"DANGEROUS DRUGS" - HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES RECLASSIFICATION

MR. DAVID MARSHALL Does my hon. Friend share my concern that this order
will result in a much greater use of cannabis, which will consequently
impose much greater strains on the national health service, and will also
lead to people combining cannabis with alcohol and a significant increase
in the number of road traffic accidents? Statistics and information are
available that indicate that that is already happening.

KATE HOEY I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not have time to discuss the
health risks, but anyone who has listened to those who treat youngsters at
the sharp end in the health service cannot fail to see that this order
sends out a message that will lead, perhaps not immediately but in the long
term, to more people taking cannabis and to a huge strain on our national
health service. The fact that it is being reclassified, which effectively
means that people think that it is legal, means that the peer pressure
among young people will be much stronger. At the moment, at least young
people can say, "This is not legal," if drugs are pushed at them-at least
they have that kind of excuse if they do not want to take the drug but are
not feeling particularly confident. Again, this order sends out the wrong
message on that.

I have mentioned the link with the criminal element, which I saw in my
constituency. What I want to ask the Minister is why are we doing this now?
What is the point of it? We need to look properly at the issue of
classification. I agree strongly with some of the points of my hon. Friend
the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann)-we need to examine this issue
carefully and on the basis of proper argument. We should not go ahead with
introducing this measure glibly. I genuinely cannot understand why we are
going down this line. Reclassification will move us further down the route
of considering drug abuse as normal, and I am not prepared to support that
today.

MR. MICHAEL MATES (EAST HAMPSHIRE) The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee,
which I chair, has been conducting a report into the illegal drugs trade
and drug culture in Northern Ireland. We published an interim report,
because we knew that this order was coming before the House, to try to help
the House in its deliberations. I want to make one or two brief points.

First, drug use in Northern Ireland is different from in the rest of the
United Kingdom. Cannabis is by far the most widely used illegal drug, and
while street prices for most drugs are higher in Northern Ireland than in
Great Britain, cannabis prices are comparable, which suggests that there is
a reasonably regular supply to meet the level of demand. As other Members
have mentioned, considerable confusion exists about the current status of
cannabis, and since the Government's announcement to reclassify,
individuals have begun to smoke cannabis openly on the streets and in the
clubs and pubs.

The Committee did not look at the health risks, but we expressed concern,
as has been expressed by others, about the message that the Government are
sending, both to drug traffickers and to international enforcement
agencies, about the importance now being accorded to cannabis as an illegal
substance. It is widely recognised that Northern Ireland has a serious
problem with the growth of serious and organised crime, which has arisen as
a legacy of the conflict. The criminal gangs, many of whom are linked to
the paramilitary organisations, will exploit any opportunity for illegal
profit. Demand for illegal drugs, particularly among the young, and
particularly in relation to cannabis and ecstasy, has been growing over the
last decade, and if criminals identify an increase in demand they will seek
to meet it. The additional profits that they make will go to fund other
criminal enterprises, such as fostering a market for heroin and cocaine,
which at the moment barely exists in Northern Ireland, or possibly to fund
further terrorist activity.

While we welcome the fact that cannabis remains a priority for the
enforcement agencies in Northern Ireland, the traders and the traffickers
must still be caught before they can be punished. In making those points,
the Committee in no way seeks to undermine what the Government are trying
to do in focusing on class A drugs. What we are saying is that Northern
Ireland is slightly different, and does not yet have a major class A drug
problem, and we want to keep it that way. Northern Ireland does have a
problem with serious criminality, however, and those criminals will exploit
any opportunity that is given to them, such as the confusion that arises
over the status of cannabis, for their profit and to the detriment of
society there.

I ask the Minister to reflect on those concerns. We would be grateful for a
further assurance that action is being taken to ensure that the message
that cannabis is still illegal, and for good reasons, remains clear, and
that the greater significance of the cannabis trade within Northern Ireland
is recognised by the enforcement authorities throughout the UK and abroad.
There is much more that I could say, but time is short and I know that
others want to contribute.

