IoS Conference WHAT THE SPEAKERS SAID

PROF LYNN ZIMMER

Sociology dept, Queens College, New York

MANY people believe that cannabis use is morally wrong. Clearly cannabis
has some potential for harm. Not too much, but some. In our book Marijuana
Myths, Marijuana Facts, John Morgan and I reviewed 30 years of scientific
studies of cannabis. We concluded from the evidence that cannabis is not
nearly as dangerous as defenders of prohibition insist. For longterm,
heavy cannabis smokers, there is some risk of lung damage, particularly
among those who also smoke tobacco. Cannabis use may contribute to some
highway accidents, but probably not too many. Clearly cannabis is not as
debilitating as alcohol.

There is the problem we see with all drugs: that some people use too much.
This is less of a problem with cannabis than with most other drugs. In
fact, of all the psychoactive drugs that humans consume, cannabis may be
the least addicting. So on balance I would have to say that the harms of
cannabis are not very substantial, but they do need to be counted as costs
of its widespread use.

DAVID PARTINGTON

Director, Yeldall Christian Centres

WHEN individual selfgratification becomes the overriding priority in a
society at the expense of the vulnerable, that society is basically signing
its own death warrant. Cannabis damages people's lives. Experience through
living and working at the Yeldall Manor rehabilitation centre for 17 years
confirms that. In counselling these intelligent and sensitive men spoke of
how they were introduced to cannabis by a friend or relative. Initially
they only took a couple of "puffs" on the odd weekend. Then it became every
weekend and, eventually, daily. Having become psychologically dependent
they not only lost their motivation for school or work, but also their
dignity and true potential.

Tragically these men descended into a life of crime, despair, misery and
illhealth. Not only did they suffer but so did their families. Young
people who don't use cannabis now because it is illegal would see
decriminalisation as a governmental green light. A proportion of these
would become addicts.

PROF COLIN BLAKEMORE

Chairman, British Neuroscientific Association

ONE of the most striking developments in my lifetime has been the
proliferation of drug use. Our society accepts three forms of addiction:
tobacco with nicotine being, weight for weight, the most addictive
substance of all drugs; alcohol there are an estimated 350,000 clinical
alcoholics in the UK; and gambling. We have to accept that there are some
people, a minority, who have what has become known as an addictive
personality. These individuals will always go to the extremes and they need
help, not criminal convictions.

Efforts to prove the damaging effects of cannabis have produced little
evidence of any harm to the brain and central nervous system although it
may do some harm to the lungs. There is clearly a case to be argued for the
medical therapeutic use of cannabis. However, I believe that it would be
wrong to make the case for legalisation on the back of the medical issue.
The Government must realise that decriminalising cannabis would gain them
greater respect doing so would be a sign of strength rather than weakness.

PROF JOHN STRANG

National Addiction Centre

CANNABIS: should it be decriminalised? I have grave doubts as to whether a
simple "yes" or "no" approach is sufficiently sensitive. Decisionmaking on
such an important matter should be guided heavily by the findings from
independent, objective study of the evidence. A betterinformed debate on
cannabis is long overdue but, sadly, I find that science has not served the
public policy debate well. It seems that the cannabis debate has been
eclipsed by other important drug policy debates which have bothered us in
recent years.

However the situation with cannabis and the criminal justice system has
changed profoundly over the past 30 years. There has been an extensive
depenalisation of the offence of possession across most of the UK and a
move towards a policy of onthespot fines and confiscation of small
quantities. However, I am expressing disquiet that such profound changes
could be made to the way in which the law is applied in some parts of this
country without public consultation, public debate or even public awareness.

GIANFRANCO DELL'ALBA

MEP

I BELIEVE cannabis should be legalised. I am the general secretary of the
Italian Radical Party and we have been campaigning for this since 1975. We
have employed every democratic process, including physical, nonviolent
demonstrations. In January our aim is to organise broad support within the
European Parliament for a panEuropean response to druglaw harmonisation.
In my own country in 1993 we held a referendum on making cannabis legally
available to individuals for medical and nonmedical use and the
proposition attracted 52 per cent of the votes cast. Although we won the
poll the percentage in favour of change was not big enough to change the
law so we will try again. But many people now believe that the only way
forward is to mount a campaign of civil disobediences.

It should by now be clear to everyone that prohibition is the problem, not
the drug itself. Prohibition has created a vast criminal empire and drug
money is used by the Mafia to corrupt judges, politicians and servants of
the state.

