Pubdate: Sunday, 14 December 1997 Source: Independent on Sunday Contact: email: Independent on Sunday, 1 Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London E14 5DL England IoS Conference WHAT THE SPEAKERS SAID PROF LYNN ZIMMER Sociology dept, Queens College, New York MANY people believe that cannabis use is morally wrong. Clearly cannabis has some potential for harm. Not too much, but some. In our book Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts, John Morgan and I reviewed 30 years of scientific studies of cannabis. We concluded from the evidence that cannabis is not nearly as dangerous as defenders of prohibition insist. For longterm, heavy cannabis smokers, there is some risk of lung damage, particularly among those who also smoke tobacco. Cannabis use may contribute to some highway accidents, but probably not too many. Clearly cannabis is not as debilitating as alcohol. There is the problem we see with all drugs: that some people use too much. This is less of a problem with cannabis than with most other drugs. In fact, of all the psychoactive drugs that humans consume, cannabis may be the least addicting. So on balance I would have to say that the harms of cannabis are not very substantial, but they do need to be counted as costs of its widespread use. DAVID PARTINGTON Director, Yeldall Christian Centres WHEN individual selfgratification becomes the overriding priority in a society at the expense of the vulnerable, that society is basically signing its own death warrant. Cannabis damages people's lives. Experience through living and working at the Yeldall Manor rehabilitation centre for 17 years confirms that. In counselling these intelligent and sensitive men spoke of how they were introduced to cannabis by a friend or relative. Initially they only took a couple of "puffs" on the odd weekend. Then it became every weekend and, eventually, daily. Having become psychologically dependent they not only lost their motivation for school or work, but also their dignity and true potential. Tragically these men descended into a life of crime, despair, misery and illhealth. Not only did they suffer but so did their families. Young people who don't use cannabis now because it is illegal would see decriminalisation as a governmental green light. A proportion of these would become addicts. PROF COLIN BLAKEMORE Chairman, British Neuroscientific Association ONE of the most striking developments in my lifetime has been the proliferation of drug use. Our society accepts three forms of addiction: tobacco with nicotine being, weight for weight, the most addictive substance of all drugs; alcohol there are an estimated 350,000 clinical alcoholics in the UK; and gambling. We have to accept that there are some people, a minority, who have what has become known as an addictive personality. These individuals will always go to the extremes and they need help, not criminal convictions. Efforts to prove the damaging effects of cannabis have produced little evidence of any harm to the brain and central nervous system although it may do some harm to the lungs. There is clearly a case to be argued for the medical therapeutic use of cannabis. However, I believe that it would be wrong to make the case for legalisation on the back of the medical issue. The Government must realise that decriminalising cannabis would gain them greater respect doing so would be a sign of strength rather than weakness. PROF JOHN STRANG National Addiction Centre CANNABIS: should it be decriminalised? I have grave doubts as to whether a simple "yes" or "no" approach is sufficiently sensitive. Decisionmaking on such an important matter should be guided heavily by the findings from independent, objective study of the evidence. A betterinformed debate on cannabis is long overdue but, sadly, I find that science has not served the public policy debate well. It seems that the cannabis debate has been eclipsed by other important drug policy debates which have bothered us in recent years. However the situation with cannabis and the criminal justice system has changed profoundly over the past 30 years. There has been an extensive depenalisation of the offence of possession across most of the UK and a move towards a policy of onthespot fines and confiscation of small quantities. However, I am expressing disquiet that such profound changes could be made to the way in which the law is applied in some parts of this country without public consultation, public debate or even public awareness. GIANFRANCO DELL'ALBA MEP I BELIEVE cannabis should be legalised. I am the general secretary of the Italian Radical Party and we have been campaigning for this since 1975. We have employed every democratic process, including physical, nonviolent demonstrations. In January our aim is to organise broad support within the European Parliament for a panEuropean response to druglaw harmonisation. In my own country in 1993 we held a referendum on making cannabis legally available to individuals for medical and nonmedical use and the proposition attracted 52 per cent of the votes cast. Although we won the poll the percentage in favour of change was not big enough to change the law so we will try again. But many people now believe that the only way forward is to mount a campaign of civil disobediences. It should by now be clear to everyone that prohibition is the problem, not the drug itself. Prohibition has created a vast criminal empire and drug money is used by the Mafia to corrupt judges, politicians and servants of the state. PETER STOKER Director, National Drug Prevention Alliance THIS subject is much more complex than many people believe. In the face of this complexity you need to ask some basic questions. Would decriminalisation increase use? Would it increase problems? Possible medical use has no place in this or any other discussions of decriminalising nonmedical use, and it does the medicaluse campaigners no credit to run with this pack. The BMA have not recommended legalising cannabis. They have suggested more research into cannabinoids. The British MS society, the international MS society and the American MS society all reject cannabis as medicine. If any substance is found to have medical benefit without undue sideeffects that would be fine by me. But I hate sick people being used as a pawn by the pothead lobby. If we look at nonmedical use, where is the harm? But this only talks of physical harm. In my years with frontline agencies I have seen problems of relationships failing, employment, stress, paranoia, lethargy, depression and general emptiness. NIGEL EVANS Opposition spokesman, constitutional matters BECAUSE decriminalisation is fashionable it makes the case against all the stronger. We should never act on impulse in such an important and potentially dangerous debate. It is not just the financial cost but the human cost which makes legalising drugs repellent to me. They take a terrible toll on the friends and families of addicts who they cross to rob, beg and borrow to pay for their next fix. Although it is unlikely that cannabis itself will make people act this way, some people maintain that it is a gateway drug. The argument that relaxing controls of the drug would have little effect on consumption is several degrees removed from reality. More availability means more problems. Chronic smoking of cannabis increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. Cannabis users between 25 and 40 have more head and neck cancers. And according to Heather Ashton, professor of clinical psychopharmacology at Newcastle, if you visit any mental health hospital you will find young patients who have gone crazy from smoking strong cannabis. MIKE GOODMAN Director, Release THIRTY years ago the founders of Release distributed the Release "rights on arrest" card at the first "legalise pot" rally in Hyde Park, in protest at a law famously described by the Times as "wrong in principle and unworkable in practice". In 1967 there were 2,393 cannabisrelated convictions. Now there are almost 1,500 a week. By 2000, a million mostly young people will have been dealt with by the police and courts for cannabis offences. The law contravenes the principles of personal freedom. One is the principle of individual liberty, articulated from the American Declaration of Independence by Paine to JS Mill and Isaiah Berlin people should have the right to make decisions over their own lives providing they do not harm anyone else. No one claims that cannabis is completely riskfree. Of course it is not. The question is whether it is harmful enough to justify the intrusion of the law into people's personal lives on the dubious grounds of protecting people from themselves. ANITA RODDICK Founder, the Body Shop PICTURE this. Your mother is in her 70s and is struggling with cancer. Her only hope lies in chemotherapy, but this puts her in a constant state of unbearable nausea. You wish you could help her. You ask her what the doctor says. She tells you that by far the best remedy is marijuana. He says that if they lived in parts of the US he would be able to prescribe it, but here they would both be arrested. What does modern medicine prefer? Morphine. Marijuana has no proven addictive power. It is not a socalled gateway drug. What is more addictive, marijuana or ignorance? In the ancient world, marijuana was an asset to any physician's pharmacopeia. Queen Victoria's doctor, J Russell Reynolds, wrote: "It is one of the most valuable medicines we possess." The mythmaking about the evils of marijuana conceals the fact that this is not a health issue at all. It's about politics and economics. Let's follow the money. In this case one very obvious trail leads to the pharmaceutical giants. ROSIE BOYCOTT Editor, 'Independent on Sunday' BY staging this debate we are giving the nation the first opportunity to join in a frank and balanced forum on the whole issue of cannabis. When we launched this campaign at the end of September we let loose an avalanche which even in my wildest dreams I didn't think would happen. Letters continue to pour in to the offices of the Independent on Sunday. Support has come form the most unlikely quarters from policemen, lawyers, doctors, social workers, prison workers, from marijuana users and nonusers, from sufferers of MS and other chronic illnesses. It has come from across the world, from MEPs and from America. A few British MPs have stood up for us publicly. In private a great many more, some in the Government, have expressed their support. But in the main, Westminster has been silent. Quite astonishing considering that both the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, and the Master of the Rolls, Lord Woolfson, have been moved to say how urgently a debate is needed.