Source: East Anglian Daily Times (UK)

Pub Date: January 26 1998

Pub LTE: Do so-called experts have vested interests?

Author: Jack Girling

DO SO-CALLED EXPERTS HAVE VESTED INTEREST?

I must reply to the letter from Ian Smith, "Drug's nickname is appropriate" (EADT Jan 13). This was in response to my earlier letter published on Jan 8.

Ian says "I fail to understand how experts mentioned in Mr Girling's letter have determined that smoking cannabis does not cause cancer or destroy health."

Well, it was determined after scientific studies and tests on people under the influence of cannabis and people who are long term smokers, often of large amounts of cannabis.

Ian asked "Do these so-called experts have some hidden or vested interest in seeing this drug [cannabis] legalised?" Presumably Mr Smith doubts their academic qualifications as well as their motives.

On the contrary it was the hidden motives and vested interests of certain quarters which motivated the prohibition of cannabis at the Geneva Opiates Conferences in the 1920's. These conferences were set up to deal with the problems of dangerous and addictive drugs such as opiates and cocaine. Cannabis was included, at the insistence of delegates from Egypt, as a narcotic. Strangely enough not only does cannabis not have any narcotic properties but the fibre posed serious threats to the Egyptian cotton industry.

Cannabis also has uses as a medicine and a fuel. Since it was banned, huge profits have been made by the producers of synthetic and polluting alternatives, and the whole range of dangerous chemicals involved.

It is strange that reports about the dangers of cannabis themselves originate from people who profit from the present law. Whilst it is acknowledged that both the users of medical cannabis and others with addictive personalities, may become dependent on cannabis in much the same was as a person may be on tea, this is no reason to punish cannabis users.

Jack Girling

Legalise Cannabis Campaign