alcohol

Horizon last night did a reasonably balanced program looking at the various claims for and against cannabis, the world's most popular illicit drug. You can watch it again on iPlayer if you missed it.

They looked into its history - that it is likely that it has been used by humans for around 3,000 years at least. Into claims that it is a "gateway drug" that encouraged users to move onto harder drugs which showed in trials with rats that this was unlikely. And into claims that it damaged young brains which in trials with mice seemed to suggest that it did indeed create long term memory degradation when given to/used by young adolescents (defined as below around 15 years of age).

They also seemed to be confirming that, assuming one's brain was properly developed before using cannabis regularly, the potential longer term side effects are nonetheless relatively rare.

They looked into some of the claims made for its medicinal properties, talking to a doctor in California who, under their medical marijuana rules seems to prescribe it for all sorts of things from chronic pain to slight anxiety or even, as the presenter suggested, "writers block". And in the one UK licensed pharmaceutical grade production facility was astonished to find that many strains also contain an anti-psychotic substance (which to me reinforced the idea that somehow people in danger of developing mental illnesses may actively seek it out as self-medication).

So, what does it all suggest about the predominant public policy of prohibition? The presenter, "addiction specialist Dr John Marsden" (he looks after patients with addictions to "harder" drugs like cocaine and heroin), concluded the program by saying that the real "problem" with cannabis was the waste of potential it causes - presumably he felt, as an addiction specialist, that all the other [possible problems are relatively low risk enough to make a blanket policy unwarranted.

But even here I think he's quite wrong to infer that such a "waste" of potential is good enough reason for legal prohibition - after all, one user's "waste" of life "sitting around smoking dope all day and doing nothing useful" as Marsden put it I think, is another user's occasional recreation. Set aside any debate as to whether George Washington managed to found the greatest nation on earth whilst toking on the stuff! Exactly the same claims could be made of alcohol, and the evidence is available in far greater numbers - that it can cause psychoses, all sorts of physical and mental illnesses, sitting around drinking all day is a waste of potential, it can also have medicinal benefits. Yet Churchill won the war on the stuff!

Yet we license one for sale and prohibit the other with criminal sanctions that themselves do as much to destroy lives as the substance itself (witness in the USA the scheme where anyone convicted of a possession charge would be denied university funding for example). We know that prohibition drives the supply into the hands of criminal gangs who have no compunction about selling it to those even proponents of legalization would want to protect - the youngsters whose developmental processes can be damaged by access to it too young - and further whose business model tends to encourage them to try to sell other, potentially more dangerous drugs, to their existing customers to maximize profits. We have seen how, after downgrading, the consumption in this country actually dropped. It will be interesting to see whether the uprating to category B will increase consumption again and thus prove utterly counter productive.

As with alcohol, a legalized weed, as shown in the images of medical marijuana dispensaries in California, and also the cafe culture in the Netherlands and the more free attitude in Switzerland, would give people more choice about methods of taking the drug - reducing, probably, the predominance of smoking it (it is at its most potentially harmful when smoked with tobacco). And it would increase awareness of the different strengths and their effects as decent shops would sell a range, rather than, at present, having to take what you can get wherever you can get it.

The law, as usual with drugs laws, is counter-productive. The resultant criminal culture surrounding it makes society less safe not more. It is not based on the evidence. It is not consistent with attitudes to other drugs such as alcohol where even the drunk is more capable it seems of exercising their own judgement most of the time and is also freer to get help because it is legal and not so much of a taboo subject. The recent reclassification defies belief frankly and is simply another reason to oppose all government interference in our lives as ill informed and nannying.

Our legislators should be ashamed of themselves.

I just noticed this on he BBC feed - Suffolk police have been carrying out an operation targeting "illegal activity" on the roads of the county. More than two dozen officers were involved and out of 200 stops they fined a few people for this and that - speeding, not wearing a seatbelt and so on. But they breathalyzed 134 drivers and every test was negative.

I wonder what else they were stopped for? Do we have "random" stops now in the UK? If there was nothing else to charge them with, dangerous driving or whatever, why were they stopped? Just so they could try breathing for a few seconds? Why are innocent people being harrassed in this way?

A recently discovered, by me at least, Lib Dem blogger, Jamie Saddler, comments on the apparent decision by government not to press for a lower blood alcohol limit:

Epolitix are reporting that the government have decided against lowering the drink-drive limit from 80mg to 50 mg... This is all well and good, but they are the ones who would do this regardless of the limit, and need to be the exception. It needs to be spelt out to people that if you are driving, even one drink is unacceptable. [From Jamie Saddler: Government Gets It Wrong on Drink Drive Limit]

I wonder. I do have an interest here - I was done for driving under the influence and banned for a year, sixteen years ago now. In my case, it was a timely reminder, even though it led to years of bad times for me - losing my job and so on. Had I been caught a few years earlier while I was working in Glasgow I think I would probably have done time and I am probably truly lucky not to have had an accident in that time.

