that effectively decriminalised cannabis use in the 1970s, use has not risen beyond that experienced by comparable states in which it is prohibited.11 Similarly, the Netherlands for all intents and purposes decriminalised cannabis 25 years ago, but the prevalence there has remained roughly parallel to that in Germany and France and well below that in the United States.12
* The major barriers to reconsideration of the punitive prohibition of cannabis are political, not scientific or legal *
There is an increasingly widespread view that international attempts to control cannabis by prohibiting its use have failed and cannot be remedied. Numerous professional associations in medicine, public health, law, and criminology have recognised this failure and the enormous collateral costs of prohibiting cannabis and have recommended consideration of less harmful regulatory alternatives.13 The Single Convention (1961), the treaty providing the major legal framework for international prohibition of cannabis, states that "a party [government] shall, if in its opinion the prevailing conditions in its country render it the most appropriate means of protecting the public health and welfare, prohibit [the use of cannabis]."14 Where is the compelling evidence that protection of public health and welfare is "most appropriately" served by the present laws on cannabis? Regulation of cannabis would not breach any nation's international treaty obligations. The major barriers to reconsideration of the punitive prohibition of cannabis are political, not scientific or legal.
* The belief that more intensive law enforcement will achieve better public health outcomes represents a triumph of hope over experience *
All drugs have risks. Cannabis is not harmless, but adverse health consequences for the vast majority of users are modest, especially when compared with those of alcohol or tobacco. Attempts to restrict availability of cannabis by more intensive law enforcement have been expensive, ineffective, and usually counter productive. The belief that more intensive law enforcement will achieve better public health outcomes represents a triumph of hope over experience. If we discovered that a drug we had been using failed to relieve patients' symptoms and produced unpleasant side effects, would any of us increase the dose?
It is time to acknowledge that the social, economic, and moral costs of cannabis control far exceed the health costs of cannabis use. The search should begin for more effective means to reduce the harms that can result both from cannabis and from our attempts to control it.---Alex Wodak, Craig Reinarman, Peter Cohen
Vastaukset
Vanhimmat
Ei vielä vastauksia
Aloittaja odottaa vastauksia. Kerro oma näkemyksesi ensimmäisenä.