L'Obs, Le Guen, Touraine and legalization

Edito. Unfortunately, it's not a fable, but the current «cannabis debate» in France. The latest issue of L'Obs featured a 7-lobed leaf on its cover, with the headline ’Cannabis. Et si on légalisait? Subtitled: «Answers from doctors, politicians and experts».

There's really no right way to open a debate. But there are bad ones. L'Obs navigates between the two in its 10-page dossier.

How about legalization?

Part 1 notes that the French prohibition does not prevent consumption in the country. Visit France is Europe's most prohibitive state and yet the country where consumption is highest, ahead of the Netherlands, Spain and the Czech Republic. The arguments in favor of legalization are clearly set out: stop the all-out repression and switch to a policy of harm reduction, dry up trafficking, create an official economy, control product quality and stabilize consumption.

The article is interspersed with testimonials from political figures. In the pro-legalization camp : Bertrand Dautzenberg (pulmonologist), Jean-Christophe Lagarde (UDI), Stéphane Gatignon (mayor of Sevran) and Jean-Marie Le Guen. In the anti camp: Marisol Touraine (Minister of Health), Bruno Beschizza (former secretary of the Synergie Officiers police union, and mayor of Aulnay-sous-Bois in the 93 department), Etienne Apaire (former President of the MILDT).

I don't think the article would convince anyone without an opinion on the subject. It covers a lot of ground, and a contrario,The foundations have been laid for further progress. Our only regret is the definition of THC the active cannabinoid principle present in the plant«. L'Obs, if you read us, we would have said »one of the cannabinoids (active principle) present in the plant, in this case the psychoactive compound'.

Part 2 gives an overview of the «culture weed« . We fall into the cliché of the young person in the sheet sweater, who wakes up lighting a joint and listens to Snoop Dogg looking How High. I don't know if the Obs would have done a feature on beer talking about Raymond, Cochonou cap and barfly, watching Groland and trying to look like Depardieu. But hey, why not. It's also an aspect of the stoners.

The 3rd and final section, the most accomplished, tells the story of the «flourishing business in Colorado». The subject is mastered. The journalist apparently lives in Colorado, and you can feel it! It's almost an article we could have written 🙂

So why were we left wanting more? Quite simply because there's a hell of a lot missing. We'll focus on two of them. First, the therapeutic aspect. We know that Marisol Touraine is against, but still. You can't ignore a subject on which 15 of the 27 European countries voted in favor. Or 26 states out of 51 in the USA. Quite implausible.

And second, consumers. Apart from Rodolphe, 20 years old, leafy underpants and connoisseur of Amsterdam coffeeshops (the «cliché» of the second part), where are they? What do they want? What is their vision of legislation? Do they prefer to stay hidden and live happily ever after? Would decriminalization suit them? State-controlled legalization? Authorization to grow at home? Not a word about pro-legislation associations or patient groups either.

Some people are trying to get things moving. It's a pity we didn't remind them more strongly.

Moral of the story

The classic press will have noted that Jean-Marie Le Guen wants a referendum on the subject. And that Marisol Touraine is against legalization or decriminalization. But not necessarily against a debate. What she is asking, however, is that we first agree on the objectives of a legal reform, with a choice between a public health objective, a fight against mafias or a way to clear up the backlog in the courts. Couldn't we do all 3 at once? Ha.

Marisol Touraine has two good points to make. Firstly, she says that we need to look at foreign experiences (Uruguay, Washington, Spain, etc.) to know what to do in France and how. And secondly, that opening an in-depth debate a year before a presidential election is the best way to ensure that it becomes a vote-grabber rather than a genuine desire for change.

We couldn't agree more. At the same time, this is a subject which, if approached from a legislative and health angle, would normally have to go beyond the political framework and agenda. The Canada understands this. But not everyone is Justin Trudeau!