Argument About “pot” Report On Cannabis And The... (Press, 23 January 1969)

W. F. Deedes, a Conservative Party M.P. for Ashford, has expressed concerns regarding the implications of the Wootton Committee's report on cannabis, or "pot," in an article published in the Daily Telegraph on 23 January 1969. He describes the report as a significant political dilemma for the Home Secretary, caught between medical facts and the realities of political expediency. The timing of the report has raised eyebrows as it follows a troubled year for cannabis users facing legal penalties. Deedes highlights that the report contributes to an ongoing generational conflict and suggests it could be perceived by conservatives as a move towards excessive permissiveness, undermining established authority. The crux of the issue, as outlined by Deedes, is whether it is politically defensible to maintain laws that contradict the scientific evidence regarding cannabis. He cites discussions with doctors involved in drug research, who argue that while cannabis is not entirely safe, it is less dangerous than previously assumed. He critiques the classification of cannabis as comparable to heroin under the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1965, describing this as "nonsense" that could undermine societal confidence in authority regarding all dangerous substances. The lengthy timeframe of the inquiry exacerbates the situation, as the process has spanned over three years since recommendations for a committee were first made in 1965. In addressing the potential for changing legislation, Deedes notes that the Home Secretary could argue that the scientific evidence, although compelling, is not conclusive enough to warrant a legal shift. He refers to international reports from Canada and the United States that align with the Wootton Committee’s findings, suggesting that the effects of marijuana are not fundamentally different from those of alcohol and that penalties for marijuana use should be re-evaluated. Despite these scientific perspectives, Deedes mentions that both Canada and the U.S. have yet to significantly amend their laws regarding cannabis, with American penalties being notably severe. He questions the validity of maintaining current laws in light of overwhelming evidence suggesting cannabis does not pose the level of risk previously thought. The report also engages with philosophical arguments about the limits of state intervention in individual behaviour and societal health. Deedes references J.S. Mill's principle that individuals should not be restrained unless their actions harm others, contrasting it with Lord Devlin's view that society has a duty to legislate against harmful behaviours, particularly if these behaviours are widespread. The ongoing debate reveals a societal struggle to find a coherent framework for drug use and dependence, with a notable lack of philosophical guidance available for legislators. In conclusion, Deedes argues that public discourse surrounding cannabis must broaden beyond mere medical assessments to encompass the social implications and ethical responsibilities of legislation. He posits that the Wootton Committee's report, regardless of acceptance or rejection, has the potential to provoke necessary dialogue about the role of cannabis in society and the state’s responsibilities in regulating it.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand