These categories below are very loose!
Cafés
Cannabis
safest drug
Children
Corrupt
authorities
Prejudice
Legal
drugs
Prohibition
doesn't work
Concerns
about cannabis
Policy
Cafés:
A cannabis cafe in X? What about
the safety of cannabis? What of the likelihood of
increased cannabis use? What about the legal and
medical opinion of the authorities? I was highly
sceptical until challenged by my son to find out the
facts.
I know we never see in the newspapers any reported
deaths from cannabis or any cost to the NHS in long-term
illness caused by cannabis and NHS Direct confirmed
this. What else do the authorities say? The House of
Lords wants cannabis available for medicinal reasons
now. The Police Foundation believe there should be a
defence of 'medical necessity' since Government has
rejected the House of Lords' opinion.
North Wales police want decriminalisation.
Amsterdam's experience has shown no increase in drug
problems. Then last week I watched the film 'Grass'
on S4C detailing the US government's propaganda
campaigns about cannabis causing death and insanity!
It's easy to see how we of the older generations have
been indoctrinated. I wish the new cafe all the best
and hope those suffering from glaucoma, arthritis,
stress - and many more conditions - find some relief
from this new public service.
Critics of the cannabis cafe in X
might like to offer alternative ideas for how
patients in need of this treatment should receive it.
Let's be clear that no-one working in the field
disputes that cannabis is useful for treating some
medical conditions.
Politicians and royalty admit to having got away with
smoking cannabis but some ill people are risking jail
by growing their own just to get the medication they
need. Would critics prefer the NHS to use tax payers
money to send patients to Holland? Personally I think
a more reasonable approach would be to allow
individuals to grow the plant and smoke it only at
their homes. We should not be encouraging any
unnecessary drug use but neither should we be
restricting people's rights unnecessarily.
After all people are allowed to drink poison and kill
themselves. We don't ban scuba diving though it kills
as many as Ecstasy, nor peanuts that kill many more
than cannabis.
The North Wales Drug and Alcohol
Forum in Mold last week heard North Wales chief
constable Richard Brunstrom welcome plans to trial
the prescribing of heroin to addicts. This would not
only eliminate the need for addicts to steal but
begin to actually treat their problem rather than
punish them for it. But we need trials to find out if
this policy works in practise. There's been enough
talk. Now we need some action.
North Wales would be an excellent place to begin such
trials, not only because of Mr. Brunstrom's support
but also because of the possibility of running
another trial in parallel. The first cannabis café
in Wales is due to open in the next few months in
North Wales. Here is an opportunity to trial the
legal supply of cannabis through a licensed outlet.
This would allow cannabis users to obtain their drug
without exposing themselves to criminals dealing in
crack cocaine and other 'hard' drugs.
Running these trials in parallel may well enhance the
effectiveness of both. We may be able to not only
close the gateway to hard drugs by licensing the
supply of cannabis but also provide those already
trapped beyond the gateway with a way out.
To some it may seem strange that a
man admitting a criminal offence punishable by up to
14 years in prison should have charges against him
dropped (Cannabis cafe 'goes ahead', Feb 13). However
juries around the UK are increasingly finding drug
offenders innocent, not because they did not break
the law but because the law itself is unjust.
The Home Affairs Select Committee report 'Government
Drugs Policy: Is it Working?' concluded that "legal
drugs, such as tobacco and alcohol, are responsible
for far greater damage both to individual health and
to the social fabric in general than illegal ones".
So our drugs policy prohibits safer drugs that it
allows - hardly a sign that it is working or that it
is fair.
Why then are the illegal drugs prohibited? Perhaps
because the UK's biggest drug profiteers are the law
makers, the Government. They receive £20 billion a
year from the trade in alcohol and tobacco, drugs
that kill one in five citizens. Little wonder that
they try to repress competing drugs.
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, whose
duty under the Misuse of Drugs Act is to advise
Government about drug dangers, says "the high
use of cannabis is not associated with major health
problems for the individual or society."
Informed parents are now demanding that drug policy
is reformed to allow their children access to
cannabis, the only safer alternative to legal drugs.
I, for one, would like to thank those courageous
individuals running cannabis cafes for their
valuable, health promoting service.
Cannabis
safer than legal drugs:
Mr X repeats his assertion that pro-cannabis
campaigners imply that the use of cannabis is risk-free.
I've not read any such views in this paper. The
argument seems more concerned with whether or not
cannabis is a safer alternative to tobacco and
alcohol.
We know tobacco is more addictive than heroin and
that it kills one in five citizens. 80% of tobacco
addicts become hooked before the age of 16 due to
others supplying them illegally. It's one product
that does what it says on the side of the pack:
'Smoking kills'.
Since cannabis is less addictive than caffeine most
young people give up after they have adjusted to
adult life. But even long-term users do not have a
higher incidence of illness or death than non-smokers.
With 150,000 people dying every year from the legal
drugs, shouldn't we give cannabis a chance?
Anyone suffering from the following
conditions may be interested to know that GW
Pharmaceuticals plc are looking for patients to take
part in clinical trials for: Arthritis; Brain Injury/Stroke;
Multiple Sclerosis; Nausea associated with cancer
chemotherapy; Pain; Phantom Limb Pain; Spinal cord
injury; Anti-Tumor Effects; Asthma; Crohn's Disease
and Ulcerative Colitis; Depression and Mental
Illness; Eating Disorders; Epilepsy; Fibromyalgia;
Glaucoma; High Blood Pressure/Hypertension; Migraine;
Nail Patella Syndrome; Schizophrenia; Tourette's
Syndrome.
The company has been licensed to perform clinical
trials to test the medical effectiveness of cannabis
using an aerosol spray rather than smoking. Their
website says about health concerns: "Hundreds of
years of cannabis use provide for compelling evidence
of safety. Indeed, the therapeutic index for cannabis
(the ratio between a normal and lethal dose) is
estimated to be 40,000 to 1. The equivalent ratio for
Aspirin is 23 to 1." For more details contact GW
Pharmaceuticals plc on their 'Patient Information
Line': 0800 052 7100
Kids:
I want my children to grow up in a
society where they have access to the safest
recreational drug available. I accept that life is
stressful and we all need to unwind sometimes. But
alcohol and tobacco kill 150,000 people every year in
the UK. Cannabis has never killed anyone. Think of
all the lives that could be saved if people could be
encouraged to switch to cannabis or if teenagers
opted for cannabis as their drug of choice rather
than alcohol or tobacco.
The advantages of cannabis are not just to do with
health. Government research has shown that cannabis
does not cause a loss of inhibitions as alcohol does,
instead making people drive more cautiously, and that
there are many positive medicinal effects.
If parents want the safest drug for their children in
the future but are concerned about cannabis, then I
urge them to find out the truth for themselves. As
our children receive better drug education you can be
sure that the truth will find them.
A concerned parent wrote recently
about their belief that cannabis is 'a lethal
weapon', referring to problems faced by their teenage
son becoming dependent on cannabis.
Adolescence is a stressful time and many teenagers do
take stress-relieving drugs. Society offers them, at
the appropriate age, two stress-relieving drugs,
alcohol and tobacco. These are both addictive and
kill 150,000 every year in the UK. No question then
that these legal drugs are 'lethal weapons'.
Cannabis, as our children are correctly taught, is
less addictive than coffee and has never killed
anyone. But we have wrongly classified it as more
dangerous than legal drugs, often imprisoning those
who choose this safer alternative.
People under stress can become dependent on any
activity. Many become dependent on food causing huge
problems with obesity. Others may become dependent on
TV or computer games to help them relax. These are
serious problems but they are quite different to drug
addiction. A quarter of the adult population in this
country are addicted to legal but lethal drugs; one
in five of us will die from these drugs. I for one
would be much happier if my child took cannabis
instead of alcohol or tobacco.
X, head teacher of YZ School, has
taken an important step in treating children caught
smoking cannabis as victims rather than criminals.
But only a first step.
Schoolchildren who have not yet selected their
lifetime drug(s) of choice are bound to experiment
with recreational drugs. Their drug education will
teach them about other peoples' choices and the
consequences of those choices. They learn that
alcohol and tobacco are addictive and kill 150,000
people every year in the UK while cannabis is not
addictive and has never killed anyone anywhere. Can
we really be surprised that cannabis smoking is
increasing amongst schoolchildren?
These children are certainly not criminals. They are
only victims to the law for surely they are making
choices that are more rational than our own.
Stockport council proposes
introducing clubs for under-age teenagers to drink
alcohol.
If this council is considering breaking the law then
why not provide youngsters with a safer alternative
to alcohol? Alcohol is an addictive drug that kills
30,000 every year in the UK. Cannabis is neither
addictive nor lethal.
The government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of
Drugs states "Legal drugs, such as tobacco and
alcohol, are responsible for far greater damage both
to individual health and to the social fabric in
general than illegal ones."
Safety is not the only concern with alcohol. The
World Health Organisation's report 'Cannabis: a
health perspective and research agenda' states:
"Alcohol intoxication is strongly associated
with aggressive and violent behaviour" and
"There is little to suggest a causal
relationship of cannabis use to aggression or
violence."
X is quite correct in his belief
that current drugs policy makes our drugs problem
worse.
One in four adults are now drug addicts. Our
teenagers are growing up to join a society in which
they have a one in five chance of being killed by
these lethal addictive drugs. But these are not
problems caused by illegal drugs but by the only
stress-relieving drugs legally available, alcohol and
tobacco. The only safe alternative, being neither
lethal nor addictive, has been made illegal.
When will we stop discriminating against minorities
who use drugs safer than our own? We may not like
admitting we've been wrong about cannabis but our
children's lives depend upon us doing so.
Does reclassification of cannabis
give a mixed message to young people?
Consider the most basic drug education children
receive. Alcohol and tobacco kill 150,000 people in
the UK every year while cannabis has never killed
anyone. But alcohol and tobacco are legal while
cannabis has been made illegal. Now that's what I
call a mixed message.
Children are very sensitive to adult hypocrisy - it
seems to be Nature's way of ensuring the next
generation corrects the mistakes of the previous one.
Little wonder then that cannabis usage is increasing
amongst teenagers. If we want an inclusive society
then we will have to correct the laws that
discriminate against minority drug users. Is it so
hard for us to admit that we've got it wrong about
cannabis?
The increase in teenage usage of
cannabis ('Cannabis smoking by teenagers surges by 50
per cent', 25 November 2002) shows that our drug
education program is succeeding. Teenagers are
responding to the statement made by the Advisory
Council on the Misuse of Drugs that "the high
use of cannabis is not associated with major health
problems for the individual or society."
Recent reports suggesting that there may be a link
between cannabis and mental ill health demonstrate
that no drug can be completely safe. However these
health risks are minimal compared to those of tobacco.
The Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health report
(2001) stated that "Half of all regular [tobacco]
smokers will eventually be killed by their habit".
The Department of Health says tobacco is more
addictive than heroin. Tobacco addicts have a death
rate several times greater than those addicted to
street-quality heroin. Heroin addicts may commit
considerable crime but tobacco addicts kill hundreds
of innocent people every year through passive smoking.
If teenage cannabis use increases while tobacco use
decreases then we should encourage this harm
reduction strategy. Teenagers are taking
responsibility for their own health by exercising
evidence-based informed choice.
The Government's 'Updated Drug
Strategy 2002' claims it will provide "a new
education campaign for young people based on credible
information of the harm which drugs cause" (Blunkett
scraps the targets for fighting drug abuse, December
4).
Will they include information about the harm caused
by the most lethal addictive drugs, tobacco and
alcohol? Will they finally start presenting
comparisons of deaths rates, addictiveness and links
with crime for each drug individually? This is the
most basic information citizens need to become
informed about drug risks yet still Government dares
not tell us the whole truth.
Corrupt
authorities:
The imprisonment of Colin Davies
for supplying cannabis through Britain's first
cannabis café highlights the discrimination against
minorities who use drugs safer than those that our
government classifies as legal. Had Mr Davies sold
tobacco, a drug that a quarter of the adult
population are addicted to and which kills 120,000
citizens every year, he would have been allowed to
profit from his drug supply. He chose to sell
cannabis, a drug less addictive than coffee that has
never killed anyone, and has been imprisoned.
The World Health Organisation's report Cannabis: a
health perspective and research agenda states
that "cannabis poses a much less serious public
health problem than is currently posed by alcohol and
tobacco in Western societies". Our own
Government's Advisory Committee on the Misuse of
Drugs says "Legal drugs, such as tobacco and
alcohol, are responsible for far greater damage both
to individual health and to the social fabric in
general than illegal ones".