PETE WISHART On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there anything
that you could do at this late stage to extend this debate? It is
unsatisfactory that we have had only one and a half hours to debate this
important UK-wide issue. The debate on the Mersey Tunnels Bill is coming up
next, which could continue until any hour. Surely it is within our scope
and within the responsibility of the House to debate this issue properly.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER (SIR ALAN HASELHURST) I am afraid that that is not a
matter that is in the power of the Chair. I understand the hon. Gentleman's
concern.

MR. CHRIS BRYANT (RHONDDA) I concur wholly with what has just been said by
the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart). To have only one and a
half hours, and only half an hour for Back-Bench speeches, on an issue that
affects every constituency in the land, and which is being debated by every
young person in the land, seems to me to be folly.

If we were devising a drug and alcohol strategy for the United Kingdom from
scratch, knowing what we know today about the health effects of alcohol and
tobacco compared with those of cannabis, I am almost certain that we would
not be starting from where we are. As we know, alcohol and tobacco are far
more addictive and injurious to people's health. Every year, 120,000 people
are killed because they smoke tobacco, and half of all people who continue
to smoke for most of their lives die of the habit and lose 16 years of
their life. The medical legacy of alcohol is every bit as pernicious
hepatitis, cirrhosis, gastritis, gastrointestinal haemorrhage,
pancreatitis, hypertension, cardiomyopathy, mouth, oesophagal and liver
cancer, foetal alcohol syndrome, blackouts, fits and neuropathy are all
part of the problem-as I am sure that many Members know-to say little of
the social damage in terms of domestic violence, marital breakdown,
absenteeism and aggression.

In contrast, cannabis is a saint, not a sinner. However, that does not mean
that cannabis is harm free because real health concerns exist. The tar
yield from marihuana is precisely the same as that from tobacco, so smoking
cannabis can pose a long-term health hazard. Indeed, a report by the Royal
College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Physicians published only
a few years ago said "the smoke from a cannabis joint contains most of the
same constituents as tobacco smoke, including the carcinogens. It is not
surprising, therefore, that regular cannabis smokers develop chronic
bronchitis and squamous metaplasia of the respiratory tract and it is
likely that in time, it will become apparent that they are at increased
risk of cancer"- compared with the risks from tobacco.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) said,
there is a further problem due to the effect of intoxication, especially
for people who drive. It is difficult to assess the precise problem,
although a recent assessment showed that 10 per cent. of a sample of 284
drivers who had been killed by fatal accidents had cannabis in their blood
stream. Of that proportion, 80 per cent. had not used alcohol, so it is
quite probable, although not certain, that their intoxication was solely
the result of cannabis use. Unfortunately, there is no roadside test to
measure cannabis intoxication, which is why Professor Gold's "Comprehensive
Handbook of Alcohol and Drug Addiction" says "The role of marihuana in road
traffic accidents and other types of accident is vastly underestimated."

I think that that is pretty much the accepted view. A report by the House
of Lords Science and Technology Committee accepted that cannabis could
worsen the course of schizophrenia, although there is little real evidence
that it may precipitate the disease.

The honest truth is that the medical evidence thus far is entirely
uncertain. We cannot know the full human pathology of cannabis, which is
why the Government's reports for the Department of Health are vital and we
look forward to reading what they say.

There is some evidence that cannabinoids can be therapeutic, as has been
mentioned, and Dr. Philip Robson's Department of Health report in 1998 made
that pretty clear. The Multiple Sclerosis Society estimates that between 1
and 4 per cent. of the UK's 85,000 multiple sclerosis patients are
illegally using cannabis. Trials to date have been small and the results
uncertain.

DR. IDDON This point has not been mentioned in the debate, but has my hon.
Friend noticed that the order will reclassify tetrahydrocannabinol from
class A-believe it or not-to class C? THC will be the principal constituent
of the new medicines that will come out of the cannabis era.

MR. BRYANT I was about to talk about precisely that, and hope that I can
pronounce the word as well as my hon. Friend.

