IF I were to attempt to market a product that was clearly proven to be responsible for the premature death of 50 per cent of those who used it on a regular basis I doubt I would be allowed to do so. If my product as well as being a proven cause of chronic disease and premature death also increased crime, levels of violence and social deprivation it would not be given a licence. If my product would kill or injure almost 200,000 UK citizens each year I would struggle to get approval. The three example I cite are obviously tobacco, alcohol and cars; we live in a dangerous world but we collectively accept there are risks inherent in our lifestyles.

The news that the case for standardising the packaging of cigarettes was upheld (“Tobacco giants lose bid to stop plain packets”, The Herald, May 20) is to be welcomed, yet there is no restriction on the quantity that can be purchased. The issue highlights the irrational approach to controlling drugs in society. Alcohol and tobacco are drugs, the only difference is that society has accepted the inevitable public demand for them and tries to control their use. However, one can present oneself at a checkout in the supermarket with one’s trolley overladen with booze and nobody bats an eyelid, but they will stop you buying more than a handful of paracetamol if you also have a Lemsip. Cannabis, which by any objective assessment is less harmful to the individual and society than tobacco or alcohol is on the other hand forced into the underworld. Cynics may suggest that the major criterion on whether a drug is deemed legal or illegal is what section of society actually profits from its production.

All drugs can potentially have negative side-effects both on the individual and society, but the overwhelming majority of problems related to drug addiction are as a result of their production and use being illegal. Society appears pragmatic enough to accept the inevitability that people will always want and source drugs such as alcohol and tobacco and if we simply added cannabis and other illegal drugs to the list of accepted stimulants then crime would be removed from the cycle completely. Then the resources currently squandered in policing and the criminal justice system in a futile attempt to eradicate the problem could be targeted on the health and social welfare issues of drug addicts just as we do with tobacco and alcohol addicts.

If we can decide to “criminalise” something as basic as sugar then it is long overdue that officialdom reviewed its attitudes towards freely available and commonly used drugs which are currently illegal but for which there is a genuine demand which will not go away.

Society has already decided on this issue. It is time that our legislators accepted this and changed the law. I’m confident that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find merit in this proposition.

David J Crawford,

Flat 3/3 131 Shuna Street, Glasgow.