Nonetheless, when I was stopped, I will always remember the first words the officer said to me: "Good evening, sir, you haven't done anything wrong, but we were following you for a while and we felt you took that last roundabout a little carelessly so we wanted to stop you and have a word; first, I'd like you to provide a sample of breath to testing for alcohol content."

They had been following me for some time, on otherwise empty roads mid-evening in Birmingham and approaching an empty roundabout I had taken a straighter line - inside-outside-inside - that someone a little more perfect would have done perhaps. I had done nothing wrong. They said.

Nothwithstanding all this though, I still wonder if drink limits are the right, or at least the most liberal, way of dealing with this nasty social problem of people who drink, drive and then injure or kill others or property. And I certainly question the common message that Jamie repeats that "even one drink is unacceptable". I rarely drink at all nowadays. I have a good relationship with alcohol. I regard it as one of the worst drugs available, even though legal, and take it generally with caution (okay, I had a few large whiskies on Saturday night but was taking a taxi, but was perfectly lucid).

But recently I was out in the car meeting someone and had two pints and drove home. They were nice pints and next time I visit I will take the bus because I would have enjoyed more. But over three and a half hours I drank two pints of ale, and "the alcohol in one pint of ordinary strength lager will take two hours to pass out of your body" [Bupa guidance]. So I'm probably right in saying that there may have been the equivalent of less than half a pint in my system when I drove away.

The problem with having a law that specifies a uniform amount for everyone and above that is a crime regardless of whether you are behaving dangerously or not, or even using a mobile phone, or driving whilst exhausted, or smoking, or eating, at the wheel, or on drugs, and so on is that you just have to keep adding extra clauses, extra laws to deal with new situations.

The problem with having a more general law of "dangerous driving" is that it appears to introduce some subjectiveness into the legal process. You are no longer asking whether a person was simply, objectively, over a certain limit, but whether the "man on the Clapham omnibus" would consider that you were acting dangerously.

The former also, almost by definition, involves trawling for offenders and in the process interfering with the perfectly legal comings and goings of law abiding citizens. And it really doesn't respect a notion of causing danger. Just breaching a numerical limit. Whilst the latter is how we expect for British law to be dealt with more generally - involving intention, capacity, culpability, danger and the subjective decisions of a jury or bench.

Now, that's not to say that I want to see more people drink driving, or a rise in death and injury as a result. As a libertarian minded person though I do want people to have to take responsibility for their own actions. And therefore consider for themselves whether what they are thinking of doing may be dangerous to themselves or others. The arbitrary, numerical limit takes away that responsibility in a way.

In the case Jamie mentioned:

I do not understand why this is dealt with under "causing death through dangerous driving" and not manslaughter. Manslaughter of course allows for a life sentence. A few life sentences and people would start thinking a bit more about whether it's worth testing their alcohol fuelled infallibility. If people are prevented from drink driving simply for fear of breaking a limit that will result in the loss of their license if they are unlucky enough to get caught by police, how much more so by the possibility that their journey might end in a prison cell for life if they take a gamble and lose?

I have no problem with using any of the impairment inducing activities - taking drugs, eating, phoning someone, smoking, driving too tired and so on - as aggravating the culpability and pushing more towards higher sentences. But is this not a case where "tough liberalism" punishing the consequences and not creating arbitrary laws that simply apply to everyone, dangerous or not, could once again reduce the burden of legislation and the arbitrariness of laws to deal with different substances and activities, whilst focussing peoples' minds on the real consequences of their actions?

Around 7.5% only of "KSIs" (killed and seriously injured) in road traffic accidents are causally linked to alcohol, and I believe this figure includes when the drunk is the pedestrian that staggers out in front of a perfectly legal driver and is killed or injured.  Which suggests to me that the greater rewards will now be found dealing with other forms of anti-social driving.  I nominate middle-lane-itis and misuse of the acceleration lane for starters.

I don't normally watch the "One Show" but I forgot to turn over today and Andrew Neill is on giving his take on the budget. I loved this one line in particular:

"This is a good budget for the Colombian Medellin Cartel"

He is right when he says that an ecstasy pill is now cheaper than a pint and a line of coke cheaper than an alcopop, and probably right that trying to attack binge drinking by increasing the cost will simply mean the real bingers take more pills or lines instead.

For me, cheaper alcohol simply means that when I do drink, which is not often, I can get a better quality of wine for the same money. Why should I be penalized?

Tough liberalism is what we need.

Following hard on the heels of Chief Constable Fahy, the head of Oxfordshire area's police, Chief Superinendant Shaun Morley, demonstrates what I have come to expect from Oxfordshire's top policemen, a more generally liberal attitude whilst being mindful of the harm some people are inflicting on others and their communities with their irresponsible actions and attitudes.

