This letter was sent to and rejected by The Daily Mail, in response to the article " The dangerous ignorance of those who say legalise pot." April 28 1998, written by Professor Heather Ashton.
Sirs,
Professor Ashton, in her article "The dangerous ignorance of those who say legalise pot", says "I am not speaking as an anti-cannabis campaigners, I'm an academic, not a pundit or a politician keen on promoting a particular policy." and then proceeds to make inaccurate claims about the dangers of cannabis. The Professor has simply chosen to accept one side of the argument and has ignored the real "hard science" which she advocates.
It is difficult to deal with the many inaccuracies in her letter, but they are all well covered in two recent publications: The Report of the FCDA Europe and Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts (Zimmer & Morgan).
However, if readers or the good Professor are interested, here are some quotes from official scientific reports which exonerate cannabis from harmfulness.
Professor Ashton says: "Take the claim that cannabis isn't addictive. Research demonstrates that this simply isn't true."
Yet...
The Shafer Commission of 1970 said: "Marijuana does not lead to physical dependency, although some evidence indicates that the heavy, long-term users may develop a psychological dependence on the drug"
Panama Canal Zone Military Investigations (US Military, 1929) said:
"there is no evidence that Marihuana as grown and used [in the Canal Zone] is a 'habit-forming' drug."
Professor Ashton says: "Once I was unable to complete my study of one group of chronic cannabis smokers in a commune because they could not keep their appointments. They lost their academic edge, and their studies suffered badly. And, crucially, those who stopped smoking the drug exhibited nor great improvement."
yet...
The USA Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy (1987) says:
"Cannabis can be used on an episodic but continual basis without evidence of social or psychic dysfunction.".
Professor Ashton says: "Contrary to claims by the legalise pot campaign, it definitely effects the brain function."
yet:
US Jamaican Study 1974 says "No impairment of physiological, sensory and perceptual performance, tests of concept formation, abstracting ability, and cognitive style, and tests of memory"
Professor Ashton says: "A Department of Transport study in the late Eighties confirmed that cannabis impairs the ability to drive."
yet:
The Crancer Study, Washington Department of Motor Vehicles stated: "Simulated driving scores for subjects experiencing a normal social 'high' and the same subjects under control conditions are not significantly different. However, there are significantly more errors for alcohol intoxicated than for control subjects" and
The U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (DOT HS 808 078), Final Report, November 1993 stated: "THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small" and
"Driving in traffic, however, while showing a trend toward poorer performance, was not significantly affected, and the effects of cannabis were much more variable." Sutton (1983) also found that cannabis had little effect on actual driving performance.
Professor Ashton says: "Over the years, the strength of the average cannabis joint has increased because of careful plant-breeding and hydroponic farming to produce more potent varieties, such as Silver Pearl and Skunkweed. The old reefer of the Sixties offered a relatively mild dose. A modern joint can be as much as 30 times stronger."
This, of course, is nonsense as anyone who smoked cannabis in the sixties and smokes it now, will tell you. Not only is the street level cannabis resin several times weaker (because of profit-boosting additives which prohibition encourages) but the herbal material is no different. Whilst it is true that cannabis farming and hybridisation has increased the potency of the strongest cannabis grown in Europe, it is no stronger than marijuana imported from elsewhere. As to the strength of a 'modern joint', well that obviously depends on how much cannabis is put in!
Professor Ashton says: "The more users there are, the more will be tempted to try something stronger.... after all, is what is suggested by the experience in Holland, where cannabis has been legal for years. The use of hard drugs has risen noticeably."
yet..
This is completely the opposite to what the Dutch Government reports. Consider the following figures from 'Drugs Policy in the Netherlands : Continuity and Change': International comparative prevalence figures on hard drug addicts:
| Country | Number of Addicts | Inhabitants (millions) | Per 1000 of population |
|---|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 25,000 | 15.1 | 1.6 |
| Germany | 100,000/120,000 | 79.8 | 1.3/1.5 |
| Belgium | 17,500 | 10.0 | 1.8 |
| Luxembourg | 2,000 | 0.4 | 5.0 |
| France | 135,000/150,000 | 57.0 | 2.4/2.6 |
| United Kingdom | 150,000 | 57.6 | 2.6 |
Also:
The LaGuardia sub-committee of New York 1944 said:
"The use of marijuana does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocaine addiction and no effort is made to create a market for these narcotics by stimulating the practice of marijuana smoking" and
"Marijuana: Facts for Teens: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Washington, D.C. 1995, p.10.: "Most marijuana users do not go on to use other drugs."
Professor Ashton says: "There is one other point that the legalisers tend to overlook: the risk of cancer."
yet...
a $2 million study by the US National Toxicology Program in 1997 disagrees. The program's deputy director, John Bucher (http://www.niehs.nih.gov/dirtob/bucher.htm), says the study "found absolutely no evidence of cancer." In fact, animals that received THC had fewer cancers.
Professor Ashton says: "If any future government is tempted to lift the ban on cannabis, it will have to do so despite the evidence that it creates dependency, that it impairs the cognitive function of the brain and that it poses a risk of cancer."
yet.
.
It is clearly true that cannabis has not been banned for health reasons anyway. The fact that alcohol and tobacco, along with aspirin, solvents and many other products which can be misused to deadly effect, remain legal, underline this. When cannabis was made illegal in 1928, it was already known that smoking tobacco was dangerous and that cannabis, which had been smoked for thousands of years without one report of a fatality, was not.
Professor Ashton says: "The only argument hat is left concerns the undoubted fact that the present law is so widely flouted as to be virtually unenforceable."
but.
.
If the good Professor were to study law, in particular International Law, then she would realise that cannabis should be re-legalised to protect our Human Rights of Freedom of lifestyle, religious practice and privacy. The law banning cannabis contravenes those rights, it is a matter of liberty.
Professor Ashton says: "But wouldn't the law be equally unenforceable if the ban were lifted? After all, since cannabis clearly has a deleterious long-term effect, many groups in society would be forbidden from using it, no matter how liberal the Government wanted to appear."
again missing the point. Even if some elements of society were to be prohibited from using cannabis that is no reason why everyone else should be punished for it. Same as there is no logical or just reason to punish cannabis users who take no hard drugs because of those who do, through their social background, natural curiosity or peer pressure.
Professor Ashton says: "There has been plenty of emotion in the drugs debate, plenty of passion and commitment. Am I alone in wishing for a more considered approach?"
so then, why has she produced such an emotive, unscientific and bias article?