In '67 SOMA published a letter calling for legalisation of cannabis, signed by many famous figures of the day, in The Times. 25 years later, Release funded an aniversary advert, pointing out the hypocrisy and counter-productive nature of prohibition. This is the editorial that appeared in the Times the same day.

The dividing line in any society between acceptable and unacceptable narcotics, as between other aspects of private behaviour, is determined by the habits of generations. At various periods of British history, gambling, nicotine, spirit consumption, prostitution, homosexuality, opium and heroin use have been legally restricted if not actually criminal. At other times they have been considered legitimate, if not always admired activities. One generation's illicit casino owner is another generation's contributor to party funds.

Nothing indicates the community's confused reactions to narcotics more than the inclusion or exclusion of certain substances from the banned list. Vast numbers of young people in Britain now regularly take a mild (technically illegal) stimulant called Ecstasy. Many use it as a substitute for alcohol, which they regard as much more dangerous because it affects motor reflexes and because it is pharmacologically addictive. The same goes for cannabis, especially in the black community, where it has long been preferred to the lethally addictive alcohol and nicotine. That community sees as hypocritical and racist a society that ennobles makers of drink and tobacco products, and taxes those products for the public benefit yet outlaws their less toxic relaxants.

The law banning cannabis sale and use is all but unenforced. Some critics of legalisation say that since any narcotic use is to be discouraged, the best policy is to let the existing law merely fall into disuse. There would be a case for this were soft drugs not a huge industry, with a production and distribution chain operating outside and open contempt for the law. In Northern Ireland, paramilitary gangs survive on the cannabis business, as do gang leaders in many urban ghettos.

The criminalisation of cannabis renders the policing of such communities much harder. Laws that do not enjoy widespread consent undermine respect for the law. Cannabis is the bread and butter of an industry that criminalisation has done nothing to diminish and probably enhances. Young people that refuse to see it as dangerous are invited into a world where the line between a misdemeanour and outlawry is hard for them to discern. Not suprisingly, the police are among those who would welcome a drastic pruning of the banned drugs list.

These questions are taxing lawmakers and policeman in most Western countries. Such is the taboo surrounding all intoxicants and narcotics that rational debate is hard. The history of alcohol prohibition in America and of the arguments surrounding decriminalisation homosexuality, casino betting, and Sunday observance, well demonstrate the passions such subjects arouse. Older generations see a slippery slope down which the young appear to be sliding.