The article links cannabis, serious mental illness and ultimately a tragic loss of life into one suggestive weave. Anyone who knows anything about cannabis will tell you the normal stuff put in the average person’s spliff differs greatly from skunk - a hybrid version of the drug that can vary in its intensity but is generally considered much stronger and certainly contains higher levels of THC (the psychoactive ingredient) than normal cannabis. Linking skunk to commonly used cannabis is perhaps similar to linking illegal high alcohol moonshine to the nice pint or two of lager enjoyed down the local pub.  Surely this is the argument for some form of legalisation. Instead of reclassifying the drug (presumably back to a B) and so increasing the number of minor arrests for possession and taking up court time would it not be wiser to control what is allowed for use and increase the penalty for anything found to be outside those controls; in other words make cannabis available under controlled circumstances and with the necessary health provisos. This is after all what we do with another drug also in widespread use in our society; namely alcohol.

This is not a new argument. But then again Anna Davis’ sensationalistic headline with its innuendo of drugs, madness, criminality and death does drag us back to somewhere in the 1950s. And before you ask, it is not high on my list of important liberties as to whether people are allowed use cannabis legally or not. (Though I suspect either way its widespread use will continue regardless).

But I do hope Anna Davis was just having a bad day when she came up with her headline. Because it would be quite disturbing to think that those in power could use journalists to muddy the waters of debate in order to sneak politically convenient legislation back onto the statute books.