Is there a feminist position on legality of cannabis?

[fayyive]

A Google search brings up a surprisingly number of results. Most seem in favour for reasons including relief of menstruation discomfort (Queen Victoria allegedly used cannabis for this), to aid recovery of rape survivors, and to break the stereotype of recreational cannabis use being a "guy thing".

Opinions?

And as for health concerns- cannabis is less addictive and less toxic than alcohol. Very frequent use of potent cannabis (sometimes called "skunk") is thought to create mental health issues but the same can also be said for alcoholics who drink far too much and too often. IMO it's all about using it responsibly.

Legalisation would also make the practice much safer as consumers would be able to buy cannabis which wasn't adulterated or contaminated with "fillers" and know the strength and potency of what they are buying (these are all risks created by criminalisation which puts regulation into the hands of criminals. And buying something from the black market one has no idea what they are gonna get).

No, I don't view cannabis through a feminist lens.

Any particular reason that you do?

Which do you think would pose more risk/threat to a young woman walking alone at night?

A group of males drunk on super-strength lager.

Or a group of males stoned on cannabis.

IMO one group might be silly and immature at worst, and the other group might shout abuse or commit assault or sexual assault.

Alcohol is what causes so many people to get into fights and become violent, or get into bed with someone and not care about whether they give consent or not. Stoners are generally too relaxed for any of that and are more likely to just eat a bag of chips listening to music.

I think drug use in general is a feminist issue.

A significant amount of violence against women and children globally is caused by the drug trade.

The negative health effects of drugs tend to be stronger I women because we have smaller livers and less blood.

Also most research is conducted on males.

I don't think the inevitable comparing of cannabis to alcohol is helpful to any discussion. It should be judged on it's own benefits/risks. I think it's a really weak argument that's always trotted out that it's 'ok' because 'alcohol kills more people'. I've known people who have died because of alcohol but that doesn't change the fact that I've also seen lives destroyed by cannabis use. I wouldn't describe it as 'safe'. And I think anything which puts women's safety at risk is a feminist issue.

Thanks Jackie, well put.

There are aspects of the drug trade / use / treatment of addicts that present issues with feminist dimensions but on the whole it's not something that's a feminist issue for me more than, well, anything else really.

I have my own views about drugs policy and so on, which are informed by other aspects of my beliefs.

This post seems unusual. Are you hoping to "convert" a bunch of people to the cause of legalising cannabis? Because that's what it reads like.

What are your views on other substances, what did you think of the shenanigans with Prof Nutt, what about the global "war on drugs" etc etc.

I mean stoned people don't tend to go out do they so you'd be better off with your "encounter in a dark alleyway" with reference to speed, coke or pills for eg.

I don't think cannabis has killed anyone directly. Consuming enough of it in a short enough time for it to be fatal would be virtually impossible.

But anyway, do you think it matters to women's safety what laws and regulations are in place regarding drugs?

One could very well just say "let's make them all illegal" but then you have the violence and problems created by the black market which would inevitably appear in response. Crime in the USA increased during their alcohol prohibition and the Mafia was making so much money and gaining power by smuggling in alcohol.

"I mean stoned people don't tend to go out"

Which in a way makes cannabis even less of a threat to other members of the public is users want to stay at home.

"what did you think of the shenanigans with Prof Nutt, what about the global "war on drugs" "

tbh I think Prof. Nutt was sacked because he said things the Government just didn't want to hear, even if what he said was factual. And I think the global war on drugs in general is a bit of a failure and causing more problems than it solves. People who want drugs still get hold of drugs, but with more risk involved to everyone.

Portugal appears to have had some success with tolerating possession of small amounts of drugs and treating the issue as medical rather than criminal.

I don't have much of a problem with cannabis use in moderation. I don't see it as much different from having a glass of wine or three. And I knw a few people who do use it for pain relief, including my DP.

I don't see why feminism would have a position on it though. Smoking cannabis instead of drinking alcohol doesn't mean you are somehow safer if you have anger and violence issues. IME, those issues still exist no matter what you fuck your brain with.

Fay, I'm curious why you don't post in politics as well as FWR?

There have been a lot of drugs convos on politics and very interesting they were too, the ones I saw.

This thread feels a bit odd.

I don't think "let's legalise cannabis because stoned people don't go out much and so women will be safer when they walk alone at night" is really a go-er TBH.

Then how come cannabis isn't legal, and alcohol is?

I'll go have a look at the politics board as well

Because alcohol has been around for centuries, perchance?

So has cannabis and the use of it for recreational. Longer than centuries

I suspect if alcohol (and tobacco) were to come on to the market for the first time now, they probably wouldn't be legal - although if that were to happen, we'd have a very different history and view of drugs entirely, so who knows. I suspect one reason alcohol is legal is because it was, for many places through much of history, a safer way to take in liquids than untreated water. Plus lots of people, including those in power, have enjoyed getting pissed together, because it does loosen inhibitions, thought there's also the increased risk of violence.

Drugs started to be regulated in the 19th century and regulation has mostly increased, except for alcohol. Can't remember about cannabis and how it was regarded prior to the 1971 misuse of drugs act - I know more about the history of opiates (regulated from 1860s onwards.) I do gave some books on it, but I've got other stuff to do tomorrow (which should include sleep...)

I do think alcohol should probably be less easily available than it currently is in Britain, more like it was in my childhood. I don't think I would have an issue with the legalisation (but with similar restrictions to alcohol) of cannabis, but it would be a politically suicidal move for any party in power to try to pass that.

But I don't think it's really got much to do with feminism.

