I'd like to begin this week by discussing a topic that I know to be of great interest to many of my friends both inside and outside h2g2: cannabis.

Much debate has raged in Britain in the past week since Home Secretary David Blunkett announced plans to reclassify cannabis as a 'Class C' drug. This will put its legal status on a par with that of anabolic steroids. It'll still be illegal, with a theoretical maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment for possession; but in practice, those caught with what appears to be a small amount of dope can expect nothing worse than a warning and the confiscation of their stash.

Meanwhile, the possibility of allowing the use of cannabis for medical purposes is to be re-examined. The UK government will give their support to the licensing of cannabis derivatives for medical use if, as seems probable from past experience, current trials prove successful.

That last part of Blunkett's proposals could surely only be opposed by the most dogmatic of anti-drug campaigners. Some multiple sclerosis sufferers have reported that cannabis can reduce the symptoms of that dreadful disease. It seems outrageously heartless to suggest that the police should spend their time trying to ensure that the MS sufferers are denied that comfort.

The use of police time in pursuing cannabis users is, of course, central to the wider debate on dope, as Blunkett has acknowledged. One or two left-wing commentators have suggested that the proposed relaxation in the UK law is a sinister plot to get those who hold dissenting views on the war in Afghanistan too stoned to care, or at least too stoned to protest coherently. I suspect, however, that the real reasons are more pragmatic. Quite simply, prosecuting dope smokers is more trouble than it's worth to the police. The forces of law and order are often undermanned and over-stretched, and they have better things to do with their limited reserves of time.

The political right has been surprisingly quiet on the subject. There was a half-hearted protest from Ann Widdecombe, but the Conservative Party's official line was that they had no comment on the matter, because they were currently in the middle of a policy review. Perhaps they feared a repetition of the glorious farce that took place when Ms Widdecombe called for zero tolerance on all drugs, only for several of her Conservative colleagues to admit to having enjoyed the odd toke in their youth.

The traditional objection to liberalising the cannabis law has been based on the 'gateway drug' theory: the idea that people start out smoking dope and end up injecting heroin. This may well have happened to some people, though it hasn't happened to any of the many enthusiastic tokers I've known over the years. From my experience, I'd say that dope can make you boring (stoned people do not tend to make sparkling conversationalists), and that it can be seriously hazardous to a person's taste in music. But I don't believe that it's really all that likely to set you on the road to junkiedom.

Cannabis does, however, tend to lead most of its users very directly to another highly addictive drug, one that has brought huge numbers of people to a premature and painful death: nicotine. Cannabis in itself doesn't appear to be all that dangerous: but most people who enjoy it do so by smoking it with tobacco, and smoking tobacco is bad for you. Of course there are other ways of taking dope: it can, for instance, be blended into delicious cakes, as many of those who have visited the 'Post' editor's home in Holland can attest.

But those in a hurry to get mellow often can't be bothered with baking. Were all the legal restrictions to be removed, the main thing that would make me cautious about taking up toking would be that it took me a long time to stop smoking tobacco, and I really don't want to start waking up coughing again.

However, I heartily welcome Blunkett's announcement. The prohibition of cannabis has criminalised a lot of peaceful, otherwise law-abiding people. Thus far, the government are insisting that there is no immediate prospect of legalising or decriminalising cannabis in Britain, but Blunkett's move has been widely interpreted as the first step along the road to legalisation.

I hope that proves to be the case. It is simply inconsistent and illogical for cannabis to be illegal while alcohol and nicotine, both of which ruin many lives, are readily and legally available.

Truth, it is said, is always the first casualty of war. At times of conflict, the propaganda war becomes a vital battlefront. That's something that is obviously very well understood by Osama bin Laden, with his recorded video messages to the world, and by the US authorities, who have warned American networks against broadcasting those same messages. Politicians go to enormous lengths to influence the media at the best of times. We can hardly be surprised that they try even harder to get the best possible spin on stories at the worst of times, when there's so much more at stake.

Yet, according to some, the problem is not that we're being lied to. It's that we're not being lied to enough. Watching the BBC Breakfast News recently, I've been amazed to hear the presenters read out complaints from viewers, sent in by post and e-mail, complaining that the news isn't patriotic enough. The messages say that too much attention is being focused on civilian casualties and the problems involved in the fight against the Taleban, and that not enough is heard about the successes claimed by America and its allies. Similar complaints can be seen in newspaper letters pages, especially in the right-wing press. There, too, the reporting of bad news is seen as some sort of cowardice or disloyalty.

It's ironic that such complaints usually seem to come from those who are most gung-ho about 'defending democracy'. Isn't a well-informed public an essential component of democracy? It's patronising in the extreme to suggest that we're all such impressionable, ignorant fools that we can't cope with the media telling it like it is, when doing so doesn't actually put lives in danger. It's also amazing to hear the critics of 'unpatriotic' reporting effectively demanding to be lied to.

Personally, I'd prefer the truth - even if it does make uncomfortable viewing and reading.

Whether you agree with my opinions or not, I hope that this column isn't annoying you too much. I hope you're not feeling like hitting your computer, swearing at the screen, shouting at your partner or your pets, or storming off to the nearest bar.

But if you do ever react like that to things that you see on the Internet, it seems that you're in the majority. A new survey carried out by pollsters NOP Omnibus for Barclays Bank has found that 61 per cent of Internet users over the age of 15 sometimes suffer from 'e-rage' - that is, feelings of anger whilst websurfing. The symptoms listed in the preceding paragraph are among those reported to researchers for the survey.

Logging off and having a drink is the most common response to e-rage. Around three-quarters of those who admitted to suffering from the condition said that their online life sometimes drove them to hit the booze. No wonder h2g2's virtual pubs do such a healthy trade.

The survey found that the most common causes of e-rage are being unable to access favourite web pages, and being timed out. Annoying though those things are, I am a little surprised that another great online irritant wasn't mentioned: the pop-up ad. Don't you just hate them, those rude interruptions to your surfing, cluttering up your screen, arrogantly coming between you and the things you want to view? Just thinking about them makes me feel like cooling off with a pint.

Perhaps all the ads are secretly sponsored by the drinks industry?

Mobile phones stink. That's already the view of many people. Certainly in some hands, mobiles can be annoying or downright dangerous, when used for loud, idiotic nattering in public places, or for chatting away whilst driving one-handed.

But if German inventor Andreas Wuellner gets his way, mobile phones really will stink. He's patenting a device that will enable mobile phone users to have incoming calls signalled to them by a whiff of perfume, rather than by a sound. The prototype device consists of a small box containing a natural oil of the user's choice. Incoming calls trigger the device to release a waft of fragrance generated from the oil.

Wuellner explains that the point of his invention is to eliminate the modern curse of annoying ring tones. I'd certainly agree that to do so would be a real boon to the world. Novelty ring tones that play a shrill synthesised renditoion of the user's favourite tune have become the most annoying trend since Pokémon.

But I think that Wuellner may be in danger of taking a good idea too far. He has said that eventually, he hopes to produce a version of the device that would produce a different smell depending on who the call was from.

Oh dear. Just imagine which natural smells some people might choose to indicate calls from their ex-partners...

Ormondroyd

01.11.01. Front Page

Back Issue Page