http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2235570/Former-Home-Secretary-Jacqui-Smith-admits-tougher-line-cannabis-caused-confusion-dissent.html
In this article we read :
She told the Radio Times: 'I’m more sympathetic now to the argument that there are people who use cannabis without harm." [So she thinks it causes no harm, but we know that the harm principle is the basis for legislation, so this would mean decriminalising it. Notice though that she says she's more sympathetic. If we are to use the English language as I see it, this means she is sympathetic rather than less unsympathetic. What about psychosis or schizophrenia or anxiety or depression triggered in some as a result of the use of cannabis?]
'I don’t want tough messages being sent out by the law always translated into tough action against individuals.' [So we are learning that politicians want to continue breaking the relationship between laws and consequences, normally some form of punishment, which is to be used as a deterrant. So some laws will have no meaning it all]
" I don’t believe in decriminalisation or legalisation." [She doesn't say I don't want decriminalisation or legalisation, so given what she's said above, it seems she's resigning herself to having to decriminalise it, because it causes no harm. But deep inside her, ie her conscience, she knows it should not be decriminalised. But the harm principle sometimes smashes through conscience, as sometimes conscience cannot hang off reason, where as the harm principle utterly hangs off reason]
'But knowing what I know now, I would resist the temptation to resort to the law to tackle the harm from cannabis. [So she accepts that we need to decriminalise it. ]
'Education, treatment and information, if we can get the message through, are perhaps a lot more effective.' [Effective at what? This is decriminalisation.]
My conclusion : it needs to be decriminalised, even though her conscience says otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment