Giving the go-ahead for medical cannabis is hardly allowing freedom of choice
AS EMPTY words go, those of IFP MP Arend Singh about the green light given to medical cannabis would take some beating.
“Fantastic news for freedom of choice,” he says, but is it? As far as I can see only two limited “freedoms” have been established.
The first allows production of cannabis oil by those profit-oriented companies that have enough muscle to withstand the required regulatory and licensing burden typical of big pharma.
The second “freedom” means that a small elite of health practitioners may dispense medical cannabis for use only under supervision and only under strict control by the Medicine Controls Council. To my layman’s eye it appears to be as restricted as diacetylmorphine (heroin).
The late Mario Ambrosini’s visionary approach has been watered down so much that South Africa has taken no more than a small, shuffling step in an effort to catch up with more advanced nations.
And what about “freedom of choice” for the million or so adult South Africans who regularly choose to “self-medicate”? Even under threat of criminal prosecution for following their own instincts and beliefs.
Cannabis has been in use for thousands of years and the government’s 100-year-old experiment in banning this natural herb has had disastrous consequences, as it has globally. Prohibition has done little or nothing to stem demand but it has inflated the price to ridiculous levels to fund a massive black market where violence and corruption are the norm. Exactly the same thing happened with alcohol prohibition in the US, hence its repeal.
The only remaining serious objection to re-legalisation of cannabis seems to be that its chronic abuse, especially by the young, may lead to dependence. It may also trigger mental or emotional disturbance in a minority of cases. Well that’s absolutely true. It may and, in fact, it sometimes does.
But that’s just as true, if not more so, of legally available alcohol, solvents and prescription medication, all of which can be far more dangerous than cannabis. Their abuse often causes death while, throughout its long history, the only deaths attributable to cannabis have been when hemp was used for the hangman’s noose. Cannabis has a massive ratio of effective dose to lethal dose and the only other way to kill with it would be to grow a big dagga boom (tree) and use it to beat someone over the head.
Besides substance abuse there are many pastimes that can lead to addiction. They include gambling, sex and internet-use, with recent reports of young people who suffer anxiety and depression when parted from their social-networking smartphones for more than half an hour.
Should the government restrict these things too?
The Buddha taught that half of all human misery occurs because we are too attached to the things we like. (The other half comes from too much aversion to the things that we don’t like.)
It is not the government’s job to remove all possible temptations from society and we must learn to accept responsibility for our individual decisions.
And, as a society, we must set a better example to our children and provide better support for the most vulnerable among us.
Besides temptation, neither is it the role of the government to remove all dangers from within our midst. Schoolboys are encouraged to play competitive rugby and soccer, sometimes with brutal results. We are allowed to go rock-climbing and hang-gliding and we’re allowed to race motorbikes. Yet we’re not allowed to smoke a joint. Little girls regularly sit on half-ton horses and aim them at jumps that I wouldn’t even look at.
Should we prohibit all these endeavours simply because of the unfortunate few who come a cropper? Come to think of it, I’ve done myself more damage in 25 years of falling off horses than I ever have in 40 years of using weed. And I’ve got the X-rays to prove it. Stephen Pain Riversdale