GONE TO POT

Peter Quin, chief executive of Life the Education Trust, asks (Letters, May
9) "what scientific evidence exists to support Dr Hadorn's assertion that
marijuana is 'relatively harmless'?" Noel O'Hare's article ("When the
smoke clears", March 21) cited a book, not yet on sale in New Zealand,
which comprehensively reviews the scientific evidence on cannabis and
overwhelmingly supports the view I expressed. The Drug Policy Forum Trust
sent a copy of the book, Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: a Review of the
Scientific Evidence, by US professors Lynn Zimmer and John Morgan, to Quin
several weeks before O'Hare's story appeared. Apparently he had not read
it at the time of his letter.

With regard to the suppressed World Health Organisation's comparative
analysis of cannabis, alcohol, and tobacco, the WHO did claim, as Quin
notes, that this suppression was due to the "speculative" nature of the
comparisons, not to political pressures. But, as described by the Drug
Policy Forum in its final report, one of the authors of the suppressed
report, Dr Robin Room, subsequently confirmed that cannabis scored no worse
than tobacco or alcohol with respect to 10 key health areas.

Also, the New Scientist (which originally broke the story) rejected the
WHO's claim, pointing out that many of the anti-cannabis statements
contained in the published WHO report were equally or more "speculative"
than those at issue in the unpublished comparative analysis.

These points notwithstanding, I am delighted to see that Quin has accepted
scientific evidence and scholarly analysis as the legitimate bases for
conducting this discussion. Careful evidence will prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that cannabis is substantially less harmful than alcohol or tobacco.

Next, Quin asks for evidence concerning the rates of drug use in The
Netherlands following liberalisation of cannabis laws in that country in
1976. This evidence is discussed in Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts and
official Dutch governmental reports are cited. There is no serious
scientific dispute regarding the fact that both hard drug and cannabis
usage in the Netherlands has fallen and is now substantially lower
(particularly among young people) than in the US, UK, and most other
European countries. Although the denigration of the Netherlands (and
particularly Amsterdam) is standard fare for anti-cannabis campaigners, it
is wholly unjustified.

Quin refers to current efforts in the US to arrive at an agreement with the
tobacco companies to pay for tobacco-related health claims, to restrict
advertising, and to contribute to anti-smoking programmes. This phenomenon
is indeed relevant to the cannabis situation, although not in the way Quin
thinks. The tobacco negotiations are made possible only by virtue of the
above-ground, regulated nature of the tobacco market. Imagine trying to
negotiate such a deal with illegal drug dealers!

Moreover, Mr Quin's claim that the New Zealand Government would "risk legal
liability further down the track" is unfounded. If anything, a regulated
cannabis industry might be at risk, not the government. In the meantime,
the government would be reaping tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue
every year from regulated cannabis commerce, much of which could go into
effective drug education and treatment programmes.

Quin states that "the law, imperfect as it may be, is society's principal
way of protecting its members from what is seen to be harmful to them".
Really? Why, then, have we not banned tobacco, alcohol, mountain-climbing,
bungee jumping, boxing, glue, petrol, fast cars, aeroplanes, and a whole
host of things that can be, and often are, quite harmful? Answer: because
law enforcement is wholly ineffective at regulating private consensual
behaviour and is therefore used only as society's last resort for
regulating behaviour.

More fundamentally, does Mr Quin really think the government should protect
people from themselves through coercion and force of law? Isn't that what
education and social customs are supposed to be for? And aren't we supposed
to be free to make mistakes and to do inadvisable things, provided we don't
hurt others?

It is time we accepted responsible cannabis use as part of our culture and
focused our efforts on minimising any harms associated with cannabis use.
Indeed, Quin and the Life Education Trust would better serve young people
if they were to provide principles of safe and responsible cannabis use to
the teens determined to try cannabis whether we like it or not -- rather
than relying solely on tired "just say no" messages that lack credibility
with most young people.