CANNABIS NO MORE HARMFUL THAN ALCOHOL, SAYS CHURCHMAN

A LEADING churchman called for a review of the drugs laws yesterday, saying
that cannabis was no more harmful than alcohol.

Donald Macleod, of the Free Church of Scotland, backed the call by Charles
Kennedy, Liberal Democrat leader, for a Royal Commission to investigate the
laws. He was speaking a few days after the Episcopalian Bishop of
Edinburgh, the Rt Rev Richard Holloway, admitted he had tried cannabis and
spoke out against existing policy towards drugs.

Prof Macleod said drugs policy was a hopeless failure which had not reduced
demand, supply or the number of drug deaths. He told BBC Radio Scotland: "I
do think it is quite illogical and hypocritical to be trying to criminalise
cannabis and at the same time to be advertising and packaging alcohol."
Scottish Tories condemned the professor's intervention in the drugs debate
as "ill-considered".

Annabel Goldie, deputy leader, said: "Representing as he does a church
whose trenchant disapproval of alcohol is legendary, it seems bizarre to
say the least that he should be supporting the legalisation of a substance
which is notorious for destroying families and has been, in many cases, the
lead in to addiction to hard drugs. His view, thankfully, is unsupported
not only by the police, but by the many silent heroes and heroines
throughout Scotland who work day in and day out with the tragedy of drug
dependency."

In a newspaper article, Prof Macleod also expressed contempt for the theory
that soft drugs lead to hard drugs. He said: "To say the least, cannabis is
no more destructive than alcohol. That leaves us with a clear choice;
either we treat alcohol as we currently treat cannabis or we treat cannabis
as we currently treat alcohol."

He compared the laws on cannabis to American prohibition in the 1920s. He
said: "Criminals have no interest in drugs as such. They're interested only
in profits. Destroy these and the pushers will melt away. That will not
necessarily end addiction. We still have alcoholics despite liquor being
legal. What we don't have is a drinks industry controlled by criminals. For
the argument that soft drugs lead to hard drugs I have only contempt. It
deliberately omits from the category of 'soft drugs' alcohol and tobaccos.

"A heroin addict who's been a lifelong non-smoker and a total abstainer is
as rare as an anorexic sumo-wrestler. Let's be either consistent or
reasonable. Consistency means placing alcohol and tobacco under the same
ban as cannabis. Reasonableness means recognising that cannabis is no more
harmful then tobacco or alcohol."

He added that he knew heroin and cocaine destroyed lives but described
current laws as a "hopeless failure". He added: "The policy hasn't reduced
the supply. It hasn't curtailed the demand. It hasn't reduced the number of
deaths. It hasn't brought down the number of drug-related crimes. It
doesn't work even in prison. There the addict can easily satisfy his need
and there the innocent can be corrupted and enslaved."

He also attacked the packaging and marketing used to sell alcohol. "It is
packaged to appeal to the young. It is portrayed as part of civilised life
and culture, as if a wine critic or whisky buff were somehow part of the
same world as T S Eliot and Mozart."