LET SCIENCE SETTLE THE GREAT CANNABIS CONTROVERSY

Sympathy and emotional responses are not good grounds for deciding what
should be regarded as medicine and whether a dangerous, mind-altering
substance should be legalised. If we were to place our trust in limited and
uninformed public opinion to draw up the pharmacopoeia, we would be on very
dangerous ground. Judging from the reaction that has occurred in some
quarters over the circumstances of an unfortunate woman in Orkney who has
been flouting the/law by distributing cannabis chocolate to fellow-MS
sufferers, that is exactly what some people are demanding.

After the abandonment of the case against Elizabeth "Biz" Ivol for
cultivating, possessing, and supplying cannabis, I was invited to take part
in a radio discussion about whether or not cannabis should be legalised for
medical purposes. Naturally, there was and remains an immense amount of
sympathy for anyone who suffers from a chronic and incurable disease; that
was very apparent from most of the contributions to the programme.

Everyone wanted to allow the best possible care and treatment for Ms Ivol,
a person who has been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. However, some
contributors approved of her manufacture, consumption, and supply of
cannabis-laced chocolate and the growing of cannabis plants to enable her
compassionate but illegal activities.

The thrust of opinion was that if Biz and any other patients are able to
get relief by consuming cannabis, then the law should allow them to do so.
The fact that the cannabis plant is not classified as a medicine, and has
not passed the tests necessary to receive a licence, has not deterred some
in their pursuit of the quest to legalise the drug. Even distinguishing the
good intentions of those who want cannabis to be used as a medicine from
those who want to use the drug of their choice for recreational purposes, a
profound ignorance prevails about the dangers.

The Government must bear responsibility for failing to publicise accurate
information about cannabis, particularly its alleged medicinal properties.

FOR many years, there have been claims and anecdotal evidence that using
cannabis has produced benefits for sufferers of various maladies. The US
Office of National Drug Control Policy commissioned research by the
National Academy of Science, Institute of Medicine, to review the
scientific record of marijuana. A report was published early in 1999, which
concluded that some of the compounds found in the substance do have a
potential as a medicine in the relief of symptoms such as pain, nausea and
vomiting and poor appetite associated with the wasting diseases of Aids and
cancer.

This report demonstrated that, for most sufferers, there were other,
more-effective drugs available, but for the few who do not respond to
standard medications there is the possibility that new drugs could be
developed from cannabinoids taken from the plant.

The eventual approval of the use of cannabinoids should be subject to the
same procedures as for the adoption of any other drug. The researchers did
not support the use of cannabis for glaucoma, multiple sclerosis or any
other chronic condition.

International treaties oppose the legalisation of drugs of abuse. Cannabis
has been recognised as a drug of abuse and its increased potency over the
last two decades has made it the leading cause of drug-related
emergency-room episodes in the US. New research indicates that it is a much
more dangerous drug than was believed previously. The annual report of the
International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), in 1998, stressed that
medical research should not become a pretext for legalising cannabis. The
report concluded: "Political initiatives and public votes can easily be
misused by groups promoting the legalisation of cannabis for recreational
use under the guise of medical dispensation."

An article in the British Medical Journal, in 2001, concluded that
cannabinoids are no more effective at controlling pain than codeine and
their depressant effects limit their usefulness. They should not be used in
the treatment of acute pain and their widespread introduction for the
clinical treatment of pain was said to be undesirable.

Researchers from the University Hospital in Helsinki endorsed that view and
demonstrated that a series of undesirable side-effects meant that
cannabinoid derivatives had no place at present in mainstream medicine;
there are better alternatives available. These findings were confirmed by
the Pain Management Centre at Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham
University. And, in an article in the British Medical Journal (July, 2001),
it was stated that cannabis was not "a neglected wonder drug". Previously,
the British Medical Association had issued a report entitled The
Therapeutic Use of Cannabis, which concluded that cannabis itself was
unsuitable for medical use.

JUST about every month, some of the leading medical research centres around
the world publish more information to show how dangerous a substance is
cannabis. Thus, it is extremely unwise to regard it as a recreational or
medicinal drug that should gain implicit Government approval by its failure
to educate the public about the dangers. It is beyond dispute that cannabis
affects adversely the cardio-vascular, central-nervous, respiratory,
reproductive, immune and neuro-psychological systems. It is carcinogenic
and produces psychosis in many young abusers. However much we might
sympathise with those who suffer painful illnesses, it is important that we
also understand the nature of cannabis and not react to anecdotal evidence,
which is overwhelmingly countered by medical research.

I cannot imagine that even the most hard-line opponent to the abuse of
illicit drugs would object to any research-based medicine drawn from the
cannabis plant. What we must not do is allow ourselves to be duped into
believing that a few personal experiences with a mind-altering substance is
persuasive evidence which justifies the legalisation of cannabis.

If the medical (and not the political) world enthusiastically endorses the
alleged medical benefits of cannabis, I shall be pleased that science has
prevailed over ill-informed public opinion and political posturing. We must
await the outcome of Government-approved trials. Until then, I shall
continue to oppose self-medication with illegal drugs.