TIME TO UNLOCK THE SECRETS OF CANNABIS

Cannabis has for years been branded an illegal and harmful substance but
Labour MP Ian Gibson says the Government should take a fresh look at the
drug and its uses.

In a recent interview on the Breakfast with Frost programme, Home Secretary
Jack Straw said: "The evidence is strong about cannabis. If you look at
the journals, it's all there, about the long-term (detrimental) effect of
cannabis."

Mr Straw's remarks demonstrate how the whole cannabis debate has become
highly polarised with the public being presented with totally-opposite
arguments on the health effects of cannabis.

Some advocates of the decriminalisation of cannabis claim that the drug is
"safer than aspirin" while others adopt Mr Straw's line and argue that the
drug is a deceptively-dangerous substance. It may seem obvious that policy
on the use of cannabis should be based on scientific evidence, factual
information and common sense.

However, an in-depth look at the scientific evidence demonstrates that the
certainties on which Mr Straw bases his argument, and the Government's
position, are difficult to support.

The tragic death of a young Norfolk girl was linked to the drug Dianette,
which is a contraceptive drug also prescribed for the treatment of acne.
Up until January this year, six deaths were attributed to adverse reactions
to this substance.

Yet hundreds of thousands of people have benefited from taking Dianette.

This is a stark illustration that there is no such thing as a totally safe
drug, be it for medical or recreational use. Dianette, like so many
prescribed drugs, presents a small risk of side effects and highlights the
need for ongoing research and risk / benefit analysis.

So what does science tell us about cannabis? A technical report, which was
conducted for the United States Toxicology programme, looked at the toxic
effect of 1-transdelta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, which is the major
psychoactive component of cannabis).

The study revealed no evidence of carcinogenic activity in rats and only
equivocal evidence in mice. Furthermore, the report found no human
epidemiological or case reports linking THC with cancer.

There is little doubt that cannabis is significantly less likely to cause
cancer than tobacco, a drug sold over the counter in the House of Commons.
However, this and many other studies demonstrate a less favourable picture
of the neuro-behavioural effects of THC, which reveal problems with mood
swings, impairment of short-term memory and altered perception of visual
and auditory stimuli.

Other detrimental findings recorded in several different studies on chronic
cannabis users included problems with reduced sperm count and a decrease in
T cells and interferon levels which effect the ability of the body's immune
system to ward off infection.

Conversely, other studies have reported that cannabis smoking has no effect
on the immunity system, or that cannabis is in fact a slight stimulant to
the immune system.

Cannabis has been used successfully for a number of applications. Theses
include reducing pain and inflammation; lowering the intraocular pressure
in glaucoma; relieving the nausea associated with chemotherapy; stimulating
appetite; calming diarrhoea; and relief from muscle spasm.

It is, however, debatable as to whether the medical benefits of cannabis
have been replaced by more sophisticated drugs which have been developed in
recent years.

For example, the use of beta-adrenoceptor blockers or pilocarpine to treat
glaucoma has reduced interest in the use of THC for this application.

Cannabis still ahs a lot of pharmaceutical secrets for scientists to unlock
and it is crucial that the stigma surrounding this substance is not allowed
to prejudice further research.

Given what we know about the toxicity of tobacco, I have some sympathy with
Mr Straw when he said: "If we were to start from scratch we would certainly
say that tobacco is a bad idea we would, I think, have banned it."

HOWEVER, it was his remarks about alcohol which I believe inadvertently
point us in the direction of a sane and workable drugs policy.

Mr Straw said: "Alcohol, it's a drug, yes, it is a drug but it is one we
are used to dealing with."

Of course the misuse of alcohol is a problem that deserves our attention,
indeed the lethal cocktail of alcohol and the motor car has lead to the
deaths of many thousands in road accidents, and one could argue that factor
alone makes it more dangerous than cannabis.

However, it is true to say that the vast majority of people who take
alcohol do so without causing medical or social harm. Most people in
society have learned to use a potentially-dangerous substance, which shares
certain negative effects with cannabis, in measures which are both
tolerable and in some ways efficacious.

There is a strong case for treating the smoking of cannabis in much the
same way as we treat the consumption of alcohol.

The commonly-articulated goal of a "drug-free Britain" is a highly
desirable one - however, it is no more achievable than a crime-free
Britain" or indeed a "risk-free" drug.

Of course the Government should design policies aimed at reducing the use
of drugs, but these policies must be flexible, allowing all the agencies to
tailor their approach to suit individual drug cases.

Heavy-handed methods could lead to users avoiding seeking help through fear
of Draconian penalties.

President Jimmy Carter said: "Penalties against a drug should not be more
dangerous to the individual than the use of the drug itself; and where they
are they should be changed. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws
against the possession of marijuana."

President Carter's words were in response to the Shafer Commission which in
the early 70s conducted a massive survey of drug use in the USA.

I believe our Government should commission a similar, but broader-based
study of drugs and drug use. The conflicting scientific information on
cannabis suggests that the commission should include an extensive review of
the science in its remit.

I hope that the House of Lord's inquiry, which is to reopen the whole
question of continuing to outlaw cannabis, acts as the catalyst needed to
bring about this wider debate.

When Mr Straw next trawls through the journals he will find as many
different research papers as there are opinions, but through the fog of
debate he will find one fact stands out: pumping more and more money into
law enforcement has not made the drug problem go away, and it probably
never will.