There is more evidence suggesting that cannabis and cannabinoids, most
notably THC or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, can relieve pain and be used
as an anti-emetic, which is why they can be especially useful for the
treatment of HIV/AIDS. Most controlled studies offer secure proof that
marihuana and THC are effective appetite stimulants, which is important for
people with cancer as well as those with AIDS. Indeed, cannabis appears to
have no immunosuppressant effect on people with HIV, although the largest
study, which involved 5,000 people, took place in 1989 and the pathology of
HIV/AIDS is now known rather better.

Anecdotal evidence from several of my constituents supports the use of
cannabis in the treatment of epilepsy, although it is ironic that cannabis
was shown to have convulsant and anticonvulsant effects on animals, which
were the subjects of the only substantial trials. It is suggested that
cannabinoids can lower pressure in the eye, which would be useful when
treating glaucoma. I represent the constituency with the highest level of
glaucoma and blindness in Wales, so that is obviously a matter of interest.
However, it seems that one would have to smoke 10 cannabis cigarettes a day
to achieve the constant level of intraocular pressure that would be
beneficial.

As other hon. Members have suggested, there are those who believe that
cannabis is a gateway to other drugs. They believe that taking cannabis of
itself leads ineluctably, medically and physically, to the taking of harder
drugs such as cocaine, crack cocaine and heroin. Simply put, that is not
logical. The link is not direct or causal, but there is a link. As
Drugscope told the Home Affairs Committee "Cannabis use puts individuals in
social situations and supply transactions where they are more likely to
experience people using, accepting and supplying more harmful drugs than
others in the population."

In other words, people buy cannabis from dealers and dealers also sell
heroin-that is certainly true in the Rhondda.

JOHN ROBERTSON Will my hon. Friend give way?

MR. BRYANT I will not because I am conscious that I have little time.

Some people suggest that the answer is to license cannabis and sell it at
Boots. However, when similar policies have been tried or police have
tacitly allowed coffee shops to exist in other countries, major dealers
have hung around outside the shops because they know that the most likely
new clients are existing cannabis users.

Moreover, there is a more direct link between cannabis and other drugs.
Professor C.H. Aston's report for the Department of Health on the clinical
and pharmacological aspects of cannabis in 1998 said "with chronic use,
especially of high doses, tolerance develops to some of the effects of
cannabis (including the euphoric effect) and can lead to physical and
physiological dependence, withdrawal effects on cessation of use and
possible escalation to other more potent drugs of abuse."

All that leads me to three central points. First, the Minister is right
that we should proceed on the basis of sound medical advice as much as
possible, rather than on simple prejudice or anecdote, but that means that
we still need further hard empirical medical evidence and the Department of
Health should work further on that. Secondly, it is only logical that a
drug that produces significant medical problems, but ones that are minor
compared with the effects of cocaine and heroin, should be treated
differently in the law, which is why the order might be right. Thirdly,
however, we should not encourage the use of cannabis. Cannabis is not okay
and although it does not kill, it does matter.

MR. PETER LILLEY (HITCHIN AND HARPENDEN) I reiterate that it is a scandal
that we have so little time to debate the order. I have barely 90 seconds
in which to speak, so I shall reassert a point that I have made before.
Unless and until we are prepared to move from reclassification to providing
legal outlets, we will not break the link between the suppliers of hard
drugs and the suppliers of soft drugs. We will continue to drive soft-drug
users into the hands of hard-drug pushers, and we will not achieve the
advantage of breaking the link, restoring respect for the law and enabling
a health warning to be put on a legally available product and displayed in
outlets in which the product is available.

The Government have got the worst of all possible words. They will
simultaneously encourage more people to use the drug because people will
know that there is no effective punishment for its use, but it will remain
illegal and thus be available only through illegal gangs-

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER Order. I can confirm to the House that the ruling that I
gave a moment ago was in accordance with the Standing Orders.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the
motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the
Chair, pursuant to the Standing Order.

THE HOUSE DIVIDED AYES 316, NOES 160.

Resolved,

That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) (No. 2) Order 2003,
which was laid before this House on 11th September, be approved.