Why then is cannabis still illegal? Perhaps because
it represents such an economic threat to Government
finances. The Government is the biggest profiteer
from the drugs trade, benefiting from the supply of
their legal but lethal drugs to the tune of £20 bn a
year. The best quality cannabis can be grown by
anyone at home avoiding any tax revenue demanded by
Government.
Our teenagers are growing up to join a society where
they have a one in five chance of being killed by
drugs that our government profits from. Licensed
cannabis cafes offer an opportunity for our citizens
to obtain the only safer alternative to alcohol and
tobacco without being exposed to drug suppliers
dealing in the 'hard drugs', cocaine and heroin.
David Blunkett's Criminal Justice
White Paper seems to have missed the opportunity to
require judges to swear to "tell the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth". Judges
still direct the jury to judge 'only the facts of the
matter' and to 'leave aside personal feelings' yet
juries were created as a democratic means for the
common people to use common-sense to judge the
fairness of laws passed by powerful law-makers.
Any juror may, for example, find cannabis offenders
guilty of breaking the law but innocent of doing
anything wrong and therefore declare them "innocent".
Martin Luther King put it this way: "In any
civilized society, it is every citizen's
responsibility to obey just laws. But at the same
time, it is every citizen's responsibility to disobey
unjust laws."
Jurors are not informed of their rights and duties to
judge the law. It was juries who ended alcohol
prohibition in America. Anyone called to jury service
should look at the website of The Fully Informed Jury
Association at www.fija.org . The information given
by FIJA applies to the UK as well as the US.
Drug prohibition is an emotive
topic in the UK at present but spare a thought for
the international situation. Starving Afghan farmers
have been prevented from exporting one of their few
natural resources, heroin, because it is a lethal
addictive drug. On the other hand we, with our
plentiful resources, are allowed to export our lethal
addictive drugs around the world. In this country
alone our legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco, kill 150,000
every year. No sign of free and fair trade there then.
One day the World Trade Organisation will have to
answer the reasonable question "Should nations
be allowed to export lethal addictive recreational
drugs?" They are unlikely to say no and require
all exports of alcohol and tobacco to stop. In our
country how should we answer the question "Should
individuals be allowed to consume and trade in
dangerous recreational drugs?
"North Wales chief constable
Richard Brunstrom suggests freely supplying heroin to
addicts ('Police chief speaks out on drugs', 6th
September). At first sight this seems to go against
government policy and common-sense.
In fact Richard Brunstrom is merely advocating very
reasonable recommendations made over 75 years ago.
The Government's Rolleston Committee report of 1926
defined addiction as "a disease requiring
medical treatment, including maintenance prescribing".
Alternatively the chief constable could adopt current
government policy as outlined in the Government's
'Ten Year Strategy for Tackling Drugs'. This document
states that Government intends to "....imprison
those who profit from the drugs trade."
The Government makes £20 billion a year from the
supply of lethal addictive drugs. A quarter of the
adult population are addicted to alcohol and tobacco
and 150,000 UK citizens are killed by them every year.
Watch out Tony Blair - Richard Brunstrom may be
knocking on YOUR door soon! "
The conviction of Chris Davies MEP
for possession of cannabis while campaigning for
safer drug laws can not be justified (MEP fined £100
over cannabis law protest, 29th Oct). The judge
criticised Mr Davies for being irresponsible. Instead
Mr Davies should be applauded for following Martin
Luther King's statement that "It is the duty of
all responsible citizens to disobey unjust laws".
(a) Current drug laws are certainly unjust. The
Government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
report The classification of cannabis under the
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 states "The high
use of cannabis is not associated with major health
problems for the individual or society." The
Government's Scientific Committee on Tobacco and
Health report 2001 says "Half of all regular
smokers will eventually be killed by their habit if
they continue to smoke".
The Government receives £20 billion a year from the
trade in lethal addictive drugs. A quarter of the
adult population are addicted to alcohol or tobacco
and 150,000 UK citizens are killed by them every year.
If only 1% of users of these legal drugs switched to
cannabis over 1000 lives could be saved each year.
