Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:


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

UK: Can cannabis be a killer?

Alistair Ramsay + Margo MacDonald

The Scotsman

Saturday 12 Feb 2005

---
Yes

Alistair Ramsay, the director of Scotland Against Drugs, says cannabis is a
harmful drug for many users, is more powerful now than it used to be and
public confusion needs to be ended

THE arguments about the effects of using cannabis have raged for decades
and are no closer to being conclusive because they have become the focus of
a "debate" which is generating more heat than light. There is a need to
recognise that, while some people say they can use the drug and declare it
has no damaging effects, for others cannabis is a harmful drug.

Some users become addicted and for some it leads to the use of other drugs.
Reports by users of feeling paranoid are common.

In a recent piece of research, an increase in the incidence of emphysema
was discovered among cannabis smokers. The early onset of lung cancer in
cannabis smokers was discovered in another work.

More is being learned about this "harmless" drug today than in the 1960s.
The cannabis smoked then bears little resemblance to that used today. Some
of the cannabis dealt in Scotland today has a THC content (THC being the
active ingredient in cannabis sativa) much higher than 40 years ago. Nobody
who used cannabis then talked about "white-outs" - similar to blackouts,
except everything goes white and they lose long periods of time.

Despite the greater knowledge of the effects of this illegal drug, there is
still a groundswell of opinion that it is harmless and can be smoked with
little or no damaging effect.

But if the argument about effects is put to one side and its the legal
status is considered, then its reclassification from class B to class C,
despite being logical, has not helped the public understanding.

Before its reclassification, cannabis was in the same class as amphetamine,
a significantly more dangerous drug. Logic suggests cannabis should be in a
class lower than amphetamine. The only real difference between the legal
position of cannabis today from before its reclassification is the penalty.
Before, possession could lead to five years in jail, whereas today the
penalty is up to two years.

While all the substances covered by the act are dangerous, some are more
dangerous than others. This understanding still needs to be tackled,
despite considerable government efforts to make the public aware of the
continued illegality of both possessing and supplying cannabis.

NO
MARGO MacDONALD

Margo MacDonald, the independent MSP, says labelling cannabis a killer and
just telling people to say 'no' is too simplistic when we still don't know
enough about the results of cannabis use

THE horror of Jodi Jones's death, hard on the heels of reports of confusion
caused by the reclassification of cannabis - statistics showing four out of
ten under-16s have been offered, or have tried, cannabis, and reports of a
new, "stronger" strain of weed being used - have given easy ammunition to
anti-drugs campaigners whose instinct is to just say "no".

If only it were that simple. If only the majority of health-conscious young
Scots who back the ban on smoking in public places had the same attitude to
cannabis, we could anticipate it becoming a very small problem involving
few people.

And that's why it's no answer to existing, and any new problems posed by
cannabis use to leave the law in its present state of confusion.

For a great many young people, it's their drug of choice, and they think it
is hypocrisy to tolerate the destructiveness and violence associated with
alcohol abuse while criminalising the use of a drug that, until the Luke
Mitchell case, was almost universally judged to be less harmful to society,
and the user. For them, Luke Mitchell's bad case isn't good enough proof to
make them stop.

Scottish police forces have said they will still pursue cannabis users, but
teachers' representatives have said their pupils are taking advantage of
the uncertainty about the letter of the law. The only certainty is that, as
law- makers, we still don't know enough about the results of cannabis use.

Why are there possibly millions of middle-aged, solid citizens who've
either grown out of using cannabis, or still enjoy the odd roll-up, and why
didn't cannabis use seduce them into darker narcotics? Have their powers of
reasoning or concentration been diminished? What evidence is there
regarding the greater mental damage done by the "new" cannabis?

Five years ago, I asked the Scottish Parliament to conduct its own inquiry
into cannabis use before Westminster changed the law. I still think a
change in the law is advisable, but I don't think we have sufficient
evidence on which to base decisions regarding classification and the
criminalisation of users.

 

 

 

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!