Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:


After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.

UK: Cannabis not risk free, says adviser

James Meikle, health correspondent

The Guardian

Thursday 29 Jan 2004

---

As Blunkett adopts softer line on possession, medical experts seem divided
on the dangers to mental health of heavy users of the drug

The government adviser who recommended today's downgrading of cannabis in
the hierarchy of dangerous illegal drugs has repeated his warning that it
is still harmful to health.

Sir Michael Rawlins said he had no regrets about the advice which persuaded
the home secretary, David Blunkett, to end 30 years of drugs laws which put
cannabis on the same footing as amphetamines, with the threat of five years
jail for possession.

But he rejected any suggestion that he and his colleagues on the Advisory
Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), which he chairs, had underplayed the
health dangers from heavy use.

Robin Murray, professor of psychiatry at the Maudsley hospital, south
London, has recently given several media interviews, including to the
Guardian, outlining evidence that cannabis exacerbates the symptoms of
schizophrenia-like psychosis, and the British Medical Association feared
that the reclassification of cannabis might send the wrong messages about
its harmful effects.

Sir Michael said much of what Prof Murray had said had "already been
available for a long period of time ... That which is new does not really
show that cannabis consumption is a cause of schizophrenia in somebody who
is not predisposed."

He added: "We made it very clear that people with mental health problems
were at risk from very serious and unpleasant reactions if they took
cannabis. We made no bones about it."

And Prof Murray was not against reclassification. "Robin has slightly
overegged the pudding", said Sir Michael, professor of pharmacology at
Newcastle University, who said he had never tried cannabis, "never been
offered it ... such a dull life."

The BMA, he said, "seems to have come out rather late in the day and rather
ignorantly about it all, too".

The association warned that chronic cannabis smoking increased the risk of
heart disease, lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema: a warning similar to
that given by the ACMD itself in its advice to Mr Blunkett to move the drug
from class B to C.

But the ACMD said there were factors that might mitigate the risk, and it
was these that Sir Michael focused on.

"The carcinogenicity in cannabis is terribly complicated but it is
intimately wrapped up in smoking. That is how most people take cannabis.

"The interesting phenomenon is actually cannabis smokers tend to smoke less
tobacco than ordinary smokers."

He also questioned whether the cannabis smoked today was far stronger and
more toxic than that filling spliffs 30 years ago. "The police, whom one
relies on for this sort of data, say that actually it is so variable you
just can't tell."

Sir Michael said the ACMD had been unable to establish whether the change
in classification would increase the consumption of cannabis, which is
thought to have at least been tried by half the 20 to 24-year-olds in 2000.

Nor did it recommend the changes in penalties that accompanied its move
down the ladder to class C.

He said: "This is an attempt to make the punishment fit the crime. Under
the current arrangements anybody who has done all right on cannabis would
think they might do all right on other class B drugs - that the whole thing
was a sort of plot by the establishment to stop them enjoying themselves.

"The other class B drugs are significantly more harmful than cannabis. At
least this brings some logic and sense into what was a pretty silly
arrangement in the past.

"It will stop the migration of cannabis smokers into other class B drugs on
the grounds they might be just as harmless."

In an interview with the Guardian earlier this week Sir Michael revealed
that the ACMD was reviewing the classification system, which grades drugs
by degree of harm into A, B and C.

Members want a more "objective" system to avoid inappropriate penalties or
police powers.

 

 

 

After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.




This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!