HIGH-MINDED PARANOIA HELPS NO-ONE

BRENDAN O'CONNOR says that irrational attitudes towards cannabis has
blinded us to its potential as a healing substance.

The fashionable view in the latest round of the drugs debate prompted by
the Jack Straw incident has been the "have we nothing better to do with
ourselves?" line. This jaded "been there, done that" attitude has been
trotted out by more mature columnists with an implication that they
themselves have smoked a mammoth amount of weed in their day but that now
they have put away childish things.

They're right, of course. The illegal nature of soft drugs is hardly number
one in the grand scheme of things. But everything is relative and the drugs
debate does cast light on some of the more unproductive aspects of the way
our administrators choose to run our lives.

The case of Jack Straw, the British Labour Party Minister renowned for his
hard line on drugs, and his 17-year-old son William - who allegedly peddles
an entirely different kind of line - has provided an apt metaphor for the
conflict between public and private morality to which the illegal nature of
cannabis continues to add fuel.

The Minister in this case represents the public morality, which says that
drug use is immoral and illegal and will remain so. His son represents the
reality of a huge number of young people who refuse to accept this and
break the law every weekend. Most of these are young people who have little
or no contact or conflict with the law of the land except when they break
it by buying or using drugs.

The predominant private morality now would seem to be that cannabis should
be decriminalised. This is certainly the view held by a growing number of
legal and medical experts. Jack Straw still feels he knows better and has
vowed not to go soft on soft drugs. Straw, you see, subscribes to the view
espoused by people like Mary Kenny last week, that "hypocrisy is a
necessary part of social order". He represents the State as parent, the
citizens of Britain as errant children.

The children in Britain and in this country have chosen to ignore the locus
parentis State on this one for very good reasons. The simple fact of the
matter is that most people's experience of drugs - and cannabis in
particular - does not reflect the picture painted by the State in its
demonising of drugs. This distortion of reality causes young people to
distrust the law and has made it acceptable among normal, law-abiding
young people to break the law regularly and think nothing of it. This
necessary hypocrisy is a first introduction to the law for many. Not a
great one really, is it? "This is the law whereas this, on the other hand,
is how people actually behave."

There is still quite a disturbing "reefer madness" style misunderstanding
of cannabis among some of our public officials. I remember arguing the drug
issue on radio in Cork with State Solicitor Barry Galvin. Mr Galvin,
regarded somewhat as an expert in this field, told horror stories of young
men raping and robbing old people while under the influence of the demon
weed.

I pointed out to him that most people have trouble getting up to make a cup
of tea while stoned. He knew better, I wonder how. I think we should be
told.

Among the more enlightened, the trend recently has been to concede that
cannabis taken in moderation does no real harm. However, the State has
continued to justify its illegality by suggesting that using cannabis leads
to the use of harder drugs. The fact is that the vast majority of people
who smoke cannabis don't graduate to harder drugs.

Cannabis, via the "gateway argument", has become a scapegoat for the
problem with harder drugs because it does not suit the State to tackle the
real reasons why people get involved in drugs like heroin. Any continuum
that does exist from cannabis to harder drugs is probably due to the fact
that by virtue of its illegal status cannabis has been lumped in with other
drugs. The gateway argument represents another way in which the claims of
the State are at odds with what young people know from experience to be
true.

There are other casualties too of the State's irrational fear of cannabis.
These are AIDs victims, MS sufferers and people suffering from various
illnesses and injuries that leave them in chronic pain. Cannabis, which has
been used as a healing substance for centuries, can help boost appetite,
relieve pain and relax muscles. While we have little scientific evidence,
the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming. Indeed, many parents will testify
that illegally bought cannabis has succeeded for them where all
conventional medicines have failed.

You may recall, for example, the recent case of Paddy Doyle, author of 'The
God Squad'. Paddy, aged 46, suffers from Ideopathic Torsion Dystonia. This
is not, he laughs, a breakaway Russian republic, but a rare condition which
means that every muscle in his body is in constant movement. The amount of
daily movement is equivalent to spending 16 hours working out. "I don't
have to go to a gym," he laughs. "I just sit here and it all happens."

Since he started taking barbiturates, aged eight, Paddy has been taking
"fairly serious medication". At the moment he takes 11 tablets a day. It is
the best medicine available but Paddy is convinced it doesn't work. On the
other hand he's afraid to stop taking it because he doesn't know what might
happen to him then.

Paddy has smoked cannabis twice and he believes it could give him some
relief if taken regularly. "At the end of the day," he says, "I'm not
looking for a cure. If I could get one per cent relief from this condition
it would be a bonus, five or ten per cent relief would be like winning the
Lotto."

Paddy believes he should have the right to at least try cannabis. "If the
worst comes to the worst I'm prepared to have the gardai standing over me
to make sure I don't sell the stuff," he says.

But he believes that when the Department of Health think of cannabis, they
think of the drug sub-culture and dealers on street corners. The irrational
attitudes we have towards cannabis have blinded them to its potential as a
healing substance. Paddy's argument is that if there is a shred of evidence
at all that cannabis could help him, he should be allowed to try it. He
stresses that he has no intention of going on to harder drugs.

Paddy's consultant approached the Government last June seeking to prescribe
cannabis. He was given a brief statement that cannabis is prohibited and
that the Government has no intention of changing that fact. Indeed nothing
has changed since then. Yet changing the law on cannabis would be important
for people like Paddy, for many other sick people, and to maintain respect
for the law among a whole generation. If outlawing cannabis is indeed a
necessary hypocrisy, one wonders at the personal and social cost.