He clearly talks sense, and from experience. It is utter nonsense to increase the age at which people may buy or consume alcohol. It's arbitrary and unfair to those who are able to enjoy a drink responsibly:

"I am not especially convinced that the answer is to raise the minimum age for drinking alcohol and in general I'm in favour of less regulation, and better self- management."

But the story highlights a few areas where improvements could be made:

Earlier this month, police also revealed one in ten licenced premises in Oxford sold alcohol to underage teenagers in a undercover operation.

I also read this week I think, but can't find it now, that there were a tiny number of operators losing their licenses for such things. 68 in a year in England was the figure that sticks in my mind. Perhaps if we got closer to a zero tolerance approach on sales of alcohol to under-18s people would be more circumspect about who they sell to - none of this namby-pamby fining and so on - let's go for license revocation first time out and so on.

Also, there needs to be a two-way discussion here - on-license holders need to be more responsible about not selling to people who are already too drunk. Many's a time here at halls when after closing time I have found people asleep or comatose in the middle of the road who should probably not have been sold another drink several hours previously. That said, I can't get too sanctimonious, as I for one have certainly had too much on occasion. Though I never get violent, drunk or not - I might start jibbering more than usual and then fall asleep midway through a sentence!

Also, dear to my heart, he singles out students:

"We certainly need a significant change in attitudes to alcohol, especially in the 18 to 24 age group, including students where wholly inappropriate behaviour fuelled by excess alcohol consumption is seen as acceptable by many of that peer group.

I have this pet theory that for "normal" local residents, one of the problems is the demise of the "local" in favour of an array of drinking sheds in city and town centres. Of course these came about as a way of making the throughput of alcohol sales more efficient for the brewers. But what they mean is that particularly for young people, they no longer learn to drink in the relatively safe surroundings of a local pub in a village or estate, where they have the friendly eye of a landlord who hopes and expects to see them again soon, and neighbours, friends and family who can take them to one side and point out when they are becoming a nuisance or worse. If that is true for people with their roots in a particular city it is even more of a challenge for our student residents.

Here at Brookes we are just about to initiate a discussion internally about enhancing the role of wardens in halls of residence such as myself, and I will be bringing this up as part of that. A couple of years ago many were scathing about the comments of the Vice-Chancellor at Brunel suggesting that universities had a parental type duty to teach social skills and personal responsibility to their students and, I have to say that over the past couple of years in particular when license times have been extended in Oxford and people roll into halls leery and noisy at all hours, I am beginning to agree.

I'm not a confrontational person so it would be a challenge to me to face up to some of the drunks that tear about the place after closing time, but I think we probably have to face up to doing that. We have a university disciplinary charge of "bringing the university into disrepute" which I suspect could be used here.

When I was done for driving under the influence fifteen years ago the police had to deliver me home to ensure that someone recognized me at the address I had given them. I wonder if the same applies to people who are arrested for alcohol related offenses in town? If so, perhaps wardens and college authorities should be the ones asked to vouch for such people when they are delivered back to university accommodations. If we had that heads up we could take action to show them that the university does not approve of our students bringing the university into disrepute by their actions out on the town at night.

Maybe it's just the ethos of the new era in Britain under the Son of the Manse, and the Tories running hard to keep up with what is being seen as a neo-puritanism stalking the country, but there's been a lot of talk of new or increased restrictions on things like drugs and drink. Most recently of course we've had the outbursts by Chief Constable Peter Fahy of the Cheshire Constabulary wanting to  prevent "lesser adults", prospective alcohoodies, whose misfortune is merely to be older than we allow them to vote, to fight for Queen and country (or at least Tony Blair and George Bush), to serve in most elected offices, and to stand trial as adults, but less than the arbitrary age of twenty one from consuming the demon drink for fear that they all turn into murderous fiends.

I am a Libertarian and a Christian, and I want to share with you a favourite little passage from the good book that I believe sums up the libertarian response to such nonsense, and shows that it is inconsistent to see "things", substances and the like, as the culprits such that we should not be allowed to touch them. Temperance once meant not abstinence, forced or otherwise, but self-restraint, personal responsibility, and it's just plain wrong to blame the inanimate for what state people get into by abusing them.

From the Gospel of Mark, chapter 7:

18 And [Jesus] saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? 20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

Christianity is not a po-faced, prohibitionary puritanism, but a way of life that emphasizes the virtue of true Temperance. I wish I could find it now, but I once read one of the works of the Cictercian monk and philosopher Thomas Merton in which in one passage he explains that things like alcohol and tobacco (he might feel differently today about the latter of course but let's suggest he might choose cannabis today) are both gifts and temptations. As a gift, alcohol can be enjoyed in moderation for its ability to lubricate social interactions, but as a temptation can be used to blot out one's other problems or to remove the inhibitions that prevent us doing harm to others or ourselves.

It's up to us all to learn, if we want to use such things, how to do so responsibly, to use them as gifts, and without endangering others or making complete fools of ourselves, abusing them as temptations. We cannot achieve that by banning them, or keeping them from young enquiring minds.