The week began with the farce of cannabis reclassification, a move touted as having been done in order to protect young people from the possible dangers cannabis use might pose, even though those dangers haven’t actually been shown to exist. The “logic” is really quite simple; use the law to deter cannabis use to show the disapproval of authority – that cannabis use is “unacceptable” as Mr Brown put it. For any kid interested in what cannabis does, beyond a government funded advertising campaign (Talk to Frank) and anti drug education in schools, that’s about it beyond the threat of a stop-search by the plod. For any kid who does decide to spark up, all he or she has for advice is their friendly dealer or their mates. This is how the government shows it’s “concern” for cannabis users, health enforcement through the law in a way designed simply and solely to appeal to the abstentionist mindset at the heart of prohibition. Absolutely the one thing that must not happen is parents introducing their offspring to cannabis use, the law is imposed with some vigor against anyone who does that.

It was opportune then that later in the same week a draft of some very different drug advice was issued from government advisers. This advice relates to a drug with known dangers which can be quite severe and which eclipse anything cannabis can do, yet it couldn’t be more different to the cannabis approach shown by the reclassification hype. “Draft Guidance on the Consumption of Alcohol by Children and Young People from the Chief Medical Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland” was issued to howls of criticism in the popular press and on many forums.

What it actually advised was:

1 Children and their parents and carers are advised that an alcohol-free childhood is the healthiest and best option. However, if children drink alcohol, it should not be until at least the age of 15 years.
2 If young people aged 15 to 17 years consume alcohol, it should always be with the guidance of a parent or carer or in a supervised environment.
3 Parents and young people should be aware that drinking, even at age 15 or older, can be hazardous to health and that not drinking is the healthiest option for young people. If 15 to 17 year olds do consume alcohol they should do so infrequently and certainly on no more than one day a week. Young people aged 15 to 17 years should never exceed recommended adult daily limits and on days when they drink, consumption should usually be below such levels.
4 The importance of parental influences on children’s alcohol use should be communicated to parents, carers and professionals. Parents and carers require advice on how to respond to alcohol use and misuse by children
5 Support services must be available for children and young people who have alcohol related problems and their parents

Which is pretty reasonable advice you might think, indeed change ‘alcohol’ for ‘cannabis’ and it’s not a million miles from the advice UKCIA would like to see replace the present policy. However, what seems to have got people’s back up and made the headlines was the first recommendation that “if children drink alcohol, it should not be until at least the age of 15 years”. This post, made to a general chat section of a forum unrelated to drugs of any kind was fairly typical of the reaction:

I really see nothing wrong with allowing children of secondary school age the occasional small glass of beer or wine when their parents are having one. Surely it is likely to promote a more responsible attitude to alcohol in later life if children are brought up to understand that it is something that can be enjoyed in moderation rather than regarding it as forbidden fruit.

A lot of people seem to hold this view, many if not all of whom were given alcohol by their parents when young and consider it the right and above all responsible thing to do. Indeed, it has a grounding in common sense, much like teaching small kids that building fires is fun but also dangerous, likewise learning to cross roads and indeed dealing with any one of many of the temptations and dangers life throws at us. People who go through childhood without learning these important life skills are badly equipped for dealing with the world.

As has been said often on this blog, alcohol is a drug like any other and actually quite a bit worse than some, the distinction made by the government through the law is totally arbitrary. The drug alcohol is addictive, causes physical and mental health problems and leads to problems such as unplanned pregnancy, accidents and violence on a massive scale. It can also lead to overdose and death, which is not uncommon. What we have here is advice on how to deal with young people’s use of one of the most destructive recreational drugs known to man and a large proportion of the population can see a reason for allowing children to be introduced to it in a responsible way.

Mark Lawson in the Guardian put it quite well in his item “Ninny book of booze” in the “Comment is free” section on Friday

And anyone who has fought in these wars of hormonal independence will also know that the best way of ensuring that their offspring head for the nearest bar and demand an intravenous drip stretching from the biggest keg is to tell them to have a dry night.

Which is the lesson those who like to think they are in charge of things have constantly failed to understand when it comes to drugs, which is that those of us who decide to see what it’s all about will do so. We’ll either do it under the wing of an approving adult or else not, but do it we will. It’ll be in the park or  some other place where disapproving adults can’t see what we’re up to like a derelict building if we can’t do it at home with mum and dad. Not only that, but like it or not, we’ll do it when we see fit, be that at whatever age, teenagers are especially prone to such logic, always have been and always will be. What the government advice is or what law says couldn’t be less of an influence. The one thing that’s a dead cert to make kids want to experiment with anything is to raise their interest in it and the absolute best way to do that is to tell them it’s forbidden. This is even more true when something is widespread with a huge level of social acceptance and a tradition of being “underground” like cannabis.

The problem is  politicians and Chief Medical Officers seem as if they never went through being a teenage, instead evolving straight from childhood to middle age. Either that or they learned nothing from the experience of their teenage years.

In other words, the idea of imposing any kind of lower age limit on experimentation by teenagers is a lost cause, the only option open to authority is to impose sanctions on adults who supply kids, beyond that it’s something we have to deal with if or when it happens whether we like it happening or not.

The alcohol advice does  make the point that “If young people (snipping a bit about a minimum age) consume alcohol, it should always be with the guidance of a parent or carer or in a supervised environment”.  Sure, it’s probably not a good idea for a child to drink and not a good idea to introduce a young teenager to alcohol, but if it is going to happen then better it happens under the wing of an adult, that is pretty obviously good advice.

But if this is good advice for booze, why isn’t it good advice for cannabis?