THE CANNABIS DEBATE

Our front-page headline last week, "Cannabis: an apology", certainly
grabbed the attention of a lot of people. No issue since the Iraq war
has provoked such a reaction from our readers and from other media.
Today we publish a selection of letters, including many from people
dismayed by our repudiation of our 1997 campaign to decriminalise cannabis.

Our front page was no mere attention-seeking device, however. The
Independent on Sunday has changed its view because of the growing
weight of evidence that cannabis contributes to mental illness. Yes,
we sought to dramatise that change, not least in order to question
some outdated assumptions and suggest people look again at the latest evidence.

It may be, though, that last week's headline did not do full justice
to our special report. Certainly some of the journalists who
contacted our office to follow up the story of our "U-turn" had not
read much beyond the headline. Our "apology" was not a complete
reversal of everything this newspaper stands for, or a repudiation of
our fundamental liberal values. We still believe that adults should
be free to live their lives as long as they cause others no harm. But
the argument about the harm caused to family, friends and the wider
society by cannabis-induced psychosis has changed. As we made clear
in this space last week, what was a law-enforcement argument about
priorities in 1997 has become, in 2007, a medical debate about mental
health. Two things changed in the intervening 10 years: one was the
increasing evidence that cannabis is a trigger factor in psychosis,
especially for males, with the risk greater the younger cannabis use
starts and the stronger the dose; the other was the big switch to
high-strength "skunk".

Some of our readers doubt the medical evidence, and suggest that the
growth in reporting of mental illness might have suggested causation
where none exists, or even that those who are susceptible to mental
illness would be more likely to misuse cannabis. We would urge them
to read the testimony, on page 43, of Julie Lynn-Evans, a child
psychotherapist with extensive experience in the field, which makes
persuasive reading.

Others noted the Lancet study last week that compiled an "index of
harm" for a number of mood-altering drugs, legal and illegal.
Cannabis was ranked in the middle of the table, as more harmful than
ecstasy and less harmful than either alcohol or tobacco. Two
fallacious arguments are made on the basis of this kind of ranking.
One is that cannabis should be legalised because more harmful drugs
are already legal. That is a bit like the argument, which this
newspaper never made, that we should not invade Iraq because North
Korea was a worse tyranny. The other is that the risks of taking
cannabis - or ecstasy - are low. There is a difference between
overall "harm" and individual risk. Last week, another teenager died
after taking ecstasy. And if you are among the one in four who is
susceptible, to use cannabis, especially at a young age, is to take a
terrible risk with your mental health.

Nor is our position the only one that has changed over the past
decade. We hear much less of the "war on drugs" from the Government
now, and the emphasis of public policy is much more focused on
information, education and harm reduction. That is how it should be,
and we should say so.