THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH CANNABIS

Jimmy Guerin Refutes The Legalisation Lobby's 'Misleading' Case, Point By Point

BEFORE I write about why I am opposed to legalising cannabis I should
declare that I have a vested interest and may be seen as biased. I have
three young children ranging in age from 7 to 13 and I don't want them to
grow up in a society that condones the use of harmful drugs or dangerous
substances. I firmly believe that the very fabric of our society would be
irreparably damaged if we were to give in to those campaigning for the
legalisation of this deadly substance or if we were influenced by those who
write that drug dealers should be treated leniently because they were
dealing only in cannabis.

There have been many argu ments made by those who are in favour of
decriminalising this substance, which causes so much hardship. As each
point is studied closely you can see that they have been less than truthful
or, in some cases, totally misleading in the hope that they won't be
challenged.

Let's look at some of the more common arguments. The first of these is that
we should legalise cannabis because it is no more harmful than cigarette
smoking. Now you and I might think that cigarette smoking is damaging,
causes thousands of deaths each year from lung cancer and heart-related
illnesses and we are right to think this. But the pro-cannabis lobby argues
it is no more harmful than tobacco a recognised harmful substance and
therefore should be legalised. This is an absurd argument even if it were
true, but their argument that cannabis is not more harmful than cigarettes
is untrue.

Cannabis smoke contains up to four times more cancer agents than tobacco.
It may impair short-term memory and comprehension, unlike tobacco. It can
also reduce the ability to concentrate, unlike tobacco. So which is more
harmful? A study undertaken by the University of South California showed
that children whose mothers smoked cannabis before and during pregnancy
were 10 times more likely to develop leukaemia. No other drugs, including
tobacco and alcohol, posed such risk. This research also showed that these
children developed leukaemia much earlier, at 19 months as opposed to 93
months. These facts are not quoted when people tell us that cannabis is no
more harmful than cigarettes.

We also hear the argument that it is good for medicinal reasons. That it
relieves pain and makes it easier for people to deal with illnesses. Of
course it does, anyone who is stoned out of their head won't feel the same
pain as those who are not stoned. This, however, does not make it right.
Next thing, people will be suggesting we issue it freely to students under
pressure from exams: give them a joint, it will help settle their nerves.
But while we are helping them feel good about their exams we are doing huge
damage to the student's health. The argument that it is medicinally
beneficial failed to convince eight Supreme Court judges in the USA when,
in an 8-nil ruling, they found that "There is no definitive science that
the drug (cannabis) works or works better than conventional legal
alternatives." Old-fashioned and naive I may be but that is good enough for me.

Another side effect of the drug and one I believe is being seen so much in
Ireland today is the possible link between drug abuse and suicide. It is
accepted that cannabis can also produce paranoia and psychosis. Long-term
users also develop an addiction, and require more of the drug to get the
same effect. Cannabis can become the centre of their lives.

Cannabis can also be the first step on a progressive path that leads to
heroin and cocaine addiction. The National Cannabis Drug Force in Australia
concluded: "It requires an extraordinary interpretation of the evidence not
to conclude that the use of cannabis is an important precursor to use of
heroin and other drugs." The same is true in an Irish context, as those
working with addicts and the addicts themselves will testify. That is
enough to satisfy me that cannabis can lead to a life in hell. Why are we
even debating the possibility of making this evil substance legal?

If we make it legal, the pro-drugs lobby argues, we can control it, ensure
that it is only sold to older people the same way alcohol is? We know how
successful that is! What they are, in essence, suggesting is that we make
good drugs available over the counter. This is a great example to give our
young children. Let's create an environment that makes it acceptable to
take drugs. By doing this they will be readily available to young people
everywhere and, at some stage, peer pressure will prevail and our children
will try it. Is this what we want for our children?

In South Australia following the introduction of fines without conviction,
usage grew amongst 14- to 19-year-olds by 50 per cent in 10 years and by 32
per cent amongst 20- to 39-year-olds.

People say the drug is available in Amsterdam but never mention the fact
that drug abuse is way out of control in that city. People argue that
legalising cannabis would deprive criminals of millions in drug-trafficking
profits. But what will be next? What is there to stop us legalising ecstacy
or heroin? The arguments don't stand up.

What people should be calling for is enforcement of the law and a clampdown
on the pushers of all illicit drugs. We should stop fooling ourselves by
saying that cannabis is not harmful. It is, that cannot be denied. People
ought to be more responsible and show better example to children rather
than calling for acceptance of this deadly substance. They would be better
employed calling for a proper drug programme in schools, more vigilant
policing of cities and towns and proper sentences for those dealing or
carrying illegal substances.

It has been proven that availability and accessibility promotes use of any
substance. Do we really want this for our children? Do we want to be the
generation that called for and allowed legislation, a step that would
undoubtedly condemn thousands of our children to lives in hell?