"I suspect one reason alcohol is legal is because it was, for many places through much of history, a safer way to take in liquids than untreated water."

This is what I meant by around for centuries. Normalised for centuries, if you prefer. Thanks Ebear.

HTH.

Cannabis may not make people violent but there are many other forms of abuse that cause harm to women.

I've seen 'stoner boyfriends' ruin women's lives.

There's also the mental health aspect. It has been shown that cannabis use (especially in adolescence) increases the risk of later depression. This isn't something to be taken lightly. People dont take mental illness seriously enough. Living with crippling depression isn't something to aspire to.

I don't see how there can ever be a feminist argument for the recreational use of cannabis when it causes so much harm both to the individual and society.

I also don't think that if two things are harmful, but only one is currently illegal, that's sufficient argument to make that one legal.

Fay, if you have a minute, could you pop back to your lecturer thread to update?

I have a view regarding legalisation of cannabis but it's unrelated to my feminism.

Whether cannabis should be decriminalised IMO depends not on whether recreational use could be harmful, but on whether the effects of it being illegal are more harmful to society than the effects of it being legal would be.

If you spend anytime looking at the war on drugs it becomes clear that, far from helping society, the war on drugs makes the situation worse. Simply put, because if you make something illegal where there is great demand for it, it's handing it to organised crime on a plate.

It has been proven time and again that the war on drugs does not make drugs go away. Instead it gets criminals rich, criminalises huge numbers of otherwise law abiding citizens and completely does away with any kind or quality control, making injury and death from drug taking much more frequent. It also makes it harder for addicts to get help.

Personally i'm in favour of decriminilising and therefore controlling ALL drugs, especially the more dangerous ones.

Banning them does not stop people taking them. In fact drug use has grown massively while the War on Drugs policy has been in effect, and the negative impact on society is well documented. I don't know what had to happen for people to admit it's a failure?!

The proceeds from the sale of illegal drugs props up all kinds of illegal activities E.g. terrorism.

I could go on ...

Is it a feminist issue? That would depend on whether the effects of cannabis being illegal disproportionately affect women. Do they? I don't know, I haven't spend much time thinking about it. It's an interesting question. The war on drugs is certainly a race issue, as drug using non-white people are much more likely to be criminalised for their drug use than white drug users, not to mention the havoc America's waging of the war on drugs has caused in non-white producer countries.

What is the effect of the war on drugs on women, worldwide? Is there a link with forced prostitution and people smuggling for example? Probably. How else does the war on drugs affect women specifically?

Like the OP says a quick Google comes up with lots of stuff. For example this.

Women and Gender in the Drug War

"Two-thirds of women doing time in federal prison are behind bars for nonviolent drug offenses, and the vast majority of them have children they can’t even see. That’s not family values.

The perceived targets of drug law enforcement are men, but many of its victims are women. Women, and particularly women of color, are disproportionately affected by social stigma, by laws that punish those unable or unwilling to inform on others, by regulations that bar people with a drug conviction from obtaining (or that require a drug test to receive) public assistance, and by a drug treatment system designed for men.

Largely as a result of draconian drug laws, women are now a fast growing segment of the U.S. prison population. More than three quarters of women behind bars are mothers, many of them sole caregivers.

Conspiracy offenses represent one of the most egregious examples of the drug war’s inequitable treatment of women. Although conspiracy laws were designed to target members of illicit drug organizations, they have swept up many women for being guilty of nothing more than living with a husband or boyfriend involved in some level of drug sales. Harsh mandatory minimum sentencing may keep them behind bars for 20 years, 30 years, or even life.

The drug war punishes women, particularly mothers, not just for drug law violations but also, it appears, for failing to be “good” women. This translates into a system whereby women who are responsible for childrearing are too readily separated from their children, temporarily or permanently. Even women who do not use drugs may be punished, for example, by welfare regulations that require recipients to submit to invasive and embarrassing monitored drug testing in order to obtain public assistance.

Removing a parent (perhaps the only parent) from the household is immediately destabilizing, and over the long-term it’s devastating. Parents, once released from prison, may be barred from public assistance and housing and face significantly diminished employment opportunities. Children with a parent in prison are several times more likely than other children to end up in foster care, to drop out of school and to become involved in the criminal justice system.

Pregnant women are uniquely vulnerable to criminal justice involvement. Prosecutors across the country have targeted pregnant women accused of drug use, supposedly in the interest of protecting their fetuses. The criminalization of pregnant women is not only an affront to women’s rights; it puts both mother and fetus at greater risk by erecting barriers to drug treatment and prenatal care.

The Drug Policy Alliance is committed to safeguarding a woman’s right to sovereignty over her own body, and we have been involved in several legal challenges in cases in which women were charged with child abuse, assault, homicide or other offenses because they allegedly used drugs while pregnant. We are also working to increase opportunities for families to remain together while parents (or children) address problematic drug use and to reform draconian conspiracy laws that result in harsh prison sentences for women."

www.drugpolicy.org/women-and-gender-drug-war/resources

Thank you wiggly. I will look up Eve Was Framed to see what it says about women and drugs law in the UK.

I'm not sure about this stoners business.

What is the actual effect of cannabis nowadays?

Well over 80% (possibly nearer 90% now, I don't know) of cannabis sold in the UK is skunk. That is a very different drug to the one that used to be sold 30 years ago resulting in harmless "stoners" (it has a very high concentration of THCs and no cannabidiols and it's the reason cannabis was re-classified from class C to class B) but I don't hang around skunk users so have no idea what the actual effects are.