PETER STOKER

Director, National Drug Prevention Alliance

THIS subject is much more complex than many people believe. In the face of
this complexity you need to ask some basic questions. Would
decriminalisation increase use? Would it increase problems?

Possible medical use has no place in this or any other discussions of
decriminalising nonmedical use, and it does the medicaluse campaigners no
credit to run with this pack. The BMA have not recommended legalising
cannabis. They have suggested more research into cannabinoids. The British
MS society, the international MS society and the American MS society all
reject cannabis as medicine. If any substance is found to have medical
benefit without undue sideeffects that would be fine by me. But I hate
sick people being used as a pawn by the pothead lobby.

If we look at nonmedical use, where is the harm? But this only talks of
physical harm. In my years with frontline agencies I have seen problems of
relationships failing, employment, stress, paranoia, lethargy, depression
and general emptiness.

NIGEL EVANS

Opposition spokesman, constitutional matters

BECAUSE decriminalisation is fashionable it makes the case against all the
stronger. We should never act on impulse in such an important and
potentially dangerous debate. It is not just the financial cost but the
human cost which makes legalising drugs repellent to me. They take a
terrible toll on the friends and families of addicts who they cross to rob,
beg and borrow to pay for their next fix. Although it is unlikely that
cannabis itself will make people act this way, some people maintain that it
is a gateway drug.

The argument that relaxing controls of the drug would have little effect on
consumption is several degrees removed from reality. More availability
means more problems. Chronic smoking of cannabis increases the risk of
cardiovascular disease. Cannabis users between 25 and 40 have more head and
neck cancers. And according to Heather Ashton, professor of clinical
psychopharmacology at Newcastle, if you visit any mental health hospital
you will find young patients who have gone crazy from smoking strong
cannabis.

MIKE GOODMAN

Director, Release

THIRTY years ago the founders of Release distributed the Release "rights on
arrest" card at the first "legalise pot" rally in Hyde Park, in protest at
a law famously described by the Times as "wrong in principle and unworkable
in practice". In 1967 there were 2,393 cannabisrelated convictions. Now
there are almost 1,500 a week. By 2000, a million mostly young people will
have been dealt with by the police and courts for cannabis offences.

The law contravenes the principles of personal freedom. One is the
principle of individual liberty, articulated from the American Declaration
of Independence by Paine to JS Mill and Isaiah Berlin people should have
the right to make decisions over their own lives providing they do not harm
anyone else. No one claims that cannabis is completely riskfree. Of course
it is not. The question is whether it is harmful enough to justify the
intrusion of the law into people's personal lives on the dubious grounds of
protecting people from themselves.

ANITA RODDICK

Founder, the Body Shop

PICTURE this. Your mother is in her 70s and is struggling with cancer. Her
only hope lies in chemotherapy, but this puts her in a constant state of
unbearable nausea. You wish you could help her. You ask her what the doctor
says. She tells you that by far the best remedy is marijuana. He says that
if they lived in parts of the US he would be able to prescribe it, but here
they would both be arrested.

What does modern medicine prefer? Morphine. Marijuana has no proven
addictive power. It is not a socalled gateway drug. What is more
addictive, marijuana or ignorance? In the ancient world, marijuana was an
asset to any physician's pharmacopeia. Queen Victoria's doctor, J Russell
Reynolds, wrote: "It is one of the most valuable medicines we possess."

The mythmaking about the evils of marijuana conceals the fact that this is
not a health issue at all. It's about politics and economics. Let's follow
the money. In this case one very obvious trail leads to the pharmaceutical
giants.

ROSIE BOYCOTT

Editor, 'Independent on Sunday'

BY staging this debate we are giving the nation the first opportunity to
join in a frank and balanced forum on the whole issue of cannabis. When we
launched this campaign at the end of September we let loose an avalanche
which even in my wildest dreams I didn't think would happen. Letters
continue to pour in to the offices of the Independent on Sunday. Support
has come form the most unlikely quarters from policemen, lawyers,
doctors, social workers, prison workers, from marijuana users and
nonusers, from sufferers of MS and other chronic illnesses.

It has come from across the world, from MEPs and from America. A few
British MPs have stood up for us publicly. In private a great many more,
some in the Government, have expressed their support. But in the main,
Westminster has been silent. Quite astonishing considering that both the
Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, and the Master of the Rolls, Lord
Woolfson, have been moved to say how urgently a debate is needed.