THE PENALTIES FOR CANNABIS USE

Sir, Ann Widdecombe might understand the largely negative reaction to
her superficially sensible suggestion (letters, October 6 and 7) if
she were to propose similar penalties for users of alcohol and
nicotine as she does for those of currently illegal drugs, including
cannabis.

In the UK alcohol kills 100 people a day and is responsible for
immense economic and social damage. Nicotine kills three times as many
and requires a national health service all of its own to deal with its
medical consequences.

Cannabis, however, is not the innocent drug that it is often made out
to be. It causes memory loss and an amotivational psychosis, primarily
damaging the mind rather than the body.

What these three substances have in common is that they are used
without significantly damaging effects by vast numbers of people. It
is questionable that the greater number of casual users should be
penalised because of the problems of addicts, and it is insupportable
that these three most commonly used drugs in our society should not be
treated equally in law.

The basic problem with any potentially addictive drug is that those
who are addicts do not believe themselves to be so, and thus they
perpetuate and exacerbate their problems. What we need is a better
understanding of addictive disease and recovery from it, rather than
populist (or unpopulist) strictures against particular drugs.

ROBERT LEFEVER,
2a Pelham Street, SW7 3HU.

Sir, Your correspondent Colin Webster (letter, October 6) supports Ann
Widdecombe's campaign against cannabis on the grounds that it is an
illegal drug and the law should be obeyed.

It is the legal status of cannabis that causes so much trouble. No one
has ever shown that cannabis causes serious harm, and no one has ever
behaved antisocially whilst under the influence of cannabis alone. If
only this was so of the currently legal, albeit controlled,
substances, alcohol and tobacco.

Cannabis's legal status is derived from the actions of the Second
Inter-national Opiates Conference of1924 and the decisions of a
sub-committee which did not involve this country's representatives.
Cannabis was subsequently included in the legislation intended to
control drugs such as heroin and cocaine.

Britain is still stuck with this inter-national agreement; to breach
it im-plies approval of hard drugs. The consequence is that
successive governments have been forced to ignore report after report
that find no harm in cannabis, and to persist instead in maintaining a
hypocritical stance whereby damaging and deadly substances are
approved but an innocuous substance is vilified.

Not until an administration genuinely seeks to understand the role
that all intoxicating substances play in modern life, and legislates
accordingly, can any progress be made away from the present impasse.

JIM JONES (Senior lecturer, substance misuse studies), School of Human
and Health Sciences, Huddersfield University, HD1 3DH.

Sir, Evidently the new inclusive Conservative Party of Mr Steve Norris
and Mr Michael Portillo has room for everyone — except
Conservatives.

TONY SALTER,
38 Bennett Park,
Blackheath, London SE3 9RB.

Sir, Eight wrongs do not make a right. Zero tolerance is right,
whether or not it wins an election.

CONROY L. BASCOMB, 2 Edwards Close, Lymington SO41 8JS.
s__b__bascomb@email.msn.com