Sir,

I must reply to the letter from Ian Smith, "Drug's nickname is appropriate"
(EADT Jan 13). This was in response to my earlier letter published on Jan 8.

Ian says "I fail to understand how experts mentioned in Mr Girling's letter
have determined that smoking cannabis does not cause cancer or destroy
health."

Well, it was determined after scientific studies and tests on people under
the influence of cannabis and people who are long term smokers, often of
large amounts of cannabis.

Ian asked "Do these so-called experts have some hidden or vested interest
in seeing this drug [cannabis] legalised?". Presumably Mr Smith doubts
their academic qualifications as well as their motives.

On the contrary it was the hidden motives and vested interests of certain
quarters which motivated the prohibition of cannabis at the Geneva Opiates
Conferences in the 1920's. These conferences were set up to deal with the
problems of dangerous and addictive drugs such as opiates and cocaine.
Cannabis was included, at the insistance of delegates from Egypt, as a
narcotic. Strangely enough not only does cannabis not have any narcotic
properties but the fibre posed serious threats to the Egyptian cotton
industry.

Cannabis also has uses as a medicine and a fuel. Since it was banned, huge
profits have been made by the producers of synthetic and polluting
alternatives, and the whole range of dangerous chemicals involved.

It is strange that reports about the dangers of cannabis themselves
originate from people who profit from the present law. Whilst it is
acknowledged that both the users of medical cannabis and others with
addictive personalities, may become dependent on cannabis in much the same
was as a person may be on tea, this is no reason to punish cannabis users.

Jack Girling
Chairman, Legalise Cannabis Campaign
Peacock Street, Norwich