The Problem Of Cannabis The findings of the report on cannabis by the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence point to the general conclusion that, in the light of present knowledge, the drug is no more, per- haps less, harmful than alcohol. There is little evidence of any link between the use of cannabis and violent crime, and no evidence of deleterious effects from the moderate use of cannabis over a long period. Unlike the " hard " drugs, guch as heroin, cannabis does not cause physical, or any real psychological, dependence. its use does not impair the subject's efficiency, and the risk of pro- gression to heroin from cannabis is not, in the committee's view, a reason for retaining control over the drug. It comes almost as a surprise that the committee, having reached these conclu- sions, does not recommend legalizing the use of cannabis. It does not do so mainly because of the limits of present knowledge. Apparently the active principles of the substance have not yet been fully identified, and the long-term effects of heavy consumption have not been scientifically, tested. Although cannabis may not be physically barmful, the implications of its mental effects have yet to be properly explored, and the committee concludes that the drug should remain prohibited "for the time being ". Until further research has answered these questions it would be wrong to consider the possibility of legalizing cannabis. And further study is required of the very serious possibility that the use of cannabis leads to experiments with far more dangerous drugs. It has yet to be determined whether the evidence that most heroin addicts have previously taken cannabis -is merely attributable to the fact that both drugs, being illegal. are likely to be found from the same sources. Even if cannabis were ultimately found to be no more harm- ful than alcohol in any way, an argu- ment could still be raised against extending the range of accepted drugs, quite apart from the practical problems, for example, of the importation of the drug from countries where its supply was illegaL If alcohol were a new drug one might hesitate to introduce it to society. But it is clearly right that the penalties for possession of a drug which is not known to be seriously harmful should be moderate. At present the penalties for possession of both cannabis and heroin are the same, and the committee has wisely proposed that the maximum penalty for cannabis possession should be reduced from ten to two years' imprisonment. The report suggests that for the casual user possession should generally be no- more than a technical offence, to be tried summarily and punished with a maximum fine of ?100 and/or imprisonment for no more than four months. The maximum sentence is en- visaged only for the large-scale trafficker in the drug. The courts should have a wide discretion in sentencing cannabis users within the limits pro- posed, but two years' imprisonment for trafficking in large quantities of cannabis, cven if coupled with a heavy fine, would be too lenient. The five-year maximum recommended by Mr. P. E. Brodie in a note of reservation appended to the report would be more realistic. Follow- ing these proposals it is only logical, as the committee says, that possession of cannabis should be an offence for which guilty knowledge must be a necessary ingredient, and that landlords of private prernises should not be under any special obligation to prevent the use of cannabis. I; is in this type of case that the most inequitable results have occurred. THE PROBLEM OF CANNABIS