There is much confusion about the effect of the recent change in the Law on cannabis. In practical terms, as far as Scotland is concerned, there has been no change. Cannabis was, and still is, an illegal drug. It is still a criminal offence for anyone to possess for his own use, possess with intent to supply to another, supply or be concerned in the supply of cannabis. Anyone breaking this law is liable to be arrested and reported to the Procurator Fiscal. If convicted, a person possessing, supplying or being concerned in the supply of cannabis faces the possibility of imprisonment.

The only change has been to recategorise cannabis from being a Class B drug to being a Class C drug. The only result of this is a reduction in the maximum sentences that can be imposed. As the maxima are rarely even approached, let alone imposed, there is no effective change from before.

As simple possession of cannabis, as reclassified as a Class C drug, carries the possibility of two years imprisonment and an unlimited fine, Parliament has decreed that it remains a serious crime. The more serious charges i.e. possession with intent to supply, actually supplying or being concerned in the supply of cannabis carry a maximum sentence today of fourteen years imprisonment.

It is worth remembering that "supplying" is what it says. It does not require the commercial sale of cannabis to another. Simply passing your reefer to your friend is supplying him with the drug. So too is the individual who makes a bulk purchase on behalf of his friends and hands over their purchased share at no additional charge.

Parliament has not legalised cannabis. Parliament has not said that it is all right for someone over 18 to use cannabis. It remains a crime.

The change that has happened in England and Wales, but not in Scotland, is that Chief Constables have been permitted, in restricted circumstances, not to prosecute individual users. First of all, this tolerance only applies to those over 18 and, secondly, only to those found in possession of small quantities for their own use. No tolerance is to be shown to those caught allegedly committing supply type offences.

The problem in the English approach is that different Chief Constables are interpreting this tolerance in different ways so that what is permissible in one Force area may well not be over in the adjacent one. In short, it is a mess.

The Lord Advocate has not given a similar discretion to Chief Constables in Scotland, nor has he issued instructions to Procurators Fiscal to change the policy they were operating before the reclassification. In short, the reclassification has had no effect in Scotland.

Incidentally I will be intrigued to seeing what defence the proposed cannabis café in Edinburgh attempt to argue to the crimes of being an occupier of premises where cannabis smoking is permitted and supplying the bongs used for administering the drug.

I do not know whether cannabis use is safe or not. Smoking is unhealthy whatever is being inhaled. Some people have bad reactions to it and there is some evidence of mental problems in some users. However that is not in everyone and the evidence is unclear about which is the chicken or egg. I certainly disagree with the suggestion that it is a gateway drug leading on to more serious ones. It is probably correct that most heroin addicts started on cannabis. It is also probably correct that most alcoholics started on beer, but no one suggests banning beer. Certainly it is not the same as used in the Hippie 60s and is stronger today. However what I do know is there are very few crimes committed under the influence of cannabis and a great deal less than committed under the influence of alcohol, itself a readily available, legal and socially acceptable drug. If both alcohol and cannabis were discovered today, it is alcohol that would be made illegal to possess, supply etc.