(b) Legal tobacco is 5 times more lethal than illegal
heroin. Tobacco addicts face a 1 in 100 chance of
being killed by their drug each year while heroin
addicts face a 1 in 500 chance. 150,000 people are
killed each year by the drugs Government classifies
as legal. The only safer alternative to alcohol and
tobacco, cannabis, is neither lethal nor addictive
yet still remains illegal. If only 1% of users of
legal drugs switched to cannabis over 1000 lives
could be saved each year.
Why then is cannabis illegal? Perhaps because it
represents such an economic threat to government
finances. The government is the biggest profiteer
from the drugs trade benefiting from the supply of
their legal but lethal drugs to the tune of £20
billion a year.
……….Meanwhile individuals like Chris
Davies, dedicated to the introduction of fair drug
laws that encourage the use of the safest drugs and
discourage the use of the most dangerous, are
victimised at tax-payers' expense.
Prejudice:
It is not surprising that law-makers
are befuddled by marijuana (7th September, p.6). They
can hardly be expected to assess scientific evidence
impartially when they are so financially dependent
upon the status quo.
The UK Government receives £20 billion a year from
the supply of the drugs alcohol and tobacco.
Classifying these drugs as 'legal' allows them to
license and tax the drug cartels that control their
production. In contrast the best quality cannabis can
be grown by anyone at home, under artificial light if
necessary, circumventing taxation. Legalisation of
cannabis would also lead to many addicts of legal
drugs switching to cannabis as the only safer
alternative.
By classifying cannabis as 'illegal' the only serious
competition is removed or at least repressed.
Internationally the World Trade Organisation might be
expected to be concerned about the lack of free trade
in recreational drugs. Western drug cartels export
their lethal addictive drugs around the world while
starving Afghan farmers are prevented from exporting
their own. The WTO is not so much addicted to free
trade as to "the savage principle of survival of
the fittest" as Thabo Mbeki recently put it (31st
August, p.8).
Financial considerations are bound to bias any
assessment of scientific evidence. Our selfish genes
still tend to dominate our growing global
consciousness.
Parents Against Lethal Addictive
Drugs (PALAD) condemns the ignorant and prejudiced
views expressed by Susan Greenfield (18th
August). She irresponsibly suggests that cannabis is
more dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, spreading
misleading information about the relative danger of
different drugs and so endangering the future health
of our children.
Greenfield ignores the consensus among leading
authorities on the subject. The World Health
Organisation's report 'Cannabis: a health perspective
and research agenda' states: "....cannabis poses
a much less serious public health problem than is
currently posed by alcohol and tobacco in Western
societies" and "The weight of the available
evidence suggests that even the longterm heavy use of
cannabis does not produce any severe or grossly
debilitating impairment of cognitive function. If it
did research to date should have detected it".
Our own government's Select Committee on Home Affairs
Third Report states: "Legal drugs, such as
tobacco and alcohol, are responsible for far greater
damage both to individual health and to the social
fabric in general than illegal ones".
Greenfield's prejudice against cannabis becomes clear
when we consider that alcohol and tobacco kill 130,000
people in the UK every year while cannabis has never
killed anyone. A quarter of all adults are drug
addicts, addicted to these legal but lethal drugs.
PALAD campaigns to raise awareness of Britain's true
drug problem. Our teenagers are growing up to enter a
society in which they have a one-in-five chance of
being killed by these lethal addictive drugs.
Cannabis has been proven to be a far safer
alternative yet those who responsibly choose this
alternative risk imprisonment. When will we stop
discriminating against minorities who use drugs safer
than our own? We may not like admitting we've been
wrong about cannabis but our children's lives depend
upon us doing so.
The Conservative's announcement
this week of zero tolerance toward cannabis smokers
is likely to seriously backfire as more and more
people realise the enormous waste of tax payers'
money involved in trying to repress such a safe
activity. The UK Royal Commission Wootton Report (1970)
said "there is no evidence that serious dangers
are associated with the smoking of cannabis"
while The Lancet (Nov.'95) said "The smoking of
cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health".
No reason for cannabis prohibition has withstood
investigation. Scuba diving is far more dangerous to
the individual and more costly to society in rescues
and health care.
In the same week that the Human Rights Act comes into
force it is amazing that the Conservatives should
want to further misuse tax payers money to
discriminate against a significant segment of society
that neither harm themselves nor our society but who
are, in fact, victims of a miscarriage of justice.
Legal
drugs:
The British Medical Association's
call for tobacco advertising to be banned in Europe
is entirely justified but remains a tiny first step
in preventing the most lethal of all drug addictions.
Tobacco is five times more deadly than heroin.
Tobacco addicts face a one in a hundred chance of
being killed by their drug every year compared to a
one in five hundred chance for heroin users.
We burn the lethal addictive drug crops of starving
Afghan farmers while tobacco is the most heavily
subsided crop in Europe. Banning tobacco advertising
is surely the very least we should do.
At last action is being taken to
prevent drug addicts killing innocent people. X has
raised awareness of the dangers of passive smoking
and now there is massive support to limit smoking in
public places.
Too often politicians wishing to be tough on drugs
take the easier option of attacking only illegal
drugs, the drugs used by minorities who often don't
vote. These politicians are content to ignore Home
Office guidance that "we need to continue
referring to alcohol, tobacco and caffeine as drugs".
If drug users, legal or illegal, harm themselves we
should try to educate and treat them. Only when they
harm others should we criminalise them.
Many thanks, X. Your action will save many lives.
Prohibition:
Drug prohibition has failed.
'Controlled drugs' are out of control. School
children can obtain illegal drugs as easily as
tobacco and alcohol. And illegal drugs are safer than
legal ones anyway.
A famous immigrant to the US during alcohol
prohibition commented "The prestige of
government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably
by the prohibition law. For nothing is more
destructive of respect for the government and the law
of the land than passing laws which cannot be
enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous
increase of crime in this country is closely
connected with this." Surely we don't have to be
Einstein to accept his conclusions?
Drug prohibition has failed. It is
impossible to prevent the supply of a product when
demand remains high. Demand will continue to be high
because many know that "legal drugs, such as
tobacco and alcohol, are responsible for far greater
damage both to individual health and to the social
fabric in general than illegal ones" as the Home
Affairs Select Committee put it. The flow of a river
may be held back by building a dam but eventually the
water will overflow. Then the choice is either to
build the dam higher or to regulate the flow. This is
the choice we now face. The April review of UN
Conventions on drugs provides an opportunity for us
to adopt the only sustainable option.
Mr X strongly disagrees with Y's
views on drug reforms but what alternatives does he
suggest? None.
During the Nineties consecutive governments ploughed
more and more tax payers' money into 'The War on
Drugs'. After a decade they have analysed the results
and found virtually no effect. Britain now has the
toughest drug laws in Europe AND the worst drug
problem. The authorities have realised that no amount
of enforcement will eradicate the drug dealers.
Something has to change, we can all agree on that. We
all know that current drug policies are not working.
I'm sure some residents of YZ are worried by the
planned cannabis café but if it's a choice between
the café and street drug dealers then surely we
should give the café a chance. After all, when did
you ever hear of a cannabis user causing any kind of
anti-social behaviour?
Mr X insists that more enforcement
is the answer to our drug problems. How much extra
tax would he be willing to pay? And why bother?
Cannabis smoking is bound to increase as young people
learn that it is so much safer than alcohol and
tobacco. The evidence is easily available on the
internet. The law only offers people a choice of two
of the most dangerous recreational drugs known while
prohibiting the safest. That can only teach teenagers
to disrespect the law.
Concerns
about cannabis:
Mr X claims that "there is a
higher incidence of lung cancer among people who
smoke cannabis as well as tobacco than among puffers
who only smoke tobacco". This is untrue.
The Government's Select Committee on Science and
Technology's report 'Medical use of cannabis' says
that an 8 year comparison study showed that "marijuana
smokers did not show the age-related decline in
respiratory function seen in tobacco smokers. ...there
was no evidence for increases in lung cancers in
marijuana smokers".
Many of us have strong feelings about the drugs
problems in society but if we wish to express them in
the newspapers we should be fully informed of the
facts. It's surprisingly easy to find the evidence
that tobacco addicts have a death rate several times
higher than those addicted to street-quality heroin.
Another difference between these drug addicts is how
they effect others. Heroin addicts steal to fund
their habit. Tobacco addicts kill hundreds of
innocent bystanders through passive smoking.
As for cannabis the Advisory Council on the Misuse of
Drugs, whose legal duty is to advise Government about
drug dangers, says "The high use of cannabis is
not associated with major health problems for the
individual or society."
Mr X correctly quotes the British
Lung Foundation's report as saying that 3 or 4
cannabis joints are as damaging as 20 cigarettes. It
is sad when national charities are reduced to
scaremongering to raise funds. The actual facts they
report are that cannabis contains 50% more
carcinogenic tars than tobacco. They then take this
as evidence that cannabis must be carcinogenic,
ignoring evidence to the contrary.
(a) Consider this parallel. It is true to say that
coffee contains 16 carcinogenic compounds. If I made
my living selling tea I might be tempted to publish a
dramatic headline "Evidence that coffee causes
cancer". Though technically telling the truth, I
would be very irresponsible to do so if I also knew
that actual surveys of long-term coffee drinkers
showed they had no increased incidence in cancer. The
solution to the paradox is that some of the many
unidentified components of coffee must have anti-carcinogenic
properties. So it is with cannabis. That is why the
Government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
says "The high use of cannabis is not associated
with major health problems for the individual or
society."
(b) Actual studies of long-term cannabis users show
no increase in cancer. This paradox is explained by
the existence of many therapeutic chemicals also
contained in cannabis, some with anti-carcinogenic
effect.
Mr X seems to think everyone who
disagrees with him is a "pro-cannabis campaigner".
Does this include the anti-tobacco charity ASH who
also calls for cannabis legalisation? Or the medical
journal The Lancet which stated that "We say
that on the medical evidence available, moderate
indulgence in cannabis has little ill-effect on
health, and that decisions to ban or legalise
cannabis should be based on other considerations"?
Many believe that the law misleads people, especially
the young, into the false belief that legal drugs are
safer than illegal drugs. Teenagers are especially
sensitive to this adult hypocrisy. They lose respect
for the law and this results in anti-social behaviour
that effects us all.
X's campaign against the cannabis
cafe presents a good case for allowing the cafe. His
most damning evidence against cannabis is based upon
a British Lung Foundation report that declares that 3
or 4 joints a day are as damaging as 20 cigarettes.
Some people will be shocked to find cannabis is no
more dangerous than tobacco. Citizens have a right to
buy and smoke 20 cigarettes a day so why not 3 or 4
joints of cannabis?
The article about cannabis confirms
beyond doubt the link between the drug and mental
illness. It shows that a third of those with mental
illness smoke cannabis while only a tenth of healthy
people do.
However we should not jump to conclusions about this
link. What would we conclude if research showed that
those suffering from physical pain were far more
likely to take paracetamol than healthy people? That
paracetamol caused the pain?
Those suffering from mental illness may find
significant relief from symptoms by taking cannabis.
GW Pharmaceuticals is investigating the use of
cannabis for treating depression and other mental
illness based upon much research that indicates the
drug may be useful for these illnesses.
Watching Cannabis Psychosis
(16 December, C4) I was shocked to hear that cannabis
users are several times more likely to suffer from
schizophrenia than non-users.
What is even more shocking is that paracetamol users
are several times more likely to suffer from pain
than non-users. Conclusive proof that paracetamol
causes pain then?
Policy:
The apparent failure of a single
Government scientific committee to fulfil its
statutory duty contributes to the deaths of over 100,000
citizens every year.
The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 established the Advisory
Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) a s an
independent group of experts with the statutory duty
to advise Government about the dangers of drugs that
may have "harmful effects sufficient to
constitute a social problem". Since 1971 the
ACMD has recommended that many legal drugs causing
such har m should be added to the list of drugs
prohibited by the Misuse of Drugs Act. However the
ACMD has failed to suggest the addition of the two
most harmful drugs, alcohol and tobacco. Their report
Reducing Drug Related Deaths states that
tobacco "smoking kills about 120,000 people each
year, and between 28,000 and 33,000 people die
annually as a result of alcohol". Some three
million UK citizens have been killed by these legal
drugs since 1971.
The ACMD's duty includes recommending the removal of
drugs from the list of those prohibited if evidence
suggests that a particular drug is not significantly
harmful. Their report The classification of
cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
concludes that "the high use of cannabis is not
associated with major health problems for the
individual or society" yet they have failed to
recommend the legalisation of this far safer
alternative to alcohol and tobacco.
The Government's Updated Drug Strategy 2002
clearly explains the cause of our drug problems when
it states that "drug laws must accurately
reflect the relative harms of different drugs if they
are to persuade young people in particular of the
dangers of misusing drugs".
The war between competing drug
cartels escalated this week with the Government's
publication of their 'Drugs Policy Update 2002'. The
alcohol-tobacco cartel pays the Government £20
billion a year for 200,000 licensed drug dealers to
distribute the most lethal addictive drugs known. The
Government in exchange uses the law to restrict the
trade of competing safer drug industries. The
Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has
stated that "legal drugs, such as tobacco and
alcohol, are responsible for far greater damage both
to individual health and to the social fabric in
general than illegal ones". So much for the
Government's claim that "this updated strategy
sets out a range of policies which concentrate on the
most dangerous drugs".
The World Health Organisation's
warning that terrorists may attempt to contaminate
food supplies ignores a far easier means of directly
accessing the bodies of citizens in the West. The
trade in illegal drugs is completely unregulated from
production to consumption.
The prohibition of illegal drugs production,
ironically dictated by UN Conventions, forces drug
profiteers to produce their drugs beyond the reach of
responsible authorities. In such places terrorist
groups may easily control production. Ninety per cent
of UK heroin originates from Afghanistan. Years of
illegal drug prohibition have resulted in an
unregulated distribution network that reaches every
community in our country ensuring quick dispersal of
any biological contamination. The first we might hear
of a smallpox attack may be the deaths of heroin
users but by then it would be too late to contain the
attack.
The on-going development of a
National Alcohol Strategy provides an excellent
opportunity to reform the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA)
enabling the latter to cover the misuse of all social
drugs. The failure of the MDA to regulate against the
misuse of two of the most dangerous drugs, alcohol
and tobacco, has resulted in a national drug epidemic
in which a quarter of all adults are addicted to
legal drugs and one in five citizens are killed by
them.
All drugs can be dangerous if misused. Under the MDA,
however, excessive tobacco use is never classified as
misuse even though the World Health Organisation
states that "no amount of tobacco use is safe."
The Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health report
1998 stated that "smoking … accounts for
one fifth of deaths in the UK: some 120,000 deaths a
year". Conversely even moderate cannabis use is
always classified as misuse in spite of the statement
by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs that
"the high use of cannabis is not associated with
major health problems for the individual or society."
Alcohol seems to be the only drug where realistic
policies are being adopted. Moderate use is
acceptable, even beneficial, while excessive use or
misuse is likely to be harmful to both individual and
society.
The Government's Strategy Unit is currently
consulting on the National Alcohol Strategy,
submission deadline January 15th. I hope they will
recommend to the Government that such a strategy
should be part of an integrated drug misuse strategy
which applies to all social drugs, defines use and
misuse for each drug and then regulates against that
misuse only.
The Government's 'Updated Drug
Strategy 2002' continues to discriminate against the
quarter of all adults who suffer from addiction to
the most lethal addictive drug known (Former drugs
czar blamed for picking targets 'out of the air', 4
December). The document states "We will maintain
our focus on Class A drugs as they cause the most
harm." This statement is untrue. Class A drugs
do not cause the most harm. The Advisory Council on
the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has stated that "legal
drugs, such as tobacco and alcohol, are responsible
for far greater damage both to individual health and
to the social fabric in general than illegal ones".
The Government now intends to provide extensive
treatment services to those addicted to illegal drugs.
What about the needs of the millions desperate to
give up tobacco? Government also denies law-abiding
citizens informed choice by prohibiting them from
accessing the least harmful and addictive drug,
cannabis, the only safer alternative to legal drugs.
The ACMD has said "the high use of cannabis is
not associated with major health problems for the
individual or society."
Let us hope that the Government fulfils its aim to
provide "a new education campaign for young
people based on credible information of the harm
which drugs cause". Will they end the fiction
that alcohol and tobacco are not drugs? Will they
start presenting comparisons of deaths rates,
addictiveness and links with crime for each drug? Our
children are growing up to join a society in which
one in five citizens are killed by legal drugs. The
Government receives £20 billion a year from the
supply of these legal but lethal drugs. As the
biggest profiteer from the trade in lethal addictive
drugs it is little wonder Government continues to use
the law to restrict the trade of safer competing